The IDF's take on the AK-47 vs M16 debate

[capnrik]

Click this

[K80Geoff]

Some of you experts need to spend some time in the employ of Uncle, where you can discuss your opinions with your Drill Sergeant or DI. They of course are more than willing to lecture you on the merits of the M16 family

[abelew]

Was an air force security forces member for my entire 4 year elistment (minus basic and tech school). Im not saying the m16 dont have its merits, but its got probs too

[Greg Bell]

While I personally prefer the Ak-47 to the Ar-15 any day. I no longer own either. Why, because they don't serve any need I have. But if I had to chose between them, the AK-47 is the better of the two, only because it works as advertised. I have to confess, I have a fetish for reliability. When a gun does not work, all of its other qualities are unimportant to me.

The AR-15/M-16 has a 40 year history of reliability problems. The history of the gun will probably begin with the propellant problems and end with the problems they have had in Iraq. The military is not desperately looking for a replacement (in the same caliber) because it is reliable. In fact, the gun that they have been looking at seems to be, practically, no improvement except in reliability.

Once again, AR-15 for felt-lined case carry, target shooting (why? get a bolt) and pretending you are GIJoe (for now). The AK-47 is meant for battlefield use in unpredictable conditions by people who don't always have time to go by the gunshop to pick up some BreakFree.

[Tamara]

There are no magic swords. I like the AR types for their handling, ergos, and general shootability factors. After many years and many rifles, I settled on them as the choice to keep for using when I divested myself of my other EBR's in favor of expanding my milsurp collection. Folks can offer pontifications about pit crews and clean rooms 'til they're blue in the face, but all it does is flatly contradict my real world experiences of many, many years. This tells me more about the value of their opinions than it does about the actual firearms.

When an AK malfs, excuses are offered about "it must've been a bad mag" or "you do have to clean the gas piston every thousand rounds or so" or "that's a bad lot of Wolf ammo with hard primers." When an AR malfs, it's because it's a poorly designed jammomatic. Whatever...

I think I'll go into work early today and blow a few mags downrange through the M-635 and remind myself about the virtues of arguing on the internet...

[Crosshair]

I have never fired an AR, but I do own a Yugo SKS and would take it anywhere. I just want to give my $.02 on the 5.56 round.

I performed an experiment with 22 cal bullets. I loaded 20 rounds of 22-250 ammo. 10 with Hornady FMJ 55 grain bullets, and 10 with 55 grain Balistic Silvertips. Each one contained 38 grains of IMR 4320 powder that was measured by hand. I used my Savage 12 22-250 w/26" barrel to fire the rounds. I chronographed 4 of each type, then fired 10 rounds at 2 liter bottles filled to the top with water. I alternated each round to eliminate the effects of a heated barrel. I then chose the 2 bottles of each type with the most damage and then took this photograph of them in my kitchen. Look at the high res photo for better detail.

What I concluded is that a 22 cal service round could be effective, but was handicaped with the use of FMJ bullets. I know that I fired the bullets at speeds far higher than any M-16 could, but I was trying to get an idea of the maximum damage these bullets could perform. I believe softpoints would be a good comprimise between penitration and lethality as well as costing virtualy the same as FMJ bullets. (The balistic-tip bullets cost 2x as much as the FMJ)

In an unsientific experiment I fired FMJ and balistic tip bullets at a 3/4" steel plate I use as a target. Both didn't penitrate, but made an equal sized hole in the steel. The 62 grain service round would have done better against the steel, but probably worse in the bottle test.



Here is the original Full size image.

[Cowled_Wolfe]

Let's get an AK, milspec to one country or another or at least like the ones in Iraq... Then let's get an AR, milspec... Then let's buy a whole buncha milspec ammo and/or whatever ammo is most commonly used in the middle eastern theatre of conflict. After we've got all that, let's get the same cleaning gear as used by both sides over in Iraq... Then, let's all spend a day at the range, and another day at a range with sand, and another day at a range with mud -- making sure to clean our weapons as much as an average day in Iraq... In fact, let's do this a couple times to iron out any one-day 'flukes'... Then let's spend a day doing simulated patrols, complete with gritty conditions, simulated engagements (look, down in that valley... Paper enemies!)... After all of that, let's get a few carcasses and some ballistics gel and some armor and some cover like that found in the Iraq conflict so we can test the downrange effect of our ammunition... Once that's all been done, let's look at the results in an unbiased way... Say, for instance, through a scoring system based on combat rounds fired vs. rounds hit and rounds hitting critical areas of the targets, accuracy in range conditions, rounds fired vs. rounds malfunctioned (including misfires, jams, faliures to cycle, etc), and what kind of wounding/kills would occur in average combat... Then let's argue about what happened!

Untill then, I'm dropping out of this debate... We all have our opinions, and all our opinions seem to be equally well founded. Some of us just give certain evidence more emphasis than other evidence.

(Then again, I'm an AK guy myself...) <<======= Hehehe.

[AZ Jeff]

Cowled_Wolf stated:

"As a thought... Back in the Vietnam era and on, the world had plenty of M16s and AKs floating around... And which one did most of the world choose to clone?"


This is a pretty ignorant statement, as it obviously reflects NO KNOWLEDGE of the politics of the era. It's time for a world history lesson.

Wanna know why so many AK's are floating around the world, compared to AR-15-type weapons?

It's 'cuz at one time, the USSR had a NUMBER of client states who were part of the Warsaw Pact, and they were all TOLD what rifle with which to equip their troops. This is what drove East Germany, Poland, Czechslovakia, Albania, Yugoslavia, Romania, and Hungary to be equipped with AK's.

Add to that the fact that now-dead Soviet Union spent many rubles EXPORTING their communist doctrine to any corner of the globe that seemed a viable candidate. And part of that exportation was shipping the tool to help insure the communism would hold the day--the AK-47 rifle. This is how China, Mozambique, Cuba, Iraq, Egypt, North Korea, N. VietNam, Angola, Syria, Lybia, and a bunch of other places wound up with the AK.

AK's are prolific NOT because they are good, but because the Soviets did everything they could to put this weapon in the hands of every malcontent they could find, hoping to spread the ideas of Lenin and Marx in the process.

[Greg Bell]

AK's are prolific NOT becuase they are good

An interesting statement coming from someone calling another ignorant.

[AZ Jeff]

My point being is that the "goodness" of the rifle had VERY little bearing on its proliferation. The Soviets turned out weapons that are "adequate", but not necessarily the "BEST".

[Cowled_Wolfe]

Jeff, I'm not going to argue AK vs. AR anymore -- like I said, we need some actual data from the same conditions etc first. I will, however argue your point about more countries manufacturing AKs because of the soviets:

The US was doing the same thing as the USSR, albeit a bit less overtly. In fact, we were gifting out defense (both material, financial, and physical presence of forces) to most non-communist European countries to keep the border between East and West defended. What weapons did they build and use?

There's one other thing that I'm curious about, but I don't know any of it for sure: Who was allied with the USSR or the US in South America/Central America? What about the majority of Africa?

This is a pretty ignorant statement, as it obviously reflects NO KNOWLEDGE of the politics of the era.

Was that meant as an 'in your face' insult? I'm hoping you're not dropping to that level, so I won't take it as one... But I must agree; I'm not the smartest cookie on political subjects, but I try to stay well informed. I'd definately agree with what Tamara had to say, though:

The one that they had the industrial base to duplicate. You can't make an AR receiver in a Peshawar alley with some tin snips, a hammer and some corrugated roofing steel...

[abelew]

I would enjoy having a "discussion" with a Drill Sgt about this subject about as much as I would continue to argue a moot point on the same subject where people keep saying the same thing, nobody realizes that this is the United States, if you dont like an AR, get a different gun.

[Cowled_Wolfe]

Broken quotes are usually not as true as what they were taken from, but in this case...

...this is the United States, if you dont like an AR, get a different gun.

Amen.

[FirstFreedom]

My point being is that the "goodness" of the rifle had VERY little bearing on its proliferation.

You ARE talking about the M16 there, right? Cuz if so, I think you're right!

Yes, a controlled, unbiased experiment would be nice, but that's quite a massive undertaking to hold it and to document it thoroughly to be able to prove later that it was indeed unbiased. Sure would be interesting though. I'm not a gambler in general, but I'd sure take some bets on that one from the AR-worshippers around here.

I have to say that none of them have ever failed to function.

But then, I also make a point of keeping the weapon clean (every time we'd halt for more than 15 minutes I had a standing SOP that all mounted crew served weapons and personal weapons were to be torn down, wiped down, and lubed if necessary), and lubed with the appropriate lubricants (FP-10, CLP, Militec, etc), dust covers closed.

Uh-huh...now is it starting to make sense to some of you? The average grunt/unit ain't doin what Adam does, are they? In a battle zone? Yeah, they SHOULD, but in a perfect world, they wouldn't even be shot at to begin with - diplomacy would have handled the conflict.

Once again, AR-15 for felt-lined case carry, target shooting (why? get a bolt) and pretending you are GIJoe (for now). The AK-47 is meant for battlefield use in unpredictable conditions by people who don't always have time to go by the gunshop to pick up some BreakFree.

Exactamundo.

[Lonestar.45]

I can't speak with authority on the subject as I've never been in combat, with either rifle.

But I would hazard a guess that the soldiers in the Jessica Lynch convoy that were ambushed sure wished they had AK's. If you've ever read a detailed description of the battle, you'll understand why.

One battle doesn't mean anything, true, but in certain instances, where one is driving a truck through a sandstorm for 18 hours, an AK-type weapon may come in handy. Or something a little less dirt/sand sensitive.

The Mogadishu battle is another example of a time where I believe our soldiers would have been better served by a larger caliber weapon. Somalis hopped up on khat were taking a lot of hits and not going down. If you read accounts of that battle, and put yourself in those soldier's boots, you'd be wishing for something with a little more power. Just my 2cents.

[Blackhawk6]

My M-4 has never received more than 10-20 minutes of maintenance daily and has never failed me. The same was true of my M-16A2, when I carried one. That the AK is immune to reliability issues is a myth. It may tolerate abuse better, but not without consequence.

I believe reliability issues with the M-4 speak loudly about the operator and say little weapon system.

The M-4 may not be perfect, but it is certainly more than adequate for the job it is expected to do.

[Handy]

FF,

You might be interested to know that a trial of NATO Stanag rifles was held in Europe about a decade ago. This included anything that has the NATO standard mag well, and perhaps a couple others, like the AUG. Of the FMCs, FAMASs, CETMEs, L85s, etc. that were reviewed, the M-16 was the most reliable.

I read about this in a book, so I don't know if I'll be able to find a web reference, but I don't think M-16 performance is all smoke and mirrors.

[SSgt Aston]

abelew, I'm AF Security Forces right now, and I haven't seen any major problems with the M16/4. The biggest problems I've noticed seem to be bad magazines, which is the same problem the M9 has. You know how well Security Forces take care of their weapons (to those who don't know, most of us pretty much don't take care of them at all), and other than magazine related issues the only problems I've ever had with either the M16 or M9 was the bolt or slide not always going fully into battery. A brisk little tap on the forward assist or back of the slide generally takes care of that. On the other hand I've seen hundreds of magazine related problems, and it is my firm belief that the US military needs to invest a few more dollars in quality magazines.

[Dead]

I think that both the AK and the AR are good to go! I has used both plenty, though I was favor the 5.45x39 AK's over teh 7.62 ones any day of the week. The 5.45's are accurate more than enough, and have nothing in terms of recoil, not to metion being reliable.

The AR's I have shot have all been reliable and accurate as well.

[capnrik]

Then I will cut and paste for you. Here is a quote from Blackhawk6, a 30 year old Army Major preparing for his third tour in this war. He won a Bronze Star in Afghanistan. He is educated, eloquent, and very clearly a shooter. If you want the truth, read on. If you want to reach down and massage your ego, then please ignore the facts below:

Quote:
With the complaints of the M4 I wonder if the military will adopt something else for the soldiers behind the lines, maybe the FN P90 like the Saudi's have.



Domino,
Three quick points. One, there are no more lines and consequently no soldiers behind them. Two, having worked with the "best" the Saudi Military has to offer, I would not copy anything they do. If anything they serve as an example of what not to do. Three, while the FN P90 looks cool and scores well on the CDI index, it has very little to offer.


Quote:
Then again, that unit that was captured in Nasiriya had most of their rifles jam IIRC.



Mulliga,
Those issues existed with every weapon in the unit. See earlier comments regarding maintenance.


Quote:
The M4 is a pretty bad platform for long-range engagements using M855 ammunition. There are persistent complaints that it lacks stopping power at extended ranges. The 14.5" bbl limits the fragmentation range to under 100 yards or so.



Please forgive the rant.

Let me begin by saying that I appreciate all of the attention the M-4 is getting and the fact that many people want the military to have a more effective rifle. That said, there is a lot of speculation surrounding the performance of this weapon system, most of it founded on fiction rather than fact.

The notion that the M-4 is ineffective is false. I am not sure who the ballistician is that came up with the fragmentation theory, and it may have some merit on paper. The fact is that complaints about the M-4's inability to instantly incapacitate are being reported at all ranges. The most credible reports (read: those from highly-trained special operations personnel) are being reported at much shorter ranges, 25 meters or less. That there is an issue at extended range (in excess of 300 meters) is valid and the Mk262 rounds were developed to correct that short-coming, specifically for the SPR. That the Mk262 performs at least as well and probably better than M855 is fact. That there is room for improvement with regard to the terminal performance of the M-855 is also fact.

Here are a few more facts:
1. The overwhelming majority of the U.S. special operations community uses the M-4, including those who have the latitude to use different weapon systems. Ditto most coalition special operations units.

2. The overwhelming majority of private contractors, the overwhelming majority of whom are former SOF personnel, are using M-4's despite having no tie to the U.S. military.

3. Many SOF units are going to shorter barrels on their rifles.

4. No bullet guarantees instant incapacitation. None. There are a few credible reports of enemy personnel staying in the fight, albeit briefly, after being hit by .50 BMG.

With that out of the way, here are my opinions on the matter:

1. Much of the poor reputation that the M-16A2/M-4 family enjoys is a by-product of the Vietnam War. A combination of M-14 champions and arm-chair commando's have kept the controversy alive. Before a Vietnam Veteran comes and flames me, let me say I am in no position to comment on the M-16 and its performance in Vietnam. If you don't tell me how bad the M-4 is in Iraq and Afghanistan, I won't tell you how good the M-16 was in Vietnam.

2. I love our soldiers. I have spent my entire adult life in their company. To put it kindly, they are prone to exaggeration. "I emptied an entire magazine into him, center mass, and he kept coming," can often be translated into "I fired eight rounds and hit him in the foot once."

3. The majority of soldiers are great people but they are not weapons experts and many have difficulty qualifying with their weapons. Ego, especially when it comes to marksmanship, is alive and well. A number of reported, ineffective hits were probably misses. Question:What does a soldier see when he hits someone at 150 meters and it has no effect? Answer:The same thing he sees when he misses. Who decides whether it was a hit or miss?

(Curiously, the Army and I apparently agree on the last two points.)

4. Prior to 9/11 the population in the Army of people who had actually engaged in close combat was relatively small, to include our special operations units. While we had a number of combat veterans, very few had actually shot a person and witnessed the effects. Very few of our soldiers have shot anything, to include deer. Consequently, hollywood has shaped our perception of how a shot person reacts. Most people understand that bullets do not blow people through walls, but they do not understand much beyond that. Comments like "A .45 will knock a man down," or "Even if you miss with a .50 cal, the bullet passing by can rip a man's arm off," are not uncommon. As a result, when they center punch a person with a 5.56mm at 10 meters and he stands there for five seconds before falling down, they get upset. Time tends to get distorted when your life is threatened and five seconds becomes a minute. I think you all get the idea.

5. I am not a ballistics expert, but my high school biology background and a little reading lead me to believe that the three mechanism for incapacitation would be a CNS hit, loss of blood and shock. Shock is highly dependant on the individual and can not be counted on. That leaves a CNS hit and loss of blood. A bullet to the heart is a bullet to the heart. If you placed your shot correctly, as everyone apparently has, even if it went right through the body the operation of the heart has been disrupted. If you hit something in the heart, it takes time for it to die. If you want it to fall down immediately, you have to hit the CNS and that is hard. Talk to a deer hunter and when you do keep in mind that the deer is not a fanatic bent on killing you.

6. I find it interesting that much of the criticism levied against the M-4 and M-16A2 is not levied against the M-249. It has comparable barrel lengths and fires the same round. I have yet to hear anyone say that the para-SAW sucks beyond a 150 meters despite its short barrel length. Why is that?

Let me reiterate. I do believe there is room for improvement with regard to the terminal performance of the M-4/M-855. It is just not as bad as everyone makes it out to be. Hopefuly, the XM-8 makes progress in this regard. I appreciate the concern shown on this and other forums, and I look forward to the day that I am issued a rifle that disintegrates the target with a marginal hit.

Thank you for tolerating my rant.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Blackhawk 6 : June 29th, 2004 at 02:58 PM.

[Chindo18Z]

The only times I puposely carried an AK were in the days when we trained to play WWIII against the Soviets. Assuming we ever even got to where we needed to be, it only made sense to carry a Warsaw Pact weapon. There would be no resupply, no real hope of exfil, and a slim chance of settling down to life in a nuclear-blasted Eurasian landscape with 6 goats, an ox, a yurt, and a Slavic common-law wife. At that time, we carried, jumped, qualified, and trained with AKs (to the exclusion of our M16A1s/CAR-15s).

That was then, this is now.

AZ Jeff is correct: AKs are ubiquitous courtesy of the State Factories and Foreign Export Policies of our erstwhile Combloc competitors...

I have seen good quality military AKs (Russian, Romanian, E. German, North Korean, Chinese, Bulgarian, et al) jam, rust, break, and malfunction.

Blackhawk6 nailed it...I am in 100% agreement with his post. I have never had reliability issues with my (or my team-mates) M4A1s.

In Afghanistan I never saw a single instance of a US or Allied SOF soldier carrying an AK (of any variant). I had ample and close-up opportunity to see what everyone (including our allies) carried. That includes any exotic/non-existant units/organizations you care to name. For almost all, it was M4A1 all the way. It didn't EVEN occur to us to go with Kalashnikovs (and the landscape was awash with AKs). We might plant a couple extra AKs around various defensive positions as "back-up" firepower. Didn't see anyone carrying a 7.62 "Battle Rifle" either (except for a few scoped M14s doing yeoman duty for the M21s/M24s that some infantry units didn't have).

Afghanistan remains a petting zoo for exotic weaponry (open up Janes at random and I could pull almost any described weapon out of some cache or buy it). If you were willing to hump it, you could carry pretty much whatever caught your fancy. I knew a guy who lovingly clutched an immaculate M1A1 Thompson throughout his tour and a even coupla guys w/ SIG 550s. Another friend insisted on restoring a 1906 Maxim water-cooled machinegun to full function and actual employment... I have seen grandpas carrying SMLEs and one great-grandpa carrying a Tower Musket (he was too old to actually leave the village on patrol).

In my experience, there are only three reasons to go AK:

1. You need to look and sound like the other side (pre-planned TTP)
2. 5.56 resupply is non-existant and combat load is "winchester"
3. You are trying to set a "lead from the front example" to your trained indig (and usually not even then).

Even with sanctioned opportunity, we don't carry AKs...Why is that?

BTW, that's a rhetorical question.

[abelew]

God, I would love to get my hands on a sig sg550, thats one sexy mama

[Crosshair]

Chindo18Z
Even with sanctioned opportunity, we don't carry AKs...Why is that?

It probably has something to do with weapon familiarity. I know my weapons quirks and how to solve them. I have never been in the military but I think this applies to everyone. This is with my SKS and the 2 major problems I encounter.

1. Gun fires, bolt doesn't cycle = Stuck shell, put butt of rifle on ground, kick bolt open and eject shell. Continue shooting.

2. Smokestack Jam = Take trigger hand, slap bolt back, ensure ejection, continue shooting.

When cleaning I know what must be cleaned to ensure reliable operation. Yes idealy you clean the whole weapon, but if you are short on time you only do the esentials. On an SKS that means cleaning the inside of the reciever and magazene well. Time = 5 min with rag and the gun doesn't even need to be striped.(aside from dropping the magazine floor) Next on the list would be the gas piston and last would be the barrel. I can do all of this in the field.

Yes I know that an SKS wouldn't be used in a modern battlefield, let me live with my fantasy.

If you where to hand me an AR, aside from pulling the trigger, I wouldn't know how to use it. Same could be said about someone who has never handled an AK or an SKS. I would rather have a weapon that I knew all the quirks to, than have a better weapon that I didn't know a thing about.

If you trained a squad of troops with only AK's, I am sure they would be reluctant to pick up an "enemy" M-16, simply because they are more familiar with the AK.

[Tamara]

Untill then, I'm dropping out of this debate... We all have our opinions, and all our opinions seem to be equally well founded.

No, our opinions are not "equally well founded".

For instance, I have owned a dozen or so AK's and AR's and fired them under all manner of environmental conditions for longer than you have been alive. You, on the other hand, are a high school student.

[Cowled_Wolfe]

'I'm sensing a bad vibe'...

I mainly speak of those who've shot AKs and ARs. Besides, everyone I've seen has been stating a first-hand account, or describing what people with first-hand accounts have told them. That's where I drew my statement from... Untill we all start using information on the rifles in question (milspec M16, AK average for Iraq) which was derived in a quantifiably measured environment simulating or better yet, recreating combat conditions, I don't see how anyone's first hand account is any more valid than anothers, the exception being the accounts of military personel who have been in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unlike us, they were using their firearms in combat conditions -- and as I recall having said before, in the military your M16 or M4 won't have a reciever, or a bolt, or magazines, or [name parts here] of your choice, so you can't exactly pick the brands that seem to work best. The same goes for ammo.

As for your remark about me being a highschool student... I'm not sure if I should take that as a personal insult or not... Simply put, we're both people who have shot ARs and AKs -- though I doubt any were close to milspec or average for the theatre in question, and I also doubt you were in a combat environment (I sure wasn't).