which rifle is better and why??? the AK or m-16?

Question

http://kalashnikov.guns.ru/models/ka126.html

CHECK ON THE SITE ABOVE

http://kalashnikov.guns.ru/models/ka126.html

Answer 1

Two very different weapons.

The M16 is built to very close tolerances. It works very nice in harsh conditions but it doesn't do too well with carbon buildup.

The AK-47 is a cheap and reliable rifle built to terrible tolerances. It is much cheaper to produce, which is why the world is flooded with them. It is also much less accurate than an M16 because of this. You can shake an AK-47 and it will rattle, while the M16 doesn't have any real play.

If you have at your disposal more money and trained and disciplined troops, then the M16 is the way to go. If on the other hand you rely on every dumbass that can hold a rifle generally aimed in a direction and spray bullets indiscriminately, then the AK-47 is a better deal.

Answer 2

Bound's hubby here:

Comparing apples to oranges.

The AK family of rifles (we are most familiar with the AK47), have a reputation for reliability, no matter how neglected the rifle is. It is capable of fully automatic fire. It is the service weapon of communist block countries and terrorists, and fires a .30 caliber (7.62x39 round). It is used by some US S.O.G. units, for deniability purposes. In matches I have attended, where the AK was permitted on the line ... it was incapable of staying on the target frame (8' by 8') at 300 yards.

The M16 (and its civilian variants, including the AR15) are the service rifle (adopted) of the forces of the United States and some allies. It fires the .223 Remington (5.56 NATO) round. The M16 is capable of fully automatic fire. Using the SS109 standard ammunition, the M16 is required to have the accuracy and penetration capability of hitting and penetrating the US "Fritz" helmet at 800 meters. Its reputation of jamming and being in need of constantly being cleaned dates back to the early 1960s with the use of the XM16E1 variant using the early ball powder which fouled (severely). This is not currently the case. In some matches, I have seen M16s (and civilian equivalents) fire upward of 400 to 500 rounds before being cleaned without a jam.

American service rifles have always been designed more like target rifles, since American military doctrine stresses longer distance marksmanship accuracy than most of our allies and enemies. No other country trains it run of the mill forces to fire at human-type targets beyond 300 yards ... we train our typical forces to engage targets to 600 yards and beyond (sense a theme?).

From a marksmanship side, the M16 and its civilian equivalents is much more accurate. Cleaning your rifle after use every day is not a major burden or problem ... and can be done in a matter of minutes for a quick clean. The M16 can keep the enemy farther away than the AKs. The 5.56 round is smaller than the 7.62x39, but it is going faster, has a high shock value, and may actually do more damage ... a person shot with either one, with a solid hit, will be just as dead!

Personally, I think there are better rifles out there for combat ... but if limited to only the two, I would take the M16 any day.

Answer 3

This is a very big debate that even soldiers here in Iraq. I would say it all depends on your AK. Pakistani and chinese variants tend to be poor in quality, but Russian made tend to be best. The ak is a very hard weapon to zero (make accurate acording to the firer). Once zeroed though, if it happens to be a weapon of good quality, it is actually more accurate than an m-16. I prefer my m-4 over the 16 anyway, but then again I'm not trying to take out targets at 400 meters. I personally have never had a problem with jamming with my m-4. If you are just looking to put down alot of rounds I'd suggest the ak as it has a full auto feature like the old m-16a1 and m-4a1's. Most people base their statements on this matter on generalities like "the m-16 is more accurate, but the ak is more reliable." I have seen people opt for the type 98 sniper rifle (a more accurate version of an AK) but rarely ever. There are much more accurate and much better weapons in our inventory. As for the m-14 it uses the standard 7.62 NATO which is the same caliber as the ak, but with more punch. I'll still take my m-4 with AP rounds over the competitors. One main factor with reliability is ammo. If you have crap for ammo it doesn't matter what weapon you have.
As for the Special Forces comment, well I don't want to ruin your little dreams but noone I've ever worked with carried one and noone ever prefered them. Besides SF don't carry 16's. Those things are like muskets. All you have to is clean your weapon. Take care of it, it will take care of you.

Answer 4

Some American Special Forces are using the 7.62mm (about .30 caliber) AK-47 in preference to the .223 caliber M-16, and some woiuldn't mind having the additional punch of the old .30 caliber (.308 NATO) M-14.

Mr. Kalashnikov (who just wanted to be able to emerge from a WWII Russian tank turret with something better than a pistol or a Model 1891 bolt action rifle) invented a pretty good little assault rifle, that doesn't mind ingesting the fine desert sand that can foul up an M-16.

Answer 5

it depends on the situation, the m-16 is a better quality rifle tightertolerances in production make it more prone to jamming, wheras the ak you can almost pickit up out of a mudpuddle and fire it


but the m-16 has an effective range for a person of 500 yards where the AK is only 400

also the m-16 is chambered .223 caliber its ment to be a wounding weapon since wounding a person means another person has to stop to help them

the AK is 7.62 its a killing weapon its ment to put a man down and keep him down.. the problem with the AK lies in what country produced it... Eastern block countries make a far superior weapon than the Chineese version

Answer 6

This is the sort of question that draws both the well-intentioned and the stupid out of the woodwork. I see a lot of myths being repeated, and more than a few copy and paste jobs.

The AK series was never intended for precision fire. Soviet doctrine back in the old days was for infantrymen to dismount from an APC/IFV, stand line abreast, and charge an objective, with the APC/IFV providing a sustained base of fire. The AK was essentially used in the same role as a PPsh-41 subgun. Short cartridge, full auto, spray an area. For precision fire, the Soviets had SVDs down to the squad level.

The M16 series has underwent a lot of pain, since bad magazine design (they were, unbelievably, originally conceived to be single-use throwaways like M1 Garand clips) a weak extractor design, and weak gas rings cause failures to cycle often (and cause grief, I might add). The direct gas impingement system doesn't help either. The barrel length vs cartridge problem was never adequately addressed either. It's had everything from a 14.5" barrel (the current M4) all the way to 26" for match barrels; 1 in 7" twist, 1 in 9" twist, 1 in 12" twist, 55 grain rounds, 62 grain rounds (current) to 77 grain rounds ... all this tweaking is essentially a byproduct of the American view that the infantryman is a marksman.

A properly maintained M4 is capable of precision fire far beyond that of an AK47 at any range. Those loose tolerances that enable the AK to be fired dirty (I remember in one conversation with a former Iraqi Republican Guard soldier that their means of cleaning their AKs was to soak them in diesel once a month) don't allow for tight shot groups. The AK round is granted, heavier than that in use for the M16/M4; but lethality is about more than simple projectile mass. The higher velocity of the 62-grain round more than compensates, given the right sort of barrel, since it will impart more energy to the target.

The variation between AKs is something to be considered as well. While there aren't a lot of aftermarket parts to upgrade an AK compared to an M4/M16, derivatives of the AK (M78 Valmet, for instance, or the Galil) are works of art. The M4/M16 on the other hand, is a platform mature enough to support many, many variants, from the SPRs and SOPMOD M4s in use with Group, to what you find at NRA competition level.

It's really like comparing a Ferrari to a Land Rover. Both are entirely different weapons conceived for use under different warfighting doctrines and conditions. A skilled shooter can make good with an AK platform, while a poor one won't be able to take advantage of an M4/M16 at all. A poor shooter can hit something at close range with either weapon given enough rounds. And given bad QA/QC of the weapon manufacture or rounds, both weapons will fail repeatedly.

The better weapon is the one that suits your warfighting doctrine. If you want precision marksmanship, go with the M4/M16. If you want a weapon that can saturate a target at close range, go with the AK. Regadless of what you choose, poor manufacture, shoddy ammunition, and inexperienced shooters will make a loser each and every time.

Answer 7

The AK-47 is a perfect weapon for rough use and fighting in desolate terrain, it has a good RPM (Rounds-per-minute) rate but is poorly accurate. If you bury the rifle in mud or sand and come back 250 years later and load it up-guess what, it can still shoot.

M-16 is better and accurate then the AK but sucks in bad terrain and requires contant care.

Answer 8

M-16 is more expensive and prone to jamming. Ak-47 are better in both respects. However, M-16 is built by more reliable means and is stronger. AK-47 has wooden construction which makes it light but weak. I'd take the M-16 with its three-round burst any day.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/americanleftparty/

Answer 9

Depends what environment you are fighting in.

In typical temperate climate I'd say the M-16 because it has greater accuracy.

In a sandy environment, desert, I'd say the AK-47 because it's architecture reduces jamming due to sand, water, etc. And that fine sand in a desert gets into everything.

Answer 10

AK-47 is a very rugged weapon. Full of crud and it still functions. M-16 has a higher rate of fire (slightly) and is far more accurate downrange. Close range, the 16 has more punch. As with most weaponry, it is a tradeoff.