tgrace's forum posts

Avatar image for tgrace
tgrace

442

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 tgrace
Member since 2006 • 442 Posts

If I had to choose one, I'd pick a modern day M-16 (not the old Vietnam era one that jammed if you dropped it in the mud), but I would take a Dragunov over both of these :D

10thwonder

The dragunov is essentially an AK-47 rechambered to a 7.62X54 round with a longer barrel, stock, gas pistonand has a scope. I agree though, they are sweet.

Avatar image for tgrace
tgrace

442

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 tgrace
Member since 2006 • 442 Posts

the M16 is being thrown out for newer, much more technologically sound weapons like the HK 416 and FN SCAR.

foxhound_fox

I ordered one of those last month. (The semi auto civilian model obviously). :D

Avatar image for tgrace
tgrace

442

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 tgrace
Member since 2006 • 442 Posts

lol thanks! Thats whatI meant

but there is an ak-101

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-101

So I suppose I was correct, though accidentally so lol

Sexy gun btw

mrbojangles25

Oh yea. No you are correct. The AK-101 is the newersynthetic model of the 74. I'm just old school and think of the 74 whenever I hear AK and 5.56 nato in the same sentence.

Avatar image for tgrace
tgrace

442

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 tgrace
Member since 2006 • 442 Posts

have fixed the reliability issues in the m16 for the most part. There was also a great show on the history channel iirc comparing the two guns, they even got the two designers (Stoner for the m16, Kalachnikov for the ak) together and let them shoot eachother's guns. As I remember Kalachnikov absolutely hated the smaller 5.56 bullet and was disgusted with the new AK (the AK-101 iirc). Sorry for butchering the guy's name

mrbojangles25

AK-74 ;)

Avatar image for tgrace
tgrace

442

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 tgrace
Member since 2006 • 442 Posts

This is a fiercely debated topic among gun owners and has been for some time. The ak-47 for all intents and purposes is one of the most revolutionaly firearms ever developed. The ingenuity of its design (for its time)is only rivaled by the M1 Garand, which was called "the greatest single battle implement ever devised by man" by General Patton. Anyway, both weapons have strong points and weak points that dictate why one would choose one over another. A quick google search will list both weapons strengths and weaknesses. I actually own one of each (both are obviously only semi-automatic). My AK-47 was made in Romania in 1985. Wood stocks and a stamped reciever make it pretty common and it looks like the typical ak-47. My M-16 is actually the semi automatic civilian model which are reffered to as the AR-15. It was manufactured by Bushmaster in 2008. It has a 16" barrel, 1:9 twist, iron and optical sights. There are definately situations where I would choose one over another. The AK is the kinda gun that can be soaked in mud for days and still go boom when you pull the triger. The bigger 7.62X39 (AK)round has more stopping power to it but drops way quicker than the 5.56X45 (AR) once the bullet crosses the 75 yd mark. The AR-15 on the other hand needs to be kept relatively clean for it to function properly but is FAR more accurate at 100+ yards than the AK. If I ever showed up at one of the high power matches I shoot in with an AK I would definately catch a few stares. All in all, because I keep my firearms in pristine condition both are fine pieces to my collection. However, If I had to choose one that I couldn't live without it would be my AR-15.

Avatar image for tgrace
tgrace

442

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 tgrace
Member since 2006 • 442 Posts

Fallout 3

Avatar image for tgrace
tgrace

442

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 tgrace
Member since 2006 • 442 Posts
Metal Gear Solid 1The_Pig_Hostage
Same Here. Resident Evil 1 is a very close second though.
Avatar image for tgrace
tgrace

442

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 tgrace
Member since 2006 • 442 Posts

Well they can't put out reliable hardware...

Mau-Justice

Neither can Microsoft. The big difference is that when my 360 red ringed for the second time, I called MS and they sent out a box right away and fixed it for free. When my 60gig PS3 died Sony charged me $150 to fix it because I lost the reciept. Customer service makes all the difference in the world to me and MS obviously takes responsibility for their mistakes where as Sony refuses to accept any blame for an obvious manufacturering defect. I play my PS3 probably 4 times as much as my 360 but whenever someone asks for a console recommendation, I say get a 360. Sorry Sony I love my PS3 but hate you...:evil:

Avatar image for tgrace
tgrace

442

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 tgrace
Member since 2006 • 442 Posts

meh, there's a reason games perform better on the consoles they're originally designed forjohnnyv2003

Stop that. Your doing way too much logical thinking for a system wars forum. ;)

Avatar image for tgrace
tgrace

442

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 tgrace
Member since 2006 • 442 Posts

Damn, this thread exploded since I last visited it this morning. Its amazing how when the kids were in school and us adults were the only ones here the thread consisted mostly of: "Good score" , "I am getting it either way" , "Looks good but not my cup of tea". Then school gets out and the terms "pwned" , "owned" , and "flop" start flying around like crazy.