AK47 vs. M16
- Thread starter P99AS9
- Start date
Venison_Jerkey32
New member
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.
I don't know what ammo you use,but it must be junk..mine doesn't collect crud,or even get that dirty after 300-400 rounds
I don't know what ammo you use,but it must be junk..mine doesn't collect crud,or even get that dirty after 300-400 rounds
I started this thread, and I voted AK. If I was a soldier, I would want an AK because it is almost impossible to get it to stop firing. I've seen videos of the AK on fire, and it could still shoot. I'm damn sure the M16 would melt if it was on fire. Also, I've seen an AK be run over by a humvee, and still fire. Pretty sure the M16 would break. Also, M16's jam if not cleaned every 100 rounds. Bottom line, if your a soldier out in the field, and your M16 stops working, all you have to depend on is your little M9 
Jermtheory
New member
please.ive personally seen AR's go well over 2000 rounds without cleaning(and thats with the M4 style carbines),with no failures.ive fired up to 600 rounds without even lube,on several occasions,without failure.ive never had a failure of any kind with my LMT.
believe it or not....ive even seen AK's have failures(some "catastrophic") on several occasions.
US made Arsenal AK with milled receiver. Very accurate, very tough and very reliable. I have a Sam 7.
Speaking for caliber, and caliber only, I prefer the 7.62x39 over the 5.56/.223, especially for close in work, building to building, room to room and barricaded subjects. Too much deflection with the 5.56/223. The 7.62x39 plows through. I've used both caliber's. My experience was across the pond in Southeast Asia (Vietnam). JMO.....
For shooting, M16 over AK
Because I am a civilian, clean my guns once in a while, and the AK doesn't fit me. It has horrid ergonomics for a man of my size, and just not so good generally as the AR for position of controls, trigger pull, sights, and overall accuracy. I also like the gun to lock open when empty.
Both rifle can jam (I have had AKs jam, its reputation not withstanding), and the "vulnerability" of the AR to dirt is vastly overstated. You do have to clean it to keep it running right, more often than most AKs, but I am not an ill trained peasant from beyond the Urals.
Current production M16s and their ammo are not what they were in Vietnam. They are a lot better. AKs have their advantages for military use, and their flaws as rifles. M16s do as well. If I had to go to war, and had my choice of rifles (not carbines, or 300 meter submachineguns) I would not choose either one. But when you go to war, you don't get to choose, you get what they give you, and do the best you can.
As a civilian shooter, neither one is the best you can get, for any specific application, so what does it matter? With the AK you pay less than the AR, but except for bore size, you get less.
Because I am a civilian, clean my guns once in a while, and the AK doesn't fit me. It has horrid ergonomics for a man of my size, and just not so good generally as the AR for position of controls, trigger pull, sights, and overall accuracy. I also like the gun to lock open when empty.
Both rifle can jam (I have had AKs jam, its reputation not withstanding), and the "vulnerability" of the AR to dirt is vastly overstated. You do have to clean it to keep it running right, more often than most AKs, but I am not an ill trained peasant from beyond the Urals.
Current production M16s and their ammo are not what they were in Vietnam. They are a lot better. AKs have their advantages for military use, and their flaws as rifles. M16s do as well. If I had to go to war, and had my choice of rifles (not carbines, or 300 meter submachineguns) I would not choose either one. But when you go to war, you don't get to choose, you get what they give you, and do the best you can.
As a civilian shooter, neither one is the best you can get, for any specific application, so what does it matter? With the AK you pay less than the AR, but except for bore size, you get less.
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
I tend to judge military gear by the intent of the designer--which derives from the particular military doctrine.
US doctrine is to control the immediate environment out to some 200 yards while making use of the primary weapon--the radio. Call in air or artillery.
The USSR doctrine was for infantry to accompany a massed tank attack and open up full auto within the final 75 to 50 meters of the defenders.
Both weapons fulfill their doctrinal requirements.
Art
US doctrine is to control the immediate environment out to some 200 yards while making use of the primary weapon--the radio. Call in air or artillery.
The USSR doctrine was for infantry to accompany a massed tank attack and open up full auto within the final 75 to 50 meters of the defenders.
Both weapons fulfill their doctrinal requirements.
Art
That's good in theory Art, but in reality, it does not always hold true. Weather conditions, other fire missions and flight missions, sometimes leave you with neither. I was an RTO for a short while and can say from experience that air and artillery is not always available to you, leaving you with only what you can carry on your back to make it out of a tight situation. I believe it's called field expediency and a strong desire to live. Bearing in mind, the outcome is usually luck and fate, with some skill mixed in.
RockyMtnTactical
New member
Probably with M193.
M855 does much better through glass. There are even better options as well if your main goal is shooting through windows with a .223.
Boris Bush
Moderator
I tried to stay away, but there is alot of obvious armchair comado talk going on here with some experienced coments thrown in.
As for shooting through glass, well we were made to have atleast one mag full of M955 ball (AP) ammo and it was mandatory for it to be the first mag in the weapon. I carried 3 extra mags loaded with M955, most of the others carried more also. Glass was no problem, light armor and car metal was no problem, thinner brick walls were no problem.......
M855 workd fairly well on auto glass when I used it for that. I never fired just one shot and after the first two or so the glass was weakened enough for the following rounds to shoot through to the target with good precision.
The M4 does not need cleaning every 100 rounds, that was a funny coment and it is not unreliable............
As for shooting through glass, well we were made to have atleast one mag full of M955 ball (AP) ammo and it was mandatory for it to be the first mag in the weapon. I carried 3 extra mags loaded with M955, most of the others carried more also. Glass was no problem, light armor and car metal was no problem, thinner brick walls were no problem.......
M855 workd fairly well on auto glass when I used it for that. I never fired just one shot and after the first two or so the glass was weakened enough for the following rounds to shoot through to the target with good precision.
The M4 does not need cleaning every 100 rounds, that was a funny coment and it is not unreliable............
RockyMtnTactical
New member
Troops I know who have been in combat recently have told me that it (M855) penetrated windshields just fine.
Also, your experience is with M193, and while it is valid, it should be noted that your argument is only valid with that ammunition.
I am curious though, you say that you've seen it deflected. How many rounds would you say? Also, did any of the rounds penetrate (I cannot imagine that every M193 round was deflected unless you only saw this once)? What percentage would you say penetrated vs. deflected??
If you want an excellent glass penetrator in ANY caliber (including .223) try Federal Bonded. Either the Tactical (which is LE only) or the Trophy Bonded Bear Claws.
I have no doubt that M955 works great too, but that is not something civvies are gonna be able to get their hands on.
Boris Bush
Moderator
RockyMtnTactical
Delta Tactical Sling (Triple Config.) This is the sling that will go to war with me when I return!!!!!!!!!!
Delta Tactical Sling (Triple Config.) This is the sling that will go to war with me when I return!!!!!!!!!!
They really are two totally different guns with totally different purposes. Owning an AR I can personally state that mine has shot over 1000 rounds without cleaning and functioned fine. The only problems I have ever had were with a crap magazine that gave up the ghost. I have fired a bit through an AK as well. It shot just fine every time I fired it. It may not have shot amazing groups at longer ranges but it wasn't like throwing stones as some people want to make them out to be. If I had to pick one of the two systems as a civilian playing around it would be the AR. If I had to pick one of the two and put my life on it I would have a gas piston AR. If I were to be clearing rooms I would rather the AK and the extra punch it gives up close.
From a round point of view I don't have much use for a 7.62x39 while .223/5.56 I do. 7.62x39 is basically a .30-30 from a ballistics point of view. I live in a state where you can't hunt deer with a rifle, only a shotgun, bow or muzzle loader. As such all I would do is maybe shoot ground hogs with it. .223 does that real well along with quite a few other little critters. When I have been out of state hunting the difference between what a 7.62x39 and a 308 do to a deer are night and day different. So beyond plinking at the range and potentially when the commies or zombies invade I don't have a purpose for 7.62x39 and I can convince myself that I have a purpose for .223.
Still the great thing about this country is I can own more than one gun so having both an AR and an AK solves all debates as to which one.
From a round point of view I don't have much use for a 7.62x39 while .223/5.56 I do. 7.62x39 is basically a .30-30 from a ballistics point of view. I live in a state where you can't hunt deer with a rifle, only a shotgun, bow or muzzle loader. As such all I would do is maybe shoot ground hogs with it. .223 does that real well along with quite a few other little critters. When I have been out of state hunting the difference between what a 7.62x39 and a 308 do to a deer are night and day different. So beyond plinking at the range and potentially when the commies or zombies invade I don't have a purpose for 7.62x39 and I can convince myself that I have a purpose for .223.
Still the great thing about this country is I can own more than one gun so having both an AR and an AK solves all debates as to which one.