Is there a gun more reliable than the AK 47?

Question

It aint the M-16, i heard it jams especially in desert sand

Answer 1

The M1 Grandee, In the book "Death Traps" about WWII 3rd Armor Division the author tells how his driver finds one laying in a field. It is still loaded but the bolt is rusted shut. He pulls the trigger, it fires, the action works. They unload it, give it to the units armorer, and it is returned to service. You can not beat a rifle that is rust up and can still be fired and returned to service.

Answer 2

Having fired both, qualifying expert with the M16 in the navy, and owning an AK-47, I do not believe that a more reliable assault weapon exists (except maybe a revolver or a sword). I even had an M16 jam on me AT THE FIRING RANGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No mud, sand, or harsh conditions, just a crappy gun. I will not argue that the AK-47 has poor accuracy at best, but I have yet to see my AK malfunction, after thousands of rounds and very sporadic cleaning. Sure, the newer versions are less prone to jam but they are still not reliable enough for our troops. A good compromise might be a G-3 or M14. Both are .308 Winchester (7.62x51 NATO), reliable and accurate as well as semi auto (or full auto/3rd burst) with high capacity magazines available. My G3 would misfire every now and then when it was new, but after a few hundred rounds and some polishing of the receiver, it functions flawlessly and shoots maybe 2-2.5 MOA from a bench. .223 Remington (5.56mm NATO) is a weak, ineffective round and I will stick with 7.62x39 or .308. As an aside, pretty much any bolt action rifle will have rock solid reliability and accuracy, compared to assault weapons.

Answer 3

M16 is a second rate gun.

In the 1950s the US ARMY put out a bid for a new battle rifle to replace the M1. The M14 was submitted, which was basically a shorter version of the M1 with a slightly less powerful round. The competition was a Stoner design similar to the M16. The Stoner design lost and the M14 became the new rifle.

In the 1960s, a smaller, lighter weight rifle with a smaller round was asked for, to be used by troops and personnel who were NOT front line troops. (Same idea that generated the M1 Carbine.) Stoner once again presented a design which was basically a crude M16. MacNamara, the Secretary of Defense and a bean counting business manager saw the potential to save a lot of money if everyone used a rifle with much smaller ammo. So despite the Army board recommendation, he ordered the Army to dump the M14 and go with the M16.

In other words, the M16 was selected for a POLITICAL reason rather than it being a better gun. Add to that another political decision to buy low bid powder for the ammo rather than the recommended powder and you had a disaster waiting to happen.

And the troops have been paying for it ever since.

In Vietnam the gun was called either Mattel gun due to its plastic construction or the "Jam-o-matic" because of the reliability issues.

Repeated attempts to make the gun reliable have been less than successful. When Jessica Lynch's unit came under fire and she grabbed her gun, it jammed on her the first round.

NINETEEN (19) PERCENT of the troops in Iraq have reported their guns have jammed during a firefight. That is almost ONE IN FIVE having their gun jam in combat.

It was a piece of junk.
It is a piece of junk.
It shall remain a piece of junk.

One of the big CLUES it is a piece of junk is how many after market add-ons and modifications that are available to "improve" the gun. You find no other gun even close when it comes to after market fixes. That is because no other gun NEEDS so many after market fixes.

If you want something better, look at the Springfield Armory SOCOM series. They took the M14 (the last reliable rifle of the US ARMY) and improved it with modern materials. More importantly, they stuck with the 308 ammo so the gun has more stopping power at 200 yards than the M16 does at the muzzle.

Is it more reliable than the AK 47? Probably.

Answer 4

You are correct it is not the M16. Due to design flaws, even with constant maintainence, it will jam and bind up in the fine Iraqi sand.

The AK, while not as accurate as the M16, (The M16 has better accuracy at range, while the AK gives up accuracy for knock down power) is a simpler design and far more rugged. The reason why the AK can fire in the desert sand and other harsh conditions (mud, rain, water etc) is due to 2 reasons:

1) Its chromed bolt.
This allows the bolt to shrug off majority of things that would gum up other rifles, not only the M16. With the chromed bolt, carbon build up is not as bad as with the M16, therefore needing less cleaning and maintaince.

2)Its stamped metal design.
The AK is made of stamped metal peices with much much looser tolerances than the M16 or other rifles. It was designed to be used with very little training, both in the firing aspect and cleaning aspect. There is a fair amount of slop or wiggle room inside the receiver of the AK. This feature alone lets dirt and debris fall out and the bolt continue to operate.

Klashnikov's reason for this was that Russias main strength lied with her infantry. The country could not afford to give each and every soldier intensive training in their rifles, they needed a simple easy to use rifle that could be fired by the common soldier. The AK is cheaply made and cheap to operate, two perfect combos for mass production.

Simply put, the M16 is deisgned with quality and accuracy in mind, like a sports car. The AK on the other hand is designed to be used like a beat up work truck, with reliability and knock down power as its main features.

The 5.56 round (the M16 round) was modeled after the .22 round. It was designed to do less collateral damage (destroy other objects besides the one aimed for) and be more accurate. The 5.56 round when it impacts a target will continue straight until it hits something hard, where it will start to tumble, effectively working like a small drill bit throughout your body. It is not uncommon to hit a person in the shoulder and see the exit would around the lower rib cage or kidneys.

The 7.62 round lacks the accuracy of the M16. It's main claim to fame is its knock down power. Where the 5.56 round will go in, tumble and leave with an exit wound the size of an acorn, the 7.62 round is not as nice. It goes in and exits with the tremendous force, often leaving gaping holes behind. The drawback to this is the round will continue through the target and sometimes into other people or objects.

US Special forces have long had a love affair with the AK. In the Vietnam era, it was the preferred weapon over the M16, M14 or Colt Commando. Even in the Iraqi conflict, you will see operators with the AK, because of its ease of use and knock down power.

There are other rifles across the world that are easy to use and operate (the Ster-Aug for example), but none have been around for as long as the AK or have the battle proven worthiness of it.

There was a documentary done by the History channel about this same topic. The show was well done and interviewed dozens of people about both weapons, the people being not only operators, but designers as well. Its worth watching.

Answer 5

The AR-15 or a well made M16 is just as reliable as an AK. But please be specific as to which the M16A1 then yes an AK-47 is more reliable. However our troops over sea's arent using those out of date weapons. They use either M16A2's, M16A3s, or M4's. The M16A2's are very reliable and significantly more accurate at any range and on full auto than an AK. A civilian equivelent the AR15 is extremely reliable even when dragged through sand, dropped in water, and had 1000 rounds cycled through on full auto performs fine.

Remember the 47 in AK47 means the design was concieved in 1947. The chief advantage of an AK47 is the larger 7.62mm NATO round versus the M16's 5.52mm but thats assuming you can even hit your target. Anything beyond the first shot with an AK47 is very likely to miss due to the design it causes significant shot devaition even fired single shot.

Answer 6

As for all out reliablity my vote is for the AK47....BUT OVERALL if three weapons were laying on the ground, AK47, M16, or M4, I would pick up the M4. Even though the AK can lay rounds downrange in almost any condition, if you want to hit your targets and with a minimal amount of training to correct a malfunction, the M16/M4 is a great weapon.

Answer 7

M-16 is an incredibly reliable weapon. Having used the A1, A2 and AK-47, I cannot recall any malfunction in any of them. The M-16 gets my vote as the most accurate and versatile.

Answer 8

The ak can take a whole lot of abuse however, the accuracy is not even close to the M16 rifles. You compare 200 meters to 800 meters area target.

Answer 9

i shoot with M-16A1, it is a nice gun, light and accurate but need a lot of cleaning before and after use it. which is i guess make you more intimate with your weapon but in case of emergency, you are going to **** your self if you forgot to clean it before hand. coz you will be firing with one hand do a finger cross hope it will still fire.
AK-47 is more heavy than m-16 but it is very simple to operate, you have to be mentaly retard if you cannot operate AK within 10 minutes after it was given to you. with AK, you can treat it like a ***** (M-16 more like your first wife) and it still give you satisfaction knowing that 98% will scream when you press the trigger. but shooting AK for accuracy is like trying to put a line in a neddle head.
the best weapon is FNC or SS-1 (the same weapon) made by belgium and Under lisence by Pindad. it is light, accurate and can be threated like a ***** and still fire. the only draw back is especially in tropical condition is prone to rust (but only on the outside of the barrel)

Answer 10

AK-74, AK-100 series
AN-94 "Abakan"

All fire in mud, sand, snow, water - where M-16 jams and fails.
You can drag AK on a chain behind your truck, and it will still shoot.