AK-47 vs M16
 

Now, I know we've all seen, heard about, and typed up comments ourselves, but let's do this here. What is with the battle between the AKs and the M16 families of weapons. We got AK fanboys who love the AK's invincibility and says the M16 or any AR15 variant is just a jamming low power piece of crap. Then we got the M16 lovers who shout back.

So any comments?

I consider myself an "AK fanboy" (I own one myself, and have been reading about them for a while). And objectively speaking, the AR-15/M16 platform is superior to the AK in most respects that matter.

Way to make this forum as stereotypical as every other gun forum on the net. ;)

M16 (as long as it is a newer design of today, no Vietnam crap) wins my vote. AKs are too clunky and ugly. Penetration and power are good but I think a better aimed shot is more important than how many powerful round you can spit out. Marksmanship is an art, spray and pray is like modern art.

AKs have such bad ergonomics and sights I will never own one. Not an m16 fan at all, but it wins out over the AK. m14 owns all.

The M14 is a heavy ass hunk of wood and steel that fires too big a round too fast. You have to be a beast to utilize one properly.

I appreciate both designs. I can't really compare them, as one was built in a country where reliability was king over ergonomics, in an era where subguns were still part of warfare due to their ability to lay down fire quickly, and the other was built by engineers in the newer age where space age junk was being applied to everything, and soldier/rifle interface was the primary concern in the design. The AK is the better "killing" gun, while the M16 is the better rifle, in it's most elegant terms (insert Marine Creed here).

First, not all m14s are wood. By fast, do you mean muzzle velocity? Because velocity is good. The big round pierces the cover 556 bounces off, and drops people more effectviely. And who cares about full auto. Its a rifle, not a subgun.

Even the fiberglass/synthetic models are hefty, and by too fast I mean fully automatic fire rate, which, if you're trying to compare the M14 to other Assault Rifles, you'd factor in. Most countries don't use full size rifle cartridges in guns other than support weapons like machineguns. It's a good cartridge and the M14 is a decent weapon, you just need to control it.

I'll just do some random function comparisons.

Weight:
Advantage - M16 platform

Safety/Selector:
Advantage - M16 is easier to operate with one hand, AK variants require reposition of hand, and have longer travel.

Magazine:
Advantage - M16 drops out with one hand while other hand makes switch. AK requires entire operation to be handled one handed, or by moving hands off the rifle, plus removing and inserting magazine is harder to do quickly(paddle release is not easy)

Bolt/charging handle:
Advantage - M16 bolt release is easy to reach, and even the charging handle can be operated without moving your rifle off target. AK variants bolt is on the wrong side requiring reaching over the rifle or moving your trigger hand off.

BUUUUUUUUUUT........
That could be moot if you don't take care of your M16 and it gets dirty.
I would have to say that the AK is a great weapon to give to untrained people as even though the operation is more awkward, it's probably not going to slow them down since they can't do it fast either way. Also, if they can't perform takedown and maintanence, the AK's resistance to dirt and stuff will mean dirt will only impact performance, not outright function.

I may be off base here. But I think I am not.

Actually being in the military and having used both (real ones too, not commercial copies), I'm very glad to be going to war with a C7. It's easier to use, far more accurate, lighter (weight is only minor to people who've never actually done a ruck march), and actually sized for someone who grew up with proper nutrition. Yeah, it's a bitch to clean, but if you do your part it is a reliable weapon.

The AK is very good at doing exactly was it was intended to - clear a trench in the hands of a soldier who dismounted from his BTR less than 200 meters away. It's a great short range bullet hose, but in the hands of a trained soldier the M16 series is far better.

Weight is a problem. In the US Army a typical load is around 80 lbs. It can be over 110 lbs depending on the weapons and gears.

You can carry twice as much 5.56 ammo for the same amount of weight of 7.62 x 51 NATO. Standard 5.56 magazine is 30 rounds. Standard 7.62 x 51 NATO magazine is 20 rounds. 210 5.56 vs 100 7.62 rounds. That's the trade off.

Someone posted that AK are "disposable weapons for disposable troops." Which is more or less correct.

Don't get me wrong the AK is the best rifle in its class. I own two in my collection but when it comes down to it I'll go with my six AR.

The problem with the AK vs M16 debate is that most people are too hardheaded to have their opinion changed through discussion.

I admit to liking the AR15/M16 family over the AK, but I've also come to accept that both systems have their high points and their low points.

In a perfect world, we'd have that do-all,end-all weapon that's the size of a 1911 and can blow a MiG out of the air at 30,000 feet, but unfortunately we don't live in that world and no weapon can do everything.

(Well, some would argue in a perfect world we'd have no need for weapons of any kind, but I'm sure you understand my point.)

Why is it always an AK47/M16 debate. Both are outdated rifles. Sorry m16 fans, the platform has seen its days. And AK fans, why is it all the 2-bit nations have these while everyone else is pgrading, even russians se AK-74s and are trying to manufactre enough AN-94s to replace them.

Also, there are other rifles. Why not get into a Sig 550 series vs. Galil debate?

The AN-94 is a crappy design. I would be surprise the Russian would adopt it.

Apparently Spetznaz are using it, But then Ive heard so much BS abot them its not even funny anymore. I always thought the AK platform sucked as a rifle, it fit russian tactical doctrine during the cold war, but now its outdated.

Which Spetsnaz are using it because I can tell there no such thing as Spetsnaz. Spetsnaz translated in English means "Special Force". Which Russian SF (Alfa, Vympel, etc) unit are using the AN-94 because like the USA the Russian has many different type of SF.

The AN-94 is a crappy design because it's complicated. How many combat rifles do you know of that use pulleys. That's right the rifle use string pulleys to function. It is not durable enough for the battlefield.

The selling point is two bullets will hit the same spot to defeat hard body armor. I can tell you that's BS. The second bullet might he close to the same spot because when the first bullet hit the body it will react to the bullet. It would be impossible if the target is in motion. It will not defeat hard body armor. It's plain marketing.

How do you figure the M16 has "seen its days"? They are simply improving on them in better ways and reissuing them (hence the M16A2/A3 becomes the A4). It's not like the SCAR or XM8 are going to replace it.

Uh, because they are dirt fucking poor and the AK is the cheapest and easiest weapon to issue to people who have no military training. Russia is not as cheap, and thus improved up the AK-47 as the AK-74, just as we have been upgrading our M16 rifles.

I dont trust a rifle that craps where it eats, sorry AR fans. I also don't like the 556 but i know theres the AR-10 for that need. Id take an m14 any day thogh, beautiful sight picture and Rock-Solid Reliability. Nothing better. Only if the Military had adopted the 276, id love to see a m14 in that:D

The M14 is a fine rifle, but it is basically a select fire M1 Garand with a detachable magazine in .308. It is heavy, and uncontrollable in full auto. Have you ever shot an M14 on full auto? In three rounds you are above your target.

Now, by saying you prefer an M14 over an M16, you're basically saying you'd rather use a Krag-Jorgenson than a Springfield 1903. One phased out the other because it was superiorly built for combat use.

.223 ammo is lighter, the mags carry more, and it is far more controllable on auto. The A2/A4 fire in burst mode, which abolishes "spray and pray" and the gun is practically recoiless on semi. It is very accurate at normal combat ranges. It may get dirty, but what gun doesn't? Take some time out of your day when people aren't shooting at you and clean the damn thing.

I'm just trying to defend the ARs, because I'm a fan.

Im not a full auto type of guy, even with an m4 id be in single shot almost the whole time. I dont care if its heavy, I marched around with a garand in basic no problem. 556 may do good against most targets, but it doesn't deliver much energy at longer ranges, is poor at punching through cover,while a 308 would pierce that wall the enemie's behind with stopping power to spare, 556 is not not the greatest on body armor, vehicles, etc, and poor against drugged up enemies like we were seeing in somalia. And with an m1a, i could put a 4 round mag in and have an nice deer rifle:D

Actually, I think I'd prefer single shot too. Wierd how I would defend that :confused:.

A .308 does have more penetration, but who shoots through walls all that often anyway? A .223 can pierce soft body armor and the likes pretty easily, as can a .308. A .223 shatters and tumbles when it hits human tissue, so kinetic energy is maintained. It may be a .22 bullet moving at the speed of sound, but it has some punch to it.

Maybe you don't mind weight, but after a while my Garand gets a little too weighty more my taste.

I'm a recoil person. I prefer weapons with less recoil, and .223 fits that bill WAY better for me. The bigger it gets, the more chance I have of pulling a shot. A .308 is like a short .30-06, which can kick pretty decent. Heavy guns like Garands make this recoil less painful, but 4 pound Remington 700s are a different story.

It is clear that you prefer M14s, and I prefer both (but I'm sticking up for the ARs!), so no point in debating much further with this...

Well, gunmaster, ever try limbsaver? Mine is a slip on for my remington but tried it on my freinds winchester 94s and it makes them a peasant plinker you could shoot all day, and a couple hundred rounds in some trap is no prob on the 12 ga. Im sure it would look slightly out of place on a garand though lol.

As for the m16 vs AK debate, Im a 3rd party. If I could only pick between those too, M16. At least it shoulders well for me and has good sights.
Never could like the AK.

Strangley shotguns don't have the same recoil to me. Probably because I shoot shotguns offhand and fire rifles from a bechrest. My dad has has tons of recoil reducers and devices, but when testing customer's guns for accuracy, I can't customize them for my own needs.

One interesting recoil reducer is the Mercury suppressor, a small 1 lb bar that is inserted into the stock to add a pound to the rear of the gun and shift the recoil more to the shooters favor. Did wonders for my single shot duck gun (H&R 101-40B or something like that) in 3" shells.

Guys good to be part of your forum now been great fun reading. Gotta be the 5.56

Probably because the SIG 550 and Galil haven't been pitched up against each other in conflict after conflict over the last 40 years or so.

Isn't the argument for 5.56 that it is controllable in automatic fire? That being the entire point of military doctrine these days, I would have to say that the M14 hasn't been an effective weapon in a squad role since World War I.

Also: welcome steve(numberstring). Happy reading.

Here's a fun weapon for you: the American 180. The huge submachine gun in .22rimfire. That was kind of the earliest version of the AN-94 in a way. The idea being it would put two or more rounds in the same place.

I don't know much about how soldiers are trained in full auto fire, unlike the movies, real soldiers don't often use full auto when shooting unless it's for suppression

There are two current rifles in the world that have been truly tested and combat proven in all extreme environments. Guess which two? AK and AR.

Anyone wants to get shot with 5.56? I don't think so. You can ask all the dead insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan on how effective the 5.56.

The M14 was bought back into the military because in the first Gulf War there was a need for a 7.62 caliber that can reach further then the 5.56 for Designated Marksman. The only thing that the USA military had at that time was the M14 in large quantity. So military got the M14 out of storage. The M110 (SR25/AR10) has replaced the M14 in that roll. In fact it replaced the standard bolt action sniper rifle. The M14 is being put back into storage.

I beleive the AR platform is being used since soldiers are familiar with it, less new training required. I would love to see .308 caliber battle rifles back. One vet I know told me "don't bring an m16 to a gunfight" He'd seen drugged up insurgents take a burst of 556 and one took 9 9mm rounds from an mp5. The m240 guarding their position never failed to stop a threat:D

Who cares?

I got racks of both so I can fire nearly any variant I want at anytime ;)

Ergonomics, accuracy, weight and recoil go to the M16 and it's variants...

Resilience, ruggedness, reliability go to the AK and it's variants.

And since I venture that the VAST MAJORITY of the members here have not fired these full auto at length I will point out the following:

What sucks: The M16 sucks when trying to clear a 'stuck' casing in the chamber. I've had to pull a gun completely and issue another one just because of that. In a filthy environment, the M16s are a real liability. I've had them malfunction in sandy environments and muddy raining environments. Mostly due to failure to load or extract.

The AK is way better when clearing the gun under fire.

When a shell gets stuck in an AK you just put the rifle's buttplate on the ground and kick the charging handle down with your boot (all battlefield expediencies). If the brass body stays in the chamber then you have to ditch the rifle, but it is easier to clear a jam than an M16. I've had to do this 'boot' clearing with the charging handles of M1 Garands in dirty battlefields as well. (make sure the barrel is pointing away from your face ;) ) and in the case of magazine fed weapons, dump the mag first.

The M16 is safer when firing questionable ammo. If the charge is too hot then the slender aluminum magazine blows out the bottom of the rifle (of course the soldier should STOP firing immediately and return the rifle to the armorer). For the record I've never seen this anywhere when using ammo that *I* issue.

When firing prolonged bursts, the AKs get super hot (all guns do, but the AKs burn my hands). the M16s were designed for better thought towards heat shields and protection of the shooter. Also the Chinese TYpe 56 AKs have that stupid metal pin that traverses laterally through the lower wooden forearm, which ensures that you burn your hand when dumping a 30 round magazine. If you don't fancy the thought of carrying a scorching hot piece of metal around after firing, then the M16 is safer for the shooter.

Recoil: The AK is a shoulder killer. The M16 has that buffer spring to absorb a lot of the recoil - "Bang! ....Sproinggggggg!" Also with recoil buffers the guns are much nicer to shoot, but then these silicon/polymer recoil buffers are a recent innovation and were not available to soldiers for decades.

Both are excellent guns but both have their strengths and drawbacks.

Actually when winning the fire fight, we shoot semi, about 30-40 rounds a minute. Full auto is for room clearing or taking a trench.

God, whoever said that is stupid. Go to AR15 and post that crap. They going to eat you alive.

Game kiddies should not be posting on gun boards.

When I was a kid I would hear bullshit like that all the time, usually at GUN SHOWS hahahaha.

But lots of them aren't just OLD Walter Mittys . I remember REAL veterans who bought into the urban myths on the battlefield. My own father was a decorated WW2 vet. He was a B.A.R. gunner, but he bought into the myth that the M3A1 grease gun had no rifling, had a smooth bore barrel and that's why it was called the "Grease gun" (he was never issued the M3A1, so he only heard this "urban legend" through other G.I.s. He did train on the Thompson). Anyway, it seems ironic that I am arguing with my father, who was a decorated World War 2 veteran (since passed away) about the M3A1 grease gun. It almost seemed disrespectful, if it were not for the fact that I was right and he was wrong.

Eh, I've seen Vietnam vets post on other message boards who hate the M16 series and constantly complain that our troops today are still using it. And when anyone argues with them, they do the same thing - they say "I'm a vet and you ain't, so shaddup! I know what I'm talking about! (*Insert insult about opponent's age here*)"

It seems understandable that they have the attitude, given the early issues. But what bothers me is that they don't seem to understand that the M16s we use today are, at least, rather different than the ones they used in 'Nam. I don't have much experience with ARs (barely any, in fact), but I still feel that their failure to understand the difference between an XM16E1 and, say, an M4A1 makes them hard to take seriously.

I've seen a lot of that in docs. The M16/M4 system today isn't a bad weapon, it just needs some improvements

I actually haven't heard any of the Iraq vets I know complain about reliability, they were pretty OCD on their maintenance. The complaint is caliber. The person I work with was army before USCG, he saw 5.56 ricochet off windshields and house walls when the 7.62 would pierce it. And as to AR15.com, that site is full of mall ninjas, sorry Ive looked there when doing research before and it seems like they only care abpout how tacticool they can make their m4geries and if you try to say anything is better they flip out.

Well certain windows and house walls, but in Iraq, those walls are made of stone. If you fire a 5.56 into a wall of the average western style house, it goes right through the dry wall. a 5.56 should penetrate most windshields of cars, 9mm can penetrate the average car windshield.

I will just interject two things.
One: The Box o' Truth.
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/thebuickotruth.htm
Check out the Buick o' Truth(that page smarted, cause my family used to own a Buick)

Second:
I think the phrase m4geries is the greatest thing.

Unlike your game kiddie wannabe friend the people on AR15 actually own and shoot firearms. Many saw combat and some are teachers. I seriously doubt your friend has any military experience or firearm training.

Anyone that said the 5.56 ricochet off windshields has no creditability. The 5.56 have no problem penetrating unarmored car windshields. It's not my opinion it is a fact.

It is also a fact that no small arms calibers has 100% stopping power. In other words you don't fire one shot and wait to see if your opponent goes down or not. You double tap your opponent. Double tap him again if he doesn't go down. Double tap him if he is moving. This happen in a matter of a single second.

If the 5.56 was so bad then why did the Soviet made their own version?

Current there are over 4000 US military personnel that were killed in Iraq. Keep in mind that I'm not trivializing their sacrifices. I just want to make a point. There is about 4000 Americans killed a month in car accident. There is about 4000 Americans that drown each year. There is about 4000 Americans that die from the flue each months. In over 8 years if the 5.56 was that bad as you said it is then you would expect far more Americans to die in Iraq right? I mean they went house to house killing those SOB. The Blackwater guys didn't have a problem killing with 5.56 at range well over 200 yards.

There is always a trade off between large and small calibers. I'll list some of them.

1. Control. You get better control with the 5.56 then 7.62. Five paper targets at 25 yards. You have to double tap them each. Which calibers do you think will do it faster and more accurate? The 5.56.

2. Weight. You can carry twice as much 5.56 ammo then 7.62. 100 rounds of 7.62 vs 210 rounds of 5.56. Which would you prefer? In intensive combat you can go through hundreds of rounds in minutes. In place like Afghanistan you don't have a magic wand to conjure extra ammo. What you carry is what you got. Resupplies can takes a long time to arrive.

3. Magazine size. The 5.56 hold more per magazine then the 7.62.

4. Pain level. You can shoot 5.56 continuously without effecting your performance. That isn't the case with 7.62 where there is a point the pain will effect your accuracy.

5. Larger calibers mean bigger guns that translate to more weight you have to carry.

I don't consider people in their 40s who have fought in Iraq gamer wannabe kids. And I personally wold like to see intermediate calibers but if its 308 vs 556, ill go 308. And not everyone likes the 556, what works for some doesn't work at all. And there are people who become so atatched to a platform they say everything else is crap. Ar15.com is one such place, you try to say anythings better than m4geries and they flip on you. Im even guilty of some bias, Like me thinking the Remington and Benelli pmp actions trump mossberg/NEF/etc.

You friend is a game kiddie. He has no idea what he is talking about. If he was actually in the military he would have known that the 5.56 will penetrate unarmored car windshield without any difficulty. I have never meet a real combat vet that said differently. It's common knowledge.