Which is better?

Question

Comparing these two assault rifles, The ever present AK series, and the infamous M16 series.

Comparing the latest model of M-16 with the AK-103 and the 107/108 styles.

Which is the more powerful rifle, which would you choose, and why? Give some good details on your answer.

Answer 1

The AK is more powerful and durable. You can do just about any thing to the AK, and it just keeps shooting. Though, it spits lead all over, isn't acurrate for crap.

Why would you say the M16 is infamous? It's the most copied weapon in the history of rifles. It's the spear head of the American armed forces. It's a weapon I've stupied and love. It's more accurate then the AK and has better range. It's only drawl back is, you have to keep it clean.

Answer 2

In my 6 years in the military I've had the chance to fire both weapons. While the M16/AR15 variant is very accurate without additional optics the AK series remains most reliable due to the way the AK series are built with more tolerance where the M16/AR15variant has less tolerance therefore when it gets slightly dirty it fails to fire and will consistantly jam. The AK series isn't very accurate even with additional optics due to the amount of freeplay in the weapon system.

Answer 3

Ak is great for a street fight when you are not worried about collateral damage. The round is far more powerful and will pass through several objects before stoping. M16A4 is far more accurate at greater distances. A well trained shooter with a M16A4 can reasonably hit a man size target at 500-700 meters, were as this is not even possible to consider with the AK. I'll take M16A4's little brother Carbine A4, over both weapons. Its light, short, accurate at distance and easy to make entry on a building with.

Answer 4

Having never shot an AK, I would go with the infamous M16.

You go with what you know.

I think AK shoots a larger round, but is less accurate downrange.

You can also shoot the M-16 with one hand, and it has no kick (as I proved to my platoon in Basic Training by shooting the M-16 off my right nut-I was the runt in Basic the drill sergeants called).

Answer 5

well concering i just got back from 10 months in iraq and had both weapons with me i would take the m16 A4 all because it is lighter, more accurate and more reliable then a AK, i would only take the AK over an M16A4 if i was in a street fight and didnt care about were the bullets were going

Answer 6

it all depends if you want a reliable weapon, or an accurate weapon. In urban war fare there really isn't a need to have to shoot 300+ yards so I'd say the AK would be better to have. It can take alot of abuse, and it has more leathal rounds. I love my m-4 but you gotta keep it clean, and I'm always worried that when I actually need it to shoot to save my life that it'll jam. You don't really have to worry about that with an ak

Answer 7

I've never shot an AK-103, but the M16 was easy to handle.

Answer 8

Even AK-47 outperforms M-16 in combat in firepower.
Just don't think "the army of one" style, think unit style. Alone you are not a warrior.

M-16 is OK for a shooting range, but on a battlefield it loses.

A couple of my fellas shot perfectly with their AKS-74U on 400m. For 600-1000m I'd better take a Dragunov rifle.

Answer 9

I would have to go with the AK series rifles. They are tried and tested. You can get those things as dirty as you want and they will fire every time. In Vietnam, most of our troops would take AK's from enemy soldiers because they were far better than the M-16 A1 that they were issued.

Answer 10

The M-16 because

1. Light Recoil
2. The light weight
3. Standard ammunition