AK47 vs. M16

AK47 or M16

  • AK47

    Votes: 63 44.4%

  • M16

    Votes: 79 55.6%
  • Total voters
    142
  • Poll closed .
They both have their place, you have better sights on the AR and it is a tad lighter. I find both to handle well enough to be usable.

The AK is cheaper and has less parts. You want to spring the extra money for a well built AK and don't slap any crap on it, leave it bare and buy a few more magazines and a few cases of ammo.

When it comes right down to it you need to be comfortable with the rifle you are using.... Like when I went hunting I had a mossberg 500 that I could have used instead I took a 80$ Jing An pump gun out into the woods. Why? Because I had used it a lot and knew how to shoot it well.
 
Also, I've seen an AK be run over by a humvee, and still fire. Pretty sure the M16 would break.
Click to expand...
I have had my M16 run over by a Humvee with no ill effects except for smashed but still functional handguards. I've also seen both run over by an M113, both were completely destroyed.
 
IZinterrogator

I have had my M16 run over by a Humvee with no ill effects except for smashed but still functional handguards. I've also seen both run over by an M113, both were completely destroyed.
Yesterday 09:15 PM
Click to expand...

I wonder what the I thinkers and armchair comandos think about that...............
 
Boris Bush said:
I wonder what the I thinkers and armchair comandos think about that...............
Click to expand...
Same thing they always think, Boris. It doesn't fit their preconceived notions, so they will disregard it as false. :rolleyes:

FWIW, my M16 fell out of my truck while I was ground-guiding the truck in reverse and the front wheel ran over it on ground so hard the M16 didn't leave an indent on the ground where it was run over. I replaced the handguards and shot expert with it the next day. The truck had run over the front sight post, the handguards, and the receiver, and it didn't even shift zero on me.
 
Let me say that I have never fired an M-16 and I went through boot in '87. They were shown to us, tore down in front of us, but never went to the range with one. Didn't even get to qualify with a rifle until '92 and they brought out M-14's. As I learned more about firearms, calibers, power-factors and such I leaned away from both the M-16 rifle and it's anemic caliber. I had no desire after my firearms epiphany to even be near one. I've held them, and they are as heavy if not heavier than the AK.

The AK on the other hand was world-renown for it's durability, effectiveness and high rate of fire and reliability under the worst combat conditions.........but it's wasn't "pretty". It has the "built by a caveman" look to it, crude, simple not very aesthetically pleasing, but good gracious, that gun can shoot.....alot.........and fast.......and it tore stuff up.......badly........I wanted that.

For me, it's function over form, it can look like a turd, but if it works better than a Star Trek Phaser or whatever other fancy looking techno-piece offered, I'll take it.

Now let me say this, if the M-16 had a piston driven action and was made for a caliber with some cajones, like say the 6.8spc, I'd probably hold the AK with the same disdain and contempt as I do the current issue M-16.

But of course this is merely one gun-owners personal opinion, take it for what you will.
 
amprecon

Don't sound like you were a 11B if you did not even qualify with a rifle for FIVE YEARS are you serious?

FWIW I was on the ICV one day and ran across a guncase, it had a M14 in it. It rode in thier for a long time before it was uncased, and then it was only uncased to get turned in before we came back..........

When I dismounted I carried too much ammo, a small D (not small or light) and any extra equipment needed for the next few days missions. Not a single one of us wanted to trade our M4 for the M14 (gasps). Partly because the M4s did just fine (more gasps) and never failed us (big sigh, while shaking head).

Our scout snipers used them but they are diferent players on the team with a different task. As a door kicker I will always and forever prefer and trust my M4..........
 
I've held them, and they are as heavy if not heavier than the AK.
Click to expand...

Wrong. AK's are heavier in stock form.

As I learned more about firearms, calibers, power-factors and such I leaned away from both the M-16 rifle and it's anemic caliber.
Click to expand...

It's funny. Some people will claim that their 10mm or .357mag is some sort of death ray. Then when talking rifles, they say that the 5.56 is anemic...

Shot placement rules, and the 5.56 has a whole bunch of advantages over other calibers. There's no such thing as a free lunch. What you gain with the 5.56 is the ability to carry far more ammo, faster/more accurate follow up shots, flatter trajectory, etc...

Just ask the troops of ours who use it oversees. I have friends who have been over there, and you have first hand accounts from our troops right here. The majority of our troops know that the 5.56 round works when you put it in the right spot.

I have had my M16 run over by a Humvee with no ill effects except for smashed but still functional handguards. I've also seen both run over by an M113, both were completely destroyed.
Click to expand...

That is funny.

Delta Tactical Sling (Triple Config.) This is the sling that will go to war with me when I return!
Click to expand...

It's a popular one. We do military/LE discounts too, so contact me before you order one and I will let you know how to get the special pricing.
 
Last edited:
Let me say that I have never fired an M-16 and I went through boot in '87. They were shown to us, tore down in front of us, but never went to the range with one. Didn't even get to qualify with a rifle until '92 and they brought out M-14's. As I learned more about firearms, calibers, power-factors and such I leaned away from both the M-16 rifle and it's anemic caliber.
amprecon

didn't know the boy scout's had a boot camp:D:D:D:
pete

it just seems these computer hero's watch to much on the history/military channel so I am out of here.
pete
cav-transparent1.gif
 
I've owned 5 ARs, starting with an SP-1 back in the late 70s. I have never experienced the 'cons' listed previously, and SP-1 hardly ever got cleaned. I owned a underfolder AK for a few months and 3 or 4 hundred rounds and the 'pro' for that particular rifle was you could almost fit it in your glove compartment. The 'con', of course, was its weight. They're both funner than gum tho.
 
Amprecon must have been a sailor or something. I trained with M-16 in basic at Fort Polk, in 1970. Have said it before was not believed but, after any training requiring low crawling, ie infiltration coarses, my m-16 would cycle once then jam. This wasn't just mine, but the majority of the M-16's in this training failed thus. We weren't allowed to lock and load until we reached the objective, so sand and grit would get into the action, and render it useless. I thought this a major flaw. If we had really been able to simulate combat and advance locked and loaded, with bolt cover taped down, I think performance would have been much better. Having stated my critcism, I enjoy shooting the AR guns, accurate and flat shooting. Think we would be better off with 7.62 NATO though.
 
But of course this is merely one gun-owners personal opinion, take it for what you will.
Click to expand...

Geeze people, get a grip, add a few millimeters to you skin thickness will ya...

To each their own

BTW, I was a squid, didn't need a .22 rifle, we were issued toolboxes instead for those weeney little A-6E Intruders that carried at least six Mk 83 1,000 pounders....under each wing.
 
amprecon posted: BTW, I was a squid, didn't need a .22 rifle, we were issued toolboxes instead for those weeney little A-6E Intruders that carried at least six Mk 83 1,000 pounders....under each wing.
Click to expand...

OK, from one airdale squid to another and might be slightly off topic. You also under stated what an Intruder could carry for a bomb load by quite a bit.

I shot competivley for the Navy with several M-14's in the late 80's and went to Perry in 1990 on Navy orders. :) I thought only real men shot 30 cal. I changed my mind the first time I shot my own AR in competition. Its a easy rifle to shot well. As we speak, I'm working on a 90 gr load to shoot my AR out to 1k. And yes I'm using iron sights. Hardly just a another .22.

Also let's not forget the .223 set the Russkis on the on their behinds so much they have their own version of it. When the M-16 was first issued, there were many reports of bad guys getting shot in a arm or toe nails with the bullet coming out their arse. There were no reports of wounding an enemy just a little......the days of little hole in, little hole out was a thing of the past. The AK might shot a 308 sized bullet but it's not a full power 308. Its more like a 30-30. I don't take long shots with my 30-30 either.
 
AR for me

Post #30:
[QUOTE
...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.[/QUOTE]

+2 for that!

I've shot both and would take the AR. It is so much easier to get on target, take the shot and get back on target. Well, it is for me at least.

I once shot an AK with an aftermarket stock. It was better, but I still just don't like the feel of how it operates.
 
Don't judge the AR today by the crap we had in the 70s

My basic was Ft Leonard Wood (little Korea), and I am also familiar with Ft Polk (little Vietnam), and unfortunately, all too many other places around the world, and the M16s we had for training were worn out pieces of crap, which I later learned were being used in training because they did not meet the standards for overseas shipment!

The guns the boys (and girls) are using today are better, and while they may not be the best gun they could have, they are the best gun they do have.

Endless comparisons with the AK are inevitable, I guess, because the AR/M16 was/is ours and the AK was/is theirs, but lately it seems to me to be more like asking which is better fruit, grapefruit or watermelon. They aren't the same thing, they were never intended to be the same thing, and they both do they jobs tolerably well. Can't we just move on?
 
Also let's not forget the .223 set the Russkis on the on their behinds so much they have their own version of it.
Click to expand...
Don't forget that Micaiel Kalashnakov said in an interview,

It is you Americans who are to blame for our transition to caliber 5.45. I was all for modernizing 7.62......I still think we would be better off with 7.62 than with 5.45.
Click to expand...

So even the inventor of the AK-47 doesn't like the 22 caliber for a combat weapon.:D
 
Whose AK 47 and whose M16. Both of these rifles have been produced by a number of different contractors in a variety of versions over the years, also even if you turn around and stipulate particular versions from particular arsenals the answer could still depend on what do you want to use it for? aside from choice of calibre, a tuned up M16 can perform like a varminter, but is not a great choice for deer, whereas a version of the Kalashnivov could be used on deer.

If you want something to cope with sand and dust and be a reliable battle rifle out to 300 yards my answer would be different again.

With respects, the question in its current form needs clarifying as it is too vague.
 
TPAW, your points are correct but not germane. Doctrine is what sets the parameters for a design. "We want an infantryman to be able to do this:...." and so the various design requirements are set forth for the designers to try to meet.

Waht you're saying is that there is no "one size fits all", and I fully agree. That doesn't change the doctrine, however.

Overall, my point is that the M16 and the AK-47 meet the doctrinal requirements of the two entirely different doctrines.

And that's why I take no "side" as to which of the two is the "goodest". :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top