It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


ak vs. m16/m4

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 11:39 AM
This was a constant topic of discussion between soldiers and I.C.D.C. (iraqi civil defence corp) in iraq, usualy the conversation was nothing more than points and thumbs up or down, and pinching fingers to demonstrate the size of the rounds.

you may be surprised, but americans usualy favored the ak, while the iraqis wanted an m4. I personaly would take the ak, at least in iraq where the enemy is not wearing body armor. the m4 may have relativly better accuracy and range, but the steel-core penetrater rounds that are standard would not fragment inside a body for 13 cm., while the 7.62x39 would begin to tumble in 3 to 4 cm. not to mention the legendary durrability of the ak family of weapons. we captured some that had what looked like 40 year old cosmo still in the actions, and the damn things fired flawlessly.

posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 02:42 PM
this is the 5263 thread on this topic but i would choose the M-16 or M-4 i would take something new not a weapon that has been in use 40 years.

[edit on 28-6-2004 by WestPoint23]

posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 04:05 PM

Originally posted by WestPoint23
this is the 5263 thread on this topic but i would choose the M-16 or M-4 i would take something new not a weapon that has been in use 40 years.

[edit on 28-6-2004 by WestPoint23]

You'd take the new rifle over the battle tested one? to me, that makes no sense.

Personally, I perfer 7.62 over 5.56, simply for the extra power and range. However, both weapons have benifits and drawbacks. See the previous thread.

posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 04:48 PM
In short term ops I'd take the M16/M4 because of accuracy. But for a long term deployment such as Iraq i'd take the reliabilty of the AK. Westpoint new weapons are like new cars. Don't use them when they first come out cause the bugs still need to be worked out.

posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 02:26 AM
The M-16 is very sensitive to dirt. You can feel sand in the action for quite a while, even after a great deal of cleaning, and it will jam frequently if you don't do a very thorough job of cleaning it once it has been exposed to dirt or mud. If you let your M-16 touch the ground in bad conditions, it will not forgive you. Be careful when low-crawling.

posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 02:56 AM
This may have already been covered...

I am a veteran, and served prior to the first Gulf War. When I was on active duty I was able to shoot the M-4 and the AKM.

I would definately choose the M-4 for accuracy, hands down. It doesn't have the range as it's bigger brother but a little Kentucy windage fixed that issue...

For raw firepower, hate to say it but the AK/AKM wins. It is not very accurate, but you can hit what you are aiming at. The thing actually seemed to shoot better after being drug through the sandy soil of Fort Bragg's many ranges. Try doing that with the M series and you would be cleaning sand out of the bolt, gas tube, extractor, etc...

It honestly comes down to personal preference.

I own both a civilian version of the AK (Mak-90) for and an AR-15.

posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 11:18 AM
I wouldnt really call it personal prefference, they both have their time and place.

The M4 has better armor piercing qualitys, you can cary more ammo (the round is lighter and smaller of course), and it is much more accurate.

The AK will always spit out a round as soon as you pull the trigger, the round is deadlier on skinny people and people not wearing body armor, cheaper to shoot, and replacement parts are more readily available in third world countrys

posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 10:38 PM
The m-4 s work well if the proper product is used . The CLP crap we've been using is Crap! Militech-One is the new kid on the block and totally changes the reliability issues of our M-16/M-4.. 7.62 x 39 is available in AP (steel core) but doesn't penetrate quite like M855. However the AK is rock solid reiable no matter how you care for it. (paint thinner and axle grease)

[edit on 30-6-2004 by bign]

posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 08:05 AM
I fired both. The M16...garbage! Fort Drum. Full auto,it just climbs in your hands it is so fast firing.
The AK...never had a problem with it.

posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 03:06 PM
lol, I haven't been here in a longtime and you boys are still arguing about this topic that's been raped about 5,000 times already? Sadistic freaks! I found an interesting read in this -- (maybe be old, but 'o well...spank me)

~BAQOUBA, Iraq - An American soldier stands at the side of an Iraqi highway, puts his AK-47 on fully automatic and pulls the trigger.

Within seconds the assault rifle has blasted out 30 rounds. Puffs of dust dance in the air as the bullets smack into the scrubland dirt. Test fire complete.

U.S. troops in Iraq (news - web sites) may not have found weapons of mass destruction, but they're certainly getting their hands on the country's stock of Kalashnikovs and, they say, they need them.

The soldiers based around Baqouba are from an armor battalion, which means they have tanks, Humvees and armored personnel carriers. But they are short on rifles.

A four-man tank crew is issued two M4 assault rifles and four 9mm pistols, relying mostly on the tank's firepower for protection.

But now they are engaged in guerrilla warfare, patrolling narrow roads and goat trails where tanks are less effective. Troops often find themselves dismounting to patrol in smaller vehicles, making rifles essential.

"We just do not have enough rifles to equip all of our soldiers. So in certain circumstances we allow soldiers to have an AK-47. They have to demonstrate some proficiency with the weapon ... demonstrate an ability to use it," said Lt. Col. Mark Young, commander of the 3rd Battalion, 67th Armor Regiment, 4th Infantry Division.

"Normally an armor battalion is fighting from its tanks. Well, we are not fighting from our tanks right now," Young said. "We are certainly capable of performing the missions that we have been assigned, there's no issue with that, but we do find ourselves somewhat challenged."

In Humvees, on tanks but never openly on base U.S. soldiers are carrying the Cold War-era weapon, first developed in the Soviet Union but now mass produced around the world.

The AK is favored by many of the world's fighters, from child soldiers in Africa to rebel movements around the world, because it is light, durable and known to jam less frequently.

Now U.S. troops who have picked up AKs on raids or confiscated them at checkpoints are putting the rifles to use and they like what they see.

Some complain that standard U.S. military M16 and M4 rifles jam too easily in Iraq's dusty environment. Many say the AK has better "knockdown" power and can kill with fewer shots.

"The kind of war we are in now ... you want to be able to stop the enemy quick," said Sgt. 1st Class Tracy S. McCarson of Newport News, Va., an army scout, who carries an AK in his Humvee.

Some troops say the AK is easier to maintain and a better close-quarters weapon. Also, it has "some psychological affect on the enemy when you fire back on them with their own weapons," McCarson said.

Most U.S. soldiers agree the M16 and the M4 a newer, shorter version of the M16 that has been used by American troops since the 1960s is better for long distance, precision shooting.

But around Baqouba, troops are finding themselves attacked by assailants hidden deep in date palm groves. Or they are raiding houses, taking on enemies at close-quarters.

Two weeks ago, Sgt. Sam Bailey of Cedar Falls, Iowa, was in a Humvee when a patrol came under rocket-propelled grenade and heavy machine gun fire. It was dark, the road narrow. On one side, there was a mud wall and palms trees, on the other a canal surrounded by tall grass.

Bailey, who couldn't see who was firing, had an AK-47 on his lap and his M4 up front. The choice was simple.

"I put the AK on auto and started spraying," Bailey said.

Some soldiers also say it's easier to get ammo for the AK they can pick it up on any raid or from any confiscated weapon.

"It's plentiful," said Sgt. Eric Harmon, a tanker who has a full 75-round drum, five 30-round magazines, plus 200-300 rounds in boxes for his AK. He has about 120 rounds for his M16.

Young doesn't carry an AK but has fired one. He's considered banning his troops from carrying AKs, but hasn't yet because "if I take the AK away from some of the soldiers, then they will not have a rifle to carry with them."

Staff Sgt. Michael Perez, a tanker, said he would take anything over his standard issue 9mm pistol when he's out of his tank.

And the AK's durability has impressed him.

"They say you can probably drop this in the water and leave it overnight, pull it out in the morning, put in a magazine and it will work," Perez said.~

Whoo! And I wish ppl would keep talkin about the 47 -- At least keep the comparisons contemporary, okie dokie? The AK-74M (and 100 series, 107/8) is great, it's prolly as accurate as any M16A2.

posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 03:38 PM
Everyone needs to stop thinking the 7.62x39mm has a longer range or more stopping power then the 5.56mm. The M16 outranges the AK-47 by almost 200 meters and the 7.62x39mm doesn't tumble at all.

posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 03:42 PM
AK-74M = 5.45 x 39
AK-101 = 5.56 x 45

and so on. the AK-103 is at 7.62, though...but I'm sure it's better than the 'ol 47

posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 03:59 PM
I shot steel core 7.62X39 that penetrated through a telephone pole. The 5.56 did not come close to penetrating the telephone pole. I shot the 5.56 through about half an inch of steel but the 7.62x39 would not penetrate the steel. I shot a deer with the 5.56 and it ran a half mile and shot a deer in the same spot and it went about 20 yards. So for me is if I am shooting at people with vests I want the 5.56 but if they do not have vests I want the ak. I love the sound of the ak and it just feels good.

posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 04:10 PM

Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
I shot steel core 7.62X39 that penetrated through a telephone pole. The 5.56 did not come close to penetrating the telephone pole. I shot the 5.56 through about half an inch of steel but the 7.62x39 would not penetrate the steel. I shot a deer with the 5.56 and it ran a half mile and shot a deer in the same spot and it went about 20 yards. So for me is if I am shooting at people with vests I want the 5.56 but if they do not have vests I want the ak. I love the sound of the ak and it just feels good.

Penetration of hard targets and stopping power of different things. The 7.62x39 does much better then the 5.56 in material penetration.

posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 04:19 PM
I have fired both the mentioned weapons during my military career and although the AK is an excellent weapon its not serious enough its a more cock it and spray rounds everywhere where as the M16 is more precision related. Also the AK has some very antique furniture (wood) which is no good in the battle field believe me i speak from experience. The M16 is more robust and soldier friendly easy to strip and clean and easy to put right back in the event of an emergency its an all round good weapon.

posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 01:50 PM
Some AK's have folding steel stocks.Very popular.The M16 does not have this feature.
The AK has open sights,superiour to the aperature sights on the M16.Maybe not as accurate.Try to fire accurate on the move or under stress.The original M16 was made with crude sights.That means a thick front post under the assumption that it is an "area fire" weapon. Therefore a large capacity magazine and a lot of ammo. No different than the AK.
You want a precision rifle,build a precision rifle! I think the reason you do not have one is that your authorities are still haunted by that ex army dude in the tower on a killing spree.
User friendly? The AK strips intp 4 parts.The M16 two,that is because it lacks a piston,one reason for its unreliability.No one else adopted this system.Special Forces prefer the daewoo.

posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 03:35 PM
The sights on the AK series are way to far forward.

posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 03:56 PM
Well i speak from plenty of experience and the Ak is a load of crap. its a typical spray them everywhere weapon. Im not saying the M16 is excellent just better than the Ak.

posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 04:30 PM
I have seen many a test where people on the TV or whatever test the AK-47 vs the M-16.

They both beat each other in some fields but overall the AK-47 wins, one of the tests they did included things from the Vietnam war, in jungle warfare firefights soldiers hid behind tree's, the M-16's 5.56mm would not go through the tree's, however the AK-47's 7.62mm would go through the tree's and through the soldiers on the otherside of the tree's.

Another Test was Reliability (again using the Vietnam cases) if a soldier using an M-16's gun jammed he had to field strip it, take out the clogage, reload the M-16 and pray to god it would fire. If the AK-47 jammed all the user had to do was rack the AK-47 and it would be ready to fire again.

Another field was Accuracy - The M-16 could hit a target at 500 yards 4 times out of 5 and they would be near the middle, the AK-47 hit 3 times out of 5 and were outer shots.

The AK-47's range is 1.5km for whoever said it has a crap range, just the trouble is hitting somthing.

The Problem with the full auto is easily solved by short bursts.

Overall the AK-47 wins, and I would rather carry one that an M-16, another thing is I would rather carry a Colt 1911 than a Berretta M-9.... but I wont confuse that with this topic, however there is a different thread for that one -

posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 04:59 PM
We think alike. Friends?

The most accurate weapon in the world is useless if it is not reliable!! Like in the War of 1812.Fill the air with lead! Accuracy is not the issue.

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in