As terrorists and U.S. clash, find out which is better--the M-16 or the AK-47

After reading countless threads on this subject, and now having experience with both AK's and AR's, I'm left with the conclusion that "it depends".

I gather that if you have lots of support, and your missions can be discrete affairs, followed fairly shortly by time to clean and service the rifle, then the AR / M-16 / M-4 would be great.

But if you are on the run, living rough and living in survival mode for a long period of time, then the AK's ruggedness would be a great plus. [I imagine myself cleaning my only rifle, an AR, in survival mode ... and losing a small part ... :( ]

It would seem that both rifles have their advantages, depending upon your circumstances. Once again proving the "tool" analogy ... the tool depends upon the job.

Thanks for an interesting article.

Regards from AZ
 
Not to be (too) offensive, but...
the opinions of a a great lot of middle-aged and up guys, combined with those of a great lot of college-age and younger guys, all of whom have the leisure to post on this aren't worth a great deal. I've owned and fired examples of both. Uncle Sam issued me an M-16A1 for a while, which I never used in combat. Guess what? All that adds up to my opinion being worth what you just paid for it.
I'm particularly amused by AK partisans who have never carried one in combat, never done other with their privately owned semi-auto specimens than take it from home to the range and back, never fired it in other than fair weather, boast about its superior reliability compared to the AR/M-16.
Consider this. In every war since the inception of cartridge-bearing rifles, the US GI has had a tendency to believe that what the "other guy" has is better. I remember hearing stories, as a kid, about GIs throwing away their Thompsons and picking up MP-40's. This AR/AK business has been going on for 40 years now, still fueled mainly by the early problems with ammunition in Vietnam.
 
A little late in the thread, but it occurs to me that a comparison between two rifles probably belongs in The Art of the Rifle. So look for it there.

- sensop
 
The 5.45mm Russian cartridge (isn't it a necked-down 7.62x39?) has similar terminal effects to the 5.56mm, but suffers big-time in the accuracy department. The 5.45mm bullets hollow core makes it unstable in flight and prone to keyholing. The AK-74 is a 5MOA rifle at the best of times. IMO, that's not good enough for a battle rifle.
Click to expand...

First off, the 5.45x39 is NOT a necked-down 7.62x39. Second, the 5.45x39 is MORE accurate than the 7.62 rounds. 5 MOA, are you kidding? I can easily get 2 MOA in my Romak II AK74 with cheap Wolf ammo. I have never heard of a keyholing problem, although the bullet will tumble when going through soft tissue. While in flight, however, it will not tumble. I wish people would stop saying things about rifles they have no experience with, as it is the root of a lot of misinformation.
 
REDLEG

Some additionally observations, when we got to SWA, our rifles seem to function with less than 100 percent reliability. Prior to shipping out we were told to leave our weapons "dry." The seemed to not want to work, Some of the section chiefs got some cans of a powder/dry lubricant (in a orange and white can, not sure of the name though, it was over ten years ago you know). We cleaned our weapons with MOGAS and sprayed them down with the dry lube. They seemed to work fine after that, although the most we ever fired was 7-8 magazines through a weapon. When we actually crossed the berm we never shot our weapons because everything was attacked at some really good ranges with air, arty or tank guns.

I did read in MCLLs that some of the grunt BNs had similar problems and ground down the feed lips of their magazines and seemed to improve the realibbity of their weapons.

We did find quite a few AK in bunkers that were serviceable, but did also find several that were so full of sand that they couldn't function, the same conditions would have stopped any weapon though.
 
round and round...

As reiterated many times, each is a tool and each have their appropriate uses.

I live in the desert, dust everywhere. Have an AK.

I also live in a house, in America, and don't plan on going to war in the desert anytime soon with my personal weapons. Will get an AR.

I too prefer quality M1As and FALs, but will settle for the more inexpensive intermediate calibers until I can hold a steady diet of .308.

I also remember the soldiers in Desert Storm using all kinds of things like pantyhose to keep the grit out the the M-16s. Wonder what they are using in Afghanistan? Is it a big deal? I don't know, haven't been in that situation...
 
the opinions of a a great lot of middle-aged and up guys, combined with those of a great lot of college-age and younger guys, all of whom have the leisure to post on this aren't worth a great deal. I've owned and fired examples of both. Uncle Sam issued me an M-16A1 for a while, which I never used in combat. Guess what? All that adds up to my opinion being worth what you just paid for it.
Click to expand...

Yes I am a college-age younger guy, but my opinion is still worth SOMETHING.

I'm particularly amused by AK partisans who have never carried one in combat, never done other with their privately owned semi-auto specimens than take it from home to the range and back, never fired it in other than fair weather, boast about its superior reliability compared to the AR/M-16.
Click to expand...

Ha! I only wish I fired my AK in only fair weather. I live in El Paso, Texas where dust and windstorms are frequent and the range is out in the desert. Often I am shooting in a duststorm, which means sand and dust gets inside my rifles. I have never had an AK problem with sand, but I have had an AR problem. In fact, I once left an AK outside at night during a duststorm, and it worked fine the next day.

Consider this. In every war since the inception of cartridge-bearing rifles, the US GI has had a tendency to believe that what the "other guy" has is better. I remember hearing stories, as a kid, about GIs throwing away their Thompsons and picking up MP-40's. This AR/AK business has been going on for 40 years now, still fueled mainly by the early problems with ammunition in Vietnam.
Click to expand...

The sad fact is that what the "other guy" has had WAS usually better.

Indian Wars: Cavalry had trapdoor Springfields and were facing indians who would often have Winchester repeaters or Sharps.

Spanish-American War: We had trapdoors and Krags, they had Spanish Mausers using smokeless powder.

World War One: Although we were OK in rifles and pistols, we had crappy Chauchat French machineguns vs. German Maxims.

World War Two: We had Garands, they had Stg. 43 assault rifles.

Korea: We actually had somewhat of a parity in small arms this time, although the SKS is lighter than the Garand and the PPSh-41 is marginally better than the M3.

Vietnam: We had M16's and M16A1's with ammo and cleaning problems, they had AK-47's and AKM's.
 
Vladimir_Berkov
Sorry by those statements you have proved why most of your opinions can be discounted.
 
REDLEG,
You are right as rain on the M-14!! We trained with both the -14 and -16; the -14 fires all the time, and if (God help you) you get real close and personal, I'd rather swing the butt of a -14 into somebody's face than that of a -16.

But things have changed. Spoke with an NG-type at the Orlando airport--young whippersnapper--he told me that the -16 had 'deadly force' even without the bullets. I told him I would rather use a -14 (which also had a bayonet...) and he looked at me as though I'd just stepped off the moon.

Aging--do we understand more, or just get old??
 
Mass does increase "relatively" as a function of velocity. mass = energy. That energy changes as half the velocity squared. So the statement is correct.

The AK is more durable, but I prefer the AR. Even in dirty environments.

As far as knocking the locks off a door, I would not use an AR butt...nor an AK butt...but a "prybar." It's a new invention, only 15,000 years old, but I think it will catch on with walking apes, given time.

There are a LOT of errors in this article, however. And quoting gun control proponents' letters to the editor from 8 years ago is disturbing.
 
Vladimir_Berkov
Sorry by those statements you have proved why most of your opinions can be discounted.
Click to expand...

Really? Would you care to explain? I am sorry if I am only a college student and not a military vet, but the truth is that the US military has had serious problems with the procurement of good small arms ever since the Civil War.

The best example is the Spanish American war although Vietnam is not far behind. Why the M16 was rushed to frontline use so soon after its development remains a mystery to me.

If you have a problem with my statements, feel free to refute them. I may be wrong on certain things, nobody's perfect, but what exactly do you have a problem with?

Looking back on it, you could make a case that the US outgunned the Germans up until the introduction of the MP44 although that too can be disputed.

But seriously, WTF is the problem?
 
Ha! I only wish I fired my AK in only fair weather. I live in El Paso, Texas where dust and windstorms are frequent and the range is out in the desert. Often I am shooting in a duststorm, which means sand and dust gets inside my rifles. I have never had an AK problem with sand, but I have had an AR problem. In fact, I once left an AK outside at night during a duststorm, and it worked fine the next day.
Click to expand...

You equate range time and adversity to combat, most would wish for those type of conditions.


Indian Wars: Cavalry had trapdoor Springfields and were facing indians who would often have Winchester repeaters or Sharps.
Click to expand...
Only partly correct, not all indains were equipped with repeated weapons, there were even some that still were using bows and arrows.


World War One: Although we were OK in rifles and pistols, we had crappy Chauchat French machineguns vs. German Maxims.
Click to expand...

The Chauchaut was an automatic rifle, by today terms, you are attempting to compare a heavy machine gun to a light machine gun. The US did use various weapons that were very much the equal to the German Spandaus.

World War Two: We had Garands, they had Stg. 43 assault rifles.
Click to expand...

The US only faced the Stg on a very limited bases, the plan of issue was something like one STG for per squad or so and that was into 1944. The only unit (BN) fully equipped with this weapon fought in on the eastern front and not the western. So the US experience with the effects of assault weapons was very limited.

Korea: We actually had somewhat of a parity in small arms this time, although the SKS is lighter than the Garand and the PPSh-41 is marginally better than the M3.
Click to expand...

The M3 was not the only SMG used by the US, the Thompson was still in general us. Also the SKS was not the general issue weapon for either the PLA or the NKPA, the still relied only exclusively on the Mosin Nagant, the PPsh and various acquired arms

Vietnam: We had M16's and M16A1's with ammo and cleaning problems, they had AK-47's and AKM's
Click to expand...

There were a lot of ammo problems but these were resolved, that can be expected when a weapon is first fielded in large quantities, especially after the ordnance corps attempted to sabotage much of the fielding. Hell the first batch of M14s suffered from a slight problem of exploding, but that didn't stop them from going on to being good weapons. And I am sure you understand why despite the intent of Kalishnokov himself, the first AK were not stamped? Was it that the technology didn't support that until several years latter when the AKM was made?

Now the problem with all this discussion of ideal rifles is the fact that small arms don't cause most of the battlefield causalities. Supporting arms, i.e. arty, mortars and air cause the majority of the damage.
 
You equate range time and adversity to combat, most would wish for those type of conditions.
Click to expand...

Nope. I have never been in combat and hopefully never will. I know I do not have combat training, but saying that civilian AK owners are universally full of s*** is an overgeneralization. I don't just go back and forth from my house to an indoor range with my AK. It gets used in the rain and sand, and it still works. I am not attempting to talk about combat conditions, just environmental conditions.


Only partly correct, not all indains were equipped with repeated weapons, there were even some that still were using bows and arrows.
Click to expand...

No, but many were and the US should have been. The trapdoor Springfield was a terrible weapon compared with what was available, and the ammunition issued made it even worse. Even a bow and arrow doesn't jam.


The Chauchaut was an automatic rifle, by today terms, you are attempting to compare a heavy machine gun to a light machine gun. The US did use various weapons that were very much the equal to the German Spandaus.
Click to expand...

I never said it wasn't. The problem was that the US had problems procuring good heavy machine guns, and adopted the Chauchat as a stop-gap which it was ill-prepared for. By WWI the US had lagged behind Europe in machinegun techology and it showed.



The US only faced the Stg on a very limited bases, the plan of issue was something like one STG for per squad or so and that was into 1944. The only unit (BN) fully equipped with this weapon fought in on the eastern front and not the western. So the US experience with the effects of assault weapons was very limited.
Click to expand...

Again, I never said it was on a one-to-one basis. German WW2 arms were generally more advanced than US designs, and had a longer influence. A MP40 for example is a LOT lighter than the Thompson, and is thus easier to carry. The fact that the US produced the M3 is a testiment to the effectiveness of the MP40 and also the British Sten. The US planned to get rid of the Thompsons, and replace them with M3's anyway.

The M3 was not the only SMG used by the US, the Thompson was still in general us. Also the SKS was not the general issue weapon for either the PLA or the NKPA, the still relied only exclusively on the Mosin Nagant, the PPsh and various acquired arms
Click to expand...

By 1950 the Thompson was almost obsolete. Also, as I said, in this situation the US arms used weren't inferior. However, many of the Russian and Chinese guns used were very good designs in their own right.


There were a lot of ammo problems but these were resolved, that can be expected when a weapon is first fielded in large quantities, especially after the ordnance corps attempted to sabotage much of the fielding. Hell the first batch of M14s suffered from a slight problem of exploding, but that didn't stop them from going on to being good weapons. And I am sure you understand why despite the intent of Kalishnokov himself, the first AK were not stamped? Was it that the technology didn't support that until several years latter when the AKM was made?
Click to expand...

I was refering to the early ammo and cleaning problems. The NVA and VC didn't have such problems with their AKs. The early teething problems with the AK design were sorted out years before the weapons were used in any large numbers or in a combat scenario. However, the AR-15/M16 was rushed to the troops without adequate testing or training which led to its bad reputation. However, I don't have any special grudge against the M16 currently. Most of the issues have been sorted out by now. The problem was that those issued should have been sorted out BEFORE it was issued not after.
 
"I'm waiting for someone to produce a rifle based on the .223 that has fewer than 100 parts total, and is about 5.5lbs. "

Off topic slightly, but how does Armalite's "new" 180b stack up to those specifications?
 
Vladimir,
The very idea that you have shot your AK in dusty conditions at the range and have fired it after leaving it out all night (once) constitutes a valid opinion on the combat worthiness of one arm versus another is laughable. The people who are hashing out this particular iteration of the AR v. AK debate are unavailable for comment, as they are just now engaged in trying to kill each other. Veterans of previous iterations have more input than you and I, but their experiences are dated as there have been changes to the weapons and the ammuniton. As for your examples of the GI consistently having poorer equipment than the other guy
Indian Wars- despite what you may think, every Indian wasn't running around with a Winchester and a crate of ammo. Bows, muzzle loading arms, and captured/stolen trapdoor arms were very common. Also, and i don't mean this as a slur, my reading indicates that the Indians were not notable marksmen nor were they (as a group) very good at maintaining their firearms.
Spanish American War- the various "militia" units using the trapdoor were certainly outgunned. However, I think if you look into it, the .30-40 Krag wasn't nearly as disadvantaged as you might like to think. In any case, we seem to have won...
WWI- your errors have already been pointed out.
WWII- ditto
Korea- ditto
I question, however, the implication in your post that the SKS carbine is somehow superior to the M1 Garand rifle. Would you care to expand on that?
I will agree, to an extent, that Vietnam taught us a bitter lesson about the weapons. That lesson, though, has more to do with not screwing around with weapon/ammo specs than anything else. If the M-16 had been issued with the proper ammo, we would not be having this discussion.
 
Contrary to the article, the gun was not designed for poorly educated and poorly disciplined troops.
Click to expand...

It may not have been designed for that purpose, but that is precisely one of the reasons it was adopted. The Russian Army used to be largely composed of illiterate conscripts from areas that are now break-away provinces (all the "stans" and "inias"). This fact, along with persistent supply problems, made a idiot-proof rifle a necessity. Finally, you are right, Soviet battle tactics never called for long-range fighting with an accurate rifle.
 
I never said it wasn't. The problem was that the US had problems procuring good heavy machine guns, and adopted the Chauchat as a stop-gap which it was ill-prepared for. By WWI the US had lagged behind Europe in machinegun technology and it showed.
Click to expand...

Than why compare the two the way they are used are totally different. It is like comparing a sniper rifle to a assault rifle, two different tools to accomplish two different missions.

I was refering to the early ammo and cleaning problems. The NVA and VC didn't have such problems with their AKs. The early teething problems with the AK design were sorted out years before the weapons were used in any large numbers or in a combat scenario. However, the AR-15/M16 was rushed to the troops without adequate testing or training which led to its bad reputation. However, I don't have any special grudge against the M16 currently. Most of the issues have been sorted out by now. The problem was that those issued should have been sorted out BEFORE it was issued not after.
Click to expand...

The Soviet union had the luxury of not introducing a weapon into a war. The Soviets did issue the AK-47 with stamped receivers to their troops first on a limited basis, those weapons were demonstrated that the Soviets were technologically incapable of correctly stamping weapons. The first time both weapons meet one another in large numbers was at the battle of the Ia Drang in 1965, prior to the problems with ammo cropping up. At that time the M16 seemed to do well enough and there weren't any complaints of the M16 failing.
 
Neither... but the m16 should be replaced

The m16 has seen its day. It is a flawed, high-maintenance design whose only real distinction was accuracy, and that is now matched by the Sig 55x and HK G36. Its fire control system is inferior to most of the world's current assault rifles, and it is arguably a full generation behind the Russian AN-94 which sends out the first two 5.45 bullets at 1800 rpm... greatly increasing hit potential before the shooter is affected by recoil.

Why is the US military still carrying a defective 30-year old design?The efforts to tart up the M16 as M4 are questionable at best. The 14.5" bbl is too short to maintain a 62-grainer at effective (2900 fps) velocity to do what the bullet is supposed to do--tumble. The Adjustable stock is a joke. The gun is still not compact, and you can't shoulder the weapon properly or get a good cheek weld. We are told the military doesn't have the money to give the troops the best small arm in the world, but it spend billions on a single bomber. It also puts $1000 Acogs on $400 m16s. $2 billion, the reputed cost of a single B1 bomber (low estimate), will buy 4,000,000 HK G36s (@$500 each), more than enough to equip every combatent in the Armed Services. Or we could buy 4 million AN-94s for half the cost, and probably save $20 million annually in cleaning supplies
 
-Yo-
Since the 100 B1s produced were made over a decade ago and been out of production since that time, I don't think that is a viable solution in funding.


I'm sure that everyone who think the M16 is a POS also disagree with all the RD to field its replacement the SABR, so it is no win situation for the military. Stay with a proven system or invest in a replacement, either way the arm chair generals and internet commando will not be satisfied.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top