AK47 vs. AR-15?

Question

Hello

I had debate at my history class about assault rifle. We will continue tomorrow. I need to know (facts, no lies please just because you don't like Russia)

The teacher said that AK47 is the best gun, but I say that Ar-15 and American guns are better.
So which is the best at doing it's job. Can you compare them?

Thank You

(Be serious)

Answer 1

From the VietNam War, thru Desert Storm, and now, in Iraqi Freedom, the AK-47, and its' replacement, the AK-74 are far superior to the M-16. The AK weapon is less susceptible to malfunction and failure due to misuse, bad maintenance and environmental damage. The M-16 requires far more cleaning, detailed upkeep and maintenance than it's Communist derived counterpart.
Like the weapon, at effective ranges in combat, in Iraq and Afghanistan, the 7,62x39mm ammo fired by the AK is far more effective than the 5,56x45mm NATO round used in the M-16 "poodle shooter", which was developed by Westmoreland and his DC Raiders on the fallacy that it is better to wound your enemy than it is to kill him. ANY combat Vet, from military of any war, to street police can tell you that this is absolute stupidity, as a wounded enemy still has the ability to KILL YOU! ! ! !

Answer 2

Where are Mikhail Kalashnikov & Eugene Stoner when you need them > That's going to be a very complex issue.

The Advantages of the M-16 are that you can carry 500 rounds of 5.56mm for the same weight as 200 rounds of 7.62mm. The M-16 is considerable more complex and has an "effective" kill(man stopping) range of 150 meters >that does NOT mean it "could" not kill someone out to 600-800 meters with a perfect and or lucky shot or have them bleed to death or crawl away and die later. The M-16 needs much more care than an AK-47 but then the troops it's designed to be used by are a little better trained than those using the AK.

The Ak-47 is much less complex>this is to it's advantage not a disadvantage, because of whom the rifle is meant to be used by< , The Ak-47 is also much less accurate. But it is highly reliable.

If I have a well trained army, I want the M-16, if I'm leading a gorilla band I want the AK-47. Just like all firearms, each has strengths and limitations...

Later:the problems with the early model M-16's were NOT the fault of the rifle - cleaning kits were not issued with the rifle and the wrong powder was used in the early 5.56mm round >both issues were quickly taken care of> I have fired ten's of thousand of rounds through both M-16's and the two AR-15's that own. I have never had one jam.

Yes I have fired the M-16 - many times - Class III FFL for one and - One tour at Lake City Army Ammunition plant for another.

For "Chris H" The 5.56 DOES NOT tumble >not unless it hits something(all small arms rounds do that)>(IF) you had actually tested the rifle as you say you would know this. How many 5.56 bullets you ever seen "keyhole" >absolutely NONE< That the 5.56 tumbles in the air is an absurd wives tale of the uninformed "Chris H" I'm sorry if this offends, you give great answers, and I enjoy very much reading them but the BS about the "5.56 tumbles through the air" just burns my tail.

High velocity rifle rounds kill through several means, if you know your stuff then you know what I mean.

If I were on the move and in command of well trained troops I would want the M-16 . If on the other hand I'm defending a position and have ready access to all the ammo we could possible use, give me the G-3 or FN-FAL - both are a considerable better all around combat rifle than either the AK-47 or M-16

Answer 3

"In vietnam most of the us troops would use the ak's of the dead vietnamese because they were so much more dependable in the humid jungle environment. "

I hear this from time to time but never from someone who actually carried one.

Most of those problems where from the early M16/AR-15 rifles... And most of the GI's I've read about and talked to traded their M-16's for M-1 Carbines, M-1 Garands or M-14's. I'm not saying it didn't happen during combat, especially by special forces that were in the jungle for extended periods or if there was a mechanical failure or ammo shortage, but the AK-47 wasn't carried by infantry on a normal basis as a substitute for their M16.

For accuracy the AR-15 is way out in front of the AK-47. The 5.56 is a much flatter shooting round than the 7.62x39 which increases the range and accuracy of the AR-15. And the AR-15 doesn't have as much muzzle rise (upward recoil) as the AK-47 making target acquisition quicker when you actually aiming and trying to hit what your shooting at.

To save space, the following abbreviations are used in the table below: Wb = Weight of bullet (in grains); MV = Muzzle Velocity (in feet per second); BC = Ballistic Coefficient; MRT = Mid-Range Trajectory; yards = yds.; inches = "; MPBR = Maximum Point Blank Range; Sp = Spitzer; SP = Spire Point


Cartridge (Wb@MV) Bullet BC 100 yds. 200 yds. MRT@yds. MPBR (yds.)

.222 Rem. (50 Sp at 3140) .220 +1.4" -0.4" 1.5"@118 222
.223 Rem. (45 Sp at 3550) .167 +1.4" +0.2" 1.5"@130 235
.223 Rem. (55 SP at 3240) .235 +1.4" +/- 0" 1.5"@120 230

7.62x39 (123 Sp at 2365) .292 +2.9" -0.5" 3"@110 225

Check out this video... At 2:21 they fire a .223 and the next shot is a 7.62x39.... neither are really that impressive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBDzKfKX_yw

All that being said... I like the AK-47 myself, I have an SKS that shoots the same round and it's a good rifle... I guess I just like the larger caliber rounds. But my preference is still my old M1 garand, there's not much you can hide behind that it won't shoot through except and APC or a Tank.

Answer 4

If the AK-47 was a better weapon why did the Russians get rid of it 33 years ago? In 1974 they transitioned to the AK-74, which uses the 5.45 X 39, a round that is an obvious copy of the American 5.56 X 45. Whenever the U.S. does anything, the soviets copied it. For countless examples, look at their military aircraft.

I want both guns.

Answer 5

The AK-47 has a more effective round, the 7.62x39 is good at stopping people, the 5.56x45 is good at blowing up mellons.

The AK-47 has a better gas action, it has a coventional gas piston operation like the uppers that the US military is currently raving about for retrofitting to M-16s. The M-16 using a 'direct impingement' gas system, this means the gases from the barrel are bled off down a tube and into the bolt where the operating piston is located. The end result of the AR operating mechanism is a receiver full of hot gasses and an overheated rifle. Under sustained rapid fire the gas tube can actually melt. While testing a blank fire system at Royal Ordnance we belted up over 2000 rounds and shot a GPMG (which uses a similar gas piston operating system to the AK) until the ammo ran out. One burst. Nothing melted and the action wasn't too hot to touch, though the barrel was bright orange and the electronics we were testing failed :-)

The Ak-47 tolerates lower maintenance, it was designed and built to be unstoppable in the hands of Russian peasants, it doesn't need careful maintenance to remain operational in the jungle and desert.

The M-16 is more accurate, so in the unlikely event that your soldier can actually hit something at 400 yards, and they are in a conflict where they can see 400 yards, the M-16 gives a better chance of hitting the enemy. The M-4 is ineffective at that range thought, the velocity from the shorter barrel isn't enough to cause the tumbling and fragmentation that the 5.56x45 relies on for its wounding effects.

As a battle rifle for short range conflicts in harsh environments the AK-47 is by far the better weapon. For outings to the range or shooting up mellons on 'the back 40' the AR-15 is better. If my life was on the line I'd rather have the AK.

Answer 6

In Viet Nam the AK-47 seemed to perform better in the sense that it did not malfunction and jam as much in the jungle heat and moisture. This may be what your teacher is stating. The M-16 (similar to the AR-15) had trouble in this environment.

The AR-15 is a much better rifle in terms of accuracy and distance. The AK-47 is much cheaper and is very rugged.

The AR-15 is the better gun, but requires cleaning and maintenance.

Answer 7

The AK-47 served it's purpose for those who used it. It was able to withstand abuse, no cleaning, and was still able to fire. It was very reliable and the people could trust their lives with it. It was also cheap.

The M-16 has it's issues at first. It was rushed into production because of the upcoming conflicts. The AK had plenty of time to work out the kinks, although it didn't have much because of it's simplistic design.

Today, with the M-16A3 and M-16A4, I would say the M-16 wins over the AK-47. It requires a little more care and is a little more intricate in design but it is very reliabe and accurate. Accuracy is quite poor in AK in comparisson to the M-16. I think today everyone would use the M-16 if they could afford it.

Answer 8

If you are going to compare assault rifles, compare the AK47 with an M16A4. An AR15 does not meet the requirements to be classified as an assault rifle. For what it is worth, neither does the off-the-rack AK. They have to be capable of select fire. And the M16A4 is the better of the two.

Answer 9

The Ar-15 is a better made and more accraced
The Ak is made for Combat
The Ak was made by soldier for a soldier
The ar was made by an Engineer for the goverment .
The aK47 family is the better gun for combat because it is cheap and eazy to make were the Ar16 are more costly . ie ar15 is 800 to 1000to make the aK to$ 300 to$ 500.
Ak,mags,and ammo can be fould world wide.
In afirca you can buy a Ak for $20.00
There are hunders of millons of in the world right now
cheaper ammo 4.50 for 20 compated 10.00 for 20
The ak will work in and palce in the world cold snow to sand and heat . older Ar do not like someplaces
Due way the ak is made any ak mag will fit into a ak i.e. Yugo mag in a russin made ak . Ar only like mittary mags .
Ak bullet is made for short range 200 to 300 meters were more combat is being fought today
The bigger 7.62mm bullet has better stopping power that the smaller lighter 5.56mm round.
The aK will work when rusting missing parts and when it drity .Ar-15 need to be care for.
The Ak 47 can be used by anyone.
.

Answer 10

the ak is a better gun....not only because it has a larger bullet 7.62mm compared to the 5.56mm of the ar-15. it has also proved itself better in the field, having less misfires and jams in the field when it gets dirty. In vietnam most of the us troops would use the ak's of the dead vietnamese because they were so much more dependable in the humid jungle environment.