It seems that AK-74 does not jump up much due to recoil:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxqgOiq6Fz0

Provide information on accuracy and reliability. Then it'll become a bit more meaningful.

As I found information on accuracy comparison between AK-74 and M-16 (without specifying of model, is just M-16, or A1, A2 or A3), the test results were following: firing on distance 300m from prone position, the horizontal and vertical dispersion were (I understood, that firing was in auto mode):
- 50 and 77 cm for AK-74;
- 15 and 22 cm for M-16.
So, the accuracy of M-16 is 3,5 times higher.

The reliability tests, done for AK of `100` series (i.e., AK of construction and production of end of 90-ies), showed that probability of malfunction is less than 0,2%. Average lifetime of weapon - 10...15 thousand rounds (i.e. full warn-out of barrel, while automatics remain functional). Sadly I do not have any values that characterizes M-16 in this way.

For M-16, elevated sensitivity to quality of powder was mentioned. Powder of lower quality leads to rise of temp of fire to 1000 rounds per minute (auto mode, of course) or even higher, and can cause a malfunction because of non-feed of next round in chamber. Also diopter sight of M-16 was criticized for being not suitable for aiming in twilight or on moving targets. Also, M-16 is longer than AK - so, inside of buildings or trenches soldier with AK will be a little bit faster - he needs a less of space to turn or move in other way. And I'm not sure, is M-4A1 carbine still more accurate than AK.

Another advantages of M-16 was mentioned more comfort of changing mag (it is much easier, from my own experience - M-16 can be reloadable without removing your right hand from trigger grip, while AK is designed to be reloaded with your right hand. You can earn couple of seconds, if you are reloading M-16, not AK. As can be see in Youtube clip above, reloading AK with left hand is quite difficult and not very easy).

No one's challenging the AK's reliability. It's beyond the reliability of other rifles but this does come at a price: lowered accuracy. Has to do with the internal parts. The more loose fitting insides of the AK is more forgiving to dirt and clogs but also makes the weapon less accurate. Actually 5.56 would know this better. He's our resident firearms expert.
My knowledge on the M-16 is somewhat limited because I used the K-2 rifle which has the magazine feed and chambering of an M-16 but has a gas operation more closely related to the AK series.
The K-2 is slightly less accurate than the M-16 and from what I heard it is actually due to the AK-style gas operating system.

Too bad this discussion, see thread title, is about the M-16 and the AK 47.

hmmm maybe create an AK74 thread then?

Originally Posted by bulldogg

Too bad this discussion, see thread title, is about the M-16 and the AK 47.

Are most of people familiar with differences between members of AK family? Even old AK-47 had 3 different types... And AK-74 even more:
http://www.ak-47.net/ak47/ak74.html
In photoz of Soviet soldiers in Afghanistan 1979-1989 you can find at least 3 types of AK-74 (AKS-74, actually)...

And as I know, classic question `M-16 vs. AK` are not mandatory related to Vietnam era M-16/M-16A1 and AK-47 comparison, since people in such discussions use arguments for both M-16A2 (which is more reliable than Vietnam era M-16A1) and AKM/AK-74, which weren't used in Vietnam...

The versions of AK, other than the AKS versions are mostly the same weapon with superficial changes.
But I think what we're talking about here is the modern weapons, not what was used in Vietnam.
The current AR-15/M-16 family vs the current AK family.
And like I said, under most conditions I would rather have a weapon I can trust to hit the target with than something that sacrifices accuracy because I know I can clean my weapon enough to keep it ticking.
As for your claim that the AK is better suited for shooting things that move... that's quite a claim for a weapon that has trouble hitting something staying still.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

The versions of AK, other than the AKS versions are mostly the same weapon with superficial changes.

Caliber changed. AK-47 and AKM used 7,62x39mm, while AK-74 familiy - 5,45x39mm. Those are two VERY different types of ammunition. In Russian forums there is mirror of our discussion, but in other way: which type of AK better, 7,62 or 5,45mm? Again, both sides have their arguments: 5,45mm gives considerable increase of accuracy (~1,6 times better over 7,62mm chambered AKM) and allow soldier to carry more ammo with, while 7,62mm round is more stable and has more of penetration power (it's quite important in urban and forest environments).

But I think what we're talking about here is the modern weapons, not what was used in Vietnam.

As we can read above, Mr. bulldog disagree with this statement
Besides, despite of AK-74 being standard infantry weapon of Russian Army, some unit or soldiers continue to use `old` 7,62mm chambered AK's (usually AKM/AKMS, I have not see any evidence that AK-47 is still in use in Russian Army).

The current AR-15/M-16 family vs the current AK family.
And like I said, under most conditions I would rather have a weapon I can trust to hit the target with than something that sacrifices accuracy because I know I can clean my weapon enough to keep it ticking.
As for your claim that the AK is better suited for shooting things that move... that's quite a claim for a weapon that has trouble hitting something staying still.

At first, best barrels of AK-74 gives out an accuracy of 1 MOA in 300m distance; reference - Sniper Notepad: http://www.hpbt.org/articles/cezar.htm
At second, using semi mode AK-74 is accurate enough to hit all the relevant targets within 300m. For distances above 300m - fire mostly for suppression and, if accurate hit is needed, it is what SVD is for.
At third, most of fire from small arms is fired not for sniper-style direct hit, but for suppression. And there is no need for accuracy `to hit a bull's eye from half mile` for standard rifleman weapon.
At fourth, and what if situation would be such, where scheduled cleaning of weapon is not impossible? For example, your unit is surrounded in swamp or in desert during sand storm (and there is no to place parts of dissembled rifle where they wouldn't get moisture or sand particles inside).

It doesn't mean, that M-16 family is not suitable for anything. M-16 is good weapon for professional, well equipped and relatively comfortable dislocated (i.e., soldiers have opportunity to clean their rifles at least inside armored vehicles, especially in aggressive (sandstorms, often rainfalls) environment) units.

So, both of these assault rifles, M-16 as well as AK are either good for riflemen units. For special forces, especially in urban environment, I think M-16 family will be much better, while AK family will be best weapon for mass conscripted army.

Originally Posted by Supostat

For special forces, especially in urban environment, I think M-16 family will be much better, while AK family will be best weapon for mass conscripted army.

Isn't this what I said earlier? The M-16 is a better weapon in the hands of a professional. The AK series are more suitable for less trained and less supported units.

Also I treat the AK-47 and AK-74 as different weapons. When I'm talking about an AK-47, I'm talking about an AK-47, not an AK-74. I know the caliber differences.