AK-47 vs. M-16

4

44rugerfan

New member
I just watched a "Tales of the gun" on the history channel that focused on the evolution of small arms during and after WWII. They spent a lot of time with Dr. Kalaishnikov, designer of the AK-47, describing how the gun came about and how it was produced and such. They even had a segment where Dr. Kalaishnakov and Eugene Stoner, designer of the M-16, were sitting around a table talking. There were the inevitable comparisions between the two rifles. I got out of it that the AK is more reliable in that it stands up to abuse and mud and neglect better. The M-16 is more accurate and basically shoots a better bullet (althought the later model AK was updated to shoot a similar cartridge). So what do you all think? If you went to war, which one would you rather carry? If a space opened for that type of weapon in the gun safe, which would make it in?
 
God help me, but I think I would rather have the AK of the two if I had to be in a fight and had a choice. The AK sure isn't pretty, but it is practically indestructible. My two cents. Of course I really would rather have an M-14!
 
Hmmmmmm. I already have made that decision. Three m16s in the safe and no AKs. My m16s have never let me down. Of course I can't say that I go crawling through the mud with them though. I prefer the m16 platform of being able to change uppers as well as calibers. The ability to install different optics- night vision, scopes, redots, etc. Make mine the M16.
 
44rugerfan, to answer your question straight forward:
If I went to war, I would do anything possible to stay away from M-16. It's a pity that when M-16 was designed, FMEA
(Failure Mode Effects Analysis) technique was not in use, otherwise the U.S. army might have a better weapon.
Changing uppers is a great design feature, but it's completely useless in trenches.
 
This debate will always rage on.

I have been to war and was issued a M-16 and if I had to go again I would take a 16 over the AK if given a choice. I won't go over as to reasons since I've stated it many times on this forum in past posts.

Concerning the AK getting mudder and still shooting. My experience with the 16 if it got muddy and you pulled the trigger IT went bang.

Turk
173rd Abn. Bdge (Sep)
Vietnam 68-69
 
I'll take the AK if I had to pick between the two.

It is a comparison of .30 cal vs. .22 cal. I'll take the larger bore nearly every time.

Given my druthers and on lever-action in the options, I'd rather have an M-14, semi-only please. Full auto is a bit much, in such a light rifle, for my abilities.

Doc Hudson
 
Had the choice and chose the AK. Might get an AR one of these days, but only because I can't get the G36.
 
caliber or design?

On the caliber side, the AR wins big. Its flatter shooting than the AK and offers tyhe accuracy necessary for 300+ yard shots.

The AR has a dirt problem due to the aluminum receiver but that's what the dust cover is for. I'd much rather be able to hit a target than just fire my rifle.

In real-world combat type operations, the only time mine gave fits was when I used blanks. I've seen 16's that had been immersed in sandy water function perfect after the water had been removed from the barrels. I've also seen them fire 600 rounds w/o cleaning. The dirt may bulid up in the carrier but it doesn't keep it from working.

As far as killing power, I can attest the 200 yard killing power is more than adequate. I doubt any better performance is necessary. Longer ranges? If you hit them at 500 yards, chances are even with a periphial shot, they won't be fighting. And I certain they couldn't effectively shoot back.
 
Definitely the AR15/M16. I HAVE carried several different M16s (while in the infantry) and AR15s (at my friend's ranch in central Florida) through the mud and sand and dirt and they never failed me with live ammo. All in all, I would say the reliability concern is way overblown.
 
I like my AR 15.

However I've bought another .223 (5.56) that I really like. It's a M96 Expeditionary Rifle by Robinson Armament Company. It's great to shoot and I've had no problems. I've shot about 4,000 rounds so far. (reloads)
 
On several outings, a friend of mine shot his Bushmaster AR-15 and I shot my AK. His Bushmaster experienced "technical difficuties" almost every time we were out. My AK has never missed a beat.
 
I have an AK, because it was cheaper. I've shot both and I like both. The AR15 is much prettier of course and I think feels better in your hands, but the AK was cheaper at the time, cheap ammo, cheap mags and I have enjoyed the hell out of it.
 
I have 2 AKs and 2 AR15s. Given that choice, I'd take one of my AR15s. I can't hit beans with the lousy sights on the AKs.

If you include my .223 Valmet in the mix, then things start to get interesting...

M1911
 
I'd rather have an AK less parts, easy take down robust and "practical" but heavy. In any caliber they have made 5.45, 5,56 or 7.62. Would rather have a push button mag release.

I know our army issues and uses M-16a2 sand M4's, but i've seen so many and heard so many commercial AR's being finicky. Fast magazine changes and good accuracy. Not sure I'd trust braining someone with the butt of an AR.
.
Bottom line is you probably would not have a choice. If you are shooting it out in the balkans you probably had an AK, if you were with task force ranger you had a 16..

Seems to me very few smart people go willingly into war.
 
I personally have not had a malfunction with an M16A2 or an AR-15 with any kind of ammo. I have seen them abused in different ways also, dropped, kicked, dropkicked, etc. I recently bought a Bushmaster XM15-E2S Carbine. I put over 500 rounds through it last weekend, not a hickup. Good accuracy offhand too.

But then again, the AKs have nasty written all over them. I want one of these in AK-103 guise too.

I will say, I like the ergos of the AR-15 over that of the AKs. Better sights, or at least I am more familiar with them, push button mag release, and thumb operated selector. I believe both are great rifles with great reputations. You just have to decide which is best for you.

The reason I bought an AR-15 over the AK was because of the readily available samples of AR-15s at my local gunshops have way better fit and finishes over the AKs I found. The AKs were very inexpensive but looked like my 2 year old put on the finish with her fingers.

With that said, I am saving up for a Krebs AK-103K.
 
i go to a heck of a lot of gun schools across the country and have taken my fair share of long gun courses over the years.i have taken them with ar-15,ak-47,m1a,ruger mini -14 and a bolt gun a time or two.

one thing i can say is that i see a heck of a lot more ar-15 rifles going down,jamming,malfuntioning than any other rifle out there.

thats not to say that the ar-15 is a bad design and that there is not some good ones out there(i know i own 3 of them that work flawlessly)i am just saying the odds are in your favor that when the chips are down GET A AK-47.

i have had a bad day if i didn't get to fire my ak...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top