PDA

View Full Version : AK47 vs. M16


P99AS9
April 24, 2008, 01:02 PM
I have heard so many mixed reviews and opinions on the topic of AK47 vs. M16 and I want to see what the guys on The Firing Line think.

djc7
April 24, 2008, 01:15 PM
I've never held, let alone fired, an AK47 so I can't comment on that. But, I carried the M-16 and M-4 quite a bit while in the Air Force and loved both weapons. So, my vote went for the M-16. I never had problems with malfunctions and liked the accuracy. Although, I should say I hardly left Missouri and never had to use it in combat (thank the Lord) so it's not like I have combat experience with it. Just range time.

Rigby1962
April 24, 2008, 01:32 PM
For varmint hunting and target shooting, the M16. For war the AK47

gb_in_ga
April 24, 2008, 04:06 PM
I didn't vote. It depends on who the end user is.

For a modern, well trained, well supplied professional fighting force, I think that the M-16/M-4 is superior. Lighter weight, greater unit ammo load (as opposed to the 7.62x39), greater accuracy. But -- it requires more maintainence to keep it running reliably, and that implies a high level of training and discipline. Another negative is that they are relatively expensive.

For a lesser trained guerrilla force, or for a force consisting largely of poorly trained conscripts, the AK series is superior. The ability to work reliably in adverse conditions and with poor maintainence outweighs the advantages in this case. All the accuracy and sophistication in the world does you no good if it doesn't work. At least the AKs will work. Another advantage is that they are relatively inexpensive.

Snowmanx7
April 24, 2008, 04:47 PM
gb in ga said it perfectly. I've owned several AR's (Rock River, DPMS, Bushy) and while they are fine weapons, I prefer the ak platform. Plus, a redneck like me just looks better holding an ak.:D It all comes down to personal preference. If someone says that one is definitely better than the other, they're full of crap. Both are EXCELLENT weapons in their own right.

jdc1244
April 24, 2008, 05:10 PM
Another advantage is that they are relatively inexpensive.

If there were an AR as reliable as a Saiga or M70 for the same price I’d buy it. There aren’t so I don’t have any. I’d also assume an AR for the price of a Saiga would be a piece of junk.

lyytinen
April 24, 2008, 06:29 PM
I can won't vote.....Because I believe that they are both very good weapons. I own both. The M4 I purchased as a complete unit then upgraded a few things (ACOG not attached in photo)total cost about $2k. The AK I built from a parts kit and assembled it on an ITM receiver total cost about $200. Both shoot fine out to about 75 yards, but then the AR becomes king. Using iron sights both hold a good group at 75, but I find the extra weight of the AK causing problems with holding a good pattern at 100+ yds off hand shooting. Using a sand bag, I can get about the same results with the AK at 100 as with the AR.
When it comes to a choice, it's hard to decide. In an urban environment where shots are normally less than 50 yards both are equally good weapons. When it comes to precision shooting, the AR rules the roost. There are more goodies available for the AR so you can customize it more. The AK is just that, an AK; it shoots cheap ammo as well as good ammo. I've never had an FTF or an ejection problem; I clean it about every 2-4K rounds and it constantly performs like an AK should. The M4 requires much more attention. It doesn't like steel ammo, needs cleaned at least every 1000 - 1500 rounds(lots of nooks and crannies to collect crap), is more expensive to shoot, and there are so many goodies available that I don't know what to get next. With that said.......
If zombies attack you will be able to recognize me because I'll be using the AK as a primary (urban) weapon, have an AR over my shoulder (backup and long range) a 1911 on my right and a SIG 226 on my left with my handy dandy Emerson knife in my pocket.
Just my .02 :p

BTW take a GOOD look at the Skull Camo on the AK:)

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w27/lyytinen/Delta1.jpg

Laters and peace dudes and dudettes

P99AS9
April 24, 2008, 06:52 PM
Lyytinen:

Your collection is friggin awesome. The camo on all of your guns are beautiful.
I am jealous :D

lyytinen
April 24, 2008, 07:30 PM
Thats not my entire collection. I have about 25 more to go with them. My wife only allows 2 purchases per year unless I sell something and use the proceeds to purchase more. Although I can sometimes sneak a few extra in. Most of my cash goes to ammo though.

On hand:
5.56 - 4k rds (down from 46k rds)
.45 acp- 2k rds (down from 9K rds)
9mm _ 1.5 k rds (down from 12 k rds)
.357 Sig -500 Rds
.22 - 5k rds
.270 -150 rds
30-30 -150-175 rds
12 ga - 300 rds (just picked up 160 rds 00 buck for 50.00)
7.62X39 3k - 4k rds
This does not include Black powder and ammo for Black powder rifles.

I need MORE...

shootMag
April 24, 2008, 07:39 PM
M16 is made in the U.S. and is a pretty durable rifle.

Jimro
April 24, 2008, 07:39 PM
Lest people forget, the standard infantry rifle/carbine is only as good as training, tactics, and support that the users bring to the table.

The m16 has better sights, lighter ammo, better safety/selector, and better long range ballistics.

The AK has better reliability in harsh conditions.

If the Soviets had worked to improve the AK as much as the US worked to improve the m16, then we would probably be asking which is better, such as a Galil or VZ-58 or an m16.

But it is not the weapon that is the determining factor, it is the wielder.

Jimro

bcavin
April 24, 2008, 07:50 PM
i voted ak-47 using a simple pros/cons system

m-16 pros:

accuracy
more accessories than imaginable.
different uppers(one gun multiple calibers, barrel lengths, etc)
carry more ammo in the same amount of space
accuracy

m-16 cons:

direct gas system :barf:
requires cleaning very[I] often
for 5.56 versions-not what i would call a powerful round
not a poor mans gun at all (expensive)
feeding problems
extracting problems
both at the same time
buffer tube negates use of folding stock(for those who care)

ak-47 pros:

reliable
takes any ammo (that i've thrown in it anyway)
poor man's gun (cheap)
cheap accessories (mostly)
[I]I've never seen one jam or misfeed
cheaper ammo
plenty of stopping power
can (and i have) leave buried in mud for 2 weeks, pick it up, empty a magazine
can use folding stock (for those who care)
reliable

ak-47 cons:
inaccurate past 150-200 yards (but i've seen some people hit a 3x3 ft piece of plywood 30 out of 30 times at 350 yds)
not as many accesories available
bulkier ammo



now i know this is not the most complete list of pros and cons, but i think it represents what most people take into account on a rifle.

Semper Fi

Crosshair
April 24, 2008, 07:58 PM
One also has to consider the price of the weapons. The fact is that you can produce a QUALITY AK-47 for much less than you can an M-16. The Russian Saiga rifles are proof of this. I bought mine retail for $250 (7.62x39), $350 (.308), and used for $225 (.223). Comparable AR-15s run for MUCH more than that even on the used market.

So for someone like me, when I was looking to get my first black rifle I thought, "Hmm, the AK-47 is less than a third the price of an AR-15. I can get accessories, magazines, optics, ammo, etc and still not spend as much as a new AR-15 costs. Sure it won't be a varmint rifle, but I'm not shooting varmints with it, that's what my 22-250 is for. It'll still hit a man sized target past 300 yards"

The same comparison and argument can be made between a 9mm AR-15, a Ruger PC-9, and a Hi-Point 995. Sure the 9mm AR-15 is probably the best, but the PC-9 is good too, and the 995 ain't pretty, but it gets the job done. Both for much less money.

/Love my PC-9:cool:

ronl
April 25, 2008, 12:21 AM
Both are good weapons. I've owned at one time or another Hungarian, Bulgarian, Chinese and Romanian AK's and they were solid rifles. I have two AR-15's, Armalite and Colt. I prefer the AR for two reasons, accuracy and ergonomics.

RockyMtnTactical
April 25, 2008, 01:01 AM
I prefer the AR15 in every way. Mine all work and most quality AR15's do, despite what some may claim.

The AK is a fine weapon. I have owned a couple. They are not my personal favorites though.

Professor
April 25, 2008, 01:16 AM
I've had examples of both for over 25 years.

My take is the AR is a pleasure to handle, accurate and a fun range gun. I just can't put it into the serious roles that others do so easily due to reliability and performance issues with the weapon and it's caliber.

On the flipside and within the scope of its cartridge, the AK is a walkin', talkin' "war-machine" ;). With a little luck (and maybe with even none at all) it WILL take care of it's owner under extremely demanding conditions - and its also fun at the range.

It just depends on needs and priorities.

bigbadbowtie
April 25, 2008, 08:30 AM
Discovery had a show on a few weeks ago that did a side by side comparison of the AK-47 vs M16(might have been AR).

I was only able to catch a little of it. What I seen of it, itwas pretty informative. Although I think they missed some info.

Anyone else catch this show?

Willie D
April 25, 2008, 08:33 AM
I like them both but have to give an edge to the AK for simplicity. I've only had an AR for about a month now and I love the sights and the low recoil and when I get around to shooting at a longer range I think it will shine there as well. If I shot foll auto that would be another point for the AR.

However, I can shoot 500 rounds with my AK and not worry about cleaning it. After 100 rounds there is so much crud on the AR's bolt I'm amazed it can move at all. In the field I would also be concerned about losing small parts and ending up with a paperweight. I wouldn't want my life on the line because I dropped a cotterpin.

It's a shame we can no longer get Valmets or Galils. That would be an even better comparison.

Father Time
April 25, 2008, 12:09 PM
AK hands down, don't even have to think about it.

SPUSCG
April 25, 2008, 12:12 PM
both suck, ak is innacurate, m16 unreliable and weak round

txpete
April 25, 2008, 12:28 PM
I voted M-16.I toted a M-16 for over 20 years never had a problem with it feeding or ejecting ect.I knew how to keep it clean and working like it should.
now if your a 3rd world soldier and can't count to 20 without taking your boots off buy a ak-47.:barf:
pete

Venison_Jerkey32
April 25, 2008, 12:36 PM
Why vote?
HK417 ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_&_Koch_HK417

rocket12
April 25, 2008, 12:46 PM
However, I can shoot 500 rounds with my AK and not worry about cleaning it. After 100 rounds there is so much crud on the AR's bolt I'm amazed it can move at all. In the field I would also be concerned about losing small parts and ending up with a paperweight. I wouldn't want my life on the line because I dropped a cotterpin.

I don't know what ammo you use,but it must be junk..mine doesn't collect crud,or even get that dirty after 300-400 rounds

P99AS9
April 25, 2008, 01:07 PM
I started this thread, and I voted AK. If I was a soldier, I would want an AK because it is almost impossible to get it to stop firing. I've seen videos of the AK on fire, and it could still shoot. I'm damn sure the M16 would melt if it was on fire. Also, I've seen an AK be run over by a humvee, and still fire. Pretty sure the M16 would break. Also, M16's jam if not cleaned every 100 rounds. Bottom line, if your a soldier out in the field, and your M16 stops working, all you have to depend on is your little M9 :(

Jermtheory
April 25, 2008, 01:46 PM
M16's jam if not cleaned every 100 rounds.

:rolleyes:please.

ive personally seen AR's go well over 2000 rounds without cleaning(and thats with the M4 style carbines),with no failures.ive fired up to 600 rounds without even lube,on several occasions,without failure.ive never had a failure of any kind with my LMT.

believe it or not....ive even seen AK's have failures(some "catastrophic") on several occasions.:eek:

AMX
April 25, 2008, 01:52 PM
www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=9&f=13&t=225657

SPUSCG
April 25, 2008, 03:05 PM
and we all remember in somalia how the m16 wouldnt take down drugged up gunmen and an m14 would drop em. no need for smaller bullets, they keep trying, 5.56, 4.6, ect, but .308 is the way to go

TPAW
April 25, 2008, 04:21 PM
If the Soviets had worked to improve the AK as much as the US worked to improve the m16, then we would probably be asking which is better, such as a Galil or VZ-58 or an m16.

US made Arsenal AK with milled receiver. Very accurate, very tough and very reliable. I have a Sam 7.
Speaking for caliber, and caliber only, I prefer the 7.62x39 over the 5.56/.223, especially for close in work, building to building, room to room and barricaded subjects. Too much deflection with the 5.56/223. The 7.62x39 plows through. I've used both caliber's. My experience was across the pond in Southeast Asia (Vietnam). JMO.....

nemoaz
April 25, 2008, 04:27 PM
If the Soviets had worked to improve the AK as much as the US worked to improve the m16, then we would probably be asking which is better,AK74. The AK47 has been obsolete in the Russian Army since Afghanistan.

44 AMP
April 25, 2008, 06:07 PM
Because I am a civilian, clean my guns once in a while, and the AK doesn't fit me. It has horrid ergonomics for a man of my size, and just not so good generally as the AR for position of controls, trigger pull, sights, and overall accuracy. I also like the gun to lock open when empty.

Both rifle can jam (I have had AKs jam, its reputation not withstanding), and the "vulnerability" of the AR to dirt is vastly overstated. You do have to clean it to keep it running right, more often than most AKs, but I am not an ill trained peasant from beyond the Urals.

Current production M16s and their ammo are not what they were in Vietnam. They are a lot better. AKs have their advantages for military use, and their flaws as rifles. M16s do as well. If I had to go to war, and had my choice of rifles (not carbines, or 300 meter submachineguns) I would not choose either one. But when you go to war, you don't get to choose, you get what they give you, and do the best you can.

As a civilian shooter, neither one is the best you can get, for any specific application, so what does it matter? With the AK you pay less than the AR, but except for bore size, you get less.

TPAW
April 25, 2008, 06:27 PM
Current production M16s and their ammo are not what they were in Vietnam. They are a lot better.

I've still seen the 5.56/.223 deflect off windshields. I have not with the 7.62x39.

Art Eatman
April 25, 2008, 06:41 PM
I tend to judge military gear by the intent of the designer--which derives from the particular military doctrine.

US doctrine is to control the immediate environment out to some 200 yards while making use of the primary weapon--the radio. Call in air or artillery.

The USSR doctrine was for infantry to accompany a massed tank attack and open up full auto within the final 75 to 50 meters of the defenders.

Both weapons fulfill their doctrinal requirements.

Art

TPAW
April 25, 2008, 07:12 PM
US doctrine is to control the immediate environment out to some 200 yards while making use of the primary weapon--the radio. Call in air or artillery.

That's good in theory Art, but in reality, it does not always hold true. Weather conditions, other fire missions and flight missions, sometimes leave you with neither. I was an RTO for a short while and can say from experience that air and artillery is not always available to you, leaving you with only what you can carry on your back to make it out of a tight situation. I believe it's called field expediency and a strong desire to live. Bearing in mind, the outcome is usually luck and fate, with some skill mixed in.

RockyMtnTactical
April 25, 2008, 08:21 PM
I've still seen the 5.56/.223 deflect off windshields. I have not with the 7.62x39.

Probably with M193.

M855 does much better through glass. There are even better options as well if your main goal is shooting through windows with a .223.

TPAW
April 25, 2008, 09:18 PM
M855 does much better through glass. There are even better options as well if your main goal is shooting through windows with a .223.

They don't specify glass, but this is what I found. It is the windshield which is angled that I originally mentioned, not the side windows that are flat.


The 5.56-mm ball M855 (A059) cartridge has a gilding, metal-jacketed, lead alloy core bullet with a steel penetrator. The primer and case are waterproof. The ammunition is linked by a disintegrating metallic split-linked belt for firing from the ammunition box. In an emergency, the M855 round can also be loaded and fired from the M16 20or 30-round magazine. It is identified by a green tip, has a projectile weight of 62 grains, and is 2.3 cm long. This is the NATO standard round. It is effective against personnel and light materials, not vehicles.

Boris Bush
April 25, 2008, 09:40 PM
I tried to stay away, but there is alot of obvious armchair comado talk going on here with some experienced coments thrown in.

As for shooting through glass, well we were made to have atleast one mag full of M955 ball (AP) ammo and it was mandatory for it to be the first mag in the weapon. I carried 3 extra mags loaded with M955, most of the others carried more also. Glass was no problem, light armor and car metal was no problem, thinner brick walls were no problem.......

M855 workd fairly well on auto glass when I used it for that. I never fired just one shot and after the first two or so the glass was weakened enough for the following rounds to shoot through to the target with good precision.

The M4 does not need cleaning every 100 rounds, that was a funny coment and it is not unreliable............

RockyMtnTactical
April 25, 2008, 09:50 PM
The 5.56-mm ball M855 (A059) cartridge has a gilding, metal-jacketed, lead alloy core bullet with a steel penetrator. The primer and case are waterproof. The ammunition is linked by a disintegrating metallic split-linked belt for firing from the ammunition box. In an emergency, the M855 round can also be loaded and fired from the M16 20or 30-round magazine. It is identified by a green tip, has a projectile weight of 62 grains, and is 2.3 cm long. This is the NATO standard round. It is effective against personnel and light materials, not vehicles.

Troops I know who have been in combat recently have told me that it (M855) penetrated windshields just fine.

Also, your experience is with M193, and while it is valid, it should be noted that your argument is only valid with that ammunition.

I am curious though, you say that you've seen it deflected. How many rounds would you say? Also, did any of the rounds penetrate (I cannot imagine that every M193 round was deflected unless you only saw this once)? What percentage would you say penetrated vs. deflected??

If you want an excellent glass penetrator in ANY caliber (including .223) try Federal Bonded. Either the Tactical (which is LE only) or the Trophy Bonded Bear Claws.

I have no doubt that M955 works great too, but that is not something civvies are gonna be able to get their hands on.

dipper
April 25, 2008, 10:00 PM
I don't want to change the course of this thread, but who makes the BEST AK style rifle??

Thanks,

Dipper

Boris Bush
April 25, 2008, 10:03 PM
RockyMtnTactical


Delta Tactical Sling (Triple Config.) This is the sling that will go to war with me when I return!!!!!!!!!!

benzy2
April 25, 2008, 11:01 PM
They really are two totally different guns with totally different purposes. Owning an AR I can personally state that mine has shot over 1000 rounds without cleaning and functioned fine. The only problems I have ever had were with a crap magazine that gave up the ghost. I have fired a bit through an AK as well. It shot just fine every time I fired it. It may not have shot amazing groups at longer ranges but it wasn't like throwing stones as some people want to make them out to be. If I had to pick one of the two systems as a civilian playing around it would be the AR. If I had to pick one of the two and put my life on it I would have a gas piston AR. If I were to be clearing rooms I would rather the AK and the extra punch it gives up close.

From a round point of view I don't have much use for a 7.62x39 while .223/5.56 I do. 7.62x39 is basically a .30-30 from a ballistics point of view. I live in a state where you can't hunt deer with a rifle, only a shotgun, bow or muzzle loader. As such all I would do is maybe shoot ground hogs with it. .223 does that real well along with quite a few other little critters. When I have been out of state hunting the difference between what a 7.62x39 and a 308 do to a deer are night and day different. So beyond plinking at the range and potentially when the commies or zombies invade I don't have a purpose for 7.62x39 and I can convince myself that I have a purpose for .223.

Still the great thing about this country is I can own more than one gun so having both an AR and an AK solves all debates as to which one.

Csspecs
April 25, 2008, 11:15 PM
They both have their place, you have better sights on the AR and it is a tad lighter. I find both to handle well enough to be usable.

The AK is cheaper and has less parts. You want to spring the extra money for a well built AK and don't slap any crap on it, leave it bare and buy a few more magazines and a few cases of ammo.

When it comes right down to it you need to be comfortable with the rifle you are using.... Like when I went hunting I had a mossberg 500 that I could have used instead I took a 80$ Jing An pump gun out into the woods. Why? Because I had used it a lot and knew how to shoot it well.

IZinterrogator
April 26, 2008, 01:28 AM
Also, I've seen an AK be run over by a humvee, and still fire. Pretty sure the M16 would break. I have had my M16 run over by a Humvee with no ill effects except for smashed but still functional handguards. I've also seen both run over by an M113, both were completely destroyed.

Boris Bush
April 26, 2008, 10:11 AM
IZinterrogator

I have had my M16 run over by a Humvee with no ill effects except for smashed but still functional handguards. I've also seen both run over by an M113, both were completely destroyed.
Yesterday 09:15 PM

I wonder what the I thinkers and armchair comandos think about that...............

IZinterrogator
April 26, 2008, 10:35 AM
I wonder what the I thinkers and armchair comandos think about that............... Same thing they always think, Boris. It doesn't fit their preconceived notions, so they will disregard it as false. :rolleyes:

FWIW, my M16 fell out of my truck while I was ground-guiding the truck in reverse and the front wheel ran over it on ground so hard the M16 didn't leave an indent on the ground where it was run over. I replaced the handguards and shot expert with it the next day. The truck had run over the front sight post, the handguards, and the receiver, and it didn't even shift zero on me.

amprecon
April 26, 2008, 10:55 AM
Let me say that I have never fired an M-16 and I went through boot in '87. They were shown to us, tore down in front of us, but never went to the range with one. Didn't even get to qualify with a rifle until '92 and they brought out M-14's. As I learned more about firearms, calibers, power-factors and such I leaned away from both the M-16 rifle and it's anemic caliber. I had no desire after my firearms epiphany to even be near one. I've held them, and they are as heavy if not heavier than the AK.

The AK on the other hand was world-renown for it's durability, effectiveness and high rate of fire and reliability under the worst combat conditions.........but it's wasn't "pretty". It has the "built by a caveman" look to it, crude, simple not very aesthetically pleasing, but good gracious, that gun can shoot.....alot.........and fast.......and it tore stuff up.......badly........I wanted that.

For me, it's function over form, it can look like a ****, but if it works better than a Star Trek Phaser or whatever other fancy looking techno-piece offered, I'll take it.

Now let me say this, if the M-16 had a piston driven action and was made for a caliber with some cajones, like say the 6.8spc, I'd probably hold the AK with the same disdain and contempt as I do the current issue M-16.

But of course this is merely one gun-owners personal opinion, take it for what you will.

Boris Bush
April 26, 2008, 11:09 AM
amprecon

Don't sound like you were a 11B if you did not even qualify with a rifle for FIVE YEARS are you serious?

FWIW I was on the ICV one day and ran across a guncase, it had a M14 in it. It rode in thier for a long time before it was uncased, and then it was only uncased to get turned in before we came back..........

When I dismounted I carried too much ammo, a small D (not small or light) and any extra equipment needed for the next few days missions. Not a single one of us wanted to trade our M4 for the M14 (gasps). Partly because the M4s did just fine (more gasps) and never failed us (big sigh, while shaking head).

Our scout snipers used them but they are diferent players on the team with a different task. As a door kicker I will always and forever prefer and trust my M4..........

RockyMtnTactical
April 26, 2008, 11:53 AM
I've held them, and they are as heavy if not heavier than the AK.

Wrong. AK's are heavier in stock form.

As I learned more about firearms, calibers, power-factors and such I leaned away from both the M-16 rifle and it's anemic caliber.

It's funny. Some people will claim that their 10mm or .357mag is some sort of death ray. Then when talking rifles, they say that the 5.56 is anemic...

Shot placement rules, and the 5.56 has a whole bunch of advantages over other calibers. There's no such thing as a free lunch. What you gain with the 5.56 is the ability to carry far more ammo, faster/more accurate follow up shots, flatter trajectory, etc...

Just ask the troops of ours who use it oversees. I have friends who have been over there, and you have first hand accounts from our troops right here. The majority of our troops know that the 5.56 round works when you put it in the right spot.

I have had my M16 run over by a Humvee with no ill effects except for smashed but still functional handguards. I've also seen both run over by an M113, both were completely destroyed.

That is funny.

Delta Tactical Sling (Triple Config.) This is the sling that will go to war with me when I return!

It's a popular one. We do military/LE discounts too, so contact me before you order one and I will let you know how to get the special pricing.

txpete
April 26, 2008, 12:31 PM
Let me say that I have never fired an M-16 and I went through boot in '87. They were shown to us, tore down in front of us, but never went to the range with one. Didn't even get to qualify with a rifle until '92 and they brought out M-14's. As I learned more about firearms, calibers, power-factors and such I leaned away from both the M-16 rifle and it's anemic caliber.
amprecon

didn't know the boy scout's had a boot camp:D:D:D:
pete

it just seems these computer hero's watch to much on the history/military channel so I am out of here.
pete
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v238/txpete/cav-transparent1.gif

salvadore
April 26, 2008, 01:16 PM
I've owned 5 ARs, starting with an SP-1 back in the late 70s. I have never experienced the 'cons' listed previously, and SP-1 hardly ever got cleaned. I owned a underfolder AK for a few months and 3 or 4 hundred rounds and the 'pro' for that particular rifle was you could almost fit it in your glove compartment. The 'con', of course, was its weight. They're both funner than gum tho.

handlerer
April 26, 2008, 02:03 PM
Amprecon must have been a sailor or something. I trained with M-16 in basic at Fort Polk, in 1970. Have said it before was not believed but, after any training requiring low crawling, ie infiltration coarses, my m-16 would cycle once then jam. This wasn't just mine, but the majority of the M-16's in this training failed thus. We weren't allowed to lock and load until we reached the objective, so sand and grit would get into the action, and render it useless. I thought this a major flaw. If we had really been able to simulate combat and advance locked and loaded, with bolt cover taped down, I think performance would have been much better. Having stated my critcism, I enjoy shooting the AR guns, accurate and flat shooting. Think we would be better off with 7.62 NATO though.

TPAW
April 26, 2008, 02:48 PM
Bottom dollar, 7.62x39 or 5.56/.223, I wouldn't want to get hit by either one....:o

amprecon
April 26, 2008, 03:12 PM
But of course this is merely one gun-owners personal opinion, take it for what you will.

Geeze people, get a grip, add a few millimeters to you skin thickness will ya...

To each their own

BTW, I was a squid, didn't need a .22 rifle, we were issued toolboxes instead for those weeney little A-6E Intruders that carried at least six Mk 83 1,000 pounders....under each wing.

mini4m3
April 26, 2008, 03:23 PM
when it comes to m16 vs ak47.......... the m91/30 wins!


Funny little page about both the ak47 and ar15

http://7.62x54r.net/MosinID/MosinHumor.htm

Tim R
April 26, 2008, 04:55 PM
amprecon posted: BTW, I was a squid, didn't need a .22 rifle, we were issued toolboxes instead for those weeney little A-6E Intruders that carried at least six Mk 83 1,000 pounders....under each wing.

OK, from one airdale squid to another and might be slightly off topic. You also under stated what an Intruder could carry for a bomb load by quite a bit.

I shot competivley for the Navy with several M-14's in the late 80's and went to Perry in 1990 on Navy orders. :) I thought only real men shot 30 cal. I changed my mind the first time I shot my own AR in competition. Its a easy rifle to shot well. As we speak, I'm working on a 90 gr load to shoot my AR out to 1k. And yes I'm using iron sights. Hardly just a another .22.

Also let's not forget the .223 set the Russkis on the on their behinds so much they have their own version of it. When the M-16 was first issued, there were many reports of bad guys getting shot in a arm or toe nails with the bullet coming out their arse. There were no reports of wounding an enemy just a little......the days of little hole in, little hole out was a thing of the past. The AK might shot a 308 sized bullet but it's not a full power 308. Its more like a 30-30. I don't take long shots with my 30-30 either.

SPUSCG
April 26, 2008, 05:34 PM
.308s dont bounce off windshields, they enjoy breaking things

ndking1126
April 26, 2008, 06:50 PM
Post #30:
[QUOTE
...AK doesn't fit me. It has horrid ergonomics for a man of my size, and just not so good generally as the AR for position of controls, trigger pull, sights, and overall accuracy.[/QUOTE]

+2 for that!

I've shot both and would take the AR. It is so much easier to get on target, take the shot and get back on target. Well, it is for me at least.

I once shot an AK with an aftermarket stock. It was better, but I still just don't like the feel of how it operates.

44 AMP
April 26, 2008, 08:29 PM
My basic was Ft Leonard Wood (little Korea), and I am also familiar with Ft Polk (little Vietnam), and unfortunately, all too many other places around the world, and the M16s we had for training were worn out pieces of crap, which I later learned were being used in training because they did not meet the standards for overseas shipment!

The guns the boys (and girls) are using today are better, and while they may not be the best gun they could have, they are the best gun they do have.

Endless comparisons with the AK are inevitable, I guess, because the AR/M16 was/is ours and the AK was/is theirs, but lately it seems to me to be more like asking which is better fruit, grapefruit or watermelon. They aren't the same thing, they were never intended to be the same thing, and they both do they jobs tolerably well. Can't we just move on?

Crosshair
April 27, 2008, 12:58 AM
Also let's not forget the .223 set the Russkis on the on their behinds so much they have their own version of it.
Don't forget that Micaiel Kalashnakov said in an interview,

It is you Americans who are to blame for our transition to caliber 5.45. I was all for modernizing 7.62......I still think we would be better off with 7.62 than with 5.45.

So even the inventor of the AK-47 doesn't like the 22 caliber for a combat weapon.:D

Lawyer Daggit
April 27, 2008, 02:00 AM
Whose AK 47 and whose M16. Both of these rifles have been produced by a number of different contractors in a variety of versions over the years, also even if you turn around and stipulate particular versions from particular arsenals the answer could still depend on what do you want to use it for? aside from choice of calibre, a tuned up M16 can perform like a varminter, but is not a great choice for deer, whereas a version of the Kalashnivov could be used on deer.

If you want something to cope with sand and dust and be a reliable battle rifle out to 300 yards my answer would be different again.

With respects, the question in its current form needs clarifying as it is too vague.

Art Eatman
April 27, 2008, 10:49 AM
TPAW, your points are correct but not germane. Doctrine is what sets the parameters for a design. "We want an infantryman to be able to do this:...." and so the various design requirements are set forth for the designers to try to meet.

Waht you're saying is that there is no "one size fits all", and I fully agree. That doesn't change the doctrine, however.

Overall, my point is that the M16 and the AK-47 meet the doctrinal requirements of the two entirely different doctrines.

And that's why I take no "side" as to which of the two is the "goodest". :D

223nut
April 27, 2008, 12:17 PM
I like em both.

Yithian
April 27, 2008, 12:45 PM
I like them both too.
The defining factor for me is price.
An AK costs nearly one third what the AR costs.

hmm... three rifles or one?

Cmu_Sniper
April 28, 2008, 04:22 AM
Dont know what basis you intend to use for comparison. For hunting or target shooting, AR will take it. However, Battle rifle for war, the AR cant touch the AK. :eek:

RockyMtnTactical
April 28, 2008, 12:34 PM
So even the inventor of the AK-47 doesn't like the 22 caliber for a combat weapon.

How is that relevant? He was a weapons designer, not a ballistics expert. He designed the AK in 7.62x39 originally because the Russians told him to, not because it was his favorite caliber or anything.

Forwardassist
April 28, 2008, 01:03 PM
However, Battle rifle for war, the AR cant touch the AK.

I guess that is why so many former Soviet countries are shifting to the AR. Not because it is cheaper to them but because they like the ARs performance over the AK. To Paraphrase an Iraqi solider "AR is for a professional military, while the AK is for the insurgents". While the AR is not perfect it does have several advantages over an AK. If the AK rifles are so wonderful then why don't the most elite special forces units around the world use it over the M4?

Jermtheory
April 28, 2008, 01:09 PM
as for us civy's(without NFA goodies)...

an AK?:(

a semi-auto AK?:barf:

for me,the AR is more practical for any application(hunting,plinking/sport,defense/"SHTF",etc).if the AK was FA and i lived in the city...i might want it for "SHTF".although i would probably still prefer an select fire AR.

here in the country(VA mountains),the only thing i would use a semi-auto AK for(100 yard deer gun),could be accomplished just as well with my 30-30 Marlin.

.351winchester
April 28, 2008, 01:47 PM
Here's how I see it. Almost an apples and oranges comparison, between the two most prolific weapons of their type. Both have glaring pluses and minuses over the other.
As a fighting tool, the AR is immeasurably better suited and user friendly. I mean fighting other than battlefield, large scale engagements, which rarely happens anymore.
But there is a lot to be said for the AK's simplicity, durability, and reliability. It is affordable to most anyone (WASR 3 .223's are less than 400. OTD), and really should be purchased instead of perpetually saving for an AR if one really cannot afford one. This is the better SHTF weapon, that can tread the world over with gross neglect of maintenance. It's controls are extremely outdated, and the magazine insertion process sucks. Rocking is nothing new to me, but found I had to get it in just right (too delicate). I love that you can still get drums for these cheaply, if only to skip a reload. But anyway, the AK and all about it is an excellent bang for your buck. 5.45x39 is a cool round and one of the cheapest rifle cartridges to be found.
I bought my WASR after a lot of thought, to be my one and only gun. Plinking was primary, obviously. But for HD, SHTF, and maybe deer hunting with a 5 rounder, still think it was a pretty good choice, all my personal priorities considered.
Fortunately I can now have as many guns as I choose to own and pay for, but still intend to get a replacement AK, in addition to an AR and .308 MBR, plus a rimfire and Scout.

Both great rifles. Have one of each if at all possible, with spare hi-caps and at least a case of surplus ammo each. Would personally prefer the up to date controls of the AR, but an AK has it's own positives.

Wish I would have grabbed some (one at least) of the Romanian AKM "G" model parts kits when they were less than a buck. With the tools, all you need is a reciever flat, some rivets and compliance parts. I wouldn't count on anything I made running right, but would be a more interesting project than building a model airplane or something.

FWIW, I would prefer these in semi in any case, if selective fire would only set it to burst or auto for fun target shooting. FA is for SAWs, and rarely for covering fire or spraying concealed targets from a rifle or sub if so armed. Accurate, aimed individual shots win fights, FA keeps heads down. In SHTF, ammo would be too precious a commodity to not make each and every shot count. IMO. That said, I think a .223 might take 3 hits anyway so...

salvadore
April 28, 2008, 03:48 PM
I love dissin swabbies, but like dissin wingnuts more. AKs & ARs are fun guns.

Kraziken
April 28, 2008, 05:36 PM
I've read reports where the velocity of the 5.56 at 200 meters or less actually produces more damage than the 7.62. When you push the distances further, that starts to change because the 7.62 carries better further.

As an urban combat rifle, I think the M-16, AR is CLEARLY superior. You really aren't worried as much about dirt, etc. It is a flatter shooting round. Less kick, faster on target.

The AR is much more versatile. A simple upper receiver change, and you can fire the 6.8 which is better than the 7.62.

It is much more expensive. I trained with it. So I'm partial to the AR platform.

With the price of ammo, I'd consider an AK, or a 7.62 upper receiver though. :D

TheManHimself
April 28, 2008, 05:52 PM
I would suggest to the folks who think 5.56x45mm isn't a lethal enough round, to talk to some of the smelly bearded men who get shot with it... if it's as anemic as you claim, there should be plenty of 5.56 survivors to interview... no?

.351winchester
April 28, 2008, 06:32 PM
The footage of the Columbian bank robber/hostage taker taking one from an AUG at about 7 yards made me devoted to the ctg. until my recent interest in longer range shooting and more efficiency from a short barrel.

Dobe
April 28, 2008, 07:24 PM
AR's are the weapon I would choose. They are by far the most accurate and the most versitle. And unlike the detractors, the AR is very reliable. Those who believe it must be cleaned every 200 rounds have little experience with this system.

IZinterrogator
April 28, 2008, 10:03 PM
Alright, let's take a look at the weak point of any weapon, the magazine. Grab up the nearest AK mag and the nearest AR mag you have lying around. (Oh, you don't have one of each lying around since you don't own one of each? Then what's your basis of comparison? Why are you posting on this thread?) My AR mag has six weld points on the front and six on the back. My AK mag has 11 weld points on the front and 14 on the rib running down the back. The catch in the front of the AK mag has five welds holding it on and six holding on the tab on the back. I'm not an expert, but the AK magazine seems like it would hold up better to hard use. Plus, the obvious failure point would be the tabs on the front or back holding the magazine in the weapon. So, if the welds there break, the mag won't be held in the weapon, so you throw it away. If you break a weld on the AR mag, you can probably still seat it, but it won't feed properly due to bad feed lip geometry. So you say the AR is the problem when it is actually the magazine. The HK high reliability magazines for the AR solve this issue by using a line of weld down the spines instead of spot welding.

Next, let's look at the feed lips. The AK design appears to have been bent over and welded to the side of the top of the magazine. So we have feed lips that are doubly strong, and made out of steel in most cases to boot. Now, let's look at our AR magazine again. Single ply aluminum, you say? Correct. Much thinner and less durable, making it easier to bend and distort them. Oh, but you have the super high-speed, used by Delta Force, impervious to nuclear waste, made out of Kryptonite (okay, steel) HK high reliability magazines I mentioned previously? Good. Load one with 30 rounds, take it outside to the sidewalk, and drop it feed lips first. Go ahead, I'll wait. What? Your feed lips bent and it won't feed a round correctly now? Well, duh. Once again, the geometry of the AR magazine requires single ply construction at the feed lips, and steel bends, just like aluminum. Your AR is now a club.

So, the AR is a piece of junk due to its magazine design, right? Wrong. AK magazines were designed for hard use by an army that has no supply system except for our old Communist friends that lavished them with nothing but ammunition after their initial supply of rifles and mags were shipped in. The AR was designed for an army that has a working supply system and can replace magazines with ease. Here's the problem: no one knows that AR magazines were designed cheap because they were supposed to be disposable. Why should a company commander spend money on magazines when the ones in his arms room look just fine? Answer: they won't. I know this because in over nine years in the same unit, I have never seen new magazines unless they came with new rifles, like when we swapped our M16A2s for M4s. However, the supply source code for AR magazines is PACZZ, meaning that it is nonrepairable and nonrecoverable, as evidenced by the ZZ at the end. So these magazines are being used far beyond their usable service lives (Pat Rogers can tell you the actual service life, I don't remember at the moment), since no maintainer will inspect them for servicability. It is the responsibility of the user. Most users don't know that magazines have limited service lives, hence the perpetuation of the problem. Also, the user is only required to slide the magazine into the well to check for ease of insertion and check the spring tension and follower movement during maintenance. Both will pass with a broken but unloaded magazine, which is what you will have when conducting maintenance. No checks of the welds are required, and the problem will only manifest itself when the magazine is loaded. Also, no checks of the feed lips are required. You will find out that your mag is tango uniform when you are locking and loading. This is usually too late. However, I have developed a simple solution to mark defective magazines that I find, whether at the qualification range or during maintenance. You stomp it flat and bend it in half. Sooner or later, your company commander will realize that he is low on mags and order new ones.

So, in addition to checking your AR springs and followers, check your welds and your feed lips. Stop thinking your AR magazines are as durable as your AK mags and inspect and replace them on a regular basis, even your high-speed low-drag HK magazines. You'll find that your AR is just as reliable as an AK. How do I know? Well, I spent more time inspecting mags and ammo in Iraq than I did cleaning my M4 during two tours in Iraq. Yes, my AR was full of carbon, sand, and dust on a regular basis. Rarely lubed, too. I admit it, I'm a lazy slob. Yet my M4 never failed to fire. How odd. Could it be because I bought my own brand new magazines from a reputable manufacturer to take with me the second time? Or because I pored through about 40 magazines before I found the eight I trusted the most to take the first time? Could be. They weren't even HK mags, they were regular aluminum 30-rounders with Magpul followers and Ranger plates. Both times. And I took care of them, so they took care of me. So stop blaming the AR for unreliability because you won't feed it properly.

Once I take my new Yugo AK out for a spin, I'll comment on its accuracy. But while I've shot an AK before and it was reliable, we were just having fun blasting away and not really trying to test its accuracy. I can't and won't make any comments on its accuracy until I have tried it out for that purpose.

Lesson over. Go take your weapons to the range and give them a fair test or log out and go back to playing Counterstrike, whichever you prefer.

Edit: If this post offended you, then you probably don't have the knowledge or experience to be posting objectively on this thread. Go back to Counterstrike.

Jermtheory
April 28, 2008, 10:37 PM
tried the PMAGs?


Grab up the nearest AK mag and the nearest AR mag you have lying around. (Oh, you don't have one of each lying around since you don't own one of each? Then what's your basis of comparison? Why are you posting on this thread?)

sold the AK a long time ago.:D

honeslty though,i do regret it...even if it would be collecting dust,while i shot AR's.

Crosshair
April 28, 2008, 10:41 PM
Good post IZinterrogator. Doesn't matter if you are an AR or an AK person. We can all agree that AR mags are downright flimsy compared to AK mags. It again goes back to their design philosophy.

AK: Magazine should be as durable as as the rifle and last a long time. Making exessive numbers of spare magazines takes up precious materials and machinery that could be used for making other war materials. Make them nice and beefy so we can get away with using weaker materials if we have to.

AR: Durable enough for a tour of combat and lightweight. If it breaks, oh well. We can stamp them out for $5 each using recycled soda cans and ship them with the next lot of ammo.

IZinterrogator
April 28, 2008, 10:42 PM
tried the PMAGs?Not yet, too many servicable aluminum mags lying around. Probably will get a few when the current ones die under my boot.
We can all agree that AR mags are downright flimsy compared to AK mags. It again goes back to their design philosophy.
But can we agree that AR reliability or lack thereof is almost completely magazine related in a quality AR? There's the catch.

89% of Soldiers recently surveyed said they were happy with their M4s, yet 19% of Soldiers had experience a jam in a firefight. So 8% had jammed in a firefight, yet were still happy with the weapon. That 8% probably realized what was to blame, the magazine and not the rifle. The other 11% probably didn't have a clue since they had done their maintenance exactly according to the TM and it had jammed on them anyways.

Arabia
April 28, 2008, 11:13 PM
Very good post IZinterrogator. Your post reminds me of the sand torture recently done comparing the M4 to the three major competitors. While the M4 had 800+ stoppages out of 10,000s of rounds what is less specified in the analysis is that about a quarter of the stoppages where traced back to the magazine. Probably after all those round fired the mags springs started to wear out, and maybe the feed lips bent. As you pointed out that magazine is a weak link in the AR system.

IZinterrogator
April 29, 2008, 05:22 AM
Arabia,
It would not suprise me at all if the Army had used the HK mags for the three competitors and regular old aluminum mags for the M4. After all, the competitors were made by HK or used by SOCOM, while the M4 most likely had to use the mags that came with it from Colt. If the aluminum mags are not downloaded by two rounds, they are much less reliable due to shorter mag body length. I tried sticking six of the HK magazines in the bandolier that came with my MOLLE Rifleman's Kit issued to me by the Army, and the flaps holding the magazines in wouldn't close on the HK mags because they are too long. What a shock! :rolleyes:

SR420
April 29, 2008, 06:43 AM
I like both of them :)



As pictured, the AK is about one pound heavier than the AR.

http://www.athenswater.com/images/T56SHTF-LE6920-1.jpg

Crosshair
April 29, 2008, 07:31 AM
But can we agree that AR reliability or lack thereof is almost completely magazine related in a quality AR? There's the catch.
The problem there is that people talk of magazines as an accessory. They are not. Without mags, the M-16 is a very hard to use single shot rifle. If the design of the magazines for your service rifle are known to be rather flimsy, that is a design flaw.

SR420
April 29, 2008, 07:52 AM
When considering mags for your AR ... PMAGs are the sh!t :cool:



I like 30 round Chinese mags in my AK and ChiCom 75 & 100 round drums are nice to have :)

IZinterrogator
April 29, 2008, 08:10 AM
If the design of the magazines for your service rifle are known to be rather flimsy, that is a design flaw.And it is being corrected with the use of the HK and P-mags to match the philosophy of the people who control the money to buy magazines, i.e. they are durable items. Both rifles are compromises to match their design philosophy, the AK went with max reliability at all costs, the AR went with max reliability and accuracy with light weight. Only now with the polymer P-mags is the technology required to make it work catching up to the concept.

However, if Joe hadn't been keeping his old aluminum mags in a plastic shopping bag bouncing around in the bed of his pickup while he drove to the range, he might have a better opinion of AR reliability. If Joe had been guiding his mags into the magwell by using his index finger along the front as a guide, maybe he wouldn't have gotten the edge of the magwell slamming straight down the center of the feedlips onto the back weld, and maybe he would have a better opinion of AR reliability. Since Joe doesn't throw his rifle into a closet at the end of the day, but instead lays it lovingly into a gun safe, why does he throw his mags around? They're not an accessory, they're an integral part of the rifle. Because Joe is ignorant about the cause of the unreliability. And I haven't even started getting into how Joe is using his crummy mags in his kit-built AR that took him three hours to make instead of a mil-spec rifle.

USMCGrunt
April 29, 2008, 11:55 AM
Out of the 2, I voted for the M-16. I've used the M-16/M-4 in a lot of places under a lot of conditions and have never had a problem. Then again, I'm a cleaning fanatic anyways so that's not been an issue for me. I own both types (7 AK variants and 5 ARs with 2 more lowers on the way) and can say that both designs have their vices and virtues, many that have already been discussed here already. I guess my bottom line is you can make any M-16 very reliable through disciplined maintence. However, you can't make a run of the mill AK accurate.

Robs22
April 29, 2008, 12:33 PM
I've shot both and i will have to pick:
Avtomat Kalashnikova model of 1947 on this one, This thing eats anything you throw at it, and will keep firing no matter what, If my life depended on it, I wouldn't think twice bout it.

jon_in_wv
May 3, 2008, 10:34 PM
I don't hear the AK proponents here talking about how you have to use certain types of mags to get the AK to run right. Seem to me that pretty much answers our questions here.

speedracer211
May 3, 2008, 10:45 PM
What we think for what. I need to know what purpose it is being used for. Long range, short range, varmint, people, accuracy, reliability? It is like trying to compare an indy car, to a sprint car, to a gokart, we are not talking apples to apples.

btw... my ak will take any mag I stick in it and it does not have to be squeeky clean like my ar.

IZinterrogator
May 3, 2008, 10:50 PM
it does not have to be squeeky clean like my ar.And what kind of AR do you have? My Colts function as well at the end of a 1000-round shooting session as they do at the beginning. That is to say, flawlessly.

speedracer211
May 3, 2008, 10:57 PM
It is a frankin ar, but like other ar's from my experience they start to choke after a few k. Dont get me wrong I love ar's but they will and do choke if not cleaned regardless of brand.

.351winchester
May 3, 2008, 10:58 PM
Apples and oranges. Shouldn't be, but is. Get both.

IZinterrogator
May 3, 2008, 11:22 PM
It is a frankin ar, but like other ar's from my experience they start to choke after a few k.And what other ARs would those be? I've never seen a Colt malfunction that wasn't magazine-related in 12 years of working with them and owning them. Well, there was that lefty I saw who had it jam every round, but that was because he was holding his support hand over the ejection port so the spent brass bounced back into the ejection port/chamber area every time he fired. Okay, magazine or user-related malfunction, I stand corrected.

But to blame the design for malfunctioning when you build your own is like complaining that your stock car won't win NASCAR races when you built it from junkyard parts.

RedneckFur
May 4, 2008, 12:18 AM
Both are good rifles, and its not for lack of bodies to study.

I choose the Ak, simmply because I've got more expereince with it.

Beauhooligan
May 4, 2008, 07:10 AM
Given my choice, I would opt for the AK47 over the M16. I saw M-16s fail for every reason including "God felt like it". I was in USN Squadron 116 River Division 530 at the end of the Navy's participation in the Mekong River War Games, and decided there that if I ever had the choice of trading .30s for .22s I would do so, as the reverse sucks. My boat had 9 men posted to it in the 8 months and 16 days while I was held captive, and only 7 came home alive, and in my case it was with a broken back and concussion (my third purple heart). I never drew a M-16 for boarding and searching operations, and deck fights, always choosing a shotgun instead. By the time I made GM2 I was usually on the forward .50s. It was good to have all that fire power, but it also meant that all the Russian .51s and any RPGs we came across in the province were aimed at my gun position. There was once when I ran my guns dry and was re-arming them that an RPG sprinted in, set to kill. It glanced off the splinter shield of gun 2, knocked off my helmet and set fire to my hair on the right side of my head, which the Chief put out with a fire extinguisher. I can't say I remember much for a bit except that I came to on the deck, got up and finished rearming my guns, and got back into the fight. As far as I am concerned the best combat weapon of all time is John Brownings Air Cooled M2 .50 Caliber Machine Gun. Second Place goes to the pistol accepted as the US Semi-Automatic Pistol of 1911; and as the long trigger and flat mainspring housing is kept, then the 1911-A1 gets my appreciation as well. I can't help for having big hands.:)
The M-16 can be a fine arm on the target range; even be superlative at it when the right components and handloaded ammunition are assembled. The semi-automatic version of the M-16, the AR-15, which Eugene Stoner originally sold to the Air Force to kill jack rabbits and coyotes on runways, can be a remarkable rifle, for limited service. But, I did not appreciate having to put my life on the line behind the piece of crap known as the M-16 that I was issued in Viet Nam. I would have gladly traded the M-16 for an AK-47, except that the muzzle signature was so different that it would cause friendly fire casualties. Many Special Forces, Force Recon, and SEAL team members who used AKs because of policy in Cambodia found themselves on the receiving end of US fire close to the border. For my own edification these days I spend some time shooting a Ruger Mini-30; which seems to have all the lean, and no fat.

Adios
Beauhooligan

bestbod85
May 4, 2008, 08:45 AM
I've got a friend that has been in the marine corps his entire career ( combat as well) , when he got out , he purchased one rifle for "just in case" purposes and i was shocked to learn that he bought an AK47 with scope and 1000 rounds of ammo. when i asked him why (in shock) he simply said "because she will never leave me hanging and with my marksmanship skills i can hit exactly what im aiming at with it to 400 yards" needless to say i was dumbfounded.

Firepower!
May 6, 2008, 01:10 PM
We need a re poll on this. I think somehhow the results got tainted with pride of the origin of the two rifles. AK wins hands down as the best combat rifle today, but M16 is known for its balanced recoil.

We need poll with more options of service rifles around the world.

Jermtheory
May 6, 2008, 01:41 PM
just keep "re polling" until the AK is in the lead maybe?:rolleyes:

VonFireball
May 6, 2008, 03:44 PM
However, if Joe hadn't been keeping his old aluminum mags in a plastic shopping bag bouncing around in the bed of his pickup while he drove to the range, he might have a better opinion of AR reliability. If Joe had been guiding his mags into the magwell by using his index finger along the front as a guide, maybe he wouldn't have gotten the edge of the magwell slamming straight down the center of the feedlips onto the back weld, and maybe he would have a better opinion of AR reliability.

So in other words the AR is a great battle rifle for those who aren't fighting battles.

IZinterrogator
May 6, 2008, 07:07 PM
So in other words the AR is a great battle rifle for those who aren't fighting battles. No, the AR is a great battle rifle for those who have a supply system that allows them to inspect and replace their mags as required. Perhaps you missed this earlier.So, the AR is a piece of junk due to its magazine design, right? Wrong. AK magazines were designed for hard use by an army that has no supply system except for our old Communist friends that lavished them with nothing but ammunition after their initial supply of rifles and mags were shipped in. The AR was designed for an army that has a working supply system and can replace magazines with ease. Here's the problem: no one knows that AR magazines were designed cheap because they were supposed to be disposable. Why should a company commander spend money on magazines when the ones in his arms room look just fine? Answer: they won't. I know this because in over nine years in the same unit, I have never seen new magazines unless they came with new rifles, like when we swapped our M16A2s for M4s. However, the supply source code for AR magazines is PACZZ, meaning that it is nonrepairable and nonrecoverable, as evidenced by the ZZ at the end. So these magazines are being used far beyond their usable service lives (Pat Rogers can tell you the actual service life, I don't remember at the moment), since no maintainer will inspect them for servicability. It is the responsibility of the user. Most users don't know that magazines have limited service lives, hence the perpetuation of the problem. Also, the user is only required to slide the magazine into the well to check for ease of insertion and check the spring tension and follower movement during maintenance. Both will pass with a broken but unloaded magazine, which is what you will have when conducting maintenance. No checks of the welds are required, and the problem will only manifest itself when the magazine is loaded. Also, no checks of the feed lips are required. You will find out that your mag is tango uniform when you are locking and loading. This is usually too late. However, I have developed a simple solution to mark defective magazines that I find, whether at the qualification range or during maintenance. You stomp it flat and bend it in half. Sooner or later, your company commander will realize that he is low on mags and order new ones.
The AR is a great battle rifle for those who fight in a professional army. The AK is a great battle rifle if you never expect a resupply of anything except ammo.

jon_in_wv
May 11, 2008, 09:14 PM
Why is it the AR guys will always say that any AR malfunction is always the mags fault? I mean how do you know that first of all. Secondly, I work with a government agency that uses Colt AR15s with colt mags. I have NEVER in 13 years seen us hit the qualification line even once in 13 years where at least one of the AR15 didn't have problems jamming in some way. These are newer ARs with new mags. This past qual THREE ARs malfunctioned and the shooters had to re-shoot. I have never experienced a problem personally with an AR but I've seen it enough times that when I went shopping for a SHTF gun this week I put my money on an AK47. I have four years in the Marine Corps and 13 years in the Federal Govt using AR15s. I am currently building an AR for a sporting rifle for target shooting but for the real dirty work I'll rely on my AK.

SR420
May 11, 2008, 09:31 PM
IZinterrogator
The AR is a great battle rifle for those who fight in a professional army.
The AK is a great battle rifle if you never expect a resupply of anything except ammo.

Most citizens never expect a resupply of anything, so I guess a piston driven AK is the smart choice :cool:

http://www.athenswater.com/images/Type56SHTF-with75rdDrum.jpg

.351winchester
May 11, 2008, 10:13 PM
We need poll with more options of service rifles around the world.
Sig 550 series, or my vote: AUG

Doc TH
May 11, 2008, 10:14 PM
M16 is the more accurate rifle. However, I have had opportunity in my work to talk to many troops rotating from Iraq. A frequent complaint is malfunction due to the fine sand clogging the weapon; most said the big advantage of the AK was rock-solid reliability. Those who had worked with Delta Force folks said they were impressed with the HK416 version with the gas piston.

jon_in_wv
May 13, 2008, 06:05 PM
I did a search for AK mags on the internet to see what brand or source I should use for mags for my AK and the answer I got was a resounding, "doesn't matter, whatever you get works fine. The AK mags are generally produced by eastern block nations that over engineered the mags for rock solid reliability" My question is, why the heck would you "under" engineer them? Are we supposed to believe that inferior magazines are somehow a superior design with the AR??
I still maintain the AK is a superior battle rifle in a more versatile caliber than the AR15/M16. The AR walks all over it for sporting purposes but the AK has no equal as a battle rifle.

RockyMtnTactical
May 13, 2008, 07:00 PM
Trust me, I have found bad AK mags...

It's funny how the AK has this legendary reliability in the web. You'd think an AK has never failed.

It's like I say though, the flaws of both platforms are usually exaggerated greatly by those who hate the other platform. People who shoot and own both usually have more reasonable and responsible answers...

As for the AR15, yes the mags were made to be disposable. They typically are not always treated as such and is one reason why you may have issues on occasion with the AR15.

However, just because the AR15 mags were designed to be disposable originally, they tend to have a longer service life for many folks depending on how well they are treated. Also, with new innovations such as many of the magpul products including ranger plates, magpul followers, and even PMAG's themselves that is changing...

Slamfire
May 14, 2008, 10:09 AM
I find the comments from actual combat users of the M16 very interesting and educational.

Still though, the M16 platform requires more maintenance than an AK. Something else that you can read from IZinterogator posts are, the successful operation and maintenance of an M16 requires above average initiative and mechanical understanding. This gentleman has clearly analyzed his M16 problems, decided on root causes, and taken actions to prevent them happening to him.

Few Joe’s do this, even though their life may be on the line. And then, what do you do with the folks who are barely intelligent enough to chip paint? Rely on your NCO’s, your Officer Corp to oversee and troubleshoot the guys weapon?

Were any of these types diligently overseeing Private Jessica prior to her getting into trouble, early in Iraqi? No. Private Jessica said “My gun jammed”. She had a maintenance heavy weapon, obviously was un interested in it, and was totally clueless about how to clear a jam.

I cannot say a Private Jessica could not have jammed a AK, but if you look at how many AK’s are in the hands of illiterate, non mechanical types in third world countries, and killing people daily with them, it is obvious the AK requires less knowledge and maintenance to keep them going.

The AR15/M16/M4 is an adequate service rifle. It is not the best of its class, and as a battle rifle, it is inferior in both cartridge and design to the AK47.

As for accuracy, well I have a target shooting bud that went to Iraqi. I asked him about combat and accuracy. He told me he was typically shooting through a small port hole out of a HMMWV, wearing fogged glasses, the HMMWV driver going as fast as he can, swerving, and that target grade accuracy was just not something that factored into the experience.

Same thing for kicking down doors and shooting people running around hallways and out of rooms. Information from one scout sniper is that it is rare to have a shot over 200 yards in the city.

Yes, the AR15 is the better target rifle, but that seems to be of lesser importance to getting lead on target and weapon reliability.

Jermtheory
May 14, 2008, 12:37 PM
The AR15/M16/M4 is an adequate service rifle. It is not the best of its class, and as a battle rifle, it is inferior in both cartridge and design to the AK47.

not everyone would agree that far superior ergonomics and accuracy would equate to "inferior design".one could also argue that the 5.56 is more than capable and allows you to carry more ammo(therefore once again,not "inferior" at all).

also...im sure there are a great many battle scenerio's where the added accuracy is quite handy(your buddy in the fogged glasses shooting from the port hole aside).

Wyldman
May 14, 2008, 01:05 PM
WOW! I am kind of surprised to see the poll so close on the numbers. I expected everyone to go with the AR15.

I HAVE fired both and I think they are both equally effective. I would go with the AK myself.

Slamfire
May 14, 2008, 01:48 PM
also...im sure there are a great many battle scenerio's where the added accuracy is quite handy(your buddy in the fogged glasses shooting from the port hole aside).

It is not a matter of capability, it is a matter of a trade. Given I won't loose anything, certainly I would want to increase capability by increasing accuracy. However if it is a trade, I would trade a little accuracy for a little more reliability, little increase in maintainability.

I shoot competitively all the time. I see new guys, God Bless them, come out with out of the box sub MOA Armalites, Rock Rivers, Bushmasters, and miss 6 foot by 6 foot targets at 200 yards, 300 yards, and 600 yards. They are clearly rattled, their skills need work, but no one is shooting at them.

There is this assumption that increased weapon accuracy means increased hit probability. I think this ignores the human element.

I really don't know how accurate I would be, if someone was shooting at me. Probably not as accurate as my rifle.

also argue that the 5.56 is more than capable and allows you to carry more ammo(therefore once again,not "inferior" at all).

You have a point. I was in the pits, ragging on the M16 and praising the M14 when one of our Vietnam vets told me that you could carry 400 rounds of M16 ammo, but only 200 rounds of 308. I said "Rusty, you ever fire 400 rounds in a day"?. And he said yes. And all I could think of was "Must have been a bad day".

RockyMtnTactical
May 14, 2008, 03:06 PM
I know several Iraq vets who have gone through 12+ mags on multiple occasions in a single firefight.

jon_in_wv
May 14, 2008, 04:48 PM
A few have addressed my points and misunderstood the MEANING.

When I addressed the AR15s accuracy and ergonomics I was referring to it as a "battle rifle" Both of those qualities are of much less value for a battle rifle than reliability and ease of maintenance. I believe the AK has the AR beat on both of those. Every unit is equipped with numerous other weapons that are capable of long range accuracy. The AR and the .223 are not optimal for long range sniping anyhow (nor are the AK/7.62x39) when there are .308s available for that task.

While I'm not saying an AK has never jammed the inherit reliability is much higher by virtue of its design and the quality of its magazines than the AR. What kind of logic is it that we have a battle rifle with weak, aluminum, disposable mags? I fail to see the benefit. Someone enlighten me.

Also the point was made the AR carries more ammo than the AK47. Really? How so? The two rounds are very similar in size. The AK is heavier, has heavier mags, and the rounds are slightly heavier. A battle rifle has never been a "light" weapon. Gaining a few pounds weight for a more durable and reliable weapon system is a fair trade for me. If its simply a matter of the number of rounds the AKs don't have to be downloaded for reliability and can carry an honest 30 rounds instead of 28. There are also 40 round mags available for the AK that supposedly work fine.

I recently saw an interview on TV of one of the guys who helped design the AR15. He said if his son went to war tomorrow he would want his son carrying an AK and NOT an AR. The AK has seen several upgrades over the years to its final AK103 (?) configuration. The AR hasn't seen a substantial change or improvement in over 20 years. HE also cited the other benefits of the AK and said he believed it was time to finally recognize this and upgrade our current service rifle to something else.

In fairness to the conversation I have never even fired an AK47. I will have a converted Saiga by the end of the week but I have yet to own one personally. I have, however, been issued, carried, qualified with, and trained with the AR15 for the last 16 years (4 years in the USMC and 12 years in the Federal Government) I have had MORE than enough experience with it to formulate a very solid opinion of the AR15/M16. I think you can tell from my posts what that opinion is. I do love the AR15 as a sporting rifle but as a battle rifle I think it leaves a lot to be desired.
The AK I'm getting is also a member of my Russian "family": 1943 Mosin Nagant 91/30, M44, Tula SKS, and a Makarov. I understand the philosophy of the weapons not as crude rifles but as tough, reliable, battle rifles that are built for strength and reliability. They aren't pretty, but they work.