M 16 vs AK47

[CourierDriver]

If there are any current military infantry or former military infantry rifleman here, your comments on the 2 above weapons would be informative. If it raises old memories that you would rather forget, then dont comment please. There are reinactments that may be painful,imho

 

[Artem]

The AK47 makes me proud!

 

[SLCraig]

Originally Posted By: Artem
The AK47 makes me proud!


I would love to fire one someday. Apparently you can go to Vegas and fire this stuff at a shooting range. That's pretty cool.

 

[95busa]

AK-
Reliable, hits pretty hard close in. Sights are primitive, ergonomics are atrocious, magazines and ammo are heavy. If you are a casual rifleman in combat it is an acceptable weapon. I have fired AKs extensively and like the weapons, but not my first choice.

M16 family of weapons (generally speaking to M16A2/A4/M4)
Very accurate, excellent ergonomics (quick reloads, great firing position, control manipulation, etc). 5.56 is not ideal especially out of short tubes like the M4, but it does the job- and is accurate to 500 meters+. Excellent iron sights, models after the A2 are easily adaptable to excellent optics like the ACOG, even the A2 can take a CCO. Down side- Maintenance intensive- if maintained well they function well for a long time, but at some point your are going to have to do some detailed maintenance on them. You can do a quick scrub of the bolt, carrier, chamber area and punch the bore a few times, lube em up and get them running again pretty quickly, but once again a cleaning to standard takes time and effort.

 

[Nickdfresh]

I'm not an ex-infantrymen, so take what I say with a grain of stick powder.

But there is some incorrect info in the video that overly represents the advantages of the AK-47 and fails to mention some advantages the M-16(A1) had in Vietnam. While the AK did have some major high points in reliability, and may have been a better close quarters combat weapon when out of ammo--the lighter M-16 often gave an alert soldier "the drop" on his enemy if they stumbled into one another.

Also, the ballistics examples shown of firing the AK's short 7.62mm round and the 5.56mm round into blocks of wood and concrete are not necessarily representative of all things combat. According to James Dunnigan in Dirty Little Secrets: Military Information You're Not Supposed To Know, the M-16's high velocity bullet would basically explode into shards at close ranges (about 10-15 meters) causing horrific ballistic wounding characteristics. At longer ranges, the bullet often had a yawing effect that also ruined the day of any unfortunate soldier shot by it. So yes, at short ranges against objects, vehicles, structures, and foliage: the AK was more effective. At killing people, it was a bit more of a wash...

 

[BISCUT]

Originally Posted By: 95busa
AK-
Reliable, hits pretty hard close in. Sights are primitive, ergonomics are atrocious, magazines and ammo are heavy. If you are a casual rifleman in combat it is an acceptable weapon. I have fired AKs extensively and like the weapons, but not my first choice.

M16 family of weapons (generally speaking to M16A2/A4/M4)
Very accurate, excellent ergonomics (quick reloads, great firing position, control manipulation, etc). 5.56 is not ideal especially out of short tubes like the M4, but it does the job- and is accurate to 500 meters+. Excellent iron sights, models after the A2 are easily adaptable to excellent optics like the ACOG, even the A2 can take a CCO. Down side- Maintenance intensive- if maintained well they function well for a long time, but at some point your are going to have to do some detailed maintenance on them. You can do a quick scrub of the bolt, carrier, chamber area and punch the bore a few times, lube em up and get them running again pretty quickly, but once again a cleaning to standard takes time and effort.


Well said. AR/M16 easily built and repaired as well. Literally a plethora of aftermarket items to add on if one wishes, and superior optics platform. AK is sure a stout weapon but most suffer in the accuracy department.

 

[Mixologist]

I actually own several non-NFA versions of both but have shot their FA brothers many times. The AK has many advantages; easy take down, superior knock-down, most common ammo in the world, works no matter what you do to it. The AR/M16 is still easy to take down but not as easy as the AK, prone to jams/stove-pipes when dirty, weak knock-down power but pretty decent effective range (~600 yrds), better iron sights and very adaptable with countless accessories easy access to ammo but 7.62x39 is cheaper and more available. You really can't go wrong with either choice.

 

[2004tdigls]

personally i would go with an m 16 converted to .223 wssm, deadly accurate, far more hitting power (ft pounds) than a 5.56 nato round, and far more range

http://www.dtechuppers.com/ar-15-wssm-upper-receivers.html

 

[BarryinIN]

Very informative. I was unaware that the AK was designed for full auto fire and it was an afterthought on the AR/M16 because the AK selector goes to FA before SA. I thought the selector moved in that order because Soviet doctrine was to haul the troops to within yards of the battle via BMPs, where they hit the ground hosing the area down with full auto fire immediately; which is the reasoning for everything from the selector going to Auto first to the short stock and barrel (for handling within the BMP).

Learning the AR/M16 is no good as a fighting rifle since it can't be used as a club (because of the glass fiber construction of the stock and the barrel) was icing on the cake.

But that's OK. I'm all in favor of anything perpetuating the myth that an AK not only needs no maintenance, but thrives on abuse. I hope all our enemies agree.

 

[simple_gifts]

OT:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130493013

Good interview regarding the AK.

 

[95busa]

Originally Posted By: BarryinIN
Very informative. I was unaware that the AK was designed for full auto fire and it was an afterthought on the AR/M16 because the AK selector goes to FA before SA. I thought the selector moved in that order because Soviet doctrine was to haul the troops to within yards of the battle via BMPs, where they hit the ground hosing the area down with full auto fire immediately; which is the reasoning for everything from the selector going to Auto first to the short stock and barrel (for handling within the BMP).

Learning the AR/M16 is no good as a fighting rifle since it can't be used as a club (because of the glass fiber construction of the stock and the barrel) was icing on the cake.

But that's OK. I'm all in favor of anything perpetuating the myth that an AK not only needs no maintenance, but thrives on abuse. I hope all our enemies agree.


Funny story....I had the occasion to butt stroke a gentleman in his poorly functioning brain housing group with an M16A2. It split the old wig very nicely (to the bone)- and ejected the chambered round, (fortunately chambering the next one). Weapon was good to go. Now it you grabbed it by the barrel and swung it like Jose Canseco in full roid rage, you would probably break stuff.

 

[hattaresguy]

They are both quite good, but both somewhat out of date. The Scar16/17 is where its at these days.

AK's are fun but crude, I prefer the 74 over the 47, but one half dozen or the other in that area. Most are poorly built, so they are not very reliable or good shooting rifles. The only ones worth anything are the Russian made ones which are rare, or Arsenals. Bulgarians are OK but it depends on who put it together.

Generally its hard to buy a poorly made AR, more so these days. The only drawback of an AR is that they get dirty since they are blow back and if you shoot a lot the whole rifle heats up. But other than that a very nice light handy carbine. Generally in the real world the AR is the better and more reliable rifle, because of the simple fact that they are built better, and new manufacture. Remember most AK's out their are an amalgamation of 3rd world cast off part sales put together by questionable gun smiths in this country. A lot of the parts used to build them are pretty well shot out. A well built new AK is pretty good, but those are not as common as new AR's.

I own and shoot a number of both variants, I feel that they have been surpassed by more modern offerings. Currently my favorite light infantry rifles are the new FN Scar series, and the Sig5XX series.

All in all you really can't go wrong with any rifle as long as you take reasonable care of it, it will serve you well.

 

[hattaresguy]

Originally Posted By: BarryinIN
Very informative. I was unaware that the AK was designed for full auto fire and it was an afterthought on the AR/M16 because the AK selector goes to FA before SA. I thought the selector moved in that order because Soviet doctrine was to haul the troops to within yards of the battle via BMPs, where they hit the ground hosing the area down with full auto fire immediately; which is the reasoning for everything from the selector going to Auto first to the short stock and barrel (for handling within the BMP).

Learning the AR/M16 is no good as a fighting rifle since it can't be used as a club (because of the glass fiber construction of the stock and the barrel) was icing on the cake.

But that's OK. I'm all in favor of anything perpetuating the myth that an AK not only needs no maintenance, but thrives on abuse. I hope all our enemies agree.


The AK family were not designed to be paper punching range queens. Are you going to put out better groups with just about anything else at 200 yards than with an AK? Yeah but that's not the point. If you want an accurate Soviet battle rifle buy an SVT.

The AK does exactly what the Soviet military designed it to do. Its accurate enough to hit a human sized target at up to 200 meters, and they didn't care past that although I guess if your a good shoot you can reach out much further with one. It was designed to be used by conscripts in mass close range assaults like they perfected against the Germans in WW2. Accuracy was secondary to volume of fire.

Its the same conclusion that the Germans came to about the realities of modern combat on the Easter front. You need a close range mass of fire, anything far away doesn't matter a whole lot. Hence they adopted the STG44, which was the first assault rifle, and the designers of the AK borrowed heavily from it.

This also allowed the simplification of supply since you only had to get one round to the front, vs in WW2 well it was quite a number for both sides. Lots of sub guns and rifles, of all kinds of calibers.

 

[SEMI_287]

I own both and would take either one in combat but for some reason I like the AK iron sights better than the M16.

 

[95busa]

Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Originally Posted By: BarryinIN
Very informative. I was unaware that the AK was designed for full auto fire and it was an afterthought on the AR/M16 because the AK selector goes to FA before SA. I thought the selector moved in that order because Soviet doctrine was to haul the troops to within yards of the battle via BMPs, where they hit the ground hosing the area down with full auto fire immediately; which is the reasoning for everything from the selector going to Auto first to the short stock and barrel (for handling within the BMP).

Learning the AR/M16 is no good as a fighting rifle since it can't be used as a club (because of the glass fiber construction of the stock and the barrel) was icing on the cake.

But that's OK. I'm all in favor of anything perpetuating the myth that an AK not only needs no maintenance, but thrives on abuse. I hope all our enemies agree.


The AK family were not designed to be paper punching range queens. Are you going to put out better groups with just about anything else at 200 yards than with an AK? Yeah but that's not the point. If you want an accurate Soviet battle rifle buy an SVT.

The AK does exactly what the Soviet military designed it to do. Its accurate enough to hit a human sized target at up to 200 meters, and they didn't care past that although I guess if your a good shoot you can reach out much further with one. It was designed to be used by conscripts in mass close range assaults like they perfected against the Germans in WW2. Accuracy was secondary to volume of fire.

Its the same conclusion that the Germans came to about the realities of modern combat on the Easter front. You need a close range mass of fire, anything far away doesn't matter a whole lot. Hence they adopted the STG44, which was the first assault rifle, and the designers of the AK borrowed heavily from it.

This also allowed the simplification of supply since you only had to get one round to the front, vs in WW2 well it was quite a number for both sides. Lots of sub guns and rifles, of all kinds of calibers.


I guess I am confused on the "only had to get one round to the front" comment.
Since WW2 the Soviets have used PK machine guns in their formations firing 7.62x54R, DSHK Machineguns firing 12.7mm ammunition and pistols firing everything from 7.62mm Nagant to 9x18mm, as well as specialized sniper ammunition, etc.

 

[SuperDave456]

May I recommend a book?

"The Gun" by C.J. Chivers.
A very good book that sticks to facts and history and stays out of current politics.
It will teach you more about the AK family of firearms than what 90% of people know.

 

[BarryinIN]

Is it good, really? I was afraid it would be a vehicle to say how A-salt rifles were evil. I didn't know it had any true historical or technical info in it.

 

[kb01]

I'm a former infantryman (11B and later 11H & 11M) and have definitely gotten a lot of field time carrying and firing various iterations of the M-16. I've also had several opportunities to fire AK-47s and 74s.

If you need a weapon that requires little training or maintenance, where a minimally trained conscript or villager can throw a lot of lead down range, then the AK wins hands down. Other than that, I've always found the AK to be terrible. The ergonomics are uncomfortable, selector switch is awkward, seating magazines requires an odd motion, the sights are terrible, etc.

At this point, the M-16 is a very refined weapon. It's comfortable to shoot, well balanced, easy to load magazines, natural thumb-operated selector, accurate to a fairly long range, and also capable of rapid fire in MOUT and CQB. It does require attentive maintenance but with a chrome lined barrel and forward assist, it's not nearly as finicky as it was in the pre-A1 series.

And to be fair, I am definitely biased on the subject but I will admit that the Israeli Galil is a nice and very refined AK derivative.

 

[RW1]

Kb, I pretty much concur with you. But the complaints about the AK ergonomics depends on what you're used to. I've chatted with Russians, Iraqi's, and so on who prefer the AK. That is what they're used to.

They also complain about all the small parts that our M16s have. I can't tell you how many pins and ejector springs were lost while teaching Iraqi's how to clean a M16. No, we didn't tell them to remove the ejector but they will see one American do it and then feel they have to do it too to look cool.

Having said all that, I much prefer the M-14 for stopping power. I have never seen someone get up and run after taking a solid hit from a 7.62 round. Something I can't say for the 5.56; especially if they were doped up.

 

[95busa]

Originally Posted By: RW1
Kb, I pretty much concur with you. But the complaints about the AK ergonomics depends on what you're used to. I've chatted with Russians, Iraqi's, and so on who prefer the AK. That is what they're used to.

They also complain about all the small parts that our M16s have. I can't tell you how many pins and ejector springs were lost while teaching Iraqi's how to clean a M16. No, we didn't tell them to remove the ejector but they will see one American do it and then feel they have to do it too to look cool.

Having said all that, I much prefer the M-14 for stopping power. I have never seen someone get up and run after taking a solid hit from a 7.62 round. Something I can't say for the 5.56; especially if they were doped up.


I know what you're saying about ergonomics, but its also like this: Lets say you practice shooting and reloading revolvers for a solid year. You will be way faster and more proficient with revolvers than me. If you then practice shooting and reloading a Glock 17 for a year, you will be able to shoot more rounds, faster and more accurately than with the revolver because the ergonomics and ease of use are that much better. Sure you won't complain if you never knew any better, but given the same amount of practice with an M16 family of weapons as the AK series, you will be more proficient with the 16.

I get the part about Iraqis and M16s. Just to make a cultural comment that may result in folks who don't know any better accusing me of "hate speach"- Iraqis are not very proficient at much of anything. They have fresh water shortages in Baghdad....home of one of the largest rivers in the world! In my time in Iraq, I found Iraqis as a whole to be incapable of a shocking number of things....very different culture- expectations have to be reduced a bit when everything happens Insh [censored]....