AK47 vs. M16
- Thread starter P99AS9
- Start date
I've never held, let alone fired, an AK47 so I can't comment on that. But, I carried the M-16 and M-4 quite a bit while in the Air Force and loved both weapons. So, my vote went for the M-16. I never had problems with malfunctions and liked the accuracy. Although, I should say I hardly left Missouri and never had to use it in combat (thank the Lord) so it's not like I have combat experience with it. Just range time.
I didn't vote. It depends on who the end user is.
For a modern, well trained, well supplied professional fighting force, I think that the M-16/M-4 is superior. Lighter weight, greater unit ammo load (as opposed to the 7.62x39), greater accuracy. But -- it requires more maintainence to keep it running reliably, and that implies a high level of training and discipline. Another negative is that they are relatively expensive.
For a lesser trained guerrilla force, or for a force consisting largely of poorly trained conscripts, the AK series is superior. The ability to work reliably in adverse conditions and with poor maintainence outweighs the advantages in this case. All the accuracy and sophistication in the world does you no good if it doesn't work. At least the AKs will work. Another advantage is that they are relatively inexpensive.
For a modern, well trained, well supplied professional fighting force, I think that the M-16/M-4 is superior. Lighter weight, greater unit ammo load (as opposed to the 7.62x39), greater accuracy. But -- it requires more maintainence to keep it running reliably, and that implies a high level of training and discipline. Another negative is that they are relatively expensive.
For a lesser trained guerrilla force, or for a force consisting largely of poorly trained conscripts, the AK series is superior. The ability to work reliably in adverse conditions and with poor maintainence outweighs the advantages in this case. All the accuracy and sophistication in the world does you no good if it doesn't work. At least the AKs will work. Another advantage is that they are relatively inexpensive.
gb in ga said it perfectly. I've owned several AR's (Rock River, DPMS, Bushy) and while they are fine weapons, I prefer the ak platform. Plus, a redneck like me just looks better holding an ak.
It all comes down to personal preference. If someone says that one is definitely better than the other, they're full of crap. Both are EXCELLENT weapons in their own right.
It all comes down to personal preference. If someone says that one is definitely better than the other, they're full of crap. Both are EXCELLENT weapons in their own right.I can won't vote.....Because I believe that they are both very good weapons. I own both. The M4 I purchased as a complete unit then upgraded a few things (ACOG not attached in photo)total cost about $2k. The AK I built from a parts kit and assembled it on an ITM receiver total cost about $200. Both shoot fine out to about 75 yards, but then the AR becomes king. Using iron sights both hold a good group at 75, but I find the extra weight of the AK causing problems with holding a good pattern at 100+ yds off hand shooting. Using a sand bag, I can get about the same results with the AK at 100 as with the AR.
When it comes to a choice, it's hard to decide. In an urban environment where shots are normally less than 50 yards both are equally good weapons. When it comes to precision shooting, the AR rules the roost. There are more goodies available for the AR so you can customize it more. The AK is just that, an AK; it shoots cheap ammo as well as good ammo. I've never had an FTF or an ejection problem; I clean it about every 2-4K rounds and it constantly performs like an AK should. The M4 requires much more attention. It doesn't like steel ammo, needs cleaned at least every 1000 - 1500 rounds(lots of nooks and crannies to collect crap), is more expensive to shoot, and there are so many goodies available that I don't know what to get next. With that said.......
If zombies attack you will be able to recognize me because I'll be using the AK as a primary (urban) weapon, have an AR over my shoulder (backup and long range) a 1911 on my right and a SIG 226 on my left with my handy dandy Emerson knife in my pocket.
Just my .02
BTW take a GOOD look at the Skull Camo on the AK
Laters and peace dudes and dudettes
When it comes to a choice, it's hard to decide. In an urban environment where shots are normally less than 50 yards both are equally good weapons. When it comes to precision shooting, the AR rules the roost. There are more goodies available for the AR so you can customize it more. The AK is just that, an AK; it shoots cheap ammo as well as good ammo. I've never had an FTF or an ejection problem; I clean it about every 2-4K rounds and it constantly performs like an AK should. The M4 requires much more attention. It doesn't like steel ammo, needs cleaned at least every 1000 - 1500 rounds(lots of nooks and crannies to collect crap), is more expensive to shoot, and there are so many goodies available that I don't know what to get next. With that said.......
If zombies attack you will be able to recognize me because I'll be using the AK as a primary (urban) weapon, have an AR over my shoulder (backup and long range) a 1911 on my right and a SIG 226 on my left with my handy dandy Emerson knife in my pocket.
Just my .02
BTW take a GOOD look at the Skull Camo on the AK
Laters and peace dudes and dudettes
Thats not my entire collection. I have about 25 more to go with them. My wife only allows 2 purchases per year unless I sell something and use the proceeds to purchase more. Although I can sometimes sneak a few extra in. Most of my cash goes to ammo though.
On hand:
5.56 - 4k rds (down from 46k rds)
.45 acp- 2k rds (down from 9K rds)
9mm _ 1.5 k rds (down from 12 k rds)
.357 Sig -500 Rds
.22 - 5k rds
.270 -150 rds
30-30 -150-175 rds
12 ga - 300 rds (just picked up 160 rds 00 buck for 50.00)
7.62X39 3k - 4k rds
This does not include Black powder and ammo for Black powder rifles.
I need MORE...
On hand:
5.56 - 4k rds (down from 46k rds)
.45 acp- 2k rds (down from 9K rds)
9mm _ 1.5 k rds (down from 12 k rds)
.357 Sig -500 Rds
.22 - 5k rds
.270 -150 rds
30-30 -150-175 rds
12 ga - 300 rds (just picked up 160 rds 00 buck for 50.00)
7.62X39 3k - 4k rds
This does not include Black powder and ammo for Black powder rifles.
I need MORE...
Lest people forget, the standard infantry rifle/carbine is only as good as training, tactics, and support that the users bring to the table.
The m16 has better sights, lighter ammo, better safety/selector, and better long range ballistics.
The AK has better reliability in harsh conditions.
If the Soviets had worked to improve the AK as much as the US worked to improve the m16, then we would probably be asking which is better, such as a Galil or VZ-58 or an m16.
But it is not the weapon that is the determining factor, it is the wielder.
Jimro
The m16 has better sights, lighter ammo, better safety/selector, and better long range ballistics.
The AK has better reliability in harsh conditions.
If the Soviets had worked to improve the AK as much as the US worked to improve the m16, then we would probably be asking which is better, such as a Galil or VZ-58 or an m16.
But it is not the weapon that is the determining factor, it is the wielder.
Jimro
i voted ak-47 using a simple pros/cons system
m-16 pros:
accuracy
more accessories than imaginable.
different uppers(one gun multiple calibers, barrel lengths, etc)
carry more ammo in the same amount of space
accuracy
m-16 cons:
direct gas system :barf:
requires cleaning very often
for 5.56 versions-not what i would call a powerful round
not a poor mans gun at all (expensive)
feeding problems
extracting problems
both at the same time
buffer tube negates use of folding stock(for those who care)
ak-47 pros:
reliable
takes any ammo (that i've thrown in it anyway)
poor man's gun (cheap)
cheap accessories (mostly)
I've never seen one jam or misfeed
cheaper ammo
plenty of stopping power
can (and i have) leave buried in mud for 2 weeks, pick it up, empty a magazine
can use folding stock (for those who care)
reliable
ak-47 cons:
inaccurate past 150-200 yards (but i've seen some people hit a 3x3 ft piece of plywood 30 out of 30 times at 350 yds)
not as many accesories available
bulkier ammo
now i know this is not the most complete list of pros and cons, but i think it represents what most people take into account on a rifle.
Semper Fi
m-16 pros:
accuracy
more accessories than imaginable.
different uppers(one gun multiple calibers, barrel lengths, etc)
carry more ammo in the same amount of space
accuracy
m-16 cons:
direct gas system :barf:
requires cleaning very often
for 5.56 versions-not what i would call a powerful round
not a poor mans gun at all (expensive)
feeding problems
extracting problems
both at the same time
buffer tube negates use of folding stock(for those who care)
ak-47 pros:
reliable
takes any ammo (that i've thrown in it anyway)
poor man's gun (cheap)
cheap accessories (mostly)
I've never seen one jam or misfeed
cheaper ammo
plenty of stopping power
can (and i have) leave buried in mud for 2 weeks, pick it up, empty a magazine
can use folding stock (for those who care)
reliable
ak-47 cons:
inaccurate past 150-200 yards (but i've seen some people hit a 3x3 ft piece of plywood 30 out of 30 times at 350 yds)
not as many accesories available
bulkier ammo
now i know this is not the most complete list of pros and cons, but i think it represents what most people take into account on a rifle.
Semper Fi
One also has to consider the price of the weapons. The fact is that you can produce a QUALITY AK-47 for much less than you can an M-16. The Russian Saiga rifles are proof of this. I bought mine retail for $250 (7.62x39), $350 (.308), and used for $225 (.223). Comparable AR-15s run for MUCH more than that even on the used market.
So for someone like me, when I was looking to get my first black rifle I thought, "Hmm, the AK-47 is less than a third the price of an AR-15. I can get accessories, magazines, optics, ammo, etc and still not spend as much as a new AR-15 costs. Sure it won't be a varmint rifle, but I'm not shooting varmints with it, that's what my 22-250 is for. It'll still hit a man sized target past 300 yards"
The same comparison and argument can be made between a 9mm AR-15, a Ruger PC-9, and a Hi-Point 995. Sure the 9mm AR-15 is probably the best, but the PC-9 is good too, and the 995 ain't pretty, but it gets the job done. Both for much less money.
/Love my PC-9
So for someone like me, when I was looking to get my first black rifle I thought, "Hmm, the AK-47 is less than a third the price of an AR-15. I can get accessories, magazines, optics, ammo, etc and still not spend as much as a new AR-15 costs. Sure it won't be a varmint rifle, but I'm not shooting varmints with it, that's what my 22-250 is for. It'll still hit a man sized target past 300 yards"
The same comparison and argument can be made between a 9mm AR-15, a Ruger PC-9, and a Hi-Point 995. Sure the 9mm AR-15 is probably the best, but the PC-9 is good too, and the 995 ain't pretty, but it gets the job done. Both for much less money.
/Love my PC-9
RockyMtnTactical
New member
I prefer the AR15 in every way. Mine all work and most quality AR15's do, despite what some may claim.
The AK is a fine weapon. I have owned a couple. They are not my personal favorites though.
The AK is a fine weapon. I have owned a couple. They are not my personal favorites though.
I've had examples of both for over 25 years.
My take is the AR is a pleasure to handle, accurate and a fun range gun. I just can't put it into the serious roles that others do so easily due to reliability and performance issues with the weapon and it's caliber.
On the flipside and within the scope of its cartridge, the AK is a walkin', talkin' "war-machine"
. With a little luck (and maybe with even none at all) it WILL take care of it's owner under extremely demanding conditions - and its also fun at the range.
It just depends on needs and priorities.
My take is the AR is a pleasure to handle, accurate and a fun range gun. I just can't put it into the serious roles that others do so easily due to reliability and performance issues with the weapon and it's caliber.
On the flipside and within the scope of its cartridge, the AK is a walkin', talkin' "war-machine"
. With a little luck (and maybe with even none at all) it WILL take care of it's owner under extremely demanding conditions - and its also fun at the range.It just depends on needs and priorities.
bigbadbowtie
New member
Discovery had a show on a few weeks ago that did a side by side comparison of the AK-47 vs M16(might have been AR).
I was only able to catch a little of it. What I seen of it, itwas pretty informative. Although I think they missed some info.
Anyone else catch this show?
I was only able to catch a little of it. What I seen of it, itwas pretty informative. Although I think they missed some info.
Anyone else catch this show?
I like them both but have to give an edge to the AK for simplicity. I've only had an AR for about a month now and I love the sights and the low recoil and when I get around to shooting at a longer range I think it will shine there as well. If I shot foll auto that would be another point for the AR.
However, I can shoot 500 rounds with my AK and not worry about cleaning it. After 100 rounds there is so much crud on the AR's bolt I'm amazed it can move at all. In the field I would also be concerned about losing small parts and ending up with a paperweight. I wouldn't want my life on the line because I dropped a cotterpin.
It's a shame we can no longer get Valmets or Galils. That would be an even better comparison.
However, I can shoot 500 rounds with my AK and not worry about cleaning it. After 100 rounds there is so much crud on the AR's bolt I'm amazed it can move at all. In the field I would also be concerned about losing small parts and ending up with a paperweight. I wouldn't want my life on the line because I dropped a cotterpin.
It's a shame we can no longer get Valmets or Galils. That would be an even better comparison.
Father Time
New member
AK hands down, don't even have to think about it.