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

Actually, I failed English 4 years strait.

... And before that I wasn't counting.

As for 9th grade, towards the end of the year, I recall having been half-concious a few times. Literally.

Anyways, as of current, I'm doing As in English, and I've mastered the art of being awake when dead tired...

Btw, I have to say this for the record... It wasn't school that showed me how to speak proper. It was my mom and chatrooms. *Frowns at evil yucky school.*
 
esldude,

For now I am willing to assume you are honest about that. But whether I have quite the volume of experience you have with these two rifles, I have some. And my own experience which I know for a certainty to be true, is diametrically opposed to yours.
Click to expand...

Then you shouldn't believe me, esldude. The only experience you should trust is that which you have accumulated yourself, and that of people who you have thoroughly vetted and trust explicitly. If I am saying something that flatly contradicts your real life experiences, then you should assume I am full of it, and go with what you have proved by experiment.

There are no magic swords.

It's a free country.

Go with what you know.

Don't believe everything you read. :)

For instance, other than your say so, I know nothing of you. You could be BS'ing completely. I have no way of knowing.
Click to expand...

You could check my references. I'm available at Coal Creek Armory, 865.966.4545, every weekday from 1330ish to 2100, and most weekends. :)

And more importantly how do you become so hard line on your opinions and seem to take them so very personally
Click to expand...

I'm not "hard line" on anything, nor am I taking anything "so very personally." However, folks have made positively inane claims in this thread about A) the ultimate tactical unjammable uberreliability of the AK, and B) the insane, only-run-in-a-clean-room finickiness of the AR. Both opinions are as factual as, say, "The sky is plaid," or "Fish are made of rock." When I hear this, I kinda feel like chiming in.
 
WOW-I just posted this link because I thought it was interesting.I didnt know it would get everybody all riled up!
 
Te Anau,

FWIW, the link's been posted before. Putting "AK v. AR" in a thread title is guaranteed to drag the one-true-sworders and speculators out of the ether. ;)
 
Continuing the discussion, here are some random musings:

1. 7.62 x 39 is (statistically) slightly less lethal than 5.56 but a good hit with either round will be VERY BAD for the intended target. Neither is a death ray; either will do the job. I've seen torso hits from both...I'm a believer. This applies to most military caliber centerfire rifle rounds.

2. Re: 5.56 vs. 5.45...roughly same-same...it's a wash.

3. AK iron sight accuracy ranges from barely OK to adequate (out to 300 meters); AR accuracy ranges from adequate to good (out to 300 meters). A good shooter can wring out significantly more long range accuracy from the AR, especially with A2 configuration.

4. AK has abysmal ergonomics (poorly located magazine release, short sight radius, poor rear sight eye relief, adequate but not great trigger pull/break, and the world's worst positioned selector/safety). This REALLY comes into play when you are in the company of other like-equipped friends and in contact with the other side. Immediate action drills, weapon safe/clear drills, transitions during CQB, vehicular drills, and Individual Movement Techniques (IMT) all suffer with the AK. The gun is either hot (safety off) or its not (safety on). Manipulating between the two requires way more time and motion than with the AR. If you don't think this is hugely important, you are dreaming.

5. The AK selector design is one which provides for a high probability of fratricide or Accidental Discharge (AD) once friendlies start operating in close and heated proximity to one another. You can either opt to carry with the safety off (AD waiting to happen and dangerous even for a point man) or with the safety applied (requiring 2-3 seconds to disengage). With no hope of reacting to a close-in threat (the other guy is already inside your decision loop), you lose. Your only option is to forget the AK and seek cover (if you make it there before being hit). Show me an AK-equipped squad in contact and I'll show you SOMEONE flagging their buddy with their muzzle (safety off / finger on trigger at some point). Think it won't happen? Think again...

5. The AK was designed to support a discredited infantry doctrine which had Soviet troops advancing (during final assault) on line w/ everyone firing short suppressive bursts at the objective (as they did with SMGs). The initial movement of the AK selector to full-auto is insane and of no value. We (US Army) no longer doctrinally teach full-auto rifle fire except for certain IADs where supressive fire is desireable. Our guys practice aimed fire at distance and controlled pairs up close. The hits with hollywood full-auto just don't happen reliably enough.

6. AK with a folding stock carries nicely in a vehicle (better even than a collapsible stock M4). On the other hand, firing the damn thing without the stock unfolded is almost useless beyond me-to-you range. Watch any of the amateur-hour clowns who routinely macho-pose for the cameras on the nightly news from the Middle East. They run from the safety of a corner or alley, spray a few rounds down the block, and come back grinning. Kind of like firing a pistol gripped shotgun...impressive for the cameras but ineffective.

7. Despite its shortcomings, the AK is effective, reliable, and easier/cheaper to manufacture than the AR. It's also cheaper for the US civilian shooter to buy. In the "baby-needs-new-shoes vs. daddy-needs-new-toys" equation, a $300 SAR-1 delivers more bang for the buck than a new Bushmaster. Is the AR the better rifle...yes. Snob appeal aside, will the SAR-1 get the job done (SHTF, plinking, range fun, home defense)...yes. Would I equip a modern army with the AK (even the modern Russian versions)...no.

8. Crosshair brought up good points. Know your chosen weapon. Know its advantages and its limitations. More importantly, know your personal abilities and seek to utilize advantage / minimize limitations (regardless of the rifle in your hands).

9. BTW, I LOVE my SAR-1.
 
That sums up the Ak's flaws nicely. Like someone said, hopefully the new rifle from H&K (or whatever the military adopts) will combine the strong points of the AR (great ergos, good accuracy) with the AK's (Bet your ass reliability). Like I said before, I no longer own either--but I am sure I would buy an XM8 (or whatever) just to play with for a while. :D
 
I haven’t had any live fire experience with 16s since 1982 and a lot has been gun to the weapon since then. I had some issues with the rifle but I would still rather have a weapon that I could easily score with at over 300m then one I could drop in the mud but possibly not hit an ox at 150m.

The training given to US personal (or Israeli or Danish personal) is far superior then any given to soldiers or combatants that are commonly issued an AK. Therefore the M-16 or M-4 is a better weapon in trained hands. The knuckleheads that are issued or somehow procure an AK need an AK.

If I were forced to choose between the two I would take a 16 any day. I only wish we were able to carry M-4s but they weren’t around for another twenty years or so after I turned in my 16. At least we got the adjustable sight models.

Are there better rifles then the M-16? I think so.
Would I rather have an AK? No.
They haven’t manufactured the perfect assault rifle as of yet. They all have issues some greater then others.
 
Another few random thoughts

based on civilain range use of a few rifles.
I shoot a monthly match with is fired with a semi-auto military rifle. The rifle cannot be currently issued by a first world military. For example, I shoot an M1. Guys in my group shot: HK G3, AK, FN FAL, M1A. Anyway, the match is divided into four stages with targets from about 150 yards out to 385 yards. Shooting positions vary from supported prone (not shooting is done from a bench, but usuallly the stage using the furthest target at 385 allows prone with a front end support like a rucksack or sandbag) sitting, and off-hand. The targets are steel plates of various sizes, with the biggest one being maybe 2 feet square.
Ok, let's get to the point: the AK has no problem at all hitting any of the targets including the one at almost 400 yards. If I am not mistaken, the guy that won today was shooting an SKS. I sometimes shoot a very similar match in Utah which goes out to 800 yards and guys regularly and consistantly hit that target with SKSs and AKs. It isn't the rifle, it is the shooter.
On the other hand, during this match (approx. 70-80 rounds), the AK in my group had three malfunctions.
So, based on one day at a civilian rifle range, this thread under rates the AK in terms of accuracy and over rates the AK in terms of reliability.

One of the reasons I mention this is that I don't have a lot of experience with the AK type rifles. Years ago (maybe 1986) I owned a Norinco AK clone. That is the lion's share of my AK experience. I bet I didn't fire 200 rounds out of that rifle because at the time, I couldn't afford to shoot it.

The AR is another story: I was issued an M16 in the Army (I spent my whole enlistment in the desert known as Ft. Bliss), I have owned well over a dozen civilian AR15s through which I have fired well over 20,000 rounds of ammo. I currently own somewhere around 10 AR15 rifles right now. I have taken a number of carbine classes at nationally known shooting schools with my AR15s and have fired as much as 1800 rounds in a five day class. During those classes I spoke with numerous folks who have used the M16/M4 in combat all over the world.
 
Colt M4 Carbine

I am using a Colt M4 Carbine with Eotech 552 holosight. It has never jammed or malfunctioned in combat in any way, and has provided accurate, deadly fire at ranges up to 300m. also the selector switch is VERY fast. I frequently enter buildings with it on SAFE, as not to accidentally shoot my buddies. One's thumb will instinctively switch it to fire by the time the muzzle is pointed at the threat.
I was initially an M4 skeptic but she has proven me wrong. I place my life in her hands everday, and am glad to have such a reliable accurate weapon.
Sand has not proven to be a problem since we dont often bury ouselves under the sand. I have operated in very sandy places and find that simply having it in your hands keeps most of the sand out.
 
J. Lynch

as far as the J. lynch issue, if that bitch had an AK or a mini-gun it wouldnt have mattered. You have to shoot that damned thing to begin with.
She got a freakin medal for curling up in a ball while under attack and crying.
geez. Those poor bastards just gave up. screw them. pussies.
 
USMCbulletsponge's comments on the M4 are dead on target.

Regarding PFC Lynch (and to be honestly fair): She was unconscious and broken up like road kill during her short participation in that action. She was involved in a high speed collision with a truck. After she woke up, her first "rescuers" were the ambushers. She was Lucky...lucky to survive the contact, lucky to survive the capture, lucky to survive as a severely injured POW, and lucky to be rescued. She paid her dues (there's a lot that is not reported in the media)...I wish her well as a civilian.

The travesty of that whole incident is that Higher made her out to be a "hero" and barely mentioned the brave guys who effected her rescue (then let the media denigrate those same guys because they pulled it off without enemy opposition). For all that, she went downrange and did her job. Her element got waxed...sometimes the other side wins. ***t happens.

Semper Fi my Brother...and Good Hunting.
 
Oops.

Okay, my apologies for the lack of tact. i hurt some peoples feelings, on the j. lynch issue. But still, how does an M16 "jam" without a shot being fired. I just wanted to know so that it doesn't happen to me next time I am ambushed by the muj. I ,personally, have great concern for my brother-in-arms, and take every precaution to ensure that I can provide for his security and mine, in just such a situation. I mean, a "condition 1" m16 doesn't require alot to put a round on target. All you have to do is pull the trigger. ooops. I forgot. It requires the WILL to kill your enemy. The operator must be determined to employ his/HER weapon against enemy forces. While I apologize for attacking my "sister service" I make no apologies for speaking the truth about Jessica Lynch. There is much that is not right about that situation. Not to mention she talked **** about the "sister service" who rescued hre non-shooting ass. I hope she does well in civilian life too, as a matter of fact she is on tour as a motivational speaker for $225.00 at the door. horse ****. i know far better men, shot in actual combat who most people wouldn't pay a dime to hear speak. ingorant misguided sheep.
 
Like someone said, hopefully the new rifle from H&K (or whatever the military adopts) will combine the strong points of the AR (great ergos, good accuracy) with the AK's (Bet your ass reliability).
Click to expand...

That's what the XCR is supposed to do, and it's american made.
 
The Israelis, who have about the most practical military procurement system on earth, really do have a choice of FOUR proven rifle systems, and choose the M-16 anyway. That's a bit silly to argue with.
Click to expand...

I do not mean to sound disrespectful, but I have witnessed on more then one occasion where governments award contracts NOT to the most desireable weapon but the best deal to themselves. The fact that the Israelis turned down three other weapons does not in any way shape or form indicate that the one they chose was the best.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top