The Instigator
congressucks
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
MikeMighty
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The M16 is better then the AK-47

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
congressucks
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/18/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 684 times Debate No: 65360
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)

 

congressucks

Pro

First round is for acceptance! Please, no trolls on this debate. Please accept only if you have a solid understanding of this two extremely important firearms. Looking forward to having a fun debate!
The con will have to prove that the AK-47 is better then the M16.
MikeMighty

Con

AK-47 is better i think AK-47 is from Russia and it's famous the AK-47 is like a rifle too
Debate Round No. 1
congressucks

Pro

I would first like to thank my opponent for allowing me to take part in this debate. To help clarify the round this debate may only talk about the original M-16s and AK-47's not any upgraded versions such as the M-4 or AK-74. Now I will move onto my contentions.
My first contention is that the AK-47 is a bulky, inaccurate piece of metal. After a couple hundred yards you wouldn't expect to hit much. The caliber of the bullet is larger, than the M-16 thus causing a larger recoil. This makes the gun widely inaccurate and only serves its purpose close. You might as well get a firearm that can at least shoot its target. The AK-47's recoil is described as a rabbit kicking your shoulder. Shooting fully-automatic without strongly holding the gun, will cause it to run out of control, wasting precious ammo. The M-16 however is much more accurate and has a farther range. You can shoot accurately which is much better considering you wouldn't want to waste hundreds of bullets. The AK is also bulky. It's made of metal and most versions are made of a rougher, harder metal. Compared to the M-16 made in America, the AK is made all over the world ranging in materials.
My 2nd contention is that the M-16 has a better ammunition. Since we're talking about the AK-47 not the AK-74, it uses the big 7.62 round, while the M-16 has the light 5.56. Although the 7.62 is stronger, it doesn't matter if you kill the person or not. In today's combat, all you need to do is injure the person to a point where they don't pose a threat, which the 5.56 round perfectly does. Also the 5.56 is much, much lighter. You can carry nearly twice as much ammunition of a 5.56 compared to the AK's round. You can carry more ammo for the same weight, which can help save your life. Even the makers of the AK-47 switched to the 5.56 round in the AK-74 because they realized how much better this bullet was.
My third and final contention is that without the M-16 there would be no America, with the AK we have insurgents. In the Vietnam war the M-16 served its purpose, although encountering some problems early on. Without this amazing rifle, the war might have never been won. With the AK-47, it is considered as the "bad guys gun" because many terrorists and insurgents run the rifle. Now, why do insurgents use IEDs? Because in 50+ yards fight with US troops, they were getting slaughtered. Their rifles wouldn't hit the troops, while the US soldiers with their accurate M-16s could easily target and hit them. With IEDs, the insurgents had to do no work, and just let vehicles run over the IEDs. The AK-47 in general is a good rifle but compared to the M-16 it is nowhere close.
MikeMighty

Con

MikeMighty forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
congressucks

Pro

Now since my opponent has forfeited the last round I will add a new contention.
The M16 is made using newer and more advanced technology compared to the AK-47. It is a sense a much better version of the AK-47. It's accurate, better at long range and carries a better ammunition. The AK-47 is much outdated compared to the M16. Also the M16 works perfectly fine if treated properly which most US troops do treat their M16 with proper handle and care. Therefore the M16 is clearly a better firearm compared to the AK-47.
MikeMighty

Con

MikeMighty forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
congressucks

Pro

In this final concluding debate, I will present to my readers why the Pro won this debate. Let me make this clear. My opponent has said nothing on why the AK is better nor has he rebuttaled any of my contentions. In fact my opponent has barely said anything at all. I would like to go over some final points and convince my audience why I have won.
The M-16 is a true masterpiece, made and built in good ol' America. It carries a light 5.56 round which is very light, yet powerful enough to knock out an enemy. It's accuracy is far better than the AK and has become the standard infantry rifle for US troops. While the AK-47 has become an icon for the "bad guys" gun referring to terrorists using the weapon. Thanks to the M-16 we have a strong America and thanks to the AK-47 you have terrorists, and extremists. Therefore the M-16 is clearly a better weapon and the Pro has won this debate.
MikeMighty

Con

MikeMighty forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by ericanddianna270 2 years ago
ericanddianna270
I am not sure why the gentlemen would say i have said "nothing" concerning this debate. Masybe after hearing the things i have said he feels the need to act as if he has been the only one talking. After all it is hard to rebuke facts is it not? Especially facts that so many people who had loved ones go to Vietnam would attest to. Sometimes folks newer does not always meen "better". Let us ask the most basic question. hat are the M-16 and the AK-47 for? They are for combat fighting. How many men lost their lives in Vietnam for the simple reason their weapon jammed. My opponent has stated how well our soldiers take care of their weapons. Very smart. I meen who is gonna vote against the statement "our soldiers take care of their weapons"????? However, he has refused to answer the question of what happens when they are not at the barracks, sitting on the edge of their bunk, cleaning their M-16? what happens when you are in your foxhole, it is the middle of the night, you had to crawl 30 meters just to get to this hole as the enemy has you pinned down with fire, dirt got into the chamber, all of a sudden the enemy starts to move on your possition you have him in your sites, you fire it jams you try to recoil but it is blocked, he advances and shoots you dead in the chest. YOUR DEAD!!! This is not a made up story this is a scenario that played itself out time and again in Vietnam. At longer distances the M-16 is better, it is a lighter weapon and easier to carry, but tell me folks if you are that guy in that foxhole how much will you care about that as the enemy shoots you in the chest all because you simply could not fire your weapon as they are prone to malfunction at the times they are needed the most. nuff said
Posted by ericanddianna270 2 years ago
ericanddianna270
Your saying the M-16 is better when it is properly cared for. I agree. However, when it is most needed in a combat kone, in dirt trenches, in firefights it has been known to "Jam" it is better at long distances and it is more accurate my only concern is that since Vietnam the Jamming issue has really not been taken care of. So I agree sir with most of what you say but it can be hard to "properly" care for a weapon when your filthy crawling through the mud. So my concern is that in actual combat situations "when it is most needed" and when there is no time to pull apart your weapon and clean it, the M-16 does not have as good a record as the AK-47 when it comes to jamming. Our troops are very good at knowing how to care for their weapon and do so under the supervision of their squad leaders. However, sometimes in combat zones there simply are not enhough time to tare your weapon apart and properly clean it.
Posted by ericanddianna270 2 years ago
ericanddianna270
The gentleman makes some very good points. I agree that the 5.56 round is lighter and it would be easier to carry the ammo. I also agree that the m-16 is a lighter weapon. Maybe the truth of this debate has to have a lot to do with what type of warefare you are involved in. For example as the gentleman states the m-16 is better at longer distances. However in close combat the difference in the 7.62 vs the 5.56 comes more into play. example being if your in a fire fight you do not want the other guy to get back up. Alsdo the m-16 has been known to "jam" this could be fatal in close combat. Many Vietnam vets will attest to this. Your weapon may be built better, be of lighter materials and may weigh less as well as the ammo for it but if it jams when ya need it well all of those good points will not matter much. Now to be fair in a fight that is at a further distance then the possibility of the weapon jammoing becomes less crucial. The m-16 is better at longer distance much more accurate. so maybe in the end the debate is really not just about what weapon is "better" but in what set of circumstances.
Posted by congressucks 2 years ago
congressucks
I really don't care about grammar, sheesh you still get what is means.
Posted by Chuz-Life 2 years ago
Chuz-Life
ACCEPT?

You did that on purpose - didn't you?

https://www.youtube.com...

Good points on the comparison between the two firearms though.
Posted by ericanddianna270 2 years ago
ericanddianna270
I am ex-military and so know the M-16 very well but also know a great deal about the AK-47.
People can argue over jamming and such but to me I believe the M-16 is a better weopen accept for the fact that it fires a .226 round not much different then a simple 22. However the AK-47 fired a round the same size as the M60. a 7.62. The odds of a kill from the AK-47 are higher but the feeling was with the M-16 that it fired a round that spiraled and that it would take 2 men to carry the one soldier hit and so they thought it would take 3 men out of the fight rather then just one kill. Also because of the spiral it was thought it had a better chance of hitting more then one organ.
Posted by MikeMighty 2 years ago
MikeMighty
The M16 is better then the AK-47?
Posted by Chuz-Life 2 years ago
Chuz-Life
Better THEN?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
congressucksMikeMightyTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture