Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Army & Security Forces
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

Miramar_14_MV-22_1621a.JPG

Miramar_14_MV-22_1726a.JPG

Miramar_14_MV-22_0074a1.JPG

Miramar_14_FA-18C_0409a.JPG
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





M16 vs AK-47?

This is a discussion on M16 vs AK-47? within the Army & Security Forces forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; During the Falklands war the British troops had M16, as well as their own weapons such as SA80. This one ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 2 votes, 5.00 average.
Old April 16th, 2006   #31
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 130
Threads:
Interesting story.

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.
ThunderBolt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 17th, 2006   #32
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 249
Threads:
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.
KGB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 18th, 2006   #33
the corporal
Master Sergeant
Gollevainen's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: somewere in Hame, Finland
Posts: 335
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.

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
________________
Once Gollevainen was biten by snake....

...after ten days of suffering the snake died
Gollevainen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 18th, 2006   #34
Defense Enthusiast
Master Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 312
Threads:
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.
kmaster_bhr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 18th, 2006   #35
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
long live usa's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 152
Threads:
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 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!
long live usa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 18th, 2006   #36
New Member
Private
nuke_em's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 37
Threads:
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

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.

Last edited by gf0012-aust; April 18th, 2006 at 08:24 PM.
nuke_em is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 18th, 2006   #37
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 94
Threads:
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.
norinco89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 18th, 2006   #38
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 21
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
note that ak74's r actually 5.45x39mm
shrub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 19th, 2006   #39
Defense Professional / Analyst
Private
Moroz.ru's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Moscow
Posts: 38
Threads:
Compact Kalashnikov assault rifles "AK102", "AK104", "AK105"

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
Moroz.ru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 19th, 2006   #40
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
Soner1980's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Holland
Posts: 278
Threads:
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.
Soner1980 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 19th, 2006   #41
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 181
Threads:
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.
Pursuit Curve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2006   #42
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Threads:
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.
big_s55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 30th, 2006   #43
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 17
Threads:
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
buschy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 15th, 2007   #44
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
jaffo4011's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 272
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThunderBolt View Post
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....
jaffo4011 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 15th, 2007   #45
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
eckherl's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,268
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soner1980 View Post
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.
eckherl is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:04 AM.