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.

Damnit .. I was going to bring that up.

I'd go with the AK just because of its ability to be used under almost any condition which is always a good quality in a weapon.

Oblivion-

Thanks for the heads up on the german 7.62, I'll have to get me a little of that action.

As far as this debate goes, I'll weigh in my two cents like so:

The M16, in it's assorted variations, is intended to be the flagship weapon of a technologically advanced modern army. It fires a ballistically superior, lighter round that is intended to provide exactly the force necessary to incapacitate or terminate enemy combatants. The precision of it's machining allows for superior accuracy at range, and reliable performance when kept maintained. Notably, the tactics of the modern army are very rapid strike oriented, and in most cases you will not spend extended time in the field (unless something goes wrong). Thus, you should be able to keep the weapon properly maintained. As observed previously, the design of the M16 is rather sophisticated, requiring modern manufacturing capabilities and significant resources to produce. This has always been the trend with american weapons as compared with those of other nations.

The AK series, on the other hand, is the cheaply stamped out and mass produced weapon of a failed superpower. It was intended to be placed in the hands of poorly trained conscripts and farmers en masse, so as to create a large amount of fire power with little monetary expenditure. In an old style army there is no telling how long the troops will need to stay in the field, so the weapon has to take abuse, mistreatment and abuse with aplomb. Likewise, in an old style army more weight is hung from quantity of men than quality of training, so as likely as not the soldiers have only a basic idea of how to take care of thier weapon. The solution to this problem also reduces manufacturing costs, and is thus predictable: make it really goddamn simple. No, it might not hit a target at 100 yards... but if the soldier is lined up with five buddies, and all of thier AKs are vomiting out rounds at (the AK does around 700 RPM, I think?) then the law of averages strongly suggests that the target is going to be eliminated.

Personally, I'll take an M40A1 sniper rifle and a gilly suit, but that doesn't appear to be one of the options.

That sounds exactly like the Soviet Union style of fighting a war. I'd just like to comment on that.

did you take the safety off ???:rolleyes: what kind of AKs you tried, the ones made is US? cause i never had problem with my AK shootin chechens, and trust me the gun was barely ever cleaned from dirt and powder. so do not talk bs about the weapon (russian made, not chinese or egyptian shit) if you have never held or even seen a real one.

what about the accuracy?? all i can say is if you cant hit a target with AK that at least 150yrds away=you are a shitty shooter.
and heres a link for those people who still thinks that AKs are not accurate. and the weapon is fired at FULL AUTO.:D
Heres my response to accuracy


:confused:
Honey the BAD guys use AK47 simply because its better, and i would pick AKM because when i used to run out of ammo i used the ammo from the bad guys (chechens) i shot. The other realy good rifle is genuine Russian SVD TIGR cal 7.62x54R one shot and no need for a second one.



i giv props to who ever picked AK

Charmed.

If you will reread the post the test was dropping them in the ubiquitous mud-puddle, then attempting to fire them. We tried this with a sample of 5 guns, all of Russian or Yugoslav manufacture, that we had confiscated. As I stated before, not one of them worked.

Accuracy? First, who said that I couldn't hit something 150 yards away? I said that the average AK held a group of about 1.5 feet at 150 yards, which is unacceptable for a professional soldier. And what does a couple of guys shooting propane tanks 20 meters away have to do with accuracy?

That was your experience. Guys from US ordinance jammed 2 fistfulls of wet sand in the receiver, poured mud down the barrel, and loaded shitty as hell Steel-cased Wolf-type Lacquered ammo. It fired over a hundred rounds without a single hitch.

Also, if any of the parts were made in the US, China or Egypt, there's your problem right there. There aren't many small parts, so look for marks on the various parts upon field-stripping. If anything isn't in Cyrillic, there's your problem.

This isn't necessarily to say that the various countries do better or worse, but the Chinese Type 59 and Egyptian made rifles are made to very loose standards. According to Kalashnikov's original design, the weapon is of very high quality, just manufactured to that aim.

Now, for modern terms, we should compare it to the AK-108, it does, after all, use the same round.

Caliber:

AK-108/M-16: 5.56X45mm SS109

Weight:

AK-108: 4.4kg/9.7lbs -- M-16: 4.77kg/10.507lbs

Barrel Length:

AK-108: 415mm (16.5 inches) -- M-16: 508mm (20 inches)

Overall Length:

AK-108: 94.3cm, 70cm with stock folded. -- M-16: 1006mm

Factory Standard Rifling Twist:

AK-108: 1:7 -- M-16: 1:7, both right hand

Operating Method

AK-108

The AK-108 uses a modernized version of the Kalashnikov action. Kalashnikov had, since 1942, been working on recoil compensation devices to improve individual accuracy in fully automatic fire. In the AK-107/108 rifles, he fully integrated this system by the installation of the balancer piston. This piston is mounted in the opposite direction directly below the primary (operating) piston, and the secondary uses the excess gas that is unused by the piston (which would normally just disperse off the operating rod) and moving parts otherwise, and it pushes in the opposite direction to reverse the recoiling effect induced by the shot. Otherwise, it is identical to the previous Kalashnikov rifles. It is a gas operated system using a large piston. The bolt has 2 massive locking lugs which help ensure reliability.

M-16:

It uses a so-called 'stovepipe' mechanism in the form of a tube which directly bleeds gas and vents it straight into the moving parts of the receiver. While this obviously reduces weight and simplifies construction, it requires clean, high quality propellants and regular maintenance. In various rough combat zones, it seems the action will never achieve near-equivalent reliability. However, it allows for superior accuracy in both semi-and full auto (compared to the AK-47, though it uses a different round) and is generally in the hands of soldiers with clean ammo and proper maintenance tools.

Rate of Fire:

AK-108: 900rpm -- M-16: 800rpm

Effective Range:

AK-108: 500 meters -- M-16: 600 meters

My personal belief is, given the power of the AK-108 in giving the soldier a volume of fire advantage over the M-16A2, which is, in US Military use, fitted with a bolt-ratchet which stops the action after 3 shots. I still favor it over the full-auto capable A3 variant, despite the addition of a Weaver rail, as it is generally less reliable, despite excellent relibability with good maintenance, the AK-108 can withstand harsh environment conditions such as jungle or Desert hostilities for weeks on end, with little, if any effort to maintenance. To assure reliability in Afghanistan, it was required that soldiers field strip and clean their M-16 rifles 3 times a day. The M-4 Carbine was found to jam frequently even with good maintenance, had relatively poor killing power, undependable accuracy, and overall, gave a rather disappointing performance.

hey Oblivion437 looks like you did your homework :)

I do that on occasion... ;)

I would rather have an AR-15. I would love to have an M-16, but they are very expensive. I've handled the M-16A2 in the Army. As long as you take care of you weapon, it will take care of you.

They fired it with mud down the barrel and two handfuls of wet sand in the reciever?

BS.

They were all taken off of Serb militants, so I doubt they had many US parts. Honestly I can't say, we didn't inspect them that closely, just had a bit of fun before destroying them.
I fail to see how a weapon produced of stamped steel (primarily) on a five year plan can be called "high quality", but hey, to each his own.
Well, the thread is comparing the AK-47, not the 108.
I am always curious abouth the phrase used by detractors of the M-16 that it "bleeds gas and vents it straight into the moving parts of the receiver".

The weapon utilises all of the gas inside the bolt carrier and then vent the excess through the ejection port on recoil (you will notice two small holes for that purpose on the right hand side of the bolt carrier. After sustained firing the M-16 will have no more powder fouling of its lockwork than any other rifle, and in many cases less. In all my years around M-16s and AR-15s, I have only ever seen one failure in the "action" of the weapon, and that was due to a pin walking out, not fouling.
I would love to see your sources. I have never heard any soldiers complain about the M-4, other than the fact that it is less accurate (for obvious reasons) than the M-16. It is still a hell of a lot more accurate than any AK varient (54R rifles excluded).

Also, the three times a day issue was during a blackout sandstorm near Kabul. The Marines lifted the requirement the next day when it cleared.

First, it was one of the milled-model AKs (one of the VERY nice ones built for the Spetznaz) that endured ever so much abuse. The only way you could ever stop an AK from working is to somehow dislodge the piston. A sturdy rifle like that can withstand a fall from most state office buildings and have it still in place.

The Serb parts may have also had stuff made in China. If say, the locking lugs were Chinese, mounted on a Siberian bolt, you'd have problems right there. The Chinese make their guns like crap. I was misleading in my original statement. Kalashnikov called for his weapon to be well-made and all, but it was designed primarily as a weapon for someone who didn't know a damn thing about proper care and handling of one.

I wasn't detracting. But that's the gist of how it works. Rather than blow over piston, which would add weight (Stoner had to get the thing around 6 goddamn pounds) he simply had the gas itself hit the moving parts, to that end, he had the gas just vent right into the receiver. The only problems with this action are induced by improper construction or cheap ammo.

The reports have been noted around the web, and also, if you check the related articles on http://www.world.guns.ru state that experience has shown that the rifle jammed alot. It's a side effect of the higher-pressure induced from the shorter barrel.

Also, I doubt the M-4 to be more accurate than the AK-108, considering the AK-108 operates under moderated pressure, the AK-108 also uses a longer barrel. It passes that point, around 16 inches, where a barrel must at least be, to reliably fragment out to 300 meters. At 14 inches, the M-4 does not, hence stopping power problems. Finally, the AK-108 rifles are made under limited contract, to higher-than-SOVIET standard. If the US experimented with them, I don't know what they'd find, but I'd be sure as hell interested to find out.

On another note, have you heard up on anything regarding Black Hills ammunition? As I understand it, the SOCOM loves the stuff for what it does to human beings. Second only, in my opinion, to German 7.62NATO in terms of pure brutality.

AK is a type of gun made all over the frickin world a good AK Chinese machined and tooled is a excellent rifle but the world makes allot of really crappy AK's so be careful in reverse most AR style weapons are pretty well made especially colt and especially Pre-Ban there a reason one is 2k and the other is 150 bucks if your worried about it firing dirty make sure your colt has a forward assist

??

Preban Colt AR's have no quality advantage over post ban Colts.

As a matter of fact, the older preban Colts have features that make them less attractive, such as lack of the forward assist and no raised indent to keep you from accidently ejecting your magazine.

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE M-16, and my vote.
 

Okay, since most of you have dealt with the fact that the M16A1 had a 20 not a 30 round clip, I won't go there. I've heard a lot of bashing about the M-16 in the past, mainly by VN vets and people who have heard of the troubles the rifle had in Nam.

Lets start with the basics. This gun was made with some pretty sophisticated stuff for its time. Plastic and composite parts for example. The M16 was developed after the AR-15 failed in field test. The AR had a slew of problems: underpowered, design flaws, some barrels exploded blowing of soldiers' hands.

When it was first used in combat in Nam, our soldiers were told it could go through hell and still fire. A false sense of security. Hell folks, they didn't even issue a cleaning kit until after it got started and thousands of troops died after guns failed when the enemy would be 10 feet away. Field repairman said that they were getting more requests for replacement guns than they were gun parts. They didn't chrome plate the receiver either, yet another reason it jammed.

My vote is for the M16. Even though you can't drag it behind your car, going 30 mph down a dirt roadfor half an hour, then shoot away; it is an excellent, well made gun.

P.S. - If this is a bit lengthy, I apologize. I'm a history major and have a tendency to get carried away.

My apologies for not responding sooner.

I assume they dumped the sand out first, since two handfuls of sand would prevent the bolt from moving rearward to chamber the first round.
But it does not "vent" into the reciever. It is channeled through the bolt/carrier and out of the rifle.
With all due respect to the Russian gun site, I prefer to go with personal experience and US Army reports, both of which show it to be a very reliable weapon. It operates under the same pressure as an M-16A2, so I don't see where they get that it jams. The only time I have ever seen stoppages I would call a "jam" was a "bolt-over" failure to feed caused by the use of an old magazine and a double feed caused by a failed extractor.
To be as accurate as the M-4, the 108 would have to have the same tolerances as the M-4. If it is as reliable when dirty as you say, then it is not as accurate. Granted, the longer sight radius will make the 108 easier to aim, but since the M-4 comes with an optics package, that that is rather irelenvant. The 14.5 inch barrel still reliably fragments at 200 meters, which is perfectly acceptable given US doctrine.
I had the honor of shooting with the SOTIC guys a few months ago. They all used Black Hills custom loads for their .300 Winmags.

Good thread- I just bought a romanian AK-47 today so I guess thats my vote- my reasoning being that while I have heard wonderful things about the new M-16 style rifles, I did not have 1000 + dollars to play with- for 325 I got a nicely acurate rifle with 3 30 round clips and a 5 rounder- I may not drive any tacks with it, but I can hunt with it effectively, and quite readily kill any intruder that may need killing- I don't own many guns, and I felt that it was a total package deal at a very good price...plus I greatly value the "unkillable" nature of this weapon.

Is there any truth to the AK standing for "American Killer"?

None, unless it is anecdotal.

Certainly the Americans in Vietnam might have called it that.

AK = Avtomat Kalashnikov

I'm not a gun expert by any means and I've shot both weapons I liked both but I pick the M4a1 it felt better and I was more comfortable with it.

"AK47 is the tool. Don't make me act the mother fuckin' fool." - Ice Cube.

I hope this helps.

yes, I would tend to agree with debaser. Most, if not all the jams that I have seen have resulted from weak or failed extractor springs, and most misfeeds result from dented and old magazines actually.

Even while firing blanks, which result in much higher fouling of the barrel, (since most of the gas is redirected back into the gun), I've never seen an M16 jam because of too much carbon/fouling on the bolt carrier group or in the chamber.

The firing pin itself is "self cleaning, in that carbon buildup will not occur beyond a point that will foul the gun.

^
||
||
||
/||\
=||=
||

the conical area is about the limit of carbon buildup on the firing pin itself, and builup up till that level will not affect performance. Of course, my rifle was cleaned to perfection after every firing, but it could have been left like that.

range: 600m? please don't kid me.

without optics such as scopes, and using iron sights, the front post on the sights will nicely cover a man sized target at 300m. There is no way to aim it properly without a scope at longer ranges than than.

Lower muzzle velocity on an AK will also result in a less flat trajectory.

Clean your damn gun. if you take care of your gun, she'll take care of you. simple.

Maybe they did, they weren't exactly specific on what they did with the sand, I just assumed, given an absence of statement, that they left it in, but am now skeptical at such a statement.

Well, I've not had the chance to get under the hood of an AR-15 at all, but I've gotten the general impression that it blew it over the moving parts directly rather than using a conventional piston. Is the gas ever in contact with the extractor?

Well, think what you will of my sources, it does use the same round, which exerts the same pressure, but the shorter barrel results in greater pressure on the action, thus increasing the rate of fire ever so slightly. ~1 more round a second over A2-A4 variants of the M-16. The operating method of the XM-15 series results in carbines having to operate under greater mechanical stress, thus increasing probability of reliability falires.

The M-4 variants are carbines, the AK-108 is a rifle. They operate and are constructed differently around these principles. A number of my fellow gun lovers have informed me that there is something of a 'barrel threshold' for M855 or other SS-109, that with a 1:7 twist (the optimal twist) on that round, you need 16" of barrel to give appropriate velocity for regular and reliable fragmentation at longer ranges. Given the general operating method of the AK-107/108, long range shooting is (finally) an applicable notion.

Interesting, I've heard statements that the SOCOM has been using Black Hills 5.56 for some time, it was said somewhere on http://www.ammo-oracle.com

EDIT: Had to fix quote tag...

Nope, it is completely isolated from the extractor and the ejector, both.
The speed can be tuned by adjusting the size of the gas port in the barrel, the additional round per second in the M-4 is a result of having to work against a stiffer, shorter buffer spring.
The M-4 operates identicaly to the M-16, it is given the name "carbine" only in defference to it's shorter size. As I said before, the M-4 displays acceptable fragmentation out to 200 meters, which is plenty for the needs of the US Army.

So the m4 is a fragmentation weapon??


Debaser, i've been through this whole topic and all you do is try to prove every single person wrong and that you're right. Guess what, there is no right answer, because these people are telling their opinion. So that means you stfu.

Ak-47 is way better (even looks more sinsiter). we shoulda kept the m14 in nam. the OICW is going to be really cool.

I also know for a fact you can take the cover off an AK47 and pour sand into it with it still being functional. You can do that with glocks uzis and a whole shitload of other weapons.
And with a uzi, you can take the cover off, pour sand into it untill it overflows, level the sand off with a popsicle stick, replace the cover, and fire. just like magic

Tasu,

As this is your first post in the topic, I don't know why you are getting on Debaser's case, but please try to keep the tone down. In otherwords, moderate yourself or be moderated.

He is free to argue his position as you are free to dispute it.


Yes, the M4 is a 'fragmentation' weapon in that the 5.56 round fragments when it tumbles in flesh if it still has sufficient spin.

Debaser was just saying that the round from the M4 will still fragment sufficiently out to 200 yards.

As to the rest, you're kidding, right?

Debaser, what I meant about operated differently was how a user was meant to apply its capabilities. The M-4's Gas port takes in gas at higher pressure than an M-16 does (a competition AR-15 shooter told me this) due to the length of barrel. That would be about the only appreciable reason that I could think of that the talk about reduced reliability even with good maintenace becomes a concern. The key difference between the M-4 and the AK is that foreign contractors who have bought units of the 108 model have had 18" barrels installed. Well above the general fragmentation profile, as well as retaining fine accuracy. Closed bolt, well-machined rifles in general achieve at least decent accuracy in the hands of your average shooter.

No arguments there. What I was saying regarding the M-4 pressure issue is that, yes, it does take higher pressure gas (since the gas block is closer to the chamber), but the gas port is of smaller diameter, making the effective volume of gas moving through the system the same. I am not knocking the 108 at all, it is a fine weapon, just not as suited to combat as an M-4, IMHO.

Overall though debaser has made this a productive thread, I learned one or two things I never knew about the m4/m16/ar15 before.
/threadjack

Wow, where do I begin?

Yes, that is exactly what I meant. :rolleyes:

I suggest you attempt to grasp the basic tenants of this discussion before posting again.

Funny, I could have sworn this was a discussion forum...

People are entitled to their own opinions. When people state that they simply like the AK-47 more than the M-16, I have no problem with that. When they back that up with erronious "facts", I take issue. I have more than a bit of experience with both of the weapons in question, and thought that others may benefit from my knowledge. If you take exception to that I reccomend you make use of the ignore feature from now on.
If that is your criteria, then more power to you.
I beg to differ. So does the DOD. The M-14 is a great rifle, but it is too damn heavy and large to be carried in a combat environment.
See above.
When I first read this I thought that your whole post was sarcasm. You know this for a fact do you? Have you done it? I posted earlier an instance where my men and I attempted a much less rigorous test on five rifles with 0% success rate.

Here is a simple test for you. Dig a hole. Fill it with sand. Now shove a brick to the bottom of it of it. Can't do it, huh? Same issue with the bolt in a rifle. Again, how are you even going to chamber the first round in that Uzi if you can't pull the bolt back?

If it's as reliable, with proper training more accurate, and more flexible overall (you can mount M203, AG36 or even Russian Caseless grenade launchers) I say it's at least equally suited. I have to get into the biz and fire all the weapons before I'll give a concrete assessment, but if money were no object, and I had the power to say either give 'em all AK-108 rifles or M-4 Carbines, I'd give 'em the rifles.

Ak's are fun to shoot

Well I guess the AK-47 Wins the vote by a 9-1 ratio! So why are the U.S. military still using these guns? what keeps them holding on to it?

http://htomc.dns2go.com/anim/anim/AK47.gif WE HAVE A WINNER :D

:hmm:

I have owned both an Egyptian and an Eastern block AK-47. Still have the Eastern block, (the Egyptian couldn't hit the broad side of a barn at 150yrds). Those who have quoted, accuracy of the AK-47 at 300 yds, must take into account that Eastern Bloc variations are much better quality, usually milled while knock-offs are stamped. So which is better?

M-16 is easily more reliable than a knockoff AK but an Eastern Bloc AK-47 is a better weapon overall in my opinion. Much more accurate than its knockoff counterpart, and overall the most used assault weapon worldwide.

So why does the US Military use the M-16. Because it can be used for multiple roles, ammo is standard NATO, and is cheaply produced.

Although I'll take a M14 over the AK anyday. 7.62 x 51(.308) vs. 7.62 x 39. The bigger round wins IMO. Damn give me the Dragunov, instead, 7.62 x 54 is a "howitzer' round.

Not trying to pick a fight with you either Debaser, but we should have kept the M-14 in Nam. They were a proven working weapon, compared to the initial M-16s used in the Vietnam war, which was a general nighmare. Ask an infantry soldier who used a M-16 from that war, and they will tell you they were junk. Some soldiers would even pick up AK-47s because they were more reliable, than the Jam-Happy early model M-16's.

Although the M-14 was bulkier and not made for a close quarters environment, it still would have faired better than those early P.O.S.'s that McNamara pushed out.

Still the M-16 now is light years ahead of that early version.

I'd go with the Kalashnikov if only for the simple reason that it WILL NOT jam. any accuracy problems can be overcome if the guy behind the rifle knows what he's doing, a gun that jams on a regular basis is no good to anybody no matter how good a soldier they are. however I will throw a bone to the makers of the M-16, it is a more accurate weapon than the AK and it is lighter.

M-16 only because its lighter and easier to carry with you. a gun you set down cause your sick of holding it isnt going to do you any good

Ok here is some info from the IDF, Israeli Defense Forces. One of the only military forces to have used both the AK47 and M16. They even tried using their own assault rifle, the IMI Galil, similar to the AK47 and they chose the M16 over it.

http://www.isayeret.com/weapons/assault/m16vsak47.htm

Might as well throw my 2 cents in as well.

Forget every other pro and con about both.

All i say if that you can find ammo and most likely parts for an ak, anywhere in the world, that includes the deepest part of the amazon, to the jungles of africa.