Originally Posted by Sukio

There are many types of M 16s, each with a different mission to be accomplished.

And I dont know about you, but there are dozens of different types of "AKs"

The myth most likely started out when some Army planners got the First M 16 A1 off the line , and test fired the first horrible test version and fired it in front of the top brass.

I dont know about you, but, the M 16 Has changed big time since then, so has the family of Kalashinova weaponry.

The "AK" is a family of weapons, witch the M 16, is a more specific weapon, in witch many weapons have been spawned off of, such as the CAR 15, M 4, and the A3 , A4, as well as the most common 3 round burst A2 model.

Its hard to compare a whole weapon range, such as the "Ak" family, is hard to compare to a very smaller weapon range, such as the M 16 and M 16 varients.

I dont know, but by today's standards, thats a hard to read myth. But then it was most likely applied to the release of the 3 generation of the Ak 47 , the most common "Ak" of all. And I bet Vietnam had something to do with it, and the horrid orginal M 16 A1s service record.

Both groups are fearsom weapons, and it really comes down to how well you are comfortable to kill, and how well you clean your rifle. Both are weapons, with the capacity to kill. So theres one similarity.

You mean M16, the M16A1 was the revamped version.

I can name a vwide varity of M16 ariants.

AR-15
CAR-15
M16
M16E1
M16A1
M16E2
M16A2
M16A3
M16A4
M4
M4A1
XM177
XM733E1
SR-25

and the list goes on.........5.56x45mm can probably belt them all out.

The Assault rifle itself was a compromise between a full battle rifle and a submachine gun.
The M-16 family of weapons stuck with the more traditional rifle model.
The AK-47 types went more with the submachine gun type of model. I don't know why their effective range is considered to be 400m because the accuracy on that thing is supposed to be pretty horrible compared to the M-16.
With iron sights 250m is a more realistic range to take any aimed shots within a period of under 5 seconds (from a standing postion to a prone postion) so if the AK can give me an almost identical accuracy at 250m, then I'd say the AK-47 is a better weapon.

Just being a fussbudget here, but would some of our contributors please stop referring to the Kalashnikov series of weapons as Kalashnikova.

Kalashnikova is female, Mikhail Kalashnikov certainly isn't.

They are both great weapons in their correct place.

I like the M16 series of weapons but feel that the AK has the advantage when it comes to survivability in a dirty environment, or with untrained personnel

Ah but Senojekips in Russian the man is Mr. Kalshnikov but the weapon is referred to in the female as the Kalishnikova. Its my second language. Kinda like how some people refer to their cars in the female pronoun or even names.

Yes Bulldog I thought of that,.... but wouldn't wish a female gendered weapon on my worst enemy, although some of them do cause as much trouble. I just don't feel that the AKs qualify in this regard

5,45mmor 5,56mm？
Maintenancevility or Accuracy?
That is not ploblem.
AK series is widely used all over the world.
M-16 series is minority.

Originally Posted by sandy

5,45mmor 5,56mm？
Maintenancevility or Accuracy?
That is not ploblem.
AK series is widely used all over the world.
M-16 series is minority.

Point?? So what if the AK-47 is widely manufactured?? That doesn't make it better. You not making sense. The only reason for it being so widely used is it's cheap cost and easy to make.

Don't forget that if you like the 5.56x45mm NATO caliber, there are plenty of Kalashnikovs available for that cartrdige.

Originally Posted by major liability

Don't forget that if you like the 5.56x45mm NATO caliber, there are plenty of Kalashnikovs available for that cartrdige.

And if you a fan of 7.62x39mm don't forget the Armalite AR-10 is chambered in it.

as well as the SR-25 though that's more like an intermediate sniping weapon.