Is the AK better than the M16?

Question

If so, should we make a better gun?

Answer 1

I used both in Vietnam, keeping in mind that the early M-16s tended to jam, and the AK was a better weapon. But in Combat you use what eveyone else is using, otherwise you become a victim of friendly fire.

If you have a low tech Army you need AKs since they require little or no Maintainance. We don't have a low tech Army so we don't need the AK. If you'll notice, the Chinese Peoples Liberation Army is phasing out the AK as they become a smaller more modern force.

Answer 2

Both are good. The AK handles dirt better than the M16 and is reasonably accurate and sufficently powerful at moderate ranges.

History, since the late 1800's has shown the 7mm rifle (.284 caliber) to be more accurate and flatter shooting than the 7.62mm (.30 caliber) and about equally powerful. The modern 7mm Magnum far surpasses even the .30-06.

The 5.56 (.223 caliber) is too small for good penetration in heavy woods or through light armor, but is entirely adequate for use against the lightly clothed terrorists in the middle east, and it is accurate at longer ranges than the relatively low-powered 7.62x39mm round used in the AK.

For even longer ranges and better penetration, the old .308 caliber M-14 rifle is a better gun than the M16 or the AK, and it handles dust and dirt well.

Answer 3

The AK can sit with under a rock in a dust storm and still fire but it isnt as accurate as a M16 in my opinion. They both have their advantages and disadvantages but if you want to consistantly hit your target, give me a M16/M4. If you want to throw rounds down range in any condition, give me the 47 or 74.

I do agree we could use a better weapon.

Answer 4

The answer to this question depends on the quality of your soldiers. If you have poorly trained troops then the AK is a better weapon. If your troops are highly skilled then the M16 is better.

Answer 5

it's all relative.
in an ambush situation, where you let your prey come well within the range of your weapon, the m-16 is quite effective.
in a full blown firefight, the ak will walk all over the m-16.
on long range patrol, the m-16 does just fine, as you can carry twice the ammo. but, get caught and have to fight your way out, the ak is your best friend. like i say, it's all relative.
when in doubt, call in air support.

Answer 6

i prefer the M16, less recoil and more accurate. the ak has more recoil than that but like its been said its on the way the shooter handles the weapon. IMO the m16 is better.

Answer 7

Yes The Ak47 Is Much More Ruged and can take more of a beating and still fire but now they are over comeing the problems with the m16 and makeing it more accurate
so they are about even

Answer 8

Well, AK(at least 74) is much lighter-weight than M16, so if you need to do long trips with it, it`s better. And it`s cheaper too. From other hand, it`s not so precise and effect range is smaller for AK74. About 0,5 km.

P.S. M16 is not in style anymore, many armys are prefering G36. =)

Answer 9

The AK is somewhat more reliable. The M-16 is more accurate and a better penetrator.

I'd probably rather cart the M-16 around, if for nothing other than it is quite a bit lighter.

Answer 10

No, in full auto the first round is rather accurate but after that you might as well be shooting at the sky (the barrel rise makes you do so anyways).

It's certainly time to replace our primary battle rifle especially considering the theater in which it is being used (sandy). The FNH USA-designed Mk16 SOCOM Combat Assault Rifle & H&K-manufactured XM8 carbine are great options.

It’s also time to switch to a 7.62 round instead of the 5.56.