AK47 vs. M16

[Doc TH]

AK vs M16

M16 is the more accurate rifle. However, I have had opportunity in my work to talk to many troops rotating from Iraq. A frequent complaint is malfunction due to the fine sand clogging the weapon; most said the big advantage of the AK was rock-solid reliability. Those who had worked with Delta Force folks said they were impressed with the HK416 version with the gas piston.

 

[jon_in_wv]

I did a search for AK mags on the internet to see what brand or source I should use for mags for my AK and the answer I got was a resounding, "doesn't matter, whatever you get works fine. The AK mags are generally produced by eastern block nations that over engineered the mags for rock solid reliability" My question is, why the heck would you "under" engineer them? Are we supposed to believe that inferior magazines are somehow a superior design with the AR??
I still maintain the AK is a superior battle rifle in a more versatile caliber than the AR15/M16. The AR walks all over it for sporting purposes but the AK has no equal as a battle rifle.

 

[RockyMtnTactical]

Trust me, I have found bad AK mags...

It's funny how the AK has this legendary reliability in the web. You'd think an AK has never failed.

It's like I say though, the flaws of both platforms are usually exaggerated greatly by those who hate the other platform. People who shoot and own both usually have more reasonable and responsible answers...

As for the AR15, yes the mags were made to be disposable. They typically are not always treated as such and is one reason why you may have issues on occasion with the AR15.

However, just because the AR15 mags were designed to be disposable originally, they tend to have a longer service life for many folks depending on how well they are treated. Also, with new innovations such as many of the magpul products including ranger plates, magpul followers, and even PMAG's themselves that is changing...

 

[Slamfire]

I find the comments from actual combat users of the M16 very interesting and educational.

Still though, the M16 platform requires more maintenance than an AK. Something else that you can read from IZinterogator posts are, the successful operation and maintenance of an M16 requires above average initiative and mechanical understanding. This gentleman has clearly analyzed his M16 problems, decided on root causes, and taken actions to prevent them happening to him.

Few Joe’s do this, even though their life may be on the line. And then, what do you do with the folks who are barely intelligent enough to chip paint? Rely on your NCO’s, your Officer Corp to oversee and troubleshoot the guys weapon?

Were any of these types diligently overseeing Private Jessica prior to her getting into trouble, early in Iraqi? No. Private Jessica said “My gun jammed”. She had a maintenance heavy weapon, obviously was un interested in it, and was totally clueless about how to clear a jam.

I cannot say a Private Jessica could not have jammed a AK, but if you look at how many AK’s are in the hands of illiterate, non mechanical types in third world countries, and killing people daily with them, it is obvious the AK requires less knowledge and maintenance to keep them going.

The AR15/M16/M4 is an adequate service rifle. It is not the best of its class, and as a battle rifle, it is inferior in both cartridge and design to the AK47.

As for accuracy, well I have a target shooting bud that went to Iraqi. I asked him about combat and accuracy. He told me he was typically shooting through a small port hole out of a HMMWV, wearing fogged glasses, the HMMWV driver going as fast as he can, swerving, and that target grade accuracy was just not something that factored into the experience.

Same thing for kicking down doors and shooting people running around hallways and out of rooms. Information from one scout sniper is that it is rare to have a shot over 200 yards in the city.

Yes, the AR15 is the better target rifle, but that seems to be of lesser importance to getting lead on target and weapon reliability.

 

[Jermtheory]

The AR15/M16/M4 is an adequate service rifle. It is not the best of its class, and as a battle rifle, it is inferior in both cartridge and design to the AK47.

not everyone would agree that far superior ergonomics and accuracy would equate to "inferior design".one could also argue that the 5.56 is more than capable and allows you to carry more ammo(therefore once again,not "inferior" at all).

also...im sure there are a great many battle scenerio's where the added accuracy is quite handy(your buddy in the fogged glasses shooting from the port hole aside).

 

[Wyldman]

WOW! I am kind of surprised to see the poll so close on the numbers. I expected everyone to go with the AR15.

I HAVE fired both and I think they are both equally effective. I would go with the AK myself.

 

[Slamfire]

also...im sure there are a great many battle scenerio's where the added accuracy is quite handy(your buddy in the fogged glasses shooting from the port hole aside).

It is not a matter of capability, it is a matter of a trade. Given I won't loose anything, certainly I would want to increase capability by increasing accuracy. However if it is a trade, I would trade a little accuracy for a little more reliability, little increase in maintainability.

I shoot competitively all the time. I see new guys, God Bless them, come out with out of the box sub MOA Armalites, Rock Rivers, Bushmasters, and miss 6 foot by 6 foot targets at 200 yards, 300 yards, and 600 yards. They are clearly rattled, their skills need work, but no one is shooting at them.

There is this assumption that increased weapon accuracy means increased hit probability. I think this ignores the human element.

I really don't know how accurate I would be, if someone was shooting at me. Probably not as accurate as my rifle.

also argue that the 5.56 is more than capable and allows you to carry more ammo(therefore once again,not "inferior" at all).

You have a point. I was in the pits, ragging on the M16 and praising the M14 when one of our Vietnam vets told me that you could carry 400 rounds of M16 ammo, but only 200 rounds of 308. I said "Rusty, you ever fire 400 rounds in a day"?. And he said yes. And all I could think of was "Must have been a bad day".

 

[RockyMtnTactical]

I know several Iraq vets who have gone through 12+ mags on multiple occasions in a single firefight.

 

[jon_in_wv]

A few have addressed my points and misunderstood the MEANING.

When I addressed the AR15s accuracy and ergonomics I was referring to it as a "battle rifle" Both of those qualities are of much less value for a battle rifle than reliability and ease of maintenance. I believe the AK has the AR beat on both of those. Every unit is equipped with numerous other weapons that are capable of long range accuracy. The AR and the .223 are not optimal for long range sniping anyhow (nor are the AK/7.62x39) when there are .308s available for that task.

While I'm not saying an AK has never jammed the inherit reliability is much higher by virtue of its design and the quality of its magazines than the AR. What kind of logic is it that we have a battle rifle with weak, aluminum, disposable mags? I fail to see the benefit. Someone enlighten me.

Also the point was made the AR carries more ammo than the AK47. Really? How so? The two rounds are very similar in size. The AK is heavier, has heavier mags, and the rounds are slightly heavier. A battle rifle has never been a "light" weapon. Gaining a few pounds weight for a more durable and reliable weapon system is a fair trade for me. If its simply a matter of the number of rounds the AKs don't have to be downloaded for reliability and can carry an honest 30 rounds instead of 28. There are also 40 round mags available for the AK that supposedly work fine.

I recently saw an interview on TV of one of the guys who helped design the AR15. He said if his son went to war tomorrow he would want his son carrying an AK and NOT an AR. The AK has seen several upgrades over the years to its final AK103 (?) configuration. The AR hasn't seen a substantial change or improvement in over 20 years. HE also cited the other benefits of the AK and said he believed it was time to finally recognize this and upgrade our current service rifle to something else.

In fairness to the conversation I have never even fired an AK47. I will have a converted Saiga by the end of the week but I have yet to own one personally. I have, however, been issued, carried, qualified with, and trained with the AR15 for the last 16 years (4 years in the USMC and 12 years in the Federal Government) I have had MORE than enough experience with it to formulate a very solid opinion of the AR15/M16. I think you can tell from my posts what that opinion is. I do love the AR15 as a sporting rifle but as a battle rifle I think it leaves a lot to be desired.
The AK I'm getting is also a member of my Russian "family": 1943 Mosin Nagant 91/30, M44, Tula SKS, and a Makarov. I understand the philosophy of the weapons not as crude rifles but as tough, reliable, battle rifles that are built for strength and reliability. They aren't pretty, but they work.