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

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.
Click to expand...

That is exactly the point. The fact was that one tool (Chauchat) was used to fulfill the role of another tool (heavy machinegun) which the Chauchat was unable to do. The fact that I cannot compare an American heavy machinegun to a German one speaks more because no comparable American design existed at the time.

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.
Click to expand...

That is correct, and the US did choose to introduce a untested weapon into a war which was just plain idiotic. The M14 was available, worked, and had all of the bugs worked out by Vietnam. The M16 was an unproven design with several flaws but it was fielded anyway. The M16 ammo problem should never have occured in the first place, much less during a war.
 
The weapon was tested, the Army SF and ARVN Ranger used the weapon, with great results. These combat tests lead to the myth of the 'self cleaning rifle" The powder in use at that time made them a very low maintenance item. The 7th Cav used them at Ia Drang way before they were massed fielded, again with great results. The problems with fouling didn't come about until after the weapons were fielded too everyone and the powder was changed in order to get enough rounds out to the troops.


The US used Vickers and a French heavy machine gun, the ChaChaut was used in the light FS role. It was used for the concept of "walking fire" vice sustained fire support role that a heavy gun would be used for. Again it is comparing apples to oranges.
 
The US used Vickers and a French heavy machine gun, the ChaChaut was used in the light FS role. It was used for the concept of "walking fire" vice sustained fire support role that a heavy gun would be used for. Again it is comparing apples to oranges.
Click to expand...

I noticed that you didn't mention any US-made heavy machineguns used in World War One. Of course, that is because there really were none. The fact that that the US had to procure French and British weapons because no US equivilant was available shows the lack of development of the US machinegun at the time. Such actions would be analagous to the current US army needing to borrow French FAMAS rifles to fight in Alfghanistan. Of course, after WWI the US realized that it needed its own machineguns and produced some very good ones. But during the war the US lagged behind its enemies.
 
But during the war the US lagged behind its enemies.
Click to expand...

Why? Because we were too busy building Lewis guns, P.14/1917 "Enfields", and munitions for our allies? Or for some other reason? ;)

Oh, the uberkrauts. Their stuff is always better. Their uniforms are snappier. Their Dr. I's have cooler paint jobs.

They had a limited number of Bergmann SMG's in WWI. We had a limited number of BAR's.

In WWII, they released the StG 43/MP-44 on a limited, almost experimental, basis; the average German landser still used the kar 98k. Every swinging richard in the US Army had a semi- or full-automatic weapon.

Their artillery and transport was still largely horse-drawn in WWII. The US Army was entirely mechanized (and that has a lot more effect on a war than how many bullets go in each infantryman's rifle).

The C96 "Broomhandle" and the P.08 Luger are collector's curiosities today; I can walk into any gunshop and buy a M1911 or one of its' near infinite derivatives.

Etc. etc.

(On the Eastern front, PPSh 41's were highly-prized amongst Wehrmacht troops for their greater penetration. MP-40's were highly prized amongst the other side's soldatski for their greater "knockdown power")

The grass is always greener, apparently. ;)
 
Last edited:
Speaking of desert conditions, perhaps the Israeli experience is a lesson (of sorts - as the story takes turns).

The Israelis used to have FN-FALs. Then they found out that the FALs were relatively heavy for a mobile fighting force such as the IDF and that their reliability in the desert conditions were less than optimal (so they actually brought back out Mausers from storage).

Then they held a trial to select their next service rifle. A design based on AK/Valmet (Galil) was selected while the AR was rejected.

Then there was a massive infusion of ARs into Israel from the US. Now, those who can choose the ARs (particularly the lighter versions) over the Galil! The reasons are: 1) Galil is too heavy still, particularly for those special forces and internal security types and 2) Galil is relatively inaccurate compared to the AR (and then there is an additional reason of the ARs being free).

According to the Israeli Special Forces website, Galil is only carried by those who are FORCED to carry one!

The twist and turns show that even such a practical military force as the IDF is subject to the various whims of the times in selecting its small arms.

Skorzeny
 
I am a college student does my opinion count. Vladimir is right though and I have a similar experiance were I was in the woods shooting and my AK was exposed to moisture and it worked fine. Sorry fellows most AKs will be around when they recycling your AR-15's into car fenders and barbie dolls:p
 
I have a similar experiance were I was in the woods shooting and my AK was exposed to moisture and it worked fine.
Click to expand...

There are people on this board who've discussed their experiences of "being in the woods" for weeks and months on end with their weapons "exposed to moisture", as well as mud, enemy fire, and other assorted debris. Perhaps their experiences are worth listening to? ;)

I've shot my various AK's (Romak, MAK-90/91's, Norinco AKM/AK-47S) and AR's (Bushy, Eagle Arms) under mildly adverse weather conditions, as well as dropping them in the dirt or dropping the dirt in them. They all ran fine.

I am under no delusions that those conditions were at all similar to combat, however.
 
Forgive me here, but how is it possible to discount someone's experience with various rifles because the conditions they tested them under were not combat conditions? If the conditions are equal in the testing of both rifles, what else is there to discuss?

If Rifle A jams every now and then under X conditions and Rifle B functions fine under X conditions, then Rifle B is more reliable. Now I haven't torture tested either an AR or AK under any conditions so I cannot testify to their performence, but I also cannot discount the experience of someone else because of their age, national origin, or conditions they tested the rifles under (as long as they are the same for both rifles).

I wonder how much this discussion really has to with the national origin of the rifle, with a fierce loyalty to their country's gun (most of us are Americans) or a preference to what the other guys had (Tamara summed it up pretty good). I personally think that there are better rifles out there than the M-16 but we will not be upgrading anytime soon, as the difference in rifle performence is not that important as far as winning wars go.
 
There are people on this board who've discussed their experiences of "being in the woods" for weeks and months on end with their weapons "exposed to moisture", as well as mud, enemy fire, and other assorted debris. Perhaps their experiences are worth listening to?

I've shot my various AK's (Romak, MAK-90/91's, Norinco AKM/AK-47S) and AR's (Bushy, Eagle Arms) under mildly adverse weather conditions, as well as dropping them in the dirt or dropping the dirt in them. They all ran fine.

I am under no delusions that those conditions were at all similar to combat, however.
Click to expand...

Just as there is a problem with armchair commandos discussing the finer points of rifle design, don't think combat vets are the best source for weapons info and evaluation all of the time.

Many of the vets I have run into (including my uncle) have very few memories of the details of their rifle or on its specifics or design. Just ask any of the current military servicemen specifics about their weapon and you can get some VERY strange answers. For example, on one History Channel "Tales of the Gun" a WW2 vet stated how he carried an enemy MP40 for a bit which had a 15-round clip. I would much rather trust a civilian expert than that vet about the combat capabilities of the MP40.

The best sort of data comes from objective, scientific tests conducted on a wide range of rifles in a wide range of conditions and various qualities of ammunition. In all of these such tests that I have seen, the AK/Galil/Valmet system always comes out ahead of the AR in reliability and durability even under the harshest conditions.

Thus while vets are a good source of firsthand operational info, which will often bring out subtle features that scientific tests do not, the scientific tests are the only objective way to judge a rifle.
 
Vladimir_Berkov,

Very good point.

All I'm trying to say is that in all the hoopla about most durable, most reliable and most accurate, etcetera, folks often overlook "durable/reliable/accurate enough"

For example: was the Spanish Mauser a "better" rifle than the Krag? Probably. Better enough in any significant way to make any difference on the battlefield? Probably not.

:)
 
Tell me if i'am not right here guys but the US got into WWI in 1917 and by the later half of 1917 the U.S. Military had the model 1917 Browning watercooled machinegun.
And be for that the U.S. Military had adopt the Lightweight, aircooled Benet-Mercie in 1909.
And then in late 1918 we had the BAR, and the Browning .50cal machinegun. And if the War had gone on longer we would have had Tommy Guns:D
 
Vladimir_Berkov
When your talking COMBAT weapons, I think the experiences of those that used the weapons in COMBAT often doesn't match what the guys in the white coats have to say or on the rifle range have to say.

You said specifically weapons use by our forces in World War one, not weapons designed and built in the US. That is why the comparison between the two are not valid.

Also who were you referring to with arm chair commando? I don't think I qualify since I do happen to sign all my official documents with USMC, Commanding under my name.
 
When your talking COMBAT weapons, I think the experiences of those that used the weapons in COMBAT often doesn't match what the guys in the white coats have to say or on the rifle range have to say.
Click to expand...


True. This is especially applicable to the M16 system and especially McNamara and his "whizkids."
But often combat vets are biased, and most don't have enough experience in enough widely ranging conditions to evaluate a weapon in every respect.


You said specifically weapons use by our forces in World War one, not weapons designed and built in the US. That is why the comparison between the two are not valid.
Click to expand...

No, it is valid because we had to scrouge up heavy machineguns for the AEF instead of them being there in the first place. Also, the Benet-Mercie was a light machinegun with a crazy exposed stripper-clip loading system which is singularly unsuited for the mud of France.

Also who were you referring to with arm chair commando? I don't think I qualify since I do happen to sign all my official documents with USMC, Commanding under my name.
Click to expand...

I wasn't refering to you at all. I am talking about people who will talk about weapons they have never fired, or things they have no actual experience with. There are always some of them on any gun forum. However, just because you aren't a combat vet doesn't mean you are automatically an armchair commando. An armchair commando thinks he knows everything even though he knows nothing.
 
The Benet Mercie caliber .30 1909 was adopted way before the US involvement in WWI and only by the USA, the Navy Dept and its Marines adopted Lewis guns. However since they fell under the Army in the AEF, they were forced to give up there Lewis guns to use Chachuts as the base of fire weapon for the rifle squad.


we had crappy Chauchat French machineguns vs. German Maxims.
Click to expand...

You made a direct comparison of the two weapons, not a discussion if whether the US was prepared for the war, which it was not. In addition to around 58000 M1917 water cooled machine-guns, we were able to acquire weapons from our allies. Some as you pointed out were POSs, some like the Vickers guns were good, and some like the French Hotchkiss guns were clunky, heavy but more than reliable and serviceable for the time.
 
Take a DEEP breath...

Keep it civil.

As your moderator I'd like to see annoatated bibliographies for all "anecdotal evidence" that everyone is posting. Thats right, cite your souces people.

In my years of running through these similar threads I consider the following examples of reasonable 'sources" of information:

"Hell I was THERE and the only Tommyguns we got were the ones we took off of dead chinese soldiers!"

Col. David Hackworth, (ret) About Face p237, describing digging up a dead guy and firing off a full magazine from the ak found with the body.

Gunther Lothar Williams, Cross of Iron. p 27 Based on his own experience Williams had Steiner carry a captured PPsh 41, citing better durability, knockdown power etc.

"Tales of the gun last friday, mentioned that stamped steel weapons were made in vast numbers by all sides in ww2, notably the mp-40, the Sten, the M3, the Stg 44, etc etc."

"My dad carried a captured MP40 for most of the war.. I have a pic of him with it, too bad he couldn't keep it"

"My M4/AK/Uzi served me just fine in x conditions"


Unacceptable responses:

"heck everbody knows a danged russian can't make a stamped gun"

"AR's SUCK"

"Dude this one guy I know said his brother shot this guy at like 300 yards 15 times and the guy didn't even blink, I'd rather use an FAL"

"you can't hit an elephant in the ass with that"

'yeah well you can't crack a skull with that wussy piece of plastic!"

Understood?

Ok.. let the debate continue, and please lets be civil.
 
Tamara,
I was posting my experiance, I did not say anything about weeks or months I was just saying it got wet (accually soaked) and it worked fine, and that the only great thing about you guys with AR-15's is that when you need that recycling money in 15 years or so you can get about 15-20 bucks for the plastic.
 
I was just saying it got wet (accually soaked) and it worked fine, and that the only great thing about you guys with AR-15's is that when you need that recycling money in 15 years or so you can get about 15-20 bucks for the plastic.
Click to expand...

My AR's got soaked and shot fine. My AK's got soaked and shot fine. So have miscellaneous Glocks, wheelguns, 1911, bolt- and lever-action rifles, etc. This proves what?

Incidentally, "wet" and "soaked" are more likely to cause long term issues with a steel (rust) and wood (rot) weapon than one largely composed of plastic and non-ferrous (ie:non-rusting) aluminum. ;)

(PS What kind of AK do you have? My current one is a Norinco AKM/AK-47S underfolder in 7.62x39. Fun, aren't they? :) )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top