the m-16 is obviously better…why do you think terrorists use the aka, and the us use the m-16? the aka is less, yes, but also of lesser quality or else you would see marines walking around with aka 47’s.
The Soviets would just have sold the US several hundred thousand Ak-47s would they?
Thats a bit of a daft statement isnt it?
Rangers use AK-47’s sometimes. I know they at least train with them.
It’s good to see you have posted a reason for your opinion, many people omit to do so on threads such as these, so thanks.
It’s not a clear cut question as to which of these two wpn series is ‘best,’ it depends on the criteria as there are many factors to be considered.
Considerable hands on experience is neccesary before informed and serious comment can be made.
Have a look at the previous posts on this thread.
Edited at 16:43 when I thought I was making a new post - DOH !
Edited the second time in an attempt to replace the original post.
Almost… almost…no, not quite following the logic
Further to my last, procurement is a weasely, twisty world.
There are many reasons why certain people get the weapons they are issued with, the fact that Weapon A beats Weapon B on all counts of reliability, accuracy, effective range, weight, ammunition type, etc, etc. does most definitely not mean that Weapon B does not end up in the hands of the troops.
After all, it is politicians who have the final say… :evil: