AK47 vs M16

cool video. the aks parts move so much after each shot no wonder its not as accurate as m16. they pretty much sum it up when they say the ak is more machine gun, and the m16 more rifle like.
 
And if compare not AK-47 with M-16, but AK-74 with M-16A2?

AK-47 is almost 20 years older than M-16, and it's normal, that newer rifle is more advanced or better. And AK-47 in Russia are off-production since beginning of 60-ies. That's improvements is for (for AK-47 they are 5,45mm cartridge and muzzle brake). Also let's remember, that recoil does not affect first shot, so in single-shot mode AK would not be much inaccurate than M-16.
 
Anyway, I will prefer AK (but only russian-made, since non-russian models are made from steel of lower quality) rather than M-16 family. Reliability counts.
 
I know where you're coming from but so does accuracy. When I liine up a target and pull the trigger, I want to know that my weapon will do its part after I do mine.
 
One would hope. Or it wouldn't rate as a rifle at all.
The AK-47 is excellent for what it is: a great weapon for under-trained soldiers/guerrillas who don't know how to or don't have the means to clean their weapon and don't know how to hit anything worth a squat over a hundred meters anyway.
 
These AK vs M16 discussions are everywhere, Meet the 'Uzigrip' assault rifle!

TKB-0221.JPG
 
Jeez..us, Nathan, where do you dig these things up? I had a "Made in Japan" pressed tinplate space gun that looked something like this when I was about four years old (1951). All it needs is a crank handle on the side to make that Clack, clack, clack sound when you wind it.

It's obviously an austerity model. It would have been pretty uncomfortable to use from the looks of it.
 
It looks like the guy who welded the barrel and piston must have drunk a little too much vodka before going to work.
 
TKB-022 on the label means that is some type of experimental device. Obviusly it was no taken in service for reasons mentioned above...

Nice rarity!
 
This debate has been done so many times the horse is not even a beaten pulp but individual molecules splattered on the floor.

AK = cheap reliability
M16 = lightweight accuracy
 
The AK was designed more on the SMG side of assault rifles and the M16 was more on the rifle side. Of course the AK is going to be less accurate, but it's also able to go longer without maintenance.

Of course the Mosin-Nagant beats both of them if you ask me.
 
AK47 is far from an accurate weapon, shooting with sar-80 or M-16 after being used of AK makes you feel like a sniper.
...but it's the best for what it's been built for, extreme weather conditions, it's easier to operate with you've got 9 malfunctions of which 7 never happened to me, far more soldier friendly, spares you some time cleaning it (except the barrel which demands more time), it's really hard to damage it and is practicaly made for a person to deal with it for half an hour and be able to operate with it afterwads.

I also personaly prefer 7,62mm caliber, penetrates better and with extreme wind you're actually able to hit something on more than 300 meters. The thing with accuracy is that eastern block prefered quantity instead of quality, heavily lacking ephasis on balistics as well.

sadly newer got to see the never versions of AK-47 made by Russia or Serbia (not operational though), but I have a feeling those must be really good weapon from all aspects...
 
7.62 round of the kalashnikov at 710m/s is better penetrating than the 5.56 at 950m/s? are you sure, cause ihave a lot against the M-16, and penetration isent on my list. Anyways, im a tank trooper. i was a radio operator before. that means two things-
A) I dont know how to, and would never want to have to shoot anything over 100 meters if my life is on the line.
B) MY rifle takes severe amounts of powder sand blasted into it at 5o kmh...I very much doubt(based on experience with 9 diffrent M16s(long, short, and sawed off) i used over the last 2 years 4 months that the M16 is capable of reliabilty as a tank troopers rifle or as a rifle for HQ soldiers(who lets be honest take very bad care of their rifles).

5.56 will blast away at me as usuall but i just dont like the M16 and i wish i could have somthing better. Anyting.
 
SHERMAN said:
7.62 round of the kalashnikov at 710m/s is better penetrating than the 5.56 at 950m/s? are you sure, cause ihave a lot against the M-16, and penetration isent on my list.
Click to expand...
7.62(x39) bullet is almost twice as heavy (i'm surprised as well, but checked it out on some sites and it's supposed to be true) as 5.56 one, which explains lower speed when entering out of the barrel as well as better penetration imo.

wasn't my intention to bash M16 rifle at all, more of a caliber issue for me, thankfully never got to use it in real fighting, but if I had to I think I'd feel better with 7,62x39 than 5,56x45...
although I must admit I do have some sort of preferance to AK-47 (actually ex-Yugoslavian M70ab2 version) compared to NATO standard weaponry... as I said it's really user friendly gun and with that you forget the fact it's completely run over by time...
 
No it's all got their uses. Like I said, if I knew that I was to operate in an environment extremely hostile to firearms (southeast Asia comes to mind) without much support of parts or proper lubrication, the AK-47 would be my choice.
Sherman, did your -16s fail even with muzzle caps on?
 
i must say that IDF has very few muzzle caps and i never used one untill lately. also i admit that putting the M16 outside o the turret in the desert is asking for truble.
 
Well no wonder it jammed. When we didn't have any muzzle caps I improvised by making a stopper out of a wad of newspaper. That worked pretty well to keep the mud out. And I can't believe you left your weapon hanging outside like that. Aren't there any rifle or carbine racks inside your tank? I remember in our NBC Recon APC there were racks near our stations for just that purpose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top