Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - M-16 vs AK-47

miked10270 · 08-21-2003, 01:46 PM

I assume we're talking about the AK-47 Vs M-16 as combat weapons.

I've used both, and I've gotta vote for the AK-47.

Both weapons are effective out to 300M and VERY few infantry engagements take place at greater ranges. Commonly it's less than 100M.

Both weapons are sufficiently accurate for the purpose. In combat either weapon is far more accurate than the person using it. As such the M-16's better accuracy is completely superfluous.

There's a less than 10% difference in ammunition & magazine weight & volume. Yes, I KNOW that ammunition is something that has to be carried, but a difference that makes no difference is no difference and an infantryman doesn't go into battle carrying so much ammunition that it's weight and volume makes a difference. Believe me, there's plenty of other infantry kit where weight savings should be made.

Magazine capacity is the same now that the M-16 comes with a 30 round mag as an option to the 18 round one originally issued.

So what it boils down to for me is ease of handling, simplicity of use, and of course RELIABILITY (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

Firstly, "ease of handling". The AK-47 is the slightly shorter and heavier weapon. The arrangement of the bolt carrier and return spring is better in the AK in that all parts are contained within the receiver cover wheras in the M-16 they extend into the stock. AS such, the AK can be easily used without a stock or as a true folding stock variant. Compare the folding stock variants of the AK-47 with the CAR-15. As such, while the M-16 has superior ergonomics and is lighter, within a confined space the AK-47 is easier to handle with it's reduced length.

Secondly "simplicity (or ease) of use" The AK is the simpler, almost more "agricultural" weapon. But the time required to train someone in the use & maintenance of an AK-47 is FAR LESS than that of an M-16. One thing I particularly like with the AK is the fire selector - the way it moves from "safe" through "cyclic" to ""self loading" (or safe through full-auto to semi-auto). This is the opposite of the M-16 where the fore selector moves "safe"-"self loading"-""cyclic". In a panic situation (combat?) the fire selector is SHOVED off safe fast & hard & "all the way". In the case of the AK-47 that moves it to single shot "self-loading", in the case of the M-16 that moves it to full auto "cyclic". Which mode burns up (& wastes?) the available ammunition (i.e what's in the magazine attached to the gun)? Let's be honest guys, that's why "cyclic" was replaced with 3 round "burst" on the M-16A3!

Thirdly, "reliability". Do I REALLY need to say this (yet again)? The M-16 NEEDS daily TLC & 10wt sewing machine oil to keep it going wheras the AK-47 NEEDS the thick of the mud scraped off occasionally. In the field a gun is really for shooting with, not for cleaning and maintaining. By a fairly wide margin the AK will fire in a far worse state of neglect than the M-16 and in prolonged combat / field conditions weapons maintenance will slide, particularly with less disciplined troops. Even in the case of disciplined & intelligent personnel such as the US Army, "available unit firepower" is periodically reduced while weapons are being field stripped, cleaned and oiled.

In conclusion, the AK wins outright as a combat weapon simply because if I pick one up out of the mud & pull the trigger I KNOW it'll go "bang" again & again.

Mike.

PS. JUst a stray thought... I'll compare the AK47 to a VW Beetle and the M-16 to a ferrari. Which one performs better and would give you more pleasure in it's use? Which one keeps going and would be "there for you" on a rainy winter morning?

08-21-2003, 01:46 PM	#19 (permalink)
miked10270 Banned Location: Scotland	I assume we're talking about the AK-47 Vs M-16 as combat weapons. I've used both, and I've gotta vote for the AK-47. Both weapons are effective out to 300M and VERY few infantry engagements take place at greater ranges. Commonly it's less than 100M. Both weapons are sufficiently accurate for the purpose. In combat either weapon is far more accurate than the person using it. As such the M-16's better accuracy is completely superfluous. There's a less than 10% difference in ammunition & magazine weight & volume. Yes, *I KNOW* that ammunition is something that has to be carried, but a difference that makes no difference is no difference and an infantryman doesn't go into battle carrying so much ammunition that it's weight and volume makes a difference. Believe me, there's plenty of other infantry kit where weight savings should be made. Magazine capacity is the same now that the M-16 comes with a 30 round mag as an option to the 18 round one originally issued. So what it boils down to for me is ease of handling, simplicity of use, and of course *RELIABILITY (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)* Firstly, "ease of handling". The AK-47 is the slightly shorter and heavier weapon. The arrangement of the bolt carrier and return spring is better in the AK in that all parts are contained within the receiver cover wheras in the M-16 they extend into the stock. AS such, the AK can be easily used without a stock or as a true folding stock variant. Compare the folding stock variants of the AK-47 with the CAR-15. As such, while the M-16 has superior ergonomics and is lighter, within a confined space the AK-47 is easier to handle with it's reduced length. Secondly "simplicity (or ease) of use" The AK is the simpler, almost more "agricultural" weapon. But the time required to train someone in the use & maintenance of an AK-47 is FAR LESS than that of an M-16. One thing I particularly like with the AK is the fire selector - the way it moves from "safe" through "cyclic" to ""self loading" (or safe through full-auto to semi-auto). This is the opposite of the M-16 where the fore selector moves "safe"-"self loading"-""cyclic". In a panic situation (combat?) the fire selector is SHOVED off safe fast & hard & "all the way". In the case of the AK-47 that moves it to single shot "self-loading", in the case of the M-16 that moves it to full auto "cyclic". Which mode burns up (& wastes?) the available ammunition (i.e what's in the magazine attached to the gun)? Let's be honest guys, that's why "cyclic" was replaced with 3 round "burst" on the M-16A3! Thirdly, "reliability". Do I REALLY need to say this (yet again)? The M-16 NEEDS daily TLC & 10wt sewing machine oil to keep it going wheras the AK-47 NEEDS the thick of the mud scraped off occasionally. In the field a gun is really for shooting with, not for cleaning and maintaining. By a fairly wide margin the AK will fire in a far worse state of neglect than the M-16 and in prolonged combat / field conditions weapons maintenance will slide, particularly with less disciplined troops. Even in the case of disciplined & intelligent personnel such as the US Army, "available unit firepower" is periodically reduced while weapons are being field stripped, cleaned and oiled. In conclusion, the AK wins outright as a combat weapon simply because if I pick one up out of the mud & pull the trigger I KNOW it'll go "bang" again & again. Mike. PS. JUst a stray thought... I'll compare the AK47 to a VW Beetle and the M-16 to a ferrari. Which one performs better and would give you more pleasure in it's use? Which one keeps going and would be "there for you" on a rainy winter morning? Last edited by miked10270; 08-21-2003 at 01:55 PM..