This is a discussion on M16 vs AK-47? within the Army & Security Forces forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; What are the pros and cons of M16 & AK-47/74??...
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by ThunderBolt; April 9th, 2006 at 05:33 PM.
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.
Last edited by GreyWolf; April 6th, 2006 at 05:33 PM.
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.
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...
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....
________________ Once Gollevainen was biten by snake....
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.
"""""""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.
