PDA

View Full Version : M-16 vs AK-47?



Benjamin Peters
11th November 2002, 05:16
Interesting question I thought. not knowing too much about these guns, does anyone have any thoughts on these rifles? In particular, the popularity of these rifles is interesting, can any of you army guys explain these rifle's popularity? what to police (SWAT) use - mp5/mp5k??- and how different is their usage compared to the army?

Benjamin Peters
11th November 2002, 05:43
http://kalashnikov.guns.ru/wwwboard/board4/messages/1975.html This might add some info to the debate.

David T Anderson
15th November 2002, 23:13
Well...it's been a while since I've studied up on military smallarms, but here's what I remember from back when I did...

The M-16 is a lightweight rifle firing a lightweight cartridge, resulting in a weapon that's easy to carry and shoot but not very durable. The 5.56mm cartridge was also light, and troops could carry more rounds of ammo [and consequently fired more, tho' without increased effect in combat]. The early issue of the M-16 was closely machined, and dirty ammo caused it to jam frequently if the guns weren't kept scrupulously clean. Subsequent improvements in ammo manufacture and rifling twist made the M-16 more reliable and more accurate. The basic power of the 5.56 round was always contraversial...many traditionalists were doubtful that a rifle best suited to the jungles of VietNam was appropriate in other theatres.

The AK-47 was a robust, strongly-manufactured assault rifle in its earliest form. It was designed to be cheaply made and issued to 3rd world troops. Tolerances were loose, resulting in good reliability, but poor accuracy in most cases. The 7.62x39 cartidge it fired was roughly as powerful as the .30-30...more power at close range than the 5.56, but falling off faster at 100m+ ranges.

Continued development of both guns and their ammo improved them quite a bit, although purists still prefer the more powerful MBRs of the Cold War era like the FN-FAL and the M-14.

These guns are popular, of course, because millions of each were made and used in conflicts around the world and millions of soldiers and militia made use of them and learned to appreciate them despite their faults. The fact that both guns are made in civilian versions and sold in North America, along with a huge catalogue of spare parts and modifications helps a lot too, not to mention that military 'surplus' is bootlegged all over the world.

Anyhow, that's what I know...if I'm seriously off base with any of this, I'd be glad to get an update...

yamatodamashii
16th November 2002, 04:55
The only legit argument I've ever seen for the AK-47 over the M-16 is reliability; however, after four years in the Marines, I only ever had one A2 (the beat-up Boot Camp issue) ever fail on me, and that was easily corrected by immediate action. Personally, I can tolerate the inconvenience of regular weapons maintenance (hell, I even enjoy it, now that I don't have a drill instructor screaming in my ear) for the ability to hit my target. And I know of few rifles that can match the M-16 A2 there.