The Instigator
nerdykiller
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
Andromeda_Z
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Ak-47 is much superior than M-16

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/11/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,783 times Debate No: 16324
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (3)

 

nerdykiller

Pro

I hope you accept this debate and good luck.


Superior- of higher grade or quality.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

No writing arguments in commments.


Round 1- acceptance
Round 2- debate
Round 3- debate
Round 4- conclusion no new reasons.

I hope you a good luck.
Andromeda_Z

Con

Thank you for the debate, and good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
nerdykiller

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate.

Argument:

1) Ak-47 is more reliable weapon than the M-16. Both weapons are used through out the world. Ak-47 is one of the best assault rifle ever built. Created in 1949 it is still used around the world today.

2) Ak-47 is a cheaper gun than M-16 and is an amazing gun for the price. For the price which is about one third of the cost of a M-16, the gun Ak-47 is more efficient and cheaper.

http://www.budsgunshop.com...
Ak-47 is only $361.00
http://www.budsgunshop.com...
M-16(The most close related gun the AR-15) $954.00

http://www.hyattgunstore.com...
Ak-47 is only $338.99
http://www.hyattgunstore.com...
M-16(The most close related gun the AR-15) $ 913.99


Conclusion:
Ak-47 is better than M-16 because overall Ak-47 brings more to the table than M-16. Ak-47 is a gun that is reliable than M-16. Ak-47 is also cheaper than M-16 in the market. If deciding between these two assault rifle to arm your country you would use Ak-47 for its reliability and its cheap to produce or buy. There are many different cons and pros about both of the rifles, but Ak-47 wins in many crucial components that M-16 doesn't have.
Andromeda_Z

Con

Arguments

1. The M-16 fires at a faster rate than the AK-47. The M-16 has a cyclic rate of fire of 700-950 rounds per minute. [1] The AK-47 has a cyclic rate of fire of 600 rounds per minute. [2] This contributes to the status of the M-16 as more effective weapon to have in battle.

2. The M-16 has a longer rage of fire, at 600 meters. [1] The AK-47 has a range of 350 meters. [2] This would be beneficial in a firefight because you could shoot at you opponent from a farther distance, potentially keeping out of their range of fire.

3. The M-16 also has a faster muzzle velocity, at 948 m/sec. [1] Comparatively, the AK-47 has a muzzle velocity of 715 m/sec. [2] This makes the M-16 a more destructive weapon, as the rounds hit their targets faster.

4. The M-16 has less recoil than the AK-47 [3], making it easier to use and more accurate.

Rebuttal

1) The M-16, with proper cleaning, can be just as reliable as the AK-47. The problems with it jamming in combat situations were mainly attributes to the false marketing of the M-16 as self-cleaning, so soldiers allowed dust and dirt to build up. [4]

2) The low price of the AK-47 also comes with a decrease in rate of fire, range of fire, and muzzle velocity. The only gain is in recoil. Although the AK-47 may be cheaper, the M-16 is a better weapon.

Sources:
[1] http://www.colt.com...
[2] http://www.izhmash.ru...
[3] http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
nerdykiller

Pro

The Facts-
Ak-47

Designed in 1947
weight (with loaded 30 round magazine) - 5.22 kg
Overall length - 87 cm
Barrel length - 40.6 cm

Cartridge - 7.62 x 39 mm
Bullet weight - 123gr
velocity- 2,400 ft/s
energy- 1,560 ft ft/lbs
effective range- 350 meter
Accuracy- 2 to 4 inches
Penetration- 26 inches
Rate of fire- 600 rounds per minutes

The Facts-
M-16
Designed in 1957
weight (with loaded 30 round magazine) - 3.6 kg
Overall length - 100 cm
Barrel length - 50.8 cm

Cartridge - 5.56 x 45 mm
Bullet weight - 55gr
velocity- 3,280 ft/s
energy- 1,314 ft/lbs
effective range- 350 meter
Accuracy- 2 inches
Penetration- 15 inches
Rate of fire- 750 rounds per minutes
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Rebuttal for all the reasons.
" The M-16 fires at a faster rate than the AK-47. The M-16 has a cyclic rate of fire of 700-950 rounds per minute."
-I think the firing rate won't matter if you have a gun that can only penetrate only 15 inches. Ak 47 can penetrate 26 inches which can even go through solid wall and armor.

" The M-16 has a longer rage of fire, at 600 meters."
- Most war now happen in urban areas where fights happen in close range. Ak-47 is perfect for this type of situation.

" The M-16 also has a faster muzzle velocity, at 948 m/sec. [1] Comparatively, the AK-47 has a muzzle velocity of 715 m/sec. [2] This makes the M-16 a more destructive weapon, as the rounds hit their targets faster."
- Because a gun has a faster muzzle velocity by only about 200 m/s doesn't make the gun more destructive.
A gun like the Ak 47 can destroy and penetrate through wall while it can take M16 longer time to destroy it because of its lower penetration.

" The M-16 has less recoil than the AK-47 [3], making it easier to use and more accurate."
- I agree, but any soldier will trade a better gun with greater penetration and energy than a gun for its recoil.

"The M-16, with proper cleaning, can be just as reliable as the AK-47. The problems with it jamming in combat situations were mainly attributes to the false marketing of the M-16 as self-cleaning, so soldiers allowed dust and dirt to build up."
- M 16 jams while Ak 47 doesn't. Even if your clean it that takes time and skills. Ak 47 can still shoot no matter if its covered in dirt or mud or water.

"The low price of the AK-47 also comes with a decrease in rate of fire, range of fire, and muzzle velocity. The only gain is in recoil. Although the AK-47 may be cheaper, the M-16 is a better weapon."
- The fact that the price is low isn't a bad thing. You can almost buy 3 ak 47 for the price of a M 16. Ak 47 beats m16 in other categories.



Reasoning
1) My same reasons for round 1 still stands.

2) "The M16's magazine are made of light weight pressed/stamped aluminum. Therefore, it is easier to damage than an AK-47 magazine. Also, the feed lips are proportionally weaker when compared to the AK-47."
- this proves that Ak-47 magazine is better.

The newspaper report you gave is clearly an opinion.

Ak 47 for the win!!!
Andromeda_Z

Con

1. The M-16 bullets' low weight and lack of stabilization allows them to tumble, causing more severe damage to the target. [1]
Although the AK-47 can penetrate farther, it does not result in a more destructive weapon.

2. In an urban area, both weapons would be able to hit their targets. The difference is that the M-16 would have an easier time of hitting its target outside of an urban area, making it a more versatile weapon.

3. As I stated in 1, the tumbling of the bullet allows it to destroy more. A battle is not won by penetrating a wall, there is far more to it than that. A weapon needs to be able to handle whatever situation it is placed in.

4. My opponent has made a fallacious argument, in that he is assuming that he knows exactly what the soldier wants and that his representation of a soldier is accurate.

5. Not every moment of a soldiers' life is spent fighting, they would likely have time to clean it f it needs to be done.

6. There is no point to buying a cheaper weapon when it is inferior. Th price itself is not what make it inferior, it is its' characteristics.

Reasoning
the magazine can be replaced with a more durable aftermarket model, such as H&K's all-stainless-steel magazine.

Sources
[1] http://www.enemyforces.net...
Debate Round No. 3
nerdykiller

Pro











"The M-16 bullets' low weight and lack of stabilization allows them to tumble, causing more severe damage to the target. "
-You say that the M-16 bullet has a low weight which means that is has no penetration power. A low weight bullet compared to the powerful Ak-47 bullet is like comparing a 4GB usb to 32GB usb. Obviously the ak-47 bullet is better than the tiny M-16 bullet.

"lack of stabilization"
-This contradict to what you wrote before which says that M-16 is more accurate than the Ak-47. If the bullet isn't going in a stabilized direction then how is it accurate.

"Although the AK-47 can penetrate farther, it does not result in a more destructive weapon."
- This statement is wrong because how is Ak-47 not destructive more then the M-16 when it can penetrate farther then M-16 and has more power.

"In an urban area, both weapons would be able to hit their targets. The difference is that the M-16 would have an easier time of hitting its target outside of an urban area, making it a more versatile weapon."
- Yes in an urban area both gun should be able to hit their targets but can they confirm the kill for sure. M-16 might take a while to shoot and kill, but Ak-47 takes only a few rounds to kill. Its not a versatile weapon if it cant survive harsh conditions around the world with out cleaning the gun every few hours.

"3. As I stated in 1, the tumbling of the bullet allows it to destroy more. A battle is not won by penetrating a wall, there is far more to it than that. A weapon needs to be able to handle whatever situation it is placed in."
- My opponent says that penetrating a wall doesn't win battle. That is something I agree, a battle is won by using a good gun. A weapon that penetrates and kills is the one and only Ak-47. Ak-47 can penetrate a wall to kill an enemy and it can handle whatever situation you put it in. Even if you change the settings or the time it will be able to kill and destroy whatever you need.

" Not every moment of a soldiers' life is spent fighting, they would likely have time to clean it f it needs to be done."
-I think this statement is false because my opponent is assuming she knows what a soldier wants to do during his or her free time. Maybe the soldier wants to eat or sleep during his or her free time. My opponent is assuming the situation, when an Ak-47 doesn't need whatever cleaning because it is able to shoot no matter what happened to it.

"6. There is no point to buying a cheaper weapon when it is inferior. th price itself is not what make it inferior, it is its' characteristics."
- No point in buying cheaper weapon is false statement because if that cheaper weapon is better in so many ways then what's the point in buying something more expansive. Characteristics of an Ak-47 is more superior in M-16 in many ways.

Conclusion
Ak-47 is better than M-16 because of all the pros for Ak-47 outweighs the con of having one. When being compared to a M-16 Ak-47 dominates for its effectiveness and powerfulness.
AK-47 is Superior than M-16.

http://www.enemyforces.net...
Andromeda_Z

Con

1. My opponent has completely ignored the rest of my argument. My point was that the low weight of the bullet was an advantage in some situations.

2. The M-16 bullet tumbles, tearing through the target. The AK-47 bullet punches a hole though it. The lack of stabilization works in the M-16's favor.

3. You stated that he M-16 can penetrate to a depth of 15 inches, which is enough to kill someone. The extra 11 inches of penetration from an AK-47 are unnecessary.

4. My opponent didn't really make an argument here. He said that he agreed with my statement, and then made assertions about the AK-47

5. Not everyone will want to spend their time cleaning, but it could be worth it for a better weapon.

6. You are right in that there is no point buying a more expensive weapon when the cheaper one is better. However, the nature of the debate is "Which one is better?". It can't be assumed that the AK-47 is a better weapon, so your point falls apart.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Fogofwar 5 years ago
Fogofwar
ha ha; low to correct the mistakes of both sides in the debate? ;)
Posted by nerdykiller 5 years ago
nerdykiller
Fogofwar why are you writing this here?
You are not 26-year old man because then why would you stoop this low?
WOW!
Posted by Fogofwar 5 years ago
Fogofwar
Most soldiers have traded the greater stopping power and energy 7.62 for the 5.56; because the difference is not significant enough in the role of a rifleman to change anything; but the weight is. The 5.56 is as lethal in close quarter battle as the 7.62; and lighter; making it ideal. The M16 also has increased range; making it more ideal. Less recoil means more accuracy.

The M16 does not jam. I have fired more rounds through an M16 than you have in any weapon in your life; and not once has it jammed. The M16 is considered one of the most reliable platforms in the world.

The Ak still requires cleaning also. No weapon fires when the barrel is plugged; or the bolt is caught up on debris.

The 5.56 bullet travels in a stabilized fashion. ALL bullets are designed for aerodynamics. This means the weight is in the back of the bullet. The higher speed of the 5.56 means on impact; the weight of the rear of the projectile overtakes the energy of the lighter tip; causing it to compress and form a jagged sharp piece of metal that tumbles through the body, AFTER it penetrates. ALL bullets do this; including the AK's 7.62; the 5.56 just does it more.

"Yes in an urban area both gun should be able to hit their targets but can they confirm the kill for sure. M-16 might take a while to shoot and kill, but Ak-47 takes only a few rounds to kill."

M16s have confirmed more kills overseas than the AK47. While there have been reports of insurgents taking up to 7 rounds from an M16 and not dying; there have been the same reports from our soldiers taking multiple 7.62 rounds. Many have been shot by an AK and didn't know it until after the fight; when someone else spotted the bleeding. Bullets don't knock you on your a$$ like in the movies. Both rounds are lethal.

"Its not a versatile weapon if it cant survive harsh conditions around the world with out cleaning the gun every few hours."

Soldiers do not spend all their time engaging the enemy. They can field strip and cl
Posted by Fogofwar 5 years ago
Fogofwar
Both the AK and the M16 are very reliable. An effective soldier cleans his weapon; regardless; so neither will have problems.

Cheaper does not make it superior. A Dodge Neon is cheaper than a Porsche Cayman; clearly the Neon is not the superior of the two.

The faster rate of fire actually has no effect on the weapon in battle. In real life firefights; fully auto is not used. An effective soldier is one who places aimed shots; not spreads lead everywhere. You can speed up your rate of fire in repetition (semi-auto) by simply pulling the trigger faster. Accuracy is what counts; not rate of fire.

faster muzzle velocity doesn't make it more destructive.

The problems in the M16 were not attributed to the M16 being self cleaning actually. It was the CLP (Cleaner Lubricator and Preserver) that was marketed as self-cleaning.

Penetration is measured through a control; meaning it is a set viscosity. Depending on what you are firing at; the penetration will change. Any rifle round will penetrate wood deeper than steel. Modern armour can stop a 7.62 round.

Most war happens in a combination of urban areas; and open spaces. Streets are not within 2 metres. Firefights in Afghanistan have taken place at over 1 km. Accuracy at distance is crucial to success. It is called the 7 battle procedures. ;) You cannot kill an enemy if he has you suppressed from further out than you can reach him.

The AK is far from perfect for close quarter battle. Lack of accuracy; combined with more weight make it harder and slower to obtain sight picture; and accurate shots. A lighter weapon with better sights; and smaller rounds is far more effective in close quarters. Also within 50 m; the 7.62 has not achieved it's full energy; and it's penetration is significantly reduced. A 5.56 has as much energy at said close distances as a 7.62.
Posted by quarterexchange 5 years ago
quarterexchange
I agree with Andromeda on the resolution, but a faster RPM is quickly becoming obsolte in modern warfare.
Posted by nerdykiller 5 years ago
nerdykiller
1min and 25 seconds pretty close!!!
Posted by Thaddeus 5 years ago
Thaddeus
I held both today. I know I would take the M-16 everyday of the week.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
I will take this.
Posted by FREEDO 5 years ago
FREEDO
I can't take this seeing as the AK-47 is obviously better.
Posted by nerdykiller 5 years ago
nerdykiller
aw man! Its cool! :)
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
nerdykillerAndromeda_ZTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter.
Vote Placed by bozotheclown 5 years ago
bozotheclown
nerdykillerAndromeda_ZTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Wow very close round you guys!
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
nerdykillerAndromeda_ZTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:34 
Reasons for voting decision: Con could have carried the BoP on the reverse of the resolution as instigator, had a clearly tagged argument, easy to read/navigate and forced drops from Pro. Pro did however make a number of solid points and did reference why the differences would be useful which is often missing in these debates. 4:3 Con