Ak-47 vs. M-16

To answer the original question, I'd take the M16. Only for the reason that I've been trained with it.

the M-16 action has been vastly improved over the versions that jammed and clogged in vietnam...it is HIGHLY reliable...do you really think the worlds only superpower would field inferior weapons fo so many years?
the AK is reliable tough and sloppy it fires the 7.62 x39 (a fairly short .30 cal round) it is roughly equivalent in power to the 5.56x45 NATO (.223)
the major difference is the weight of the submunition (projectile) the 7.62 being heavier will retain slightly more energy.

There is however a rifle built by Armalite that looks and functions exactly
like the M-16/AR-15 with one exception, it fires the 7.62x51 NATO (.308)
it is used by some SF units. its very powerful and very accurate (I can hit a soda can @ 300m with mine)...
I know my response is slightly off topic but as a veteran and a lifelong shooter If I could choose ONE rifle...it would be neither the AK nor the 16..
but the AR-10 which could be considered a marriage of the two (.30 cal+m-16 action) but with more power.

I'll try to post a photo if anyone wants.
www.armalite.com...
heres a link to the catalog photo its easier and faster than uploading...My rifle is this model AR-10A4C(B) (black furniture)

[Edited on 28-5-2004 by cyberpilot]

Id like to see a pic of the ar-10


Furthermore it's a toss up and depends on what kind of action im facing. For close quarters its the AK hands down. The stopping power of an ak is unreal. However if I'm going to be in large open spaces with decent cover then it would be the m-16 given the range. Plenty of close sniping with an accurate gun.

I'm only up to page 6 but I feel the need to point out a few things:

1. I believe the OICW program is on hold/cancelled.
2. The XM-8 is currently undergoing extensive testing in army proving grounds. It is slated to start being put in soldiers hands by at least 2006/2008.
3. The XM-8 will be manufactured by Heckler&Koch and is heavily based off the HK-g36.
4. The reason why HK will be manufacturing it is because they have a nice new plant in the US now.. I believe in Georgia.
5. The reason why the M-16/M-4 variants are so prone to jamming is because the blowback mechanism basically throws the dirt from firing back into the chamber more than other rifles
6. The main reason for AK-47's success is its reproducability. The Russian government specifically designed it to be easily made and designs shipped off to Bloc countries.
7. Soldiers who have fired the XM-8 are extremely happy with it. It is nearly a total improvement over the M-16/M-4 system.
8. The XM-8 is very modular and its construction allows for interchangable barrels including 9" compact, 12.5" assault, 20" sharpshooter and 20" sustaind ROF barrels, and I believe the ability for a larger chambered round. You can get a grenade launcher or shotgun attachment for it as well.
9. it weighs about 2 pounds less than an M4.

www.military.com...

Have fun. The XM-8 is the gun of the future.

[Edited on 28-5-2004 by elmariachi]

Very interesting article on the X, The info on it sounds good but I'm not too sure about the way that gun looks. I've played Laser Tag with meaner looking rifles...

Originally posted by elmariachi

6. The main reason for AK-47's success is its reproducability. The Russian government specifically designed it to be easily made and designs shipped off to Bloc countries.
7. Soldiers who have fired the XM-8 are extremely happy with it. It is nearly a total improvement over the M-16/M-4 system.
[Edited on 28-5-2004 by elmariachi]

I would put the AK's reliability and durability as it's main reasons for success. More so than it's manufacturing success. Even Eugene Stoner said he thought the AK was more reliable than the M16.

That being said, both weapons are excellent and fun to shoot.

why isnt there more discussion on the colt ar-15. possibly the best .223 buil to date?

excuse me if i'm wrong but isn't the ar-15 esentially the civilian equivalent to the m4/m16?

also: the ak's durability is great, but you can stamp them out one after the other like its nothing, so even if they broke you could replace it easily.

I have been reading and though and the point of all this is that having used both weapons and owning both a SAR3, Romanian AK, and an M4A1 I have found both to be good rifles.
I admit that the M16 did have problems in Vietnam due to the type of cheap ammo that the US military used at the time and I as well hated my "well used" issue M16A2 when I was in basic. I have though found that I like my M4A1s performance in "combat" situations, and the ability to mount a wider range of optics on it than I can my AK without serious adjustments, as well I prefer the peep sights of the M4 and the mag drop botton of the M4 over those of the AK. I am as well not impressed with the SS-109 "green tip" ammo either.
The AK though I am more used to since my first weapon at 17, 29 now, was a Russian made SKS rifle followed by a Chinese MAC-90 to my current AK that I got since it was chambered in 5.56 NATO. I have yet to have a problem with one of these weapons with the exception of a box of Czech ammo I used that the powder load was to low and caused "stove-piping" when fired. I though don't like the notch and post sights of the AK nor do I like the type of mag catch that the AK has. I find that in "combat" situation this can add seconds more to mag change time which though they are seconds can mean a difference. As well I am not liking the sight adjustment of the AK since if you dont have the C-clamp for it your screwed and if you do you have to guess as work trial and error to get it zeroed or sighted where the M16/M4 is a flip of a few nobs.
Personally though as I said having used both I see not much of any real difference in performance yet though I just got my M4A1 and time may tell on where my opinion goes though the conditions here in Missouri are not as demanding as say those of Iraq to affect the performance of the M4 and so far my brother, who served in the 101st AAD, used the M4 stated that it performed well in those conditions.
The fact remains though that with any weapon, be it an M16/M4 or an AK series and how it performs, the ability to use it depends on the man pulling the trigger. As I said though I had trouble with my "well used" M16A2 in the military I still knew my "SPORTS" and was able to quickly remove the jam or mis feeds from the weapon and continue firing. Though I only had this problem in rapid fire or burst fire situations.

Originally posted by chasovoy
The fact remains though that with any weapon, be it an M16/M4 or an AK series and how it performs, the ability to use it depends on the man pulling the trigger.

Well put.

A weapon is as only as good as the soldier firing it.

You can put a bad driver in a Ferrari, but he is still going to be a bad driver in a great car......

~Face

I think the SA80 is better then both

Calibre 5.56 mm
Weight 4.98 kg (with loaded magazine and optical sight)
Length 785 mm
Barrel Length 518 mm
Muzzle Velocity 940 m/s
Feed 30 round magazine
Effective Range 400 m
Cyclic Rate of Fire 610-775 rounds per minute

Originally posted by Robinson
I think the SA80 is better then both

Calibre 5.56 mm
Weight 4.98 kg (with loaded magazine and optical sight)
Length 785 mm
Barrel Length 518 mm
Muzzle Velocity 940 m/s
Feed 30 round magazine
Effective Range 400 m
Cyclic Rate of Fire 610-775 rounds per minute

The gun pretty much falls apart when you shoot it.

i disagree on that kozzy, but i guess thats your opinion

I've used the M-16 for more than 10 years of full-time and reserve service in Singapore's infantry so I'm very comfortable with it. I do find the rapid fouling a serious problem. After 3 magazines you will find carbon deposits building up.

Especially if you are using a worn service rifle, sometimes upwards of 100 rounds your M-16 may begin to experience feeding problems.

But I have to say it is accurate as hell. I can drop man-sized targets at 300m with iron sights no problem.

But in excercises, we seldom engage the enemy at 300m unless they are attempting a beach landing across open waters. Mostly it is 100 to 200m max. So if this is the range we fight, is the M-16's accuracy at 300m or beyond gonna be a big advantage?

Obviously not.

Still, accuracy is something that is best to have than not. But it's not gonna make the difference between who wins the day. There are too many other factors.

We are in the process of replacing our M-16 with SAR-21 bullpups.

[edit on 7-6-2004 by tvdog]

Here in Israel our army used both the m16/m4 and AK47.
I heard from people I know that the M16/M4 is much better than Ak47 because of the accuracy, and it's not like it jamms every 5 seconds or something.

Today most of our army uses the M16 and M4 and their variants (partly because of our relations with US), but there are some units that still sometimes use AKs (Like Shayetet 13) because of the conditions they operate in.

In the near future all the M16s and M4s here are going to be replaces with our brand new Tavor rifles, and some SF units are already using TARs.

One of the biggest AK manufacturer/user in the world was China.

But the PLA soon found the Chinese-made AK-47 inaccurate. So they developed a "improved" SKS-type weapon the Type-63, in 7.62x39mm, which proved to be a disaster and withdrawn.



Next, they developed a "improved" AK-47 and called it the Type-81, in 7.62x39mm. This allegedly solved the accuracy problem and is also very reliable.



Still not satisfied, and seeing how the US and Russia has gone "small" with 5.56mm and 5.45mm calibres, the Chinese decided to develop their own calibre, the 5.8mm. And from there, they made the first 5.8mm rifle, the Type-87. Looks like another AK copy but in 5.8mm. This bullet is supposed to be a lot more accurate than the old soviet 7.62 but has more punch than the 5.56mm or the 5.45mm. But slightly less accurate than either, according to another source.



After that, they developed the 5.8mm Type-95 bullpup.



So, in conclusion, the Chinese have found the AK-47 to be dinosaur since the end of the Vietnam War. By the time they fought their own war with Vietnam in 1979, they were already using the Type-81. So from the Chinese POV, the AK-47 is not good enough.

Whereas the US, for one reason or another, is still using the M-16 as we speak. So if this is purely a comparison between the M-16 and the AK-47, I'd say the M-16 wins - all things considered. What I wouldn't like about the AK-47 - though I haven't fired one - would be its weight and the weight of its ammo. The 7.62x39mm round is actually just a bigger bullet doing more or less the same job as the 5.56mm. (Knock down power? That depends on who you shoot at and where they get hit. Some people die from .22 shootings.)

I think the issue with the US not updating its arms in this respect is that the US army wants nearly 100% improvement in every category in order to undergo the expense of switching out every weapon they have.

And you think that 100% improvment is worth being stuck for 40 years with the same weapon?

[edit on 7-6-2004 by Transc3ndent]

Originally posted by Transc3ndent
And you think that 100% improvment is worth being stuck for 40 years with the same weapon?

[edit on 7-6-2004 by Transc3ndent]

Is there a problem with that? The M16A2 is now a good weapon.

I've heard this "wait for 100% improvement before we replace the M-16" theory many times.

I think the reason why the US army did not replace the M-16 earlier was because they wasted time and money pursuing the ACR concept.

When that folded neatly in their faces, they went on another dubious project with the OICW. And then while researching the OICW they try to justify this dubious project by saying that they will develop the 5.56 part of the OICW into a proper weapon on its own as a replacement for the M-16.

This project, the XM-8, turns out to be nothing more than a HK G36. The American taxpayers are once again fooled, and the troops will be getting a expensively reinvented G36. This technology is about 20 years old.

What 100% improvement do you see here?

The XM-8 is anything but revolutionary - don't let the curvy shape fool you.

The XM-8 is pretty old-tech when you put it alongside the AUG, Tavor, FN F2000, SAR-21, to name a few.

So, the XM-8 is nothing more than a by-the-way project, a by-product to justify continued spending on the OICW, and is nothing more than a repackaged G36.

This is what the US army is getting 30 years later. I'm not saying the XM-8 is not going to be a fine weapon, it's just not something that needed 30 years. This should've happened LONG before they gone and look at ACR and OICW concepts.