The IDF's take on the AK-47 vs M16 debate

"some of you nay sayers should reflect a moment on whether your limited experience really trumps that of the many first-rate armies who prefer it."

Great statement. Wouldn't it be amazing if we someday found out that the civilians on the internet don't really know everything ? I know that they would never believe it themselves, but maybe the rest of us might. :rolleyes:
It is really a shame. Hundreds of thousands of those rifles used everyday, all over the world, for the last 40 years and the soldiers/police officers/terrorists/gamers/shooting schools.............. using them have it all wrong. They really should read the internet more and pay attention to personal experience less. Experience is highly over-rated. Everything you really need to know is right here as close as your monitor and you never have to leave the chair or put down your beer to learn it all.

"it certainly seems that the MAJORITY, and I daresay the significant majority (though not overwhelming majority) of those who have used the M16 in actual combat and training, and particularly in combat, don't like it (assuming they're telling the truth on the net about their experience),"

So, you are telling me that you have spoken to the majority of people who have used the M16 in combat (on the internet) ?
It couldn't have been a few ? And some of them were 15 year old kids that were stretching the truth a little bit by repeating what they read in a thread just like this in order to make themselves sound salty and a few more were adults who had never darkened the door of a military base but were repeating what they read in a thread like this in order to sound salty, and a few more actual military personel that had an axe to grind ?
No, of coruse not, the internet is nothing but factual information.
 
Tamara, I have shot both a good bit. And have shot AK's a tremendous amount. I also find Garands that aren't worn out extremely reliable. I have M1A's that have been fully reliable. The AR's are behind these other three for reliability. Yes, I know they can be made to work. And if all those brands are simply out of the box reliable why do I see so many other people have them fail to function flawlessly? Not necessarily jammo-matics, but now and again they will hiccup.

I know it isn't anything special, but I used to buy 7.62x39 in the big wooden cases. Not like I have only shot a few hundred rounds thru AK's.

I know people that have owned both, and much prefer the AR. And have AR's that work fine. But that isn't the point.

If I were in combat, and depended on a rifle, and had a choice: AK47, M14, M1 Garand, FAL, would all be my choice before an M16. But that isn't how things work in the military. You get what you get. We're all just wasting time on the topic anyway.
 
I don't know why the IDF disagrees with me. Could be anything from they get them free from the USA to they think it really works. Why did the US military make the bone-headed mistakes when the M16 first went to Vietnam?

Hey the IDF is the outfit that handed out Ruger 10/22's to some troops to use as urban "non-lethal" sniping rifles. Worked well, other than it turned out to be fairly lethal. Much more lethal than they wanted. And these are the guys we should trust as being the most practical military?
Military decision makers that didn't think 22 LR could be lethal. Despite all the thousands that have been killed by the little 22.
 
As a thought... Back in the Vietnam era and on, the world had plenty of M16s and AKs floating around... And which one did most of the world choose to clone?

Btw, with the plain iron sights, I think EITHER rifle would shoot better than the shooter at any signifigantly long range.

For the civilian AR shooters: Do you get as close to milspec as you can with regards to both ammo and rifle?

I ask that because our troops don't get to say "I want this brand of AR with this upper and this brand of magazines".
 
... And which one did most of the world choose to clone?
Click to expand...

The one that they had the industrial base to duplicate. You can't make an AR receiver in a Peshawar alley with some tin snips, a hammer and some corrugated roofing steel... ;)
 
Meekand Mild, in answer to your question, I started with Moly Lube, but that was not working out as well as I would have liked. An MP I work with was using graphite, same results. We found some Militec-1 and have been ecstatic ever since.
 
The one that they had the industrial base to duplicate. You can't make an AR receiver in a Peshawar alley with some tin snips, a hammer and some corrugated roofing steel... ;)
Click to expand...

I knew someone would say that... I just knew it! :mad:

Anyways, I still have to argue that a few synthetic stocks would put the AK back into place as the gun to have. Lighter, still accurate enough for combat, and still damned reliable when you compare militarily fielded versions to the militarily fielded M16s.
 
I'm going to kick myself for saying this, as I have an ongoing love affair with the Kalashnikov system and think that the basic design is capable of great and lofty things. . . . . . BUT

. . .having used M16's (M16A1, M16A2, M4) while in uniform, and owning several of the type, several of which I have mixed and matched uppers and lowers on for grins and chuckles, I have to say that none of them have ever failed to function.

But then, I also make a point of keeping the weapon clean (every time we'd halt for more than 15 minutes I had a standing SOP that all mounted crew served weapons and personal weapons were to be torn down, wiped down, and lubed if necessary), and lubed with the appropriate lubricants (FP-10, CLP, Militec, etc), dust covers closed.

Accuracy. . . the FNC and the M16 are neck and neck, with the 5.56mm AK variants a very close second - if and only if they have either improved iron sights or optics. Out of the box on iron sights the M16 has them all beat.

I just know I'm going to lose my membership in the He-Man AK Lovers Club for this.
 
Handy

I am not speaking about the cost of countries, armies, etc. I am talking about my cost. True, countries, etc can get different prices than I can. I would rather have an ar-15 because I know a lot about that platform, however it is cost prohibitive for me. The AK works for my situation (close quarters), as it is accurate enough for the 15-20 ft that I would need to be able to cover.

I do believe that the IDF choose the m4 based on its advantages over the AK platform. I do not doubt that they are right, as I have lots of respect for their fighting skill and wise choices. Is the ar system better than the ak? Depends on what you need. In a cqb situation, an ak would work just about as well as an ar (the only real diff is accuracy and recoil). The ar is more accurate, which only really helps in longer range combat. I am not proclaiming to be an expert here, and I may very well be wrong.
 
Some of you experts need to spend some time in the employ of Uncle, where you can discuss your opinions with your Drill Sergeant or DI. They of course are more than willing to lecture you on the merits of the M16 family :D
 
Does the USAF qualify as being the "unkle"?

Was an air force security forces member for my entire 4 year elistment (minus basic and tech school). Im not saying the m16 dont have its merits, but its got probs too
 
While I personally prefer the Ak-47 to the Ar-15 any day. I no longer own either. Why, because they don't serve any need I have. But if I had to chose between them, the AK-47 is the better of the two, only because it works as advertised. I have to confess, I have a fetish for reliability. When a gun does not work, all of its other qualities are unimportant to me.

The AR-15/M-16 has a 40 year history of reliability problems. The history of the gun will probably begin with the propellant problems and end with the problems they have had in Iraq. The military is not desperately looking for a replacement (in the same caliber) because it is reliable. :p In fact, the gun that they have been looking at seems to be, practically, no improvement except in reliability.

Once again, AR-15 for felt-lined case carry, target shooting (why? get a bolt) and pretending you are GIJoe (for now). The AK-47 is meant for battlefield use in unpredictable conditions by people who don't always have time to go by the gunshop to pick up some BreakFree.
 
Last edited:
There are no magic swords. I like the AR types for their handling, ergos, and general shootability factors. After many years and many rifles, I settled on them as the choice to keep for using when I divested myself of my other EBR's in favor of expanding my milsurp collection. Folks can offer pontifications about pit crews and clean rooms 'til they're blue in the face, but all it does is flatly contradict my real world experiences of many, many years. This tells me more about the value of their opinions than it does about the actual firearms.

When an AK malfs, excuses are offered about "it must've been a bad mag" or "you do have to clean the gas piston every thousand rounds or so" or "that's a bad lot of Wolf ammo with hard primers." When an AR malfs, it's because it's a poorly designed jammomatic. Whatever...

I think I'll go into work early today and blow a few mags downrange through the M-635 and remind myself about the virtues of arguing on the internet...
 
I have never fired an AR, but I do own a Yugo SKS and would take it anywhere. I just want to give my $.02 on the 5.56 round.

I performed an experiment with 22 cal bullets. I loaded 20 rounds of 22-250 ammo. 10 with Hornady FMJ 55 grain bullets, and 10 with 55 grain Balistic Silvertips. Each one contained 38 grains of IMR 4320 powder that was measured by hand. I used my Savage 12 22-250 w/26" barrel to fire the rounds. I chronographed 4 of each type, then fired 10 rounds at 2 liter bottles filled to the top with water. I alternated each round to eliminate the effects of a heated barrel. I then chose the 2 bottles of each type with the most damage and then took this photograph of them in my kitchen. Look at the high res photo for better detail.

What I concluded is that a 22 cal service round could be effective, but was handicaped with the use of FMJ bullets. I know that I fired the bullets at speeds far higher than any M-16 could, but I was trying to get an idea of the maximum damage these bullets could perform. I believe softpoints would be a good comprimise between penitration and lethality as well as costing virtualy the same as FMJ bullets. (The balistic-tip bullets cost 2x as much as the FMJ)

In an unsientific experiment I fired FMJ and balistic tip bullets at a 3/4" steel plate I use as a target. Both didn't penitrate, but made an equal sized hole in the steel. The 62 grain service round would have done better against the steel, but probably worse in the bottle test.

22-250,%20Balistic%20Tip%20vs%20FMJ-BT%20Small.jpg


Here is the original Full size image.
 
I've got it! I've got it!

Let's get an AK, milspec to one country or another or at least like the ones in Iraq... Then let's get an AR, milspec... Then let's buy a whole buncha milspec ammo and/or whatever ammo is most commonly used in the middle eastern theatre of conflict. After we've got all that, let's get the same cleaning gear as used by both sides over in Iraq... Then, let's all spend a day at the range, and another day at a range with sand, and another day at a range with mud -- making sure to clean our weapons as much as an average day in Iraq... In fact, let's do this a couple times to iron out any one-day 'flukes'... Then let's spend a day doing simulated patrols, complete with gritty conditions, simulated engagements (look, down in that valley... Paper enemies!)... After all of that, let's get a few carcasses and some ballistics gel and some armor and some cover like that found in the Iraq conflict so we can test the downrange effect of our ammunition... Once that's all been done, let's look at the results in an unbiased way... Say, for instance, through a scoring system based on combat rounds fired vs. rounds hit and rounds hitting critical areas of the targets, accuracy in range conditions, rounds fired vs. rounds malfunctioned (including misfires, jams, faliures to cycle, etc), and what kind of wounding/kills would occur in average combat... Then let's argue about what happened!

Untill then, I'm dropping out of this debate... We all have our opinions, and all our opinions seem to be equally well founded. Some of us just give certain evidence more emphasis than other evidence.

(Then again, I'm an AK guy myself...) <<======= Hehehe. :D
 
Cowled_Wolf stated:

"As a thought... Back in the Vietnam era and on, the world had plenty of M16s and AKs floating around... And which one did most of the world choose to clone?"


This is a pretty ignorant statement, as it obviously reflects NO KNOWLEDGE of the politics of the era. It's time for a world history lesson.

Wanna know why so many AK's are floating around the world, compared to AR-15-type weapons?

It's 'cuz at one time, the USSR had a NUMBER of client states who were part of the Warsaw Pact, and they were all TOLD what rifle with which to equip their troops. This is what drove East Germany, Poland, Czechslovakia, Albania, Yugoslavia, Romania, and Hungary to be equipped with AK's.

Add to that the fact that now-dead Soviet Union spent many rubles EXPORTING their communist doctrine to any corner of the globe that seemed a viable candidate. And part of that exportation was shipping the tool to help insure the communism would hold the day--the AK-47 rifle. This is how China, Mozambique, Cuba, Iraq, Egypt, North Korea, N. VietNam, Angola, Syria, Lybia, and a bunch of other places wound up with the AK.

AK's are prolific NOT because they are good, but because the Soviets did everything they could to put this weapon in the hands of every malcontent they could find, hoping to spread the ideas of Lenin and Marx in the process.
 
My point being is that the "goodness" of the rifle had VERY little bearing on its proliferation. The Soviets turned out weapons that are "adequate", but not necessarily the "BEST".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top