Welcome to Gaia! ::

RAWR!

Yes.

Actually, the M16 has roughly the same accuracy as the Ak-47, which is about 3-4 MOA. The Ak-47, theoretically, actually has more potential to be accurate than the M16. This is because the weapon uses an extremely heavy bullet, that reduces the effects from wind, air resistance, and is also more stable in flight.

The 7.62mm is sometimes sited as being TOO stable in flight, and that it'll cause less potential tissue damage, at further ranges (due to the fact that it's less likely to YAW in tissue). Compared to the 5.56mm, which is generally considered too unstable.




The main issue with accuracy when considering the Ak-47 is that uses rather crude sights, rather than iron sights that are proven to be relatively effective, like the rail on the M16 or the concentric circles like on the Mp5.

Along with the fact that most are poorly made, like hand made in China, and that the bullets used sometimes are poorly made and cheap, using corrosive powders, STEEL cartridges rather than brass, and bullets made out of strange materials and of different shapes rather than just lead and a spitzer point.

Not to mention that is has an extremely curved trajectory, compared to a lot of really flat trajectories, meaning that the "point and shoot" concept is only effective to like, 400 meters; everything else usually starts to shoot over the top.

This, coupled with the relatively low formal training from the enemies who use it, is usually what gives it a reputation of "inaccuracy".

Spetsnaz marksmen generally were highly capable with the Ak-47, were as United States marksmen generally opt for a .308 weapon. A 5.56mm Marksmen is almost counter intuitive.




The M16 is far from being one of the best assault rifles in the world. It's known to be one of the worst. But it's cheap, lightweight, easy to train with, and HIGHLY ergonomic. The M16 and M-4 probably have the best ergonomics out of any weapon I know of. It's just feels really nice, and it's really nice on the body; no sharp edges, a correctly angled, shaped pistol grip, proper weight balance etc. it's just a really nice feeling weapon.

It's also somewhat lighter weight, which is a plus.

Over-all it's a nice weapon, but it's unreliable and low powered, making it crappy and relatively ineffective. xp

I'd prefer an HK416 in 6.5mm grendel personally, or maybesz 6.8mm Remington depending on how short the barrel is. xp

Or an SR-25.

Yeah.

SR-25 > Everything else.

Or an MK. 48. xp







For a military, I'd like the HK416 in 6.5mm grendel with a polygonal barrel. blaugh

Yep.

Check out Short rifle stock systems!

It essentially turns the M14 into a bull-pup weapon.

I believe that is has a lot of potential to be AMAZING.

Well, it's totally possible, but the weight of the weapon would be like 20 pounds+, it would literally shake the ground and require huge ear protection pieces, along with a special magazine so that a decent amount of rounds could be stored (a 10 round magazine is huge).

I already deved up something like this, which was a basically an XM500 semiautomatic rifle with a shorter, polygonal rifle (20-24 inches), making it roughly between 36-40 inches long, with basically a PGM Hectate II muzzle break reducing the recoil to that of a 7.62mm round.


If you used one of those circular magazines, like in the ruger 10/22 rifles, you could easily get around 20 rounds, and if you use a low profile drum magazine larger, but similar to the 10/22 magazines, you could easily get around 30 rounds.

In practical application, the weapon would be more or less a marksmen rifle or used like the BAR was in WWII, but it would definitely be a usable weapon.

It also would get around 2 MOA, if we're talking about a standard, shorter barrel instead of a non chrome lined one. xp

Mhhm, and it would basically be able to be used somewhat CQC, if you used a 20 inch barrel. xp

It could be even shorter if you used a 16 inch barrel, and be around 32 inches, or the same length as an M-4.

Problem is, the round would be like, at 12,000 joules, even with a polygonal barrel.

It could still work though. xp

Hehe, well the issue isn't overpenetration.

It's that a 20,000 joule round will only be getting like, half that. Why not just use a 10,000 joule round tailor made for the weapon, so that the recoil is less and it doesn't unnecessarily wear down on the operating parts?

But, it would still be fine. And it would be well over 10,000 joules, probably well over 12,000.




And if a round over penetrates, the energy isn't dumped into the round.

Tissue damage and trauma isn't necessarily what kills a person.

When a person falls off a building, their body collapses on it itself, and their lungs collapse, bones break, and organs literally get liquefied.

In many instances, people's hearts explode.

However, there is usually very little penetration. The only thing that their body bleeds from is usually their head, at their skull cracks, or from their mouth, ears, nose, and other orifices, from internal bleeding. Generally, a lot of killing damage comes from the energy and not just the tissue displacement.




Basically, think of it like this.

When shooting a watermelon, some bullets poke a single clean hole all the way through. Others make a larger extra exit wound than entrance wound- sometimes with an entrance wound of maybe less than half an inch, but an exit wound larger than 12 inches.

And sometimes, when you shoot a watermelon, it explodes.

Difference between poking a hole in something it making it explode is a huge deal, because sometimes it merely displaces tissue, and other times it liquefies the organs.