NationStates Jolt Archive

I've found a good video explaining the differences between M16 and AK47. A nice test. To summarise it, it shows that the M16 is more accurate but less powerful, while the AK47 packs a tremendous punch (it cuts through concrete blocks and solid pinewood!).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6BpI3xD6h0

I've found a good video explaining the differences between M16 and AK47. A nice test. To summarise it, it shows that the M16 is more accurate but less powerful, while the AK47 packs a tremendous punch (it cuts through concrete blocks and solid pinewood!).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6BpI3xD6h0

Having owned semi-automatic versions of both weapons I can agree with you on this completely. I'd also point out that the AK-47 is more reliable and can withstand a lot more abuse and still remain completely functional.

On the other hand, the M-16 is much lighter and easier to carry/aim.

Both weapons can be easily modified for a wide variety of uses, but I think the M-16 has the edge on versatility.

I've found a good video explaining the differences between M16 and AK47. A nice test. To summarise it, it shows that the M16 is more accurate but less powerful, while the AK47 packs a tremendous punch (it cuts through concrete blocks and solid pinewood!).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6BpI3xD6h0

The AK-47 is more reliable in adverse conditions, thusly it is the better weapon

I do not agree. Reliability is moot if you do not hit the target when you fire.

That's why there are SVD Dragunov in Russian infantry teams, too. The AK47 isn't thought for mid-ranges, it's for short ranges.

The AK-47 is more reliable in adverse conditions, thusly it is the better weapon

I do not agree. Reliability is moot if you do not hit the target when you fire.

That's why there are SVD Dragunov in Russian infantry teams, too. The AK47 isn't thought for mid-ranges, it's for short ranges.

That is why I disagree. If Dyakovo had been comparing the AK to, say, the MAC 10, which is also only viable at short ranges, I would have entirely agreed with him.

The M-16 permits engagement at mid ranges. That capability in itself shows it to be the superior all-round weapon.

M16 - state of the art, longer range, more accurate, lack the punch due to smaller bullets, first incarnations are the soldier's worst nightmare in the battlefield due to strict maintenance discipline and tendency to malfunction in extreme conditions, looks like Mattel made it, fixed in subsequent incarnations, ammunitions are hard to come by in today's war on terror urban fighting scenarios.

AK47 - ancient "if it ain't, broke don't fix it" design, cheap, almost no maintenance, workable in almost all condition (even after buried in sand, if I'm not mistaken), spare parts available almost everywhere and so is the ammunition, shorter range and low accuracy, heavier punch, the icon for revolutions and terrorism.

Which is better you asked? Depends on the situation, I say. For an assault scenario in cramped spaces and breaching spaces, I'd pick the AK47. In an almost open battlefield, I'd pick the M16.

Edit :

And I forgot to add....*face palm*... not this again.

The M-16 permits engagement at mid ranges. That capability in itself shows it to be the superior all-round weapon.

So, basically you're saying that AK47 vs M16 it's a matter of specialisation vs general purpose, right?

So, basically you're saying that AK47 vs M16 it's a matter of specialisation vs general purpose, right?

Largely. An infantryman's basic weapon should allow him the greatest flexibility of action in combat; this gives him the maximum number of options to deal with any situation. More specialized armaments may be used and issued in specific situations to enhance specific capacities, but the general weapon should be usable in the maximum number of conditions.

And while I will concede the AK's greater reliability, that does not mean the M-16 is unreliable, merely less so.

Lets way up the pros and cons:

M16:

Pros:
Much more versatile
More accurate
Lighter and easier to use

Cons:
Not as powerful as the AK47
Not as long lasting and reliable

Ak47:

More reliable and long lasting
More powerful

Cons:

Heavier and harder to use
Less versatile/ more specialist
Less accurate


From this I would say that, in terms of what would be better for a normal soldier, the M16 scrapes the win. However, in other criteria, the AK47 is more useful and vice versa.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5CQOvdYW6c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6L5ZXU9mr9g

I think someone remarked once that the AK was a peasant's weapon, and the M16/4 a soldiers. I find this largely true. The AK will not break under normal (or even abnormal) operating conditions. Anyone can use it, and it requires almost no maintenance. However, the AK has a shorter effective range and is less accurate then the M16/4.

The M16/4 does require tender love and care, but is a more effective weapon in the hands of a trained soldier.

And while I will concede the AK's greater reliability, that does not mean the M-16 is unreliable, merely less so.

It's unreliability is exaggerated, methinks, but the truth behind the myth is probably it's actually unreliable XM16E1 which is fixed by the M16A1 production model. Though the A1 still demands a strict maintenance regime for it to work properly.

In the case of reliability and maintenance of M16 vs AK47,... it's more akin to comparing a katana to a broad sword.

It's unreliability is exaggerated, methinks, but the truth behind the myth is probably it's actually unreliable XM16E1 which is fixed by the M16A1 production model. Though the A1 still demands a strict maintenance regime for it to work properly.

That is true. In my Marine training, we learned how to look after our weapons; it's the same rule as for tools: If you look after them, they'll look after you.

Something that must be taken into account when considering this question is the difference in the ages of the weapons, the AK-47 was designed and built starting in 1947 and has not changed significantly since. It still does what the Soviet Military wanted of it, a weapon that could be almost destroyed and still perform adequately on the battlefield in the hands of a conscripted soldier. The M-16, on the other hand, was designed to be used by the US soldier, who was trained to an altogether higher level that the average Soviet conscript, it was also designed in the late 60's, but it has undergone many changes since that time, making it an altogether superior weapon to the forst ones that were produced. A better comparison would be between the M-14(.308 NATO) and the AK-47(&.62x39 Russian) or between the M-16(5.56 NATO) and the AK-74(5.54 Russian), which is the current Russian Military weapon. :mp5::sniper:

Something that must be taken into account when considering this question is the difference in the ages of the weapons, the AK-47 was designed and built starting in 1947 and has not changed significantly since. It still does what the Soviet Military wanted of it, a weapon that could be almost destroyed and still perform adequately on the battlefield in the hands of a conscripted soldier. The M-16, on the other hand, was designed to be used by the US soldier, who was trained to an altogether higher level that the average Soviet conscript, it was also designed in the late 60's, but it has undergone many changes since that time, making it an altogether superior weapon to the forst ones that were produced. A better comparison would be between the M-14(.308 NATO) and the AK-47(&.62x39 Russian) or between the M-16(5.56 NATO) and the AK-74(5.45 Russian [b]*FIXED*[/i]), which is the current Russian Military weapon. :mp5::sniper:
Exactly.

And if M16A4s are coming into the mix, then we might as well go for the AK109 to compare it with, to which the AK series starts to look a bit better again.

All being said and done, an AKM has fairly decent first-shot accuracy, is extremely cheap to produce and is very difficult to foul up to the extent where it won't work. Compared to the contemporary M16A1, it was a bit heavier, slightly larger and a little less accurate, but it had a magazine which was 10 rounds bigger and didn't jam up or wear out in Vietnam, unlike the M16A1, which IIRC had a habit of getting pretty worn out by the humidity (although I reckon this was due to its claims of being 'self-cleaning', and hence a general lack of maintainance until Armalite were a bit more honest about how much work it needed).

Part of the maintenance issue was due to the ammunition not having the gunpowder that the M16 had originally been specified to use (the powder used was surplus ball powder, not the Dupont IMR powder specified). This caused much more fouling than anticipated. Also, original M16s didn't have the chamber chromed, which compounded the problems when the excessive carbon fouling got blown into the chamber through the gas tube.
Thanks for information.

Exactly.

And if M16A4s are coming into the mix, then we might as well go for the AK109 to compare it with, to which the AK series starts to look a bit better again.

All being said and done, an AKM has fairly decent first-shot accuracy, is extremely cheap to produce and is very difficult to foul up to the extent where it won't work. Compared to the contemporary M16A1, it was a bit heavier, slightly larger and a little less accurate, but it had a magazine which was 10 rounds bigger and didn't jam up or wear out in Vietnam, unlike the M16A1, which IIRC had a habit of getting pretty worn out by the humidity (although I reckon this was due to its claims of being 'self-cleaning', and hence a general lack of maintainance until Armalite were a bit more honest about how much work it needed).

Part of the maintenance issue was due to the ammunition not having the gunpowder that the M16 had originally been specified to use (the powder used was surplus ball powder, not the Dupont IMR powder specified). This caused much more fouling than anticipated. Also, original M16s didn't have the chamber chromed, which compounded the problems when the excessive carbon fouling got blown into the chamber through the gas tube.

Did anyone pay attention to the marksmen's fingers?

The M16 guy was doing it right by squeezing, but the person shooting the AK yanked on the trigger. Of course it's going to have bad accuracy, he's not shooting like you're supposed to!

It really depends...
The M-16 is a GREAT weapon if you maintain it, true, it lacks the power of the 7.62mm round, but if you hit the right spot, that doesnt really matter, does it? And its not like anybody the US goes up against wears body armor.

The AK-47 works pretty much all the time, even when filled with grease and left in a box for a few decades. You could probably pull that thing out and, after a few minutes clearing grease from the workings, fire it with no othe preparation. Its not terribly accurate and its pretty heavy, though.

I'd say the AK is good for issueing to untrained, or poorly-trained, or non-military personel, or to people without the time/money to do proper maintenance every week/day/hour.
The M-16, in the hands of a trained professional, is superior to the AK-47 most of the time. You give it to the guys who can spend time keeping it working and who have the training to take care of its better accuracy.

Screw both your guns, I want this (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=0GAUnuuBkW4).

Having fired both a semi auto AK-47 and an AR-15 (civilian M-16 copy),

I like the AR-15 a little better because I feel like it fires more smoothly and I can get better groupings with it. The Ak-47 kicks like a mule but if I was thrown into a combat situation, I would take the AK. Its so easy to clean and fix! You just pop the top off and there is all of the stuff right there. Its beyond simple.

They are both excellent guns imo and comparing them is sort of an apples to oranges debate.

It really depends...
The M-16 is a GREAT weapon if you maintain it, true, it lacks the power of the 7.62mm round, but if you hit the right spot, that doesnt really matter, does it? And its not like anybody the US goes up against wears body armor.

That there is another thing, stopping power. The 5.56 is so light and fast, it went through an unarmored body but doesn't give the punch to knock them down.

As I understand this led to the development of usage for the 6.8 mm ammo. I think I watched too much Discovery channel.

... as for the rubber band gatling,... single barrel or twin barrel?

But how does the 7.62 of the AK 47 do against the .30-30 and .30-06?

I've found a good video explaining the differences between M16 and AK47. A nice test. To summarise it, it shows that the M16 is more accurate but less powerful, while the AK47 packs a tremendous punch (it cuts through concrete blocks and solid pinewood!).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6BpI3xD6h0


I've not watched the video, and I'm sure someone's already stated this, but I'm going to say it anyway.

The Kalashnikov has less mechanical parts, and thus is less complicated that the Colt M-16. It fires a large bullet and thus packs a harder punch, and also is lighter than its American counter part. The American M-16 is more prone to jamming, fires a smaller round (5.56mm x45 as oppose to 7.62mm x 39)

However the M-16 has a longer range (550 metres rather than 300 metres) than the Kalashnikov, a higher rate of fire (800-900 rounds a minute to the AK's 600 rounds per minute), and a higher muzzle velocity (3,200 ft/s (975 m/s) (M16A1) - 3,050 ft/s (930 m/s) (M16A2)..to the AK's 710 m/s (2,329 ft/s))

In the Kalashnikov's favour, it is significantly cheaper to produce as its made of wood, or plastic in later, more improved models (AK-74M..AK-105, etc) rather than metal. So its really up to the buyer and for what reason you need the gun. But in general I'd say go with the Kalashnikov, because in a fight you want reliability above all, and the Kalashnikov grants that and then some, whereas the M-16 hardly delivers.

Well it doesn't really matter which of these guns is better than the other at killing humans.

They're both just about useless against zombies. ;)

I can kill a zombie with my bare hands. *Nods*

Well it doesn't really matter which of these guns is better than the other at killing humans.

They're both just about useless against zombies. ;)

Yes the M-16 is more versataile, but...... you can take several AK-47's and make one. With the M-16 you cannot the parts are to finely machined. Although as a man who has used the M-16 quite a bit(In the Army, Both gulf wars) I'd prefer to fire a 16 than a 47. Just a better rifle more range 800 meters plus

That there is another thing, stopping power. The 5.56 is so light and fast, it went through an unarmored body but doesn't give the punch to knock them down.
To be fair, it quite often fragments or tumbles when hitting an unarmoured body.
As I understand this led to the development of usage for the 6.8 mm ammo. I think I watched too much Discovery channel.
The 6.8mm calibre probably isn't going to be used for two reasons - 1) it's not that much more effective than the 5.56mm round, and is much poorer at distances over 300m, and 2) If any of the 6.xmm calibre rounds being designed were going to be used, it'll probably be the 6.5mm Grendel round.
But how does the 7.62 of the AK 47 do against the .30-30 and .30-06?
Not so well at range, but the fact that you can handle the recoil on a 7.62x39 automatic rifle, and can't realistically do so with a 7.62x63 calibre weapon, makes it more useful.

Still, comparing calibres like that is a bit like comparing 9x19 pistol-calibre rounds with the 9x39 rifle rounds in a Groza OC-14, to be honest.

That is why I disagree. If Dyakovo had been comparing the AK to, say, the MAC 10, which is also only viable at short ranges, I would have entirely agreed with him.

The M-16 permits engagement at mid ranges. That capability in itself shows it to be the superior all-round weapon.

What good is an accurate weapon which does not work in combat situations? Reliability is still a major issue for the M16A2.



EDIT: If you want an accurate, reliable assault rifle: HK G11 (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=4-XtJ016rFw)

AK-47 is built for call in, low trained solders with limited logistic support. You can learn to handle it and maintain very quickly. I know because I`ve used it during my service in the army. And m-16 is built for professional solders who have excellent logistic and support on the battlefield (basically itś the difference between nato and warsaw pact). Everybody is entitled to it`s own opinion, my is that the AK-47 is better, but then again you die the same was it the most modern gun or a pistol bought for a fistfull of money.

EDIT: If you want an accurate, reliable assault rifle: HK G11 (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=4-XtJ016rFw)
Errr... no. Why would the Germans want a weapon that ridiculously chunky, which fires ammunition that nobody else uses, at a high price and that's prone to cooking off, when they could have the G36 instead?

Errr... no. Why would the Germans want a weapon that ridiculously chunky, which fires ammunition that nobody else uses, at a high price and that's prone to cooking off, when they could have the G36 instead?

Nah, the G11 were only prototypes, just like the XM8.

(Off topic, looking at assault rifles randomly, I stumbled upon some interesting underwater assault rifles of Russian origin, do they have a western designed cousin?)

Nah, the G11 were only prototypes, just like the XM8.
The fact that it went through like thirteen different prototypes suggests that it might well have been a pretty flawed weapon in general tbqh.
(Off topic, looking at assault rifles randomly, I stumbled upon some interesting underwater assault rifles of Russian origin, do they have a western designed cousin?)
I know we used to have underwater pistols, no idea about an assault rifle.

In the case of reliability and maintenance of M16 vs AK47,... it's more akin to comparing a katana to a broad sword.


no, not at all. The Katana was nothing if not inferior to a broadsword. Japanese ore was of poor quality compared to Europe, and the fact that the Katana was single edged means that you can only cut one way, no backhanded slices, and no stabbing, all of which the Broadsword could do. Oh, and the Katana and Broadsword both were about 3lbs, so the Katana gains no advantage there.

The ol' AK vs. AR debate...
Having used both the M4 and the AK while overseas, I can personally say that I prefer the AK. Shocking, I know.
The AR does have better mechanical accuracy. HOWEVER, this is largely due to better sights than the crude post and notch found on the AK, not to mention the AK's stubby sight radius. When you upgrade the AK to a parallax-free reflex sight (EOTech, Aimpoint M68 or equivalent) you get accuracy that is much closer to the true capabilities of the rifle, generally in the 3-4 MOA range. If the AK was woefully inaccurate as some people claim, no army would have adopted it. Someone else said it perfectly on here that 'reliability is moot if you can't hit what you aim at.' Very true. Most rifles are more accurate than the people shooting them. Blasphemy, yes. The AK was designed for conscripts and was designed to be 'soldier-proof,' which it nearly is. Keeping the AK clean is much easier than the AR; you can easily clean it with a rag and your finger. The gas-piston, bore, and bolt are (generally) chrome-lined, which makes them resistant to corrosion and simplifies cleaning.
While I do prefer the AK, I do not think it is a perfect weapon (something that will vary from person to person!) I would prefer it to have post and aperture sights like the AR, or those two amazing AK knock-offs, the Israeli Galil and the Swedish Valmet. I like the positive locking of the magazines but a simple 'push-to-lock' type like the AR would be nice. I would really like to be able to charge the weapon with the left (non-firing) hand instead of snaking over or under the rifle. Maybe it's me nit-picking, but...that's what I would prefer.
And while we are on the topic, remember that there are MANY companies making both. While the AR is generally well-made, I have seen some horrible examples. AKs are usually crude, but Arsenal of Bulgaria, SAIGA of Russia, and Kreb's Custom in the US make some outstanding examples.

Errr... no. Why would the Germans want a weapon which fires ammunition that nobody else uses,
Why not?
at a high price and
No brand-new weapon is cheap
that's prone to cooking off,
Source?
when they could have the G36 instead?
That's a good weapon but has one of the same flaws as the M16, it fires a crappy round.

I own a Norinco AK-47 that I bought in the 80's when they first came into the US. I also have an SLR Arsenal II and a Colt AR-15 HB that is about 5 years old. I have fired all 3 considerably, and I have found all to be very accurate.

Now, the Norinco AK with the underside folding stock is not as accurate in a rapid fire situation, but I can hit my intended target at 100 yds with the first shot. And the Arsenal, with a synthetic combat stock is very accurate and comfortable to use.

If the shit hits the fan today, I have no doubt that it will be the Arsenal and the AK that I will take with me.

Why not?
The reason that NATO standardises rounds is so that if a unit from another NATO force ends up in someone else's base for some reason, they can resupply. I don't think that anyone would be particularly cheery with having to buy underpowered rounds just so that the Germans could have their pointlessly expensive system resupply.
No brand-new weapon is cheap
The G36 wasn't too expensive, nor indeed was the SA-80, which had problems until the A2 refit, but is now easily one of the best assault rifles in the world.
Source?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_G11

There's a basic low-down on it. The cook-off problem was supposedly somewhat reduced, but any heightened risk of a cook-off in a weapon which had a large magazine and extremely quick burst fire is a bit of a worry, to be honest.
That's a good weapon but has one of the same flaws as the M16, it fires a crappy round.
The 5.56x45 round is pretty respectable, and is a damn sight heavier than the 4.73x33 round which the G41 was going to use.

While I do prefer the AK, I do not think it is a perfect weapon (something that will vary from person to person!) I would prefer it to have post and aperture sights like the AR, or those two amazing AK knock-offs, the Israeli Galil and the Swedish Valmet. I like the positive locking of the magazines but a simple 'push-to-lock' type like the AR would be nice. I would really like to be able to charge the weapon with the left (non-firing) hand instead of snaking over or under the rifle. Maybe it's me nit-picking, but...that's what I would prefer.
I take it that you mean the Finnish RK series, right?

There's a basic low-down on it. The cook-off problem was supposedly somewhat reduced, but any heightened risk of a cook-off in a weapon which had a large magazine and extremely quick burst fire is a bit of a worry, to be honest.

There was a problem in the initial prototypes, so what?

The 5.56x45 round is pretty respectable, and is a damn sight heavier than the 4.73x33 round which the G41 was going to use.

No, the 5.56 NATO round is not respectable, The 7.62 NATO round is... As far as the size of the G11's round, that might have been an issue, I do know that the round was supposed to break apart on impact, so that might have made up for the mass difference, although if it did break apart, I think it probably would have made body armor more effective against it.

There was a problem in the initial prototypes, so what?
So if they wanted to really sort the problem out, then you can kiss yet more money away.
No, the 5.56 NATO round is not respectable[, The 7.62 NATO round is...
Try firing a fully automatic 7.62x51 weapon. You will have no joy with it, and a lot of recoil.
As far as the size of the G11's round, that might have been an issue, I do know that the round was supposed to break apart on impact, so that might have made up for the mass difference, although if it did break apart, I think it probably would have made body armor more effective against it.
Yes, exactly.

You either have an underpowered round against those without armour, or you have an underpowered round against those with armour.

That and the logistics issues with it.