M-16 vs AK-47
 

Yes, it's the return of one of the military's oldest debates.
Which rifle do you believe is more superior?

The modern m-16 is superior (IMHO), but the AK takes the cake if you need to kick your weapon around in all kinds of horrible conditions for long periods of time without cleaning or maintenance.

AK never stops shooting, so if your in piss poor conditions the AK. If your in a nice area that won't a lot of wear and tear on your weapon I'd have to go with the M-16.

M-16: Pro: More accurate, lighter ammo, slightly more user-friendly, better ergonomics.
Con: IMO underpowered, persistant reliability problems in certain environs, somewhat pickier about powders.

AK-47: Pro: Dead reliable. Will NOT quit. Easy to work on if you need to, doesn't require a lot of maintainance. Bullet hits like a sledgehammer.
Con: Less accurate. Heavier ammo, weapon is also heavier. Inferior ergonnomics, and the safety makes a big, loud CLICK when you take it off 'safe' which could give away your position. Stocks are usually cut shorter than most Americans care for as well, making them slightly uncomfortable.

Personally, I stick with my AK. I can get target-coverage out to 300 meters with it, and after that the Mosin comes out to play. Getting ready to switch over to an FAL, though...more powerful, LOTS more accurate, just as reliable.

ACK!

This gets beat to death on gun boards all the time, so why not here??

Ok,

The pros/cons have been well stated.

My personal preference (after shooting both and owning an AR15) is the M-16.

IFF you keep up with maintenance, it is a superior weapon, IMO and the opinion of a lot of armies across the world.

I'd have to go with AK, if only because it is reliable, cheap, and darn right easy to get. Oh well, I have no need for a gun, so it doesn't matter.

M-16 hands down.

What is the point of a rifle that won't hit what you aim at?

AK-47 hands down.

What is the point of a rifle that won't kill what you hit?

I suggest you study up on the terminal ballistics of the 62 grain 5.56 ball round before making such silly comments. :D

I'd go with an AK-47 I've fired one before and I hit every target without any problems

Ive read about the stopping power of the 5.56x45 and the 7.62x39. Honestly, both rounds will stop a human. So IMHO the M-16 is a superior weapon. Definatly more accurate, a person can carry more ammo, and its more comfortable to shoot. And the stories of it being unreliable in extreme conditions were founded from the original A1 models which didnt have the forward assist. With this addition the gun works fine. Ive put just about every type of ammo through my AR-15 and it eats it just fine.

Ok this is what my friend said in the army about the comparison
M16...unreliable as shit...jams up..needs to be cleaned and well taken care of....and cannot use AK-47 ammo...The AK.....You can beat the piss outta it and treat it like shit and it will still work....and AKs can use M16 rounds....

AK's can use M16 rounds??? Err, how? You'd have to chamber it differently, and swap the barrel. One is 7.62mm, the other is 5.56mm. And the casing is a different length too...some clarification maybe?

The AK comes chambered in 3 rounds, 5.45, .223, and 7.62
If you get a reciever chambered in .223 then it can use the same ammo as the m-16, some of them are even modded so they use the exact same clips. It's merely a question of what round is the gun chambered for and not any special function of the gun.

Thats news to me...i thought the AK only came in 5.45 and 7.62

It has to be the AK - all those terrorist organisations can't be wrong !

http://www.ak-47.net/ak47/ak100/index.html

The other manufacturers of AKs are unpredictable, they blend mix and match features from all over the original AK line. There really is no "one" standard set of AK specs. The real russian stuff is not widely available.

Your friend is wrong on all counts.

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?

I'm ex-military and I absolutely had a love/hate relationship with my M16A2. I was an expert marksman since my first day at the range in basic (I had never fired a rifle before). The weapon was acurate as hell but if you got a GRAIN of sand in it it would jam ( i took very good care of my weapon).

After I got out of the army I purchased a Norinco MAC90. That thing is a BLAST to shoot. It had a whole different feel about it, much heavier and louder, more umph.

The accuracy wasn't great but after going through 1000 rounds ($100) i managed to learn the weapons traits and I became very accurate with it.


Given a choice though I would have to with the M16A2

4/3 ADA "rock of the marne"

BTW - The MAC90 is very similar to the AK47. If you buy one make sure you get 40 rd mags and if you can afford it they have 75 rd drums...very fun to shoot old computer monitors with them.

Most AK's hold a group of about 1.5 feet at 150M. This is unacceptable for any infantryman.

Do not confuse civilian AK knock-offs for the real thing.

I dissagree. Accurate fire in combat is what saves lives and wins wars. Remember, if you actualy hit the other guy, he won't shoot back.
I have no idea what the TRW of a 7.62x39 round is (your10% figure seems low), but assuming you are correct, 10% is a hell of a lot of weight to a ground pounder. The simple fact is that 5.56 shoots flatter, weighs less, and wounds better than the 7.62x39. Our troops can carry more ammo and shoot it more accurately.
The M-16 never came with an 18 round magazine.
The length you save is only 6cm. Is that worth the added recoil and lack of ability to shoulder the weapon with the stock folded. I guess if you are playing Rambo it would look good, but in a fire-fight I prefer to hit the bad guy, not just scare him.
The M-16A3 is full auto, you are thinking of the M-16A2. The burst function was installed in response to the Vietnam era infantrymans penchant for holding the weapon out from around cover and emptying his magazine without ever looking at his target.

I prefer the selector on the M-16. Not only can I easily access it from a firing position, if I do "panic" and bump it clear over to burst, I almost gaurantee it needs to be there anyway. I'll make up for the waste of rounds through the extra ammo I can carry.

My platoon went two weeks without a single stoppage running our M-4s bone dry. The reliability problem with the M-16 is a myth.
We tried that test with quite few AKs we got our hands on. Not one of them fired. The tolerances on weapon that would fire after that abuse would have to be so sloppy that you couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with it.

hmm. informative. thanks.

I would prefer the new M-4.

I'm not a huge gun expert, but the M4 looks good from the specs I've seen.

miked - As for the M16, wasn't three-round burst instituted on the A2?

Oh, and debaser, wasn't the original magazine 20 rounds? I thought that the ones they used in Vietnam held 20 but only could really handle 18 without the springs failing.

Will still take the AK-47 over the M16

The Bad guys use AK47.

The Good guys use M16.

Which side are YOU on?

I think I'd pick the M16 over the AK47. It's first of all a newer weapon and the ergonomics is always playing a big role, when I'm to pick a weapon. The M16 had a lot of problems during it's early days. Especially when it was introduced to the rough jungle climate during the Vietnam war. It was equipped with a 30 round magazine, but it could only take 18... otherwise it was likely to jam. It was delivered as an "no-maintaining rifle" which meant that it should't be cleaned... which proved that it was the opposite. The early M16 needed a lot of maintaining, but since later version have been improved (I strongly suppose), I'd say that this rifle have also become a better rifle. Personally I'd still pick a Heckler and Koch rifle... I just have a weakness for german firearms. :)

[edit] as someone mentioned earlier, the ballistics of the 5,56*45 is much better than the 7,62*39.

yeah but is a personal choice so i'll choose Ak-47

One correction:

The M16 was originally furnished with 20 round magazines, not 30. These jammed with a full 20, so troops were told to load 18.

Since the VC and NVA regulars had 30 rounders for their AK's, our troops wanted 30's and that's how that happened.

BTW, I don't believe there are any problems loading the full complement in USGI 20 or 30 round magazines anymore.

M-16 definitely... I am one of those sneaky people that likes to reach out and touch the enemy from far far away. As far as is humanly possible. Not just an M-4, A full on m-16 with heavy barrel.

Thanks, man, that's what I thought.

Actually, from the 14.5 inch barrel of the M-4, or the 10 inch barrel of the OICW Ke Module/Colt Commando, the SS-109 is rather poor in fragmentation properties, and with a 62 grain bullet, that's about all that's actually going to kill someone. For a true 'man-stopper' the West German export 7.62 (and now German Bundeswehr Mil-Spec) NATO is absolutely horrendous. It puts on average an 11mm hole, and leaves tons of fragments. The world's best surgeons would have a hell of a time sorting that mess out. Plus, until it hits something tough, like skin, ballistic gelatin, or a tree, it stays flat and even like Warsaw Pact 7.62.

For a well-trained, well-equipped soldier under normal combat conditions, the M-16A3/A4 are the best rifles in the world for a number of reasons:

Reliability with good maintenance

Accuracy potential

Good volume (with the A3 variant, which is just getting divvied up to the Marines these days) of fire

User Friendliness

Ubiquitousness - This is the key seller. A huge number of nations have taken to the M-16, or a clone of the AR-15 series. Given this, it's generally cheaper in some places to shift slowly or even quickly to M-16 weapons, if a US friendly nation, than to stick with or switch to AK-47.

Really, this debate is a little unfair for a number of reasons:

The M-16 was contracted due to a military sight to need a response to the then incredible firepower of the AK-47 under battle conditions. From 1949 to the days the M-16A2 came out, it was hands down, the best rifle in general issue.

The AK-47 is a LOT older than the M-16, and part of the revolution that the M-16 finished in firearms design. The modernized Kalashnikov has been shown to perform to equal standard in general accuracy (4 MOA at 100 meters, or better) and thusly, it beats the M-16 overall, but the AK-108 is part of the 'old' regime of the Soviets, even though Kalashnikov designed and built it recently. So, the chances it might get adopted are slim, outside of Britain, that is, where British soldiers are looking at it with much interest after the gross failure (despite HK's best efforts to make the thing a decent weapon) of the L-85. The whole system was a disaster, as I recall.

I think slinging a M203 around spoiled me. I never had an issue with even when it was dirty and wet; maybe its luck. The AK seemed so much lighter to me, but I was used the the extra weight of the 203. My accuracy was better with the 203 as well.

M16/M4 for it's accuracy and weight. Had mine in some nasty places and if you take care of it, it will work.

If you want to just blast the crap out of something 50 yards away, throw it in the closet then pull it out 6 months later and do the same thing. Go with the cheaper AK47/MAK90 varieties

During VN war, VNese took a lot of M-16s, but they still sticked to AK-47 and, to some extents, AR-15. Veterans during the war complained a lot about the manufacturer of M-16.

The argument that one bullet kills better than the other is a moot point in combat. Military rounds are designed to stop, not kill the enemy. If you kill the enemy you take one person out of combat, if you wound them, you take 3 people out of combat. If I have 300 people shooting at me, I would much rather only have to wound 100, than kill 300. Having never shot an AK-47, I would have to take the M-16, not because I necessarily feel it's a "better" weapon, but because I would choose a weapon i have experience with and feel comfortable and confident using over one I have no experience with.

tom- The original M16s issued to troops back in Vietnam had a slew of design problems that caused jamming, which were later fixed. Sure, a shitload of groundpounders got killed because ordinance fucked up, and it's a great tragedy, but you can't gauge the currently ubiquitous M16A2 by the inadequacy of its predecessors.

I would have to go with the AK just for the fact that you can shoot it in pretty much any condition that is possible...although the m-16 is a fun rifle to shoot.