M16 vs AK-47 ??

[GreyWolf]

What are the pros and cons of M16 & AK-47/74??

[wittmanace]

m16 better accuracy/groupings, better range but costs more

ak 47 more powerful, more robust, cheaper,soldier proof......but out ranged and not accurate (in terms of ranged shots or single shots at range).

basically m16 is useful as both single and auto fire including at longer ranges than ak 47.....ak47 is useful as a burst weapon, and has the power to shoot the enemy through more, but isnt a weapon to use at range, as you wont hit anything unless you really give it a spray. the ak requires less maintenance and training though, which, for many, is a big bonus.

[LancerMc]

I would think it would be better to compare the M-14 & AK-47, and the M-16 & AK-74

[f2000]

well with 7.62mm bullet it will give more firepower than m16 5.56mm bullet.
in vietnam,nva(north vietnam army) have advantage in operating ak becoz didnt
need much maintenance but m16 must be cleaned to prevent problem.

[ThunderBolt]

Comparing 16 with 47 is just fine cause they were produced nearly the same time ago and there has been many wars that have been fought with 16 being the counter part of 47.

16's effective range is about 500 meters while its kill range (max distance where it could kill) is about 800 meters, the caliber 5.56 mm is smaller than the 47 which means that less recoil and less weight to carry, but this also means that it would be harder to penetrate, 16's bullet does something like this, it would go in near the shoulder area and might come out near the hip area, well maybe not that much difference but you get the idea, during the course of the bullet inside the body it would do a lot of damage because it can go through the major organs, or it could also miss all of them and the wound would not be fatal. But the bad thing about 16 is the cleaning part you would have to clean every time you head to battle and every time you bag it, during the Vietnam War allot of Marines lost their lives because their weapon jammed on them. Now days the 16 only comes with the 3 burst mode, not the automatic like in Vietnam. 16 is a precision and delicate weapon and must be taken care of.

On the other hand 47's effective range is about 200-300 meters but the kill range is much higher and it is 1400 meters (I know it sounds crazy but I will find the link to this and show it, I might have seen it on discovery...) the caliber is 7.62 which means that it is a lot heavier and a lot more recoil means less accurate, but if shot in small burst its very effective. 7.62 mean that there is a lot more fire power and that means that it can penetrate quite easily. The damage would be quite like this, the bullet would enter at the center mass level and would make a small clean entry hole in the body and when you would turn around and look at the back what you would see is an extremely big hole and guts hanging out. 47s are inaccurate but they make up in the amount of fire and the damage that they do. Now days there is a newer version known as Ak 74 which is 5.56 and a lot more accurate. An even better version would be the Ak SU 74, look it up.

But it depends where you would use it. Take the example of Vietnam, the bullets would ratchet off of trees and stones and still be very very lethal and wouldn't jam making a cheap and reliable weapon. But then take the example of Somalia the 47's bullets would mostly miss their targets and just ratchet of off walls and don't do much damage, but the M16 performed exceptionally killing more than 500 Haber Kadir militias.

You could take a 47 put it in water take it out have it rolled over by a hummer and then put it under the sand and take it out and I can assure you 95% that it would work just as fine, and that’s one of the reasons why more than 50 countries have made it their weapon of choice. But 47 still doesn't match the accuracy of a 16, you could stick and 8X sight on the 16 and BAM there you have a medium range sniper rife. The new SPR (special purpose rife) is a semi auto sniper rife base solely on the designe of 16. If I had to choice between the version of 47 and 16 I would choose the Canadian 16 known as the C8 rifle, with the barrel that closely resembles m4 and the stock of a 16 that would definitely be the choice for me.

Please mind the mistakes. And I hope this helps.

[ThunderBolt]

What are the pros and cons of M16 & AK-47/74??
GreyWolf, what about you whats your opinion. It would be nice to read what you have to say about it...;)

[GreyWolf]

GreyWolf, what about you whats your opinion. It would be nice to read what you have to say about it...;)
After reading the replies, I think AK-47 would be ideal for "unfriendly" environments such as Indo-China jungle and Afghan desert. However, I would definitely use M-16 for fighting in European plain.

[Michael RVR]

After reading the replies, I think..

I don't mean to be overly abrupt, but why ?

It seems to me like you don't really have an opinion, or are basing same purely on what people have said on here. A dangerous thing to do . ;)

[GreyWolf]

I don't mean to be overly abrupt, but why ?

It seems to me like you don't really have an opinion, or are basing same purely on what people have said on here. A dangerous thing to do . ;)

Hey, I'm just a civvy who has never touched a gun!:o

[norinco89]

the accuaracy on the ak-47 is joke. the recoil is uncontrollable. There are not that many mods for the orginal ak-47.

the m-16 jameed in Vietnam not due to its bad design but due to its bad ammuniation. It used mix between smokeless and sticky grain. the sticky grain stuck to the barrier and caused it to jam and etc.

the gun got supporb accauracy but its a bit heavy for modern combat.

[isthvan]

When I was in croatian MP I have used ex yugoslav copy of ak zastava m70, croatian copy of Uzi and croatian pistol hs2000...
AK is robust and reliable weapon,with good accuracy up to 250m... I would definitely use AK over M16... If you wont superb accauracy use sniper rifle...

[norinco89]

Have you compared it with a m-16 a-3. It is imcompariable.

Well i dont know about the m-70 that well. Is it a copy of 47 or 74. Are you sure it is not a copy of the FN.

Anyways in combat situation m-16s are better.

the recoil on aks are realli bad.

[Gollevainen]

I've never fired a M-16, but i got quite familiar to kalashnikoviks during my army time. Reading this thread and arguments on behalf of either weapon i might give my own input...

About the reability and robustness of Kalashnikovik is well know, from my own expereince, i never had my gun jammed and once after the gun was lying couple weeks almoust constantly (as in the fireposition, you often left your rifle just lying in the ground, it was supposed to be in order ofcourse;) ) in muddy ground. When i was quickly needed to fire it in combat training, the gun worked fine without any maintenance. After the shootings I decided to clean the gun and i found lots of dirt, little rocks and even entire pinecone inside it...and it didn't affect on the shooting at all.

...So this reability itself is in my obinion the best and most important factor to why you should choose Kalashnikovik instead of M-16. Like i said, i've neve operated the later but i've heard that it's extremely easy to jam and to take it to the circumstances that i mentioned...i doupt it would have worked.

About the accuracy, that is often said to be Kalashnikoviks downside...well mostly the firings are done bellow 300 meters and more closely in 50-150 meters. From 150m meters i had no proplems to shoot ten rounds to the 20 cm targetcircle (which ment 9 or 10). All shooting going for above 150 m range is always, no matter what gun you use more down to the actual shooter than the gun. Some marginal accuracy rates are really not so important factors in real combat, as long as the gun shoots where it's mented and you can thrust that the gun will take out your enemy....

[ThunderBolt]

the accuaracy on the ak-47 is joke. the recoil is uncontrollable. There are not that many mods for the orginal ak-47.

the m-16 jameed in Vietnam not due to its bad design but due to its bad ammuniation. It used mix between smokeless and sticky grain. the sticky grain stuck to the barrier and caused it to jam and etc.

the gun got supporb accauracy but its a bit heavy for modern combat.

Norinco89 I respect your opinion on the subject but have you ever shot an AK before, and if you haven't than you shouldn't say that’s its accuracy is a joke and the recoil is uncontrollable. I have shot both the AK47 and the AK74 and personally I didn't have any treble with either of these factors you said. Yes accuracy is a bit on the down side but most encounters with the enemy occur within 300 meters and I didn't have any trouble shooting targets at up to 300 meters. AK if shot from the hip will give you the least recoil but that means no accuracy but I never found in uncontrollable, yes if you are going to go Rambo style and shoot the whole 30 round clip in a few seconds than yes it would be spray and pray, but a properly trained soldier would always shoot in small bursts. AK is a deadly weapon just like M16 in good hands, give the M16 to some gang banger and I can assure you he would perform worse than a properly trained soldier with an AK. Think about it, take in the factors such as enemy below 300 meters, short bursts and no jams, AK is a very reliable weapon.

This may sound like as if Iam an AK freak but the truth is I wouldn't use it my self, I rather opt for the C8 rifle with a 4X scope.

You are right about M16's ammo during the Vietnam, it wasn't 100% the gun itself, but the ammo had to do with it.

M16 is still a lot less heavy than an AK47. ;)

[Rich]

"""""""But it depends where you would use it. Take the example of Vietnam, the bullets would ratchet off of trees and stones and still be very very lethal and wouldn't jam making a cheap and reliable weapon. But then take the example of Somalia the 47's bullets would mostly miss their targets and just ratchet of off walls and don't do much damage, but the M16 performed exceptionally killing more than 500 Haber Kadir militias.""""""""

Due to the superior rifleship abilities of the Yank soldiers. It had nothing to do with guns or bullets. I can easily hit center mass of a target with an AK/SK at 200 yrds.

[ThunderBolt]

"""""""But it depends where you would use it. Take the example of Vietnam, the bullets would ratchet off of trees and stones and still be very very lethal and wouldn't jam making a cheap and reliable weapon. But then take the example of Somalia the 47's bullets would mostly miss their targets and just ratchet of off walls and don't do much damage, but the M16 performed exceptionally killing more than 500 Haber Kadir militias.""""""""

Due to the superior rifleship abilities of the Yank soldiers. It had nothing to do with guns or bullets. I can easily hit center mass of a target with an AK/SK at 200 yrds.

I totally agree with you, I mean come on Delta force vs. militia, lol, lol, lol. I didn't see it before, thnx for the illumination lol.

[ThunderBolt]

You don't choose between M16 or AK47, you just get used to what you are given for example if you get an M16 you would just get used to the bad things about it like jamming and the plastic case but than you would try to use it to the best for example take care of the weapon and not abuse it.

Same thing goes for the AK 47, you would eventually get used to the fact thats its not the most accurace rifle, but than you would use it to the best and engage targets when they are in range.

[duplex]

M-16's cleaning problems are long over..It's a superb weapon for Special OPS and very reliable..SAS and SBS in Britain sticks to M-16 since 40 years and turn down rival offers from Steyr ,Austria,SIG ,Switzerland and Heckler&Koch Germany..They must be very satisfied with M-16..If SAS is satisfied with M-16 and 203 we must assume that its still the best assault rifle around.M-47 is good for urban warfare but no match for M-16 in the junge and open fields.

[isthvan]

Have you compared it with a m-16 a-3. It is imcompariable.

Well i dont know about the m-70 that well. Is it a copy of 47 or 74. Are you sure it is not a copy of the FN.

Anyways in combat situation m-16s are better.

the recoil on aks are realli bad.

M-70 is copy of AKM not FAL... I doubt that in combat situation m-16s are better. AK is low maintenance, rugged and simple to operate... Trained soldier will take out targets up to 250m with AK without no problem ... Again if you wont superb accauracy use sniper rifle...

[Moroz.ru]

M-16 vs AK-47 (AKM, AK-74)
M-16 is automatic rifle designed for single shooting with automatic shooting ability
AK is Automat Kalashnikova. The Automat means a machine gun using rifle bullets. General purpose of AK is automatic shooting with single shooting ability.
About the accuracy. Average M-16 and average AK are completely different things. M-16 is well groomed equipment of modern army, but AK is worldwide from an army to rebels and guerillas. While M-16 user rides on HUMVEE, AK user breakthroughs wild forest and sands.
New AK has accuracy enough to hit the target at 300m. It could become worse after numerous incorrect cleanings of barrel, when output edges of cuts could be hit and spoiled by ramrod, because AK barrel is cleaned throw the end. Spoiled cut’s edges (at last 10 mm a bullet leave the barrel) could destabilize the one and accuracy could come down.
By the way, in the USSR schoolchildren (me too) like such entertainment: fast disassembling-assembling of AKM. That was competition - who is faster. Disassembling of hard-used AKM has taken less then 10 sec, but “new”(rarely disassembled before) AKM needs 2-3 sec more :)

[Gollevainen]

By the way, in the USSR schoolchildren (me too) like such entertainment: fast disassembling-assembling of AKM. That was competition - who is faster. Disassembling of hard-used AKM has taken less then 10 sec, but “new”(rarely disassembled before) AKM needs 2-3 sec more

Finnish army liked it too, it was one of the first trainings we received...i could disassembled/assemble it blind folded in about 40 secs...open eyes i could do it in 20 secs. This ofcourse ment the whole thing and all parts being put aside in order, not just throw them around...to disassemb. it only and not minding about where the parts "land", perhaps i could do it in 5 secs...

[Moroz.ru]

Hi Gollevainen, I remember you :)! Respect for smart posting at (especially for #31):
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4522&page=3
Topic "Future of russia defense industry?" in General Military

Gollevainen> Finnish army liked it too
:) :)
I hope you don’t use battle AK for such training, it isn’t good for any weapon. In Russia there is special disarmed units for this.

[Gollevainen]

Actually we did, we were issued your rifles and we did all the trainnig with the one and single weapon from these dismant/asssebl. trainings to target practising and actual shootings. The Kalashnikovs robusthness allows it to be handeled very roughly and it's therefore ideal solution to consrcipt armyes like ours.

[Rich]

You don't choose between M16 or AK47, you just get used to what you are given for example if you get an M16 you would just get used to the bad things about it like jamming and the plastic case but than you would try to use it to the best for example take care of the weapon and not abuse it.

Same thing goes for the AK 47, you would eventually get used to the fact thats its not the most accurace rifle, but than you would use it to the best and engage targets when they are in range.

Thunderbolt have you ever carried/used these weapons? I have for over 30 years and the M-16 is an extremely dependable weapon. Not only that but Ive never seen a cracked plastic case once. Its a good idea to clean/upkeep any weapon.

[Snayke]

I would imagine both weapons are just fine. It depends on your own preference. Also each weapon could have an advantage in certain environments over the other. Just my opinion though. :)

[Pursuit Curve]

Everyone seems to be using the 7.62 ammon vs the 5.56 ammo comparison.
Has anyone looked at the 5.45 x 39mm vs the 5.56 NATO round? We will eventually come up against that ammo, that is if we haven't already.

Just wanted to throw that one in for thought.

[TALEL]

So let's resume, the M-16 is a good weapon with a good accuracy, especially with the '20 inches barrel versions ("the black rifle" from the U.S.M.C.), you have a huge selection of ater-market articles if you want to customize it, and it will make an excellent platform depending on your needs with the upper and lower receivers.
This weapon in in use since about 40 years in the U.S. Army and worldwide, and the main goal of the 5.56x45 cartridge was to wound in a very bad way, not to kill.
The AK-47 (and AKM) family is also well known for its reliability and ruggedness and most of all, the weapon is "fool-proof".... Any stupid a$$-holes from any God forgotten places can learn to use it with a limited training.
The AK family was intended to be an "assault-weapon" and thus to provide a sufficient fire, that's why most of the time, it's called a "pray-and-spray" weapon, but the combo "AK-47 + 7.62x39 mm" was not designed to be used for long range precision.
Those 2 weapons are the most recognized rifles in the world..... and the pros and cons for this or that kind of weapons is an endless debate...

[shrub]

myself id probably pick the ak cos the range problems dont bother me cos im not exactly a "crack shot" and its far more reliable and cheap than the m16

plus as the old saying goes "the m16 is ur best friend, until it gets wet"

[shrub]

did i mention the ak's got tons more stopping power

[TALEL]

did i mention the ak's got tons more stopping power
Yes, SHRUB is right and completly right.
The russian spetsnaz have dropped their AK-74 in 5,45x39 for the AK-47 and AKM family in 7.62x39 in the Chechnya war for the urban warfare.
It's the same problem in Iraq and Afghanistan with the shortened barrels of the M4s carbines conducting to, first different adaptations trying to convert a M-16 in 7,62x39, and then the SPC RIFLE (6,8x43mm) and the SCAR-H from FN-Herstal overcoming the M4 deficiencies.
Even the french troops have experienced the same troubles with 5,56x45 in their FAMAS (in Ivory Coast) : the lack of stopping power even with a barrel length of 488mm.
Leroy THOMPSON (a famous gun writer) has said in an old article from SWAT MAGAZINE that he would rather get a M-16 if he knows that he can have a good armourer, and that he would get an AK if he might stand on his own.

[ThunderBolt]

During the Falklands war the British troops had M16, as well as their own weapons such as SA80. This one time one of the Marines shot one of the Argentinian soldiers with his 5.56 M16 (4 times), despite that the argentinian shot back at the Marine with his 7.62 SLR and seriously wounded the Marine. I will try to find this article on the internet but i read this in a Magazine.

By the way i would definatly not doubt this cause 7.62 can do tons of damage.

[KGB]

there's an autobiographical account of some british mercs operating during the last balkan conflict; entitles "war dogs" or something like it (sorry I only read a borrowed copy).

anyway, those brits chose to use the ak, for the reliability as well as for not standing out as foreigners.

is the weight issue significant for soldiers? I've only handled an m-14 and an m-16 and only for parade drills; m-16 seems like a nicer thing to lug around.

[Gollevainen]

there's an autobiographical account of some british mercs operating during the last balkan conflict; entitles "war dogs" or something like it (sorry I only read a borrowed copy).

anyway, those brits chose to use the ak, for the reliability as well as for not standing out as foreigners.

is the weight issue significant for soldiers? I've only handled an m-14 and an m-16 and only for parade drills; m-16 seems like a nicer thing to lug around.


Well our Kalashnikoviks (called RK 62) was quite light and easy to handle, unitll you get to the marching 30 km+...But i quess any rifle would weight as much as ours did, mean you wanna trow it away just like you wanted to trow your Kalashnikovik...ofcourse we never did...trow it away i mean;)

[kmaster_bhr]

The newer version of the M-16/M-4 are much more reliable today than the original M-16. Its a good 5.56mm AR and certainly lighter than the M-14 and the AK. However, the AK-47, 74, 100 series are much more robust and reliable in a number of combat situations, especially in the tropics. It is also a larger calibre 7.62mm.
One of the problems faced in Afghanistan with the current 5.56m round was that it was not powerful enough, did not have the punch as a 7.62mm has.

[long live usa]

the first 2 versions of the M-16 were very cheap breaking in combat having to be striped down in the field to be able to fire again,in vietnam my dad said he would rather carry an AK-47, but the current version of the M-16 is more reliable and a much better gun,in vietnam soldiers joked about how that 2nd version of the M-16 was made by a toy company:lol2 how ever it was an improvement over the M-14 wich the first shot was a sure hit but if in automatic mode any thing over the 3rd shot it would be an anti aircraft gun!

[nuke_em]

history channel has segments of the m-16 and the ak-47. the pentagon always had a thing about smaller calibre. the m16 is 5.56 and i think that if it was 7.76 it would have a more deadlier punch. ak-47 however does have accurate aim and is less expensive but has been glorified by the media and terrorist who use it
the m-16a1 is was a sensitive weapon that needed extreme care so i, ak-47 is a very sturdy weapon
ak-47 however is older than the m-16

the variants of these guns r however extremely improved he m-16a2 carries more rounds
ak-74 ak-101 whatever all those are a lot better
each also have a carbine version like the m4 for special forces and the ak-74u
these r both great guns
but i would prefer having the m-26 beside me the body is plastic so more reliable in the frontlines wood however screws up
bullpup guns r however more efficient and accurate
i preper the tavor 21 or sa 80 or steyr aug
:usa :russia
i would like 2 know more about these to guns plz update this great thread

Admin: Excess emoticons deleted. Please refer to forum rules on the overuse of emoticons.

[norinco89]

I poped a few rounds off at the firing range. The Ak47's recoil is pretty bad. The first round or burst is good but the recoil makes a quick second shot or burst pretty hard.

The m1613 is pretty reliable. it had good accuaracy but lacked a punch.

You guys are doing something completely wrong. You guys are comparing ak47 with m16a2(the old ones used in vietnam) in one discussion then a ak74 with a m16a3 in the next. Its quite cofusing.

in my opinion both guns are outdated, need upgrades and need to be retired.

oh yeah ak47s dont come with pennacle rods. m16s sometimes do. at least ar15s do

The best guns i believe are Heckler Koches. i fired a g41 before and it kicked both the guns asses.

[shrub]

Comparing 16 with 47 is just fine cause they were produced nearly the same time ago and there has been many wars that have been fought with 16 being the counter part of 47.

16's effective range is about 500 meters while its kill range (max distance where it could kill) is about 800 meters, the caliber 5.56 mm is smaller than the 47 which means that less recoil and less weight to carry, but this also means that it would be harder to penetrate, 16's bullet does something like this, it would go in near the shoulder area and might come out near the hip area, well maybe not that much difference but you get the idea, during the course of the bullet inside the body it would do a lot of damage because it can go through the major organs, or it could also miss all of them and the wound would not be fatal. But the bad thing about 16 is the cleaning part you would have to clean every time you head to battle and every time you bag it, during the Vietnam War allot of Marines lost their lives because their weapon jammed on them. Now days the 16 only comes with the 3 burst mode, not the automatic like in Vietnam. 16 is a precision and delicate weapon and must be taken care of.

On the other hand 47's effective range is about 200-300 meters but the kill range is much higher and it is 1400 meters (I know it sounds crazy but I will find the link to this and show it, I might have seen it on discovery...) the caliber is 7.62 which means that it is a lot heavier and a lot more recoil means less accurate, but if shot in small burst its very effective. 7.62 mean that there is a lot more fire power and that means that it can penetrate quite easily. The damage would be quite like this, the bullet would enter at the center mass level and would make a small clean entry hole in the body and when you would turn around and look at the back what you would see is an extremely big hole and guts hanging out. 47s are inaccurate but they make up in the amount of fire and the damage that they do. Now days there is a newer version known as Ak 74 which is 5.56 and a lot more accurate. An even better version would be the Ak SU 74, look it up.

But it depends where you would use it. Take the example of Vietnam, the bullets would ratchet off of trees and stones and still be very very lethal and wouldn't jam making a cheap and reliable weapon. But then take the example of Somalia the 47's bullets would mostly miss their targets and just ratchet of off walls and don't do much damage, but the M16 performed exceptionally killing more than 500 Haber Kadir militias.

You could take a 47 put it in water take it out have it rolled over by a hummer and then put it under the sand and take it out and I can assure you 95% that it would work just as fine, and that’s one of the reasons why more than 50 countries have made it their weapon of choice. But 47 still doesn't match the accuracy of a 16, you could stick and 8X sight on the 16 and BAM there you have a medium range sniper rife. The new SPR (special purpose rife) is a semi auto sniper rife base solely on the designe of 16. If I had to choice between the version of 47 and 16 I would choose the Canadian 16 known as the C8 rifle, with the barrel that closely resembles m4 and the stock of a 16 that would definitely be the choice for me.

Please mind the mistakes. And I hope this helps.

note that ak74's r actually 5.45x39mm

[Moroz.ru]

SPECIFICATIONS of Kalashes:
http://www.izhmash.ru/eng/product/ak102.shtml
http://www.izhmash.ru/eng/product/weapon.shtml

NIKONOV ASSAULT RIFLE AN-94
http://www.izhmash.ru/eng/product/nikon.shtml

[Soner1980]

AK-47 vs. M-16.

If I compare the M16 (wich type or it is A1,A2 is not important) but if you want to hit something without to waste ammo, I will choose for the American weapon. The Americans has a better barrel and they can produce high quality steel to ensure the barrel life. Also the M16 is newer than the AK-47.

But in Iraq, If I was a US soldier and I have to choose a weapon, I choose the AK-47SU. The SU is a smaller barreled AK-47. Also the AK-47 is not able to hit targets over 200 with a single shot, it is not necessary to use it in the field, but in urban warfare it is the best when clearing buildings or fighting on the street. The SU version is smaller and making it easier to turn, carry in a vehicle, etc.. The M16 is known with its main drawback: less killer power of its 5,56mm round. But in longer ranges it is funny to hit the enemy many times and he is standing up and coming for you (unless you aim to deadly parts of the enemies body he can not stand up anymore). Every shot is hit.

The AK-47 is also known that it can pierce throug trees, the M16 not. There was special 5,45mm ammo used to pierce the M1 Abrams's armor and the driver was dead ??? yes special munitions supplied by the Russians.

In urban warfare I will choose for the AK and for field or longer ranges I will choose for the M16. I think that in some point also the G3 rifle is more destructive than the M16 because of its 7,62mm caliber of the G3. Many Turkish soldiers want their old G3's back instead of the M16 or HK-33 what has been produced in Turkey. The M16 and HK-33 is not able to kill the terrorist when in combat and the G3 was often reliable after a shot.

You have to use them both in some situations. So that's the reason that American tankers carry both the M-16 and the AK-47 (a souvenir) in Iraq.

[Pursuit Curve]

Just to comment on your post, the SAS were equipped with the M16, the rest of the British were armed with the SLR. The SA80 was not yet fielded.

[big_s55]

What do you mean just ratchet off walls and trees.Ak-47 bullets can pass through walls and trees within their designated distance.At 400ft an ak-47 can break through a tree while an m-16 would just RATCHET off.If anone has seen "greatest military clashes m-16 vs ak-47" on discovery you know what im talking about.

[buschy]

um..pardon me but wouldnt it be more to do with the person using the rifle than the rifle itself, afterall, if ya cant hit the broadside of a barn on a good day than i dought that the accuracy of the rifle you are using is going to help much

[jaffo4011]

During the Falklands war the British troops had M16, as well as their own weapons such as SA80. This one time one of the Marines shot one of the Argentinian soldiers with his 5.56 M16 (4 times), despite that the argentinian shot back at the Marine with his 7.62 SLR and seriously wounded the Marine. I will try to find this article on the internet but i read this in a Magazine.

By the way i would definatly not doubt this cause 7.62 can do tons of damage.

hh???...the british didnt have the sa80 in thr falklands they were still using the ever reliable 7.62 SLR.special forces used the mi6 and mp5 tho....

[eckherl]

AK-47 vs. M-16.

If I compare the M16 (wich type or it is A1,A2 is not important) but if you want to hit something without to waste ammo, I will choose for the American weapon. The Americans has a better barrel and they can produce high quality steel to ensure the barrel life. Also the M16 is newer than the AK-47.

But in Iraq, If I was a US soldier and I have to choose a weapon, I choose the AK-47SU. The SU is a smaller barreled AK-47. Also the AK-47 is not able to hit targets over 200 with a single shot, it is not necessary to use it in the field, but in urban warfare it is the best when clearing buildings or fighting on the street. The SU version is smaller and making it easier to turn, carry in a vehicle, etc.. The M16 is known with its main drawback: less killer power of its 5,56mm round. But in longer ranges it is funny to hit the enemy many times and he is standing up and coming for you (unless you aim to deadly parts of the enemies body he can not stand up anymore). Every shot is hit.

The AK-47 is also known that it can pierce throug trees, the M16 not. There was special 5,45mm ammo used to pierce the M1 Abrams's armor and the driver was dead ??? yes special munitions supplied by the Russians.

In urban warfare I will choose for the AK and for field or longer ranges I will choose for the M16. I think that in some point also the G3 rifle is more destructive than the M16 because of its 7,62mm caliber of the G3. Many Turkish soldiers want their old G3's back instead of the M16 or HK-33 what has been produced in Turkey. The M16 and HK-33 is not able to kill the terrorist when in combat and the G3 was often reliable after a shot.

You have to use them both in some situations. So that's the reason that American tankers carry both the M-16 and the AK-47 (a souvenir) in Iraq.

A 5.45mm Russian round that can pierce the armor on a M1 tanks, okay Sooner where did you here this from, Al Jazere. Quite amusing.

[Ozzy Blizzard]

could be a krptonite round???:onfloorl:

[Tasman]

AK-47 vs. M-16.


The AK-47 is also known that it can pierce throug trees, the M16 not. There was special 5,45mm ammo used to pierce the M1 Abrams's armor and the driver was dead ??? yes special munitions supplied by the Russians.



If you are talking about the 5.45mm calibre I can't see how it would have any more penetration of a tree (BTW, how thick is the tree?) than the 5.66mm. This is all determined by the velocity and the projectile type. If too high a velocity is combined with a light projectile it will shatter or be deflected rather than penetrate. A heavier solid jacketed bullet would penetrate better but the lower velocity of the 7.62mm x 39 would work against it penetrating deeply. IMO, none of these calibres are as effective as the 7.62mm x 51 NATO so far as penetration of small trees is concerned. It seems to have the right balance of weight of projectile and velocity.

So far as a 5.45mm round penetrating the armour of an M1A1 MBT I am sceptical to say the least. Like eckherl I am interested in your source for this info. I'd love to know what the projectile is made from!

Cheers

[Chrom]

If you are talking about the 5.45mm calibre I can't see how it would have any more penetration of a tree (BTW, how thick is the tree?) than the 5.66mm. This is all determined by the velocity and the projectile type. If too high a velocity is combined with a light projectile it will shatter or be deflected rather than penetrate. A heavier solid jacketed bullet would penetrate better but the lower velocity of the 7.62mm x 39 would work against it penetrating deeply. IMO, none of these calibres are as effective as the 7.62mm x 51 NATO so far as penetration of small trees is concerned. It seems to have the right balance of weight of projectile and velocity.

So far as a 5.45mm round penetrating the armour of an M1A1 MBT I am sceptical to say the least. Like eckherl I am interested in your source for this info. I'd love to know what the projectile is made from!

Cheers
I think its pretty known fact what 7.62 is much better when shooting throu obstacles. Of course, not throught thick threes, but rather throu grass and tree leafs. Smaller calibers bullets deflects much more than large heaver bullets. Still, i think what real combat differnce is pretty neglible as its usually spray&pray at close ranges.

[TALEL]

Those 2 weapons are the most recognized rifles in the world..... and the pros and cons for this or that kind of weapons is an endless debate...

Well, I guess I can say I was right:D :D ;) ... I give you my two favorite versions of the Ak-family : The yugoslavian Zastava M-85 (a kind of AKSU-74, but in .5,56 mm) and the Sako M90 which is probably the best Kalashnikov clone ever made.

[ssmoore]

Wow this thread is full of all sorts of old wifes tails and mis information. But unlike the other thread im staying out of this fight. :o

[Tasman]

Wow this thread is full of all sorts of old wifes tails and mis information. But unlike the other thread im staying out of this fight. :o

I think you ought to elaborate and correct the 'misinformation" you are talking about so everyone can learn what the right story is.

Just my opinion!

Cheers

[IMPEREC]

AK-47 for a long time has become outdated.
AN-94 "ABAKAN" for example much more surpasses it and M-16.
And also exist АК-103 and АЕК-971, about which only positive responses.

[old faithful]

If you are talking about the 5.45mm calibre I can't see how it would have any more penetration of a tree (BTW, how thick is the tree?) than the 5.66mm. This is all determined by the velocity and the projectile type. If too high a velocity is combined with a light projectile it will shatter or be deflected rather than penetrate. A heavier solid jacketed bullet would penetrate better but the lower velocity of the 7.62mm x 39 would work against it penetrating deeply. IMO, none of these calibres are as effective as the 7.62mm x 51 NATO so far as penetration of small trees is concerned. It seems to have the right balance of weight of projectile and velocity.

So far as a 5.45mm round penetrating the armour of an M1A1 MBT I am sceptical to say the least. Like eckherl I am interested in your source for this info. I'd love to know what the projectile is made from!

Cheers


dont really know how the projectile of the5.45 round is designed, however i know a bit about the SS109 5.56mm,current NATO projectile.
Its 63 grains (the old M193 ) was 55grains. The SS109 is a copper jacket boat tail projectile,with a tungston penitrator encased in lead. When the high velocity bullet impacts against a solid target, the copper jacket is squashed by the lead inside pushing the tungsten penetrater through,a little like a sabot round. the result is the projectile becomes a "hollow point" and causes horrific wounds,while the penetrater can pass through a flesh target,complicateing the wound further. It is a nasty round.

[extern]

dont really know how the projectile of the5.45 round is designed, however i know a bit about the SS109 5.56mm,current NATO projectileI'l tell you about 5.45. It's a round with excentric mass position. So, it doesnt make ricochet if it even touch the enemy body - it's only gonna screw into. Then if the bullet entered body in the arm, you can find it in the lung. Isnt it 'funny', is it?

[old faithful]

I'l tell you about 5.45. It's a round with excentric mass position. So, it doesnt make ricochet if it even touch the enemy body - it's only gonna screw into. Then if the bullet entered body in the arm, you can find it in the lung. Isnt it 'funny', is it?

I understand. Most bullets will do the same if it dosnt pass through the taget. What i dont understand is your last quote extern, Isnt it 'funny' is it? What the hell do you mean by that?

[ahussains]

How many Modles AK 47 have from the date of its Birth

[extern]

How many Modles AK 47 have from the date of its Birth
7,62×39 mm, 2010 joules: AK-47, AKS-47(folded), AKM-47, AKMS(folded), AKMN(night), AKMSN(night), AKMB(silenced), AK-103, AK-104(shorten)

5.45x39 mm http://club.guns.ru/eng/barnaul.html : АК-74, АКS-74, АК-74М, AK-74MN2(night), AK-74MN3(night), AK-105(shorten), AK-107(balanced)

5,56×45 mm, 1550 J, NATO: АК-101, AK-102 (shorten), AK-108(balanced)

[dobrodan]

dont really know how the projectile of the5.45 round is designed, however i know a bit about the SS109 5.56mm,current NATO projectile.
Its 63 grains (the old M193 ) was 55grains. The SS109 is a copper jacket boat tail projectile,with a tungston penitrator encased in lead. When the high velocity bullet impacts against a solid target, the copper jacket is squashed by the lead inside pushing the tungsten penetrater through,a little like a sabot round. the result is the projectile becomes a "hollow point" and causes horrific wounds,while the penetrater can pass through a flesh target,complicateing the wound further. It is a nasty round.

Simply wrong... You need to do some more homework...

[Aries90]

Even though the Colt M16 is more accurate if I was in battle and had the choice of the two I would choose the Kalishnikov AK47, because it's easier to maintain, sturdier with it's simple stamped steel design build, and there are also better upgraded versions like the Chinease Type-95 which is like AK47 parts on a Bullpup. The only problem with that Gun is that It has a high sight like a Heckler Und Koch G-36 which forces the user to raise themselves and expose themselves more in order to line up sights for a shot. Overall I would choose the AK47 because it's fearsome look.

[extern]

Even though the Colt M16 is more accurate if I was in battle and had the choice of the two I would choose the Kalishnikov AK47, because it's easier to maintain, sturdier with it's simple stamped steel design build, and there are also better upgraded versions like the Chinease Type-95 which is like AK47 parts on a Bullpup. Indeed, the 5.45mm variants of AK have just the same accurateness like M16 if not better. Yes, the barrel of M16 is abit longer (if it's not shorted M4 variant), but due to AK is more heavy and the 5.45mm bullets is 1g lighter that 5.56 it gives to 5.45mm AK derivates something lower recoil. If one wants super-duper accurateness, the recoil-balanced 5.45mm AK-108 and AEK-971 upgrade, done by Kalashnikov sun, are under testing for Russian Army. They are 1.5-2 time more accurate over M16 on automatic fire. Hopely, it will be offered for export abroad by good price as soon as possible...
Also the bullpup and 9x39mm derivates of AK are ready and even used in IM forces: Groza and Malysh

[extern]

Some informative vid about AK-100 models, AN-94 etc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CA3GGyJakEY&mode=related&search=

[extern]

May be a bit off-top, but just interesting: the history of a WW2 Russian woman sniper
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AU0DJGidzpI&mode=related&search=
and the Russian sniper scool in Chechenya: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5vA22EINMU&mode=related&search=

[Rob_m630]

One thing i noticed hasnt been said... is the M-16 is yes more accurate, and lighter, easier to handle in terms of recoil, but the AK also has wounded people through kevlar, and in terms of weight i would asy that isnt a huge matter considering an average soldier is going to be conditioned to handle what ever equipment he is supplied with and as per the recoil problem on the AK... i dont think many soldiers are going to be going full auto through a clip... its going to be controlled bursts/single shots

[PrOeLiTeZ]

I would go for the AK-47 cause the sight issue for its inaccuracy can be fixed with improved aiming sight, while the M-16 lack of firepower cannot be fixed and is stuck with its lack of penetraion compared to the AK-47 brute force.
This is were the Chinese engineers came in mixing both the penetration power and accuracy together into one rifle QBZ-95, with the high velocity penetrating 5.8x42mm round.

[Chrom]

I would go for the AK-47 cause the sight issue for its inaccuracy can be fixed with improved aiming sight, while the M-16 lack of firepower cannot be fixed and is stuck with its lack of penetraion compared to the AK-47 brute force.
This is were the Chinese engineers came in mixing both the penetration power and accuracy together into one rifle QBZ-95, with the high velocity penetrating 5.8x42mm round.

Comparing old AK-47 and modern M-16 is of little value. If we want to do proper comparasion in the same caliber and time - then AK-74M vs M-16 would be appropriate. If we want modern 7.62x39 caliber - then AK-10x line would be right thing to compare.

[F-15 Eagle]

I read that the 5.56mm NATO round yaws and fragments when it strikes human flesh which creates a massive internal wound much larger than the wound from the 7.62mm soviet round.:ar15

[Chrom]

I read that the 5.56mm NATO round yaws and fragments when it strikes human flesh which creates a massive internal wound much larger than the wound from the 7.62mm soviet round.:ar15 Only while hitting with very high speed, i.e. generally sub-100m distance. In average case 7.62 still inflict larger wounds.

[nero]

I read that the 5.56mm NATO round yaws and fragments when it strikes human flesh which creates a massive internal wound much larger than the wound from the 7.62mm soviet round.:ar15
.

if u r looking for a round that causes massive internal wounds, then look no further than the new 6.8 mm Remington SPC round which is used by the M-468

no amount of body armour can save u from this baby.

the 6.8mm round was specially designed to achieve single-shot kill capability.it causes death in seconds

The principal advantage of the 6.8 mm is that it permits firearms designed for the short 5.56 mm to fire a more powerful cartridge. Further, when compared to the larger 7.62 mm NATO round, a soldier can carry substantially more 6.8 mm ammunition into the field because of its lighter weight and smaller size.



.:soldier :soldier

.

[PrOeLiTeZ]

Comparing old AK-47 and modern M-16 is of little value. If we want to do proper comparasion in the same caliber and time - then AK-74M vs M-16 would be appropriate. If we want modern 7.62x39 caliber - then AK-10x line would be right thing to compare.

The thread title states AK-47 vs M-16 not AK-101 vs M-16, so what I wrote in my post was valid, and AK-47 is only a decade older than the M-16, some armed forces felt that the AK-47 suited them better than the M-16. Major area would be ease of construction and cost.

Proper comparison yes would be to compare the 5 mm rounds with the AK-47 and M-16, M-16 will still retain higher accuracy than the AK cause it has less of a recoil kick.

To previous post as to the 5.56 x 45mm round of the M-16 yes a has a fragmentating effect, but also it basically pierce the flesh while the 7.62 x 39mm round of an AK has more of a stop in your track.

Still the Colt weapon was designed based upon mid range accurate controlled shooting, while the Kalashnikova was designed more as a spray rifle acting as a machine gun rather than mid range semi round firing rifle like the Colt.

[Chrom]

The thread title states AK-47 vs M-16 not AK-101 vs M-16, so what I wrote in my post was valid, and AK-47 is only a decade older than the M-16, some armed forces felt that the AK-47 suited them better than the M-16. Major area would be ease of construction and cost.

Proper comparison yes would be to compare the 5 mm rounds with the AK-47 and M-16, M-16 will still retain higher accuracy than the AK cause it has less of a recoil kick.

To previous post as to the 5.56 x 45mm round of the M-16 yes a has a fragmentating effect, but also it basically pierce the flesh while the 7.62 x 39mm round of an AK has more of a stop in your track.

Still the Colt weapon was designed based upon mid range accurate controlled shooting, while the Kalashnikova was designed more as a spray rifle acting as a machine gun rather than mid range semi round firing rifle like the Colt.

They are generation apart. AK-47 is FN-FAL and M-14 generation.

AK-47 like MG - doubt it pretty much. SU army officially promoted same tactic as everyone else - e.g. single/short bust. Full-auto is horrible inaccurate in all cases, and only justified as supressive fire at very short distance.

[F-15 Eagle]

Only while hitting with very high speed, i.e. generally sub-100m distance. In average case 7.62 still inflict larger wounds.

I read it can still fragment at longer rages than 100m, you must be talking about the M4 carbine because it has less power because of its shorter barrol. The M16 has longer range and more power.

[F-15 Eagle]

.

if u r looking for a round that causes massive internal wounds, then look no further than the new 6.8 mm Remington SPC round which is used by the M-468

no amount of body armour can save u from this baby.

the 6.8mm round was specially designed to achieve single-shot kill capability.it causes death in seconds

The principal advantage of the 6.8 mm is that it permits firearms designed for the short 5.56 mm to fire a more powerful cartridge. Further, when compared to the larger 7.62 mm NATO round, a soldier can carry substantially more 6.8 mm ammunition into the field because of its lighter weight and smaller size.



.:soldier :soldier

.

That may be true, but if I go into combat I will want a real full power rifle cartridge like the 7.62X51mm NATO. The M14 can blow a door off its hinges, now thats a real rifle.

[Waylander]

If I go to combat I want to have a huge load of ammo and I don't want to carry that much.

We have some interesting thread here already about the different calibres and about how much weight is the limit which can and should be carried by an infantryman.

[extern]

The thread is graduately becoming 5.xx vs 7.62 thread. I must say, it's hard decision. The lastest development shows 7.62 is may be better in close quarter combats when they prefer shorten weapons. the power of 5.xx round become to be insufficient with shorten barrels.
Considering that, the Americans are inclined towards dual-barrel systems (5.56, 7.62), while the shorten 7.62 mm variant FN SCAR-H / Mk.17 is supposed for close combats and the 5.56 FN SCAR-L / Mk.16 - for fighting at open areas. See here for additional info: http://world.guns.ru/assault/as70-e.htm

I personally think, dual barrel is pushing the army for inappropriated logistic burden. It's better just having two kinda weapons in division spare for different type of combat.

[LancerMc]

The experience of US troops in Iraq really answers the question. The 7.62x39mm has the advantage the it can punch through a average Iraqi house wall and still kill a American soldier on the other side. While the 5.56x45mm can even penetrate through an Iraqi houses wall. Thats why the Army has been sending M-14's into combat so squads have something to shoot through walls.

I haven't heard how the 6.8mm has done in those conditions, but I think it would be a better round for the army's AR rifles. The US military needs a round with similar capabilities as the 7.62x39mm.

[extern]

I haven't heard how the 6.8mm has done in those conditions, but I think it would be a better round for the army's AR rifles. The US military needs a round with similar capabilities as the 7.62x39mm.
Like the more powerfull round doesnt nessesarily mean 'more effective', more accurate rifle doesnt nessesarily more effective too. It's all depending of circumstances. If you cannot take the aim accurately, the accurateness of your rifle is rather worse, than helping. In such case, you better give a long fire from machingun with higher but controlled dispersion.

In real condition of street battle you mostly fire from unstable position, without accurate aiming. So, the accuratenes of 5.56/5.45 mm rounds may be inappropriately high, without any possibility to convert it into 'effectiveness'. On other hands 5.56/5.45 mm rounds also dont make their job on higher distance too if the enemy has III-class bodyarmor. So, I understand the Americans, now're trying to use two caliber depending with a situation. However, I think, 7.62x51 NATO makes its job well, just like 7.62x39. THus I dont expect any new caliber between 7.62 and 5.56. Instead I see the attempts to improve the 5.56 NATO rounds with more accurate and heavy M262 round successefully input in Afghanistan.

The Russians went a bit different way: 1) they stood on service the new AN-94 assault rifle, 8-14 times more accurate, than AK-74 with the same 5.45x39 mm rounds. Furthermore the first 2rounds burst from AN-94 goes with the tripled rate (1800) and delayed recoil. So, the first two bullets go just at the same point, the first bullet brokes the ceramic plate, and the second - hit the body. It's an elegant Russian solution for the 'bodyarmor problem'.
2) For the close combat the new Russian subsonic low acoustic armor-piercing amunition (9x39 and 9x21 mm) gives the possibility to distinct the foe fire from the fraternal one and to use the superlight compact assault rifles with shorten barrels and integrated silencer, like those on the pictures. between them also there are the AK derivatives of course:
1-2) The 9x19 and 9x39 mm AK derivatives
3) 9x39 mm 'Val' assault rifle
4) 9x39 mm VSK-94

[Waylander]

They are not using the M-14 for shooting through walls.
It is used as a DMR.
For effect behind cover one still fields GPMGs, HMGs and AGLs.

[extern]

They are not using the M-14 for shooting through walls.
It is used as a DMR.
For effect behind cover one still fields GPMGs, HMGs and AGLs.
The DMR is only a modified and accuratized version of the M14 rifle for the United States Marine Corps. Now will be replaced with AR10 based XM110 of the same caliber (nice gun IMHO). GPMGs - you mean 7.62 NATO MAG derivatives prob? They are too heavy for modern close quarter combat - 12 kg. I think, many should prefer something more light for the same purpose. With 10+ kg one should expect something much more powerfull, than only 7.62 mm... like 30mm AGS-30 http://www.bellum.nu/armoury/AGS30.html

According to Chechen war statistics, more than 80% of the wounds even on the Russian side were due to grenade's and mortars splinters, and less than 20% - were from the bullets. So, the accurate rifle fire is of only limited importance in modern combat. The decisive advance in indirect and supressive fire still rulezz.

[Waylander]

It is not "the DMR".

I know how the M-14 is used in Iraq. Because of that I stated that it is used as a DMR (Designated Marksman Rifle) and not as something to get an effect behind enemy cover.

And for decades 7,62mm GPMGs haven't been too heavy for use by infantry units.
Why should it now be otherwise? The M240 is in wide use in Iraq.

And how much 7,62mm ammo do you get for some 30mm grenades?

[kato]

Too heavy for close quarters combat

One would believe that such combat would lend itself even better to heavier-weight equipment than high-mobility dismounted scenarios.

Using a semi-auto (or bolt-action) for "effect behind cover" fire would often prove to be a rather tedious affair. Commonly, this rather does depend on "let's just spray it with automatic fire, we don't know if we hit anyone behind it anyway".
It's either that, or you use ammunition specific to the task (penetrating HE warheads for example). Which doesn't come in 7.62x51 or smaller anyway.

With 10+ kg one should expect something much more powerfull, than only 7.62 mm... like 30mm AGS-30
AGS-30 in urban combat? Seriously, unless you're in a defensive position (backed up by other perimeter weapons) or on a vehicle, that would be a death trap for the gunner. Besides which the AGS-30 (and almost all other AGLs as well) should not even be considered manportable in combat situations.
I'd take a Bunkerfaust for the stated purpose at 10+ kg. Or a GPMG much rather, if i want to take out more than a single target.

[Chrom]

AGS-30 in urban combat? Seriously, unless you're in a defensive position (backed up by other perimeter weapons) or on a vehicle, that would be a death trap for the gunner. Besides which the AGS-30 (and almost all other AGLs as well) should not even be considered manportable in combat situations.
I'd take a Bunkerfaust for the stated purpose at 10+ kg. Or a GPMG much rather, if i want to take out more than a single target.

As man-portable cover busters most armies use 3 things: under-barrel grenade launchers, RPG-like rockets, and guided missiles.

Generally, significant behind-cover effect can be achieved starting from 0.50 cal round in full-auto mode.

[Waylander]

This is true for most harder european structures.
But in Iraq one can often see that normal GPMGs also have the ability to penetrate enemy cover.

As for the weight. For sure 12kg is not a leight weight but it is in no way to heavy to be operated.

It is more the other way around with GPMGs and SAWs getting more important during urban combat and we can see them being much more used than during more open engagements.

Katos post is excellent in covering this topic.

[extern]

AGS-30 in urban combat? Seriously, unless you're in a defensive position (backed up by other perimeter weapons) or on a vehicle, that would be a death trap for the gunner. Besides which the AGS-30 (and almost all other AGLs as well) should not even be considered manportable in combat situations.First a defensive position around the bunkers or light vehicle patroles inside a village or a city are not too rare in a counter-insurgent war scenario. Even if you'r moving ahead, one should be able to ensure masive suppressive cover fire from your rear. AGS-30 distinguishs by its capability for indirect burst fire, that's proved its high effectivenes in Chechen low building environment. Two people can even take it on the hills, were the conventional LOS artillery or guided shoulder missiles will be with limited effectiveness.

Turning to the issue: 5.56 mm is a good round for close combat only is used with the long barrel weapons. Its devastating effect on the soft issue is due to fragmentation - there is an old good work of Martin Fackler about it http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=6694223&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus
However, there are at least two problem with fragmentaion:
1) It's not fully suitable for Hague Convention
2) It doesnt happen with the shorter barrels

Had only second problem exist, it was still possible to make riffled ring on the 7.62 bullets to become them into fragmented too. In such case the devastating effect of 7.62 with be horrible. But we are humanists, arent we. We dont want the assailant to be ultimately dead. We rather want him to be incapacitated in the hope the more wounded enemy has, the more human power will be directed to the medical help. At the end a succeseful mission is not nessesarily a mission with all assailants dead. If they're become captured for working in Siberia is also good, isnt it. So massive slow bullet like the Russian 9x39 mm is good enough up to 400 mm. It doesnt loss its velocity so drastic like 900 m/s 5.56/5.45 mm bullets, it gives more possibility for flame and acoustic depression. Wile the 9x39 mm bullets are more massive, their subsonic velicity gives the possibility for using lighter automatic mechanism. All it makes the weapon more comfortable.

The new development in tactics: the whole infantry squad has weapon with acoustic depression. Such unit can be more controled in fight. Anybody can distinguish the enemy fire. Also it's important, tHe professional soldiers will not become deaf after years of service. The street fighting in the center of cities becomes more ecological, while the sudden noises dont bother the residents, nor disturbs the private life.

[kato]

An automatic grenade launcher isn't used for suppressive fire. That's what LMGs waste their ammunition on.

The rule with MGs in a theater is: Unless you have at least half a meter of (non-armour) wood/concrete protection between you and the MG, it's just cover. Not protection. This is what i was taught - and shown - in Basic Training.

I would suggest page 16 of this (http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2006smallarms/mauritzson.pdf) PDF document.
Maybe you'll reconsider your opinion regarding 7.62x51 penetration from GPMGs then. Definitely supports my point above.

[extern]

An automatic grenade launcher isn't used for suppressive fire. That's what LMGs waste their ammunition on.
I know, I know... the sniping single shot fire is preferable in NATO doctrine and tactics. However, it's only one point of view. Our tactics is something different and're sometimes based on massive fire on expected enemy position. With the devastating power of automatic 30 mm launcher this tactics becomes more than possible.

The rule with MGs in a theater is: Unless you have at least half a meter of (non-armour) wood/concrete protection between you and the MG, it's just cover. Not protection. This is what i was taught - and shown - in Basic Training. I would suggest page 16 of this (http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2006smallarms/mauritzson.pdf) PDF document.
Maybe you'll reconsider your opinion regarding 7.62x51 penetration from GPMGs then. Definitely supports my point above.
My opinion about GPMG conception is very good. However, I still think, the soldier has respect to go in fight with much lighter machingun, but with the same or better capbility. The 12 kg (w/o ammo) MAG/M240 http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg06-e.htm is just too old and too heavy for modern combat. I should prefer instead the Russian 8.2 kg 7.62x53R Pecheneg http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg30-e.htm or 8.2 kg 7.62x51 Mk.48 http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg38-e.htm . Alternatively if there is a possibility for transporting 15+ kg weapon - the light automatic grenade-launcher is my preferable choice.

[Waylander]

For sure having a lighter GPMG with the same capabilities is a good thing but that doesn't indicates that GPMGs with 10kg+ are not also an important part.

[kizilsungur]

AK-47s are more durable than M-16s but M-16s are more powerful and handy. I mean useful. :cool:

[kizilsungur]

For sure having a lighter GPMG with the same capabilities is a good thing but that doesn't indicates that GPMGs with 10kg+ are not also an important part.

Yep dude. You are right.

[BlahBlahBlah1]

AK-47s are more durable than M-16s but M-16s are more powerful and handy. I mean useful. :cool:

AK-47 is definitely more powerful than M-16. The 7.62mm is almost twice the weight of the 5.56mm. M16 fires about 100m/s faster that AK-47 in terms of muzzle velocity. But this should mean that AK-47 has a bit under twice the muzzle energy of M16.

[extern]

AK-47s are more durable than M-16s but M-16s are more powerful and handy. I mean useful. :cool:The statistics dont support this conclusion, since the number of AK-47 in the world some 10 times higher, than M-16. The same - the comparizon between the numbers of operator contries. More power still doesnt mean more effectiveness, better accurateness or even more lethality. And if you search for comparative tests, you can find the accurateness of AK47 is very close to M16 at least on the short range, like was founded in follow study: http://www.springerlink.com/content/t88w048366582508/fulltext.pdf

However, I shoot from both AK47 and M16, including some modifications of both: AK-74, M4, Galil. They both have their +'s and -'s. I also heard from the guys who fought in Chechenya about the tactics of the separatists: they allways tried to impose the close fight with their 7.62 mm AK-47's on the ditance less than 200 m. The federal forces contrariwise tried keep them on the longer distance by 5.45 mm AK-74s. Although other weapons were involved in such clashes, the potential of AK-47 in close combat is undisputed. I try to imagine what could be if the Russian soldiers were equipped with M16 instead of AK-74? I think, they would try the same: to keep the insurgents on the distance by mashineguns and M16 single shots/short burst. So M16 has its own niche on the battlefield, while the practice is moving towards diversity and specialisation. I expect further multiplicity in round and gun design, new conception appearance, rather than standartisation with one 'ideal' assault rifle.

[kizilsungur]

The statistics dont support this conclusion, since the number of AK-47 in the world some 10 times higher, than M-16. The same - the comparizon between the numbers of operator contries. More power still doesnt mean more effectiveness, better accurateness or even more lethality. And if you search for comparative tests, you can find the accurateness of AK47 is very close to M16 at least on the short range, like was founded in follow study: http://www.springerlink.com/content/t88w048366582508/fulltext.pdf

However, I shoot from both AK47 and M16, including some modifications of both: AK-74, M4, Galil. They both have their +'s and -'s. I also heard from the guys who fought in Chechenya about the tactics of the separatists: they allways tried to impose the close fight with their 7.62 mm AK-47's on the ditance less than 200 m. The federal forces contrariwise tried keep them on the longer distance by 5.45 mm AK-74s. Although other weapons were involved in such clashes, the potential of AK-47 in close combat is undisputed. I try to imagine what could be if the Russian soldiers were equipped with M16 instead of AK-74? I think, they would try the same: to keep the insurgents on the distance by mashineguns and M16 single shots/short burst. So M16 has its own niche on the battlefield, while the practice is moving towards diversity and specialisation. I expect further multiplicity in round and gun design, new conception appearance, rather than standartisation with one 'ideal' assault rifle.

Well then why the USA isn't using AK-47? Why are they using M-16? M-16's cost is more expensive. Why??????

[Chrom]

Well then why the USA isn't using AK-47? Why are they using M-16? M-16's cost is more expensive. Why??????
Are you really dont understand why USA dont use ANY commie weapon, tool, or other product, unless it is ABSOLUTELY required?

As for Chechnya: my understanding what keeping distance from chechenians have little to do with Ak-74 vs Ak-47. There is different reason: regular army have much more powerfull tools what can be used at some distance - all RPG's, ATGM's, aviation, artillery, large caliber MG's, autocannons, etc. Thereas for chechenians they only protection against such devastating power would be to get as much close as it gets.

[BlahBlahBlah1]

Well then why the USA isn't using AK-47?

The question you ought to ask yourself is that why more people choose the AK-47 over M16. AK-47 outnumbers M16 by several times...the people/arms dealers of the world have spoken...

M-16's cost is more expensive. Why??????

AK-47 is the most proliferated assault rifle in the world...now I introduce this world called "inflation."

[LancerMc]

The M-16 is a better weapon for a lot of reasons. Because in the hands of a properly trained soldier it is more accurate and deadly. The M-16 has significantly less felt recoil then an AK-47. I would know since I have semi-automatics of both rifles. M-16 is lighter and more user friendly then an AK-47. Example you have to take hand off the grip to switch the safety on an AK and not on the M-16. The sights on the M-16 are MUCH better the AK-47. The M-16 is pretty accurate to 500 yards, and an AK-47 to around 200 to 300 yards on iron sights.

The AK gets a lot of its credit from the fact that its a widely produce weapon. Thats because its easy to make and maintain compared to M-16. An M-16 properly taken care by a soldier can soldier on as long as any AK.

[extern]

The M-16 is pretty accurate to 500 yards, and an AK-47 to around 200 to 300 yards on iron sights.You hardly can benefit from more accurateness of M-16 on 500 yards. On such distance the projectile of M-16 will have less than 50% velocity and less than 25% energy. More slow and heavy AK47 bullets keep their initial velocity much better. Also maximum 1 bullet of your burst will hit the target on such distance, do not mention from M16 or Ak47. The rest will spread around. So, had you M16 or AK47, you still need a sniper rifle for reliable hit on the distances more than 400 meters (450 yards) even from stable position.

The 5.56 mm projectile is also more vulnerable than AK47's 7.62 mm from wind conditions. It doesnt fragmented, minimally tumbles on that distance, not to say about armor penetration. THus, its probability to cause damage for modern soldier wearing body armor and helmet on 500 yards is close to zero even if hits his flesh.

While the potential of a bullet is allways a compromise between it capability to cause damage for soft skin and penetration capability, the standart M16 bullet has been designed mostly for using against soft skin targets. It weight 3.2 gm, and only 1.7 cm long ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=6694223&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus ). To compare it with the standard Russian 5.45x39 mm projectile: the last is 50% longer, has better ballistic, flatter trajectory and is more heavy although it doesn't fragmented at all (3.4-gm weight, 2.5-cm length http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=6708147&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus ). I mean, the M16 standard rounds were intentionally designed for using against enemy without body armor. So, in the modern combat M16 with standard rounds makes its job on the distances less than 250 yards period. The clear intention to improve fire from M16 by latter introducing more stable and heavy M262 rounds (Afghanistan) pretty proves its POV.

[BlahBlahBlah1]

The M-16 has significantly less felt recoil then an AK-47. I would know since I have semi-automatics of both rifles.

Yes, that's because AK-47 have almost twice the muzzle energy of a M16. More power and better penetration.

[LancerMc]

True yes the AK-47 has more recoil because of the round is uses. The M-4 model has the advantage to being adapted to different body styles that help with recoil. Plus on an M-16 or M-4 you can add a recoil buffer to help additionally.

Yes because of the smaller round the 5.56 is not as effective as long distances as the 7.62. Though the M-16 sights make up for the deficiency in accuracy especially with trained soldiers. Also I think people are forget that the U.S. military use AP rounds which are effective against body armor at ranges at 500 yards.

Read also BlackHack Down and its description the use of Tungsten AP rounds were too effective in hitting targets with no body armor because the rounds normally went straight through a target leaving a clean hole.

Pick up a copy of Solider of Fortune and read about American soldiers using the M-16 in combat with almost precision accuracy with their iron sights over AK-47's.

It doesn't matter if the AK-47 round is better if the M-16 can accurately hit a target in the head for a kill shot at a longer distance.

I think the real problem with the idea of comparing one rifle to an other is the fact what really makes a rifle a truly great weapon is the quality of the soldier firing it.

If some one is looking a really definitive in depth answer I would try picking up the book AR-15 by Patrick Sweeney. It has a detailed evaluation of both guns and their use by both the military and law enforcement.

[extern]

Yes, that's because AK-47 have almost twice the muzzle energy of a M16. More power and better penetration.Something wrong in your information. According to most sources, the standard M16 round is more powerfull than the AK47 7.62 mm round. The difference is - in impulse: since the weight of M16 bullet is only 3.6 g against 7.9 g of AK47, its difference gives for M16 bullet to have higher velocity and higher energy with lower impulse. For reducing recoil the reducing of impulse is important. However the energy of a M16 bullet is much higher, than of a AK47 bullet: 3085 J against 2010 J, but due to extremally high velocity and low weght the M16 bullet loses its energy very quickly on air resistance negotiation.

In addition, the classic (fragmented) M16 ammunition has reduced penetration capability on the distance less than 50 m due to early yaw and self-destruction of projectile. Citation:
The following common barriers in urban areas stop a 5.56mm round fired at less than 50 meters:
One thickness of well-packed sandbags.
A 2 inch (51 mm) non-reinforced concrete wall.
A 55 gallon drum filled with water or sand.
A small ammunition can filled with sand.
A cinder block filled with sand (block will probably shatter).
A plate glass windowpane at a 45° angle (glass fragments may be thrown behind the glass).
A brick veneer. http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/rifle/556mm_ammo.html

So high energy isnt translated to penetrating capability unless it's supported by properly projectile design, right choice of bullet mass etc. The last M16 ammunition like M262, seem to be free of a part of standard M16 ammo deficiencies.

[Chrom]

Something wrong in your information. According to most sources, the standard M16 round is more powerfull than the AK47 7.62 mm round. The difference is - in impulse: since the weight of M16 bullet is only 3.6 g against 7.9 g of AK47, its difference gives for M16 bullet to have higher velocity and higher energy with lower impulse. For reducing recoil the reducing of impulse is important. However the energy of a M16 bullet is much higher, than of a AK47 bullet: 3085 J against 2010 J, but due to extremally high velocity and low weght the M16 bullet loses its energy very quickly on air resistance negotiation.

.

No, you got wrong data somewhere. M-16 muzzle energy is 1760 J, AK-47 got nearly 2000 J. AK-47 got bigger recoil.

AK-74 got 1385 J, but with very effective recoil compensator. That is why everyone who tryed AK-74 notes it is much easer to controll than M-16.

[PrOeLiTeZ]

US forces do use AK-47 for initial training for those people who have just enlisted as it is easy for the instructors to teach them the basics about guns and etc...M-16 cost higher cause its construction process goes through more steps and its materials are mix of composites and polymers while the AK-47 ease of construction and maintainence through the use of cheapers materials such as metal. The AK-47 is more crude rifle than the M-16 as its barrel flexes immensly when it fires a round, due to the foward and back motion of the (i like to call) pistons.

Battle situation for enemy supression the AK-47 for DSM M-16.