As terrorists and U.S. clash, find out which is better--the M-16 or the AK-47
- Thread starter Drizzt
- Start date
Vladimir_Berkov
New member
I used the Chauchat as an example. I suppose I could go through every weapon and compare them to every other, but in many cases direct comparisons will fail. However, the fact that the Chauchat was used AT ALL by the AEF shows how terrible the procurement was at the time. The US used other heavy machineguns, of various types. But the Germans outclassed them with their heavies and even the limited issue late war German LMG's were superior to the Chauchat. If you compared US machineguns in general (light and heavy) to German machineguns (light and heavy) the German arms were more advanced and better designed. Also, remember foreign arms procurement for the US Army didn't exist to the extent it does today. We were really nationalistic about who got the contracts. So the fact that we had to buy emergency reserves of French and British weapons shows the sorry state of American machinegun production at the time.
I had a Maadi MISR Semi-Auto, it was ok but the length fit and finish of the Romainian SAR-1 fit me a lot better so I am trading in at a local gunshop to get a NIB SAR-1 its the best looking one I have ever seen the wood is a medium redish-brown and the blueing is awesome.
Never seen a post ban AK that looked this good.
Never seen a post ban AK that looked this good.Vladimir_Berkov
New member
If you want hard facts, I busted out my copy of Small Arms of the World and found the following:
"In 1903 tests were made with the Vickers, the modified Maxim, so named after the Maxim patents ran out and some few changes had been made. The guns were then being built at Hartford by the Colt's Company. These guns were practically identical as to operating mechanism as the one Maxim had shown at the 1888 trials when he used black powder cartridges. The United States Army adopted the model as manufactured by Colt's to use our standard .30 cartridges. It was designated the 1904 model Vickers. In 1916, as a result of tests made against seven competing machine guns, the Army Board recommended purchase of 4600 Vickers guns, M1915. At the time we did not have one machine gun in the Army which was actually of a type we would care to use on the European front.
Meanwhile, the famous Browning gun had been developed. The heads of the Army were now so impressed with this model that they insisted that no offical adoption be considered for any other machine gun. But in 1917 it was impossible to produce the gun for prompt use. We called on Colt's therefore to manufacture more Vickers with which to arm our forces. Colt's had been producing tooling to produce it for the Russians in 7.62mm. The necessary re-tooling to produce it for the United States .30 cartridge hindered production and it was July, 1917, before initial deliveries were made. Although during the period from then to September 12, 1918, 12,125 of these guns were made. Over 7,000 American Vickers were shipped overseas.
There is a lesson here which we as a nation might learn if we would. It is shown by the figures of World War I, when the Germans at the outbreak if the war had 12,500 of the Spandau-made Maxims ready for service. Remember that we did not have a single acceptable machine gun ready for active military field use then. And at the end of the War we still had very few of our own at the front."
-Small Arms of the World, tenth edition.
"In 1903 tests were made with the Vickers, the modified Maxim, so named after the Maxim patents ran out and some few changes had been made. The guns were then being built at Hartford by the Colt's Company. These guns were practically identical as to operating mechanism as the one Maxim had shown at the 1888 trials when he used black powder cartridges. The United States Army adopted the model as manufactured by Colt's to use our standard .30 cartridges. It was designated the 1904 model Vickers. In 1916, as a result of tests made against seven competing machine guns, the Army Board recommended purchase of 4600 Vickers guns, M1915. At the time we did not have one machine gun in the Army which was actually of a type we would care to use on the European front.
Meanwhile, the famous Browning gun had been developed. The heads of the Army were now so impressed with this model that they insisted that no offical adoption be considered for any other machine gun. But in 1917 it was impossible to produce the gun for prompt use. We called on Colt's therefore to manufacture more Vickers with which to arm our forces. Colt's had been producing tooling to produce it for the Russians in 7.62mm. The necessary re-tooling to produce it for the United States .30 cartridge hindered production and it was July, 1917, before initial deliveries were made. Although during the period from then to September 12, 1918, 12,125 of these guns were made. Over 7,000 American Vickers were shipped overseas.
There is a lesson here which we as a nation might learn if we would. It is shown by the figures of World War I, when the Germans at the outbreak if the war had 12,500 of the Spandau-made Maxims ready for service. Remember that we did not have a single acceptable machine gun ready for active military field use then. And at the end of the War we still had very few of our own at the front."
-Small Arms of the World, tenth edition.
All the following is out of Military small arms of the 20th century (5th Addition) by Ian Hogg and John Weeks for those who want a bibliography.
The weapon the Germans used as light Machinegun the Maxim 08/15 weighed some 39lbs with a bipod but with an empty water jacket. Which was heavy for a light machinegun (p221)
The Vickers was an improvement of the Maxim (p237)
Slightly more that 68,000 of the M1917 were delivered prior to the close of the World War I (p263)
Again you are making a leap between procurement and preparation for the war and the quality of the weapons. Other the Chauchat the weapons we got were the equal to the Maxim ,the Vickers itself was a type of Maxim gun. The US had a adequate light machine gun, the Lewis, but the Head of US ordnance, Gen Crozer, had a grudge against its inventor and the weapon was actually taken back from US Marines when they got to France (Misfire the history of smalls arms procurement in the US military).
The weapon the Germans used as light Machinegun the Maxim 08/15 weighed some 39lbs with a bipod but with an empty water jacket. Which was heavy for a light machinegun (p221)
The Vickers was an improvement of the Maxim (p237)
Slightly more that 68,000 of the M1917 were delivered prior to the close of the World War I (p263)
Again you are making a leap between procurement and preparation for the war and the quality of the weapons. Other the Chauchat the weapons we got were the equal to the Maxim ,the Vickers itself was a type of Maxim gun. The US had a adequate light machine gun, the Lewis, but the Head of US ordnance, Gen Crozer, had a grudge against its inventor and the weapon was actually taken back from US Marines when they got to France (Misfire the history of smalls arms procurement in the US military).
Jake 98c/11b
New member
You know, I had avoided this thread for a while because I knew how things would turn out. Unfortunately it is a slow day here in Bosnia, I have read what is here and yes, I really do feel dumber for having done so. There are errors of fact and over simplication in far too much of what I see. Thankfuly STRLN and Skorzeny have had a few things worth reading.
Should have kept my distance.
Should have kept my distance.
Vladimir_Berkov
New member
Delivered to whom?
Also, none of the above facts refute what Small Arms of the World says. The key point is that at the start of WWI the US was dreadfully inferior to the Germans in both quality and quantity of machinguns. Second, the US didn't rectify this problem in a timely fashion meaning that subsitute guns had to be found in France and Britain instead of being produced in the US as they should have been. I know the Vickers is an improved Maxim, but with only 7,000 of them reaching the Americans at the front near the end of the war, the Americans production was obviously less than the 12,500 Maxims the Germans had at the beginning. Also, because of America's late involvement in machinegun procurement, for much of the war America had no comparable machinegun in service to even match the Maxim.
True the 08/15 was heavy for a light machine gun, but at least it wasn't a jam-o-matic like the Chauchat.
You could see the same thing happen in Vietnam as M14's were withdrawn and replaced with M16's.
If I were in an urban environment, fighting from building to building. Where you never have a chance to see past 100 meters due to rubble and walls. I'd pick the AK. If I was ever fighting in dense foliage - woods or rainforest or even just lots of bushes, I'd pick the AK. If I was going against targets with more than flack jackets, I'd pick the AK. If I were in the desert with dunes and all I'd pick the M-16 BUT ONLY for short firefights. If things got really hairy and the bad guys were in the hundreds, I'd wish I had an AK. If I were fighting in caves....I don't know, depends on the day. That's a toss up. Give me some Molotov cocktails (another great russian invention), flash bangs and frag grenades. If I was in a location with varied terrain - like where I live. I'd pick the M-16. I live in a city, but go 20 miles west and it's desert. Go 10 miles east it's forest and mountains. Go 10 miles north it's mountains - no trees. Go 30 miles south and it's flat - no trees. I like the M-16 over the AK over-all. It's the next generation. But it falls short in penetration and reliability.
The M-16 is so much more tactical, newer and fires .223 (which has it's advantages). But the AK is good enough in that department and excels in the thigs that REALLY matter - reliability and power.
But, let me contradict myself for a moment. I do remember an article I read...The AK has a poor probability to kill. It passes right through a human body without causing much damage. .223 is better there. AK only has a 30% chance in killing. A 12 gage shotty has an 80% chance. However, I would like to see you kill a guy in a flack jacket behind a wall (or even light foliage) with an M-16. I know an AK has better chances there.
This debate has no end. Both are good. Both are better than the other in differant areas. If the AK was bad it would be replaced. If the M-16 were better it would replace the AK. Niether will happen. The AK is so simple and basic (including lame sights) it drives any modern army nuts. It sucks getting killed by the old school. The fact is the AK is good enough (better than it looks...like an under dog) and the M-16 often falls short (it's not a solve-all). This debate should die. There is no true answer. They are both good. They are almost on opposite ends of the spectrum.
If only we could expend as much energy in mixing the two...Instead of trying to replace one or the other, we should replace both. I want a rifle that's tactical like the M-16 with it's accuracy but with more power and simple, reliable operation. Why is that so hard?
Isn't there something better than the AK AND M-16?
The M-16 is so much more tactical, newer and fires .223 (which has it's advantages). But the AK is good enough in that department and excels in the thigs that REALLY matter - reliability and power.
But, let me contradict myself for a moment. I do remember an article I read...The AK has a poor probability to kill. It passes right through a human body without causing much damage. .223 is better there. AK only has a 30% chance in killing. A 12 gage shotty has an 80% chance. However, I would like to see you kill a guy in a flack jacket behind a wall (or even light foliage) with an M-16. I know an AK has better chances there.
This debate has no end. Both are good. Both are better than the other in differant areas. If the AK was bad it would be replaced. If the M-16 were better it would replace the AK. Niether will happen. The AK is so simple and basic (including lame sights) it drives any modern army nuts. It sucks getting killed by the old school. The fact is the AK is good enough (better than it looks...like an under dog) and the M-16 often falls short (it's not a solve-all). This debate should die. There is no true answer. They are both good. They are almost on opposite ends of the spectrum.
If only we could expend as much energy in mixing the two...Instead of trying to replace one or the other, we should replace both. I want a rifle that's tactical like the M-16 with it's accuracy but with more power and simple, reliable operation. Why is that so hard?
Isn't there something better than the AK AND M-16?
Odd...
...and ironic. The Chauchat prototypes performed fine for "the guys in the labcoats".
It was when examples that had been subcontracted out to bicycle manufacturers were exposed to the horrific conditions of trench warfare that its defects were exposed.
...and ironic. The Chauchat prototypes performed fine for "the guys in the labcoats".
It was when examples that had been subcontracted out to bicycle manufacturers were exposed to the horrific conditions of trench warfare that its defects were exposed.
Last edited:
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
You don't have to be a combat veteran to understand that diving for cover ("I can't get no lower; my buttons are in the way!") in mud or loose sand can be somewhat detrimental to firearms reliability--no matter the brand. When living in mud, the same problem exists--even outside of combat.
I was one of the few guys in Basic at Fort Bliss in 1954 with prior experience with a Garand. We had an extended firing session out at one of the boonies ranges. I kept slopping gun oil into the receiver, ever half-dozen clips or so. I didn't realize I had one of the few rifles still firing, until the Field First came up to try to figure out why. He grinned from ear to ear when he saw my can of oil. He then gathered up everybody else's ammo and we had a Fun Session until after dark. (By the time we were done, it was not a "good used" barrel.)
Questions: Were the other guys' rifles "problems of design"? Did I have an exceptional exception? Or did I just have that little bit of information that made a difference?
STLRN, Vlad: The ammo problem for the M-16 in Nam was from politics of the Olin Corporation (SOF magazine; extensive article.) The M-16 "ran" fine with IMR powder, at around 800-900 rounds per minute. Olin lobbied itself into the ammo contract, and with Ball Powder, the 1,100 rpm cyclic rate created some spring problems, as did the "dirtier" powder.
Instead of admitting any mistake, the "solution" was the forward-assist bolt and the issuance of more cleaning materials...
Regards,
Art
I was one of the few guys in Basic at Fort Bliss in 1954 with prior experience with a Garand. We had an extended firing session out at one of the boonies ranges. I kept slopping gun oil into the receiver, ever half-dozen clips or so. I didn't realize I had one of the few rifles still firing, until the Field First came up to try to figure out why. He grinned from ear to ear when he saw my can of oil. He then gathered up everybody else's ammo and we had a Fun Session until after dark. (By the time we were done, it was not a "good used" barrel.)
Questions: Were the other guys' rifles "problems of design"? Did I have an exceptional exception? Or did I just have that little bit of information that made a difference?
STLRN, Vlad: The ammo problem for the M-16 in Nam was from politics of the Olin Corporation (SOF magazine; extensive article.) The M-16 "ran" fine with IMR powder, at around 800-900 rounds per minute. Olin lobbied itself into the ammo contract, and with Ball Powder, the 1,100 rpm cyclic rate created some spring problems, as did the "dirtier" powder.
Instead of admitting any mistake, the "solution" was the forward-assist bolt and the issuance of more cleaning materials...
Regards,
Art
Art, I will have to beg exception on the forward assist being related to ball powder. The ball powder used in the initial lots of ammo produced with it had excessive levels of calcium carbonate, put there to neutralize any acidic decomposition products common with the recycled nitrocelluose Olin used. Calcium carbonate is what limestone is made of and it can make a general mess in any gas operated automatic action, be it a Garand, M14 or M16.
Some modern powders use an amine based neutralizer which completely vaporizes in the normal combustion. Some ammo smells foul due to this additive. Federal American Eagle comes to mind. Olin decided to reduce the calcium carbonate in the ball powder and this eliminated the problem.
The forward assist was a combination solution to extend the cleaning interval and provide a more tactical charging operation. Instead of letting the charging handle or bolt carrier fly home, the soldier would ride the charging handle down. With the M16, the bolt would not close and nothing could be done to force it closed (easily). The forward assist allows one to ride the carrier home and push the bolt closed.
Some modern powders use an amine based neutralizer which completely vaporizes in the normal combustion. Some ammo smells foul due to this additive. Federal American Eagle comes to mind. Olin decided to reduce the calcium carbonate in the ball powder and this eliminated the problem.
The forward assist was a combination solution to extend the cleaning interval and provide a more tactical charging operation. Instead of letting the charging handle or bolt carrier fly home, the soldier would ride the charging handle down. With the M16, the bolt would not close and nothing could be done to force it closed (easily). The forward assist allows one to ride the carrier home and push the bolt closed.