Hey everyone, I have a totally honest, non sarcastic question for everyone here: who has actually been in combat, fired at and been fired upon? I'm just wondering if people's opinions on these weapons are subjective or actually based on real combat experience.....thanks

That is true. Most of these are range and material tested.
-
The troops tell a different story...but will stick with what they got the most ammo for.
-
There is only so many things that a range test can tell you about small arms.
-
This Guy (I can't remember his name) is a fucking legend in the historian world. As soon as I am in the US, he's museum is the first that I'll go to.
-

The Colt M16-A2, M4 carbine or the canadian made Diemaco C7 and C8 SFW are chosen over the AK-47 and its variants by the British special forces (The most highly trained regiments in the most respected and profesional army in the world) for one main reason the 5.56 round.
Those not in the know would think that the larger 7.62 round of the AK would be better but this will kill you outright if hit. The 5.56 tumbles upon impact causing massive internal injuries which tie up you enemies resources with casualty treatment and evacution whereas a dead soldier can be left until after a firefight to deal with. Plus in a world where everything is filmed and politically sensitive the smaller 5.56 round dosent go straight through your target to kill an innocent bystander.

Exactly...these are things that should be taken into account.
-
Well Said mate....you know ya stuff.
-
Our Steyrs arn't as powerful, but the light wieght weapon and the quick interchangable barrels bring many benefits.
-
And place the shots right and it's still bye bye towely anyway.
-
They are only using the normal 16 here. There are variants that are better.
-

The AK is the third world choice as it is cheap and it is simple to disassemble and maintain. If you got the bucks go with an M-4. Mine has never let me down...

I have two M16 at home, my neighbor at Gaza used to have an Ak47, thats so sad!