Is the AK-47 a better rifle than the M-4 and M-16?

I wouldnt give that much credit to these guys.

It's also significant that while on automatic 300m is the maximum effective range of that weapon and semi auto only increases it to 400m most people even with professional training never learn to kill single targets at the maximum effective range of their weapon.

The M-16 is a finer piece of engineering, but the AK-47 is more battlefield durable

The AK-47 (Automatic Kalashinikov of 1947). It was replaced in Soviet service by the AKM (Automatic Kalashnikov Modernized) in 1959. The AKM used stampings, versus milled steel for certain parts, decreasing weight and making it cheaper to produce. Both fired the 7.62x39mm Russian round. Both versions are extraordinarily resistant to dirt and abuse. In my (very limited) experience, it's hard to hit the broad side of a barn from the inside with one. It is a splendid weapon for untrained conscripts. The AKM was replaced in Soviet service by the AK74 in the mid-70s. This differed from the previous versions primarily in that it fired a higher velocity 5.45x39mm round that is ballistically similar to the 5.56x45mm round of the M16 series of weapons.

The M16 family of weapons initially suffered from a few design flaws, poor quality ammunition, poor training and a rushed fielding process. It failed spectacularly as a tactical weapon in the early days of Vietnam in the hands of conventional Soldiers and Marines, fared significantly better in the hands of Special Operations Forces of all branches. It is a direct-impingement weapon, which contributed to early reliability problems, because spent gasses directly contact the bolt carrier. It has benefited from over fifty years of development, and is now quite reliable, quite accurate, and generally well regarded by the people who use it. In fact, it is the longest serving rifle in American history.

I am biased.

I prefer the M16 series, specifically the M4 carbine variant. I am not a conscript. The weapon is more accurate than I am, which is a good thing; if I can make the shot, it will make the shot. It's lethality is likely in part compromised by the ammunition required by the Laws of Land Warfare, but generally speaking, if the firer can get the round into the target's center-of-mass, the target will be incapacitated.

I am NO expert....well, I can shoot expert on the range (LOL, that's really easy though), so while my facts are good, my opinion is as biased as an opinion can get.

FWIW, the DoD is currently trying to field a replacement for the M16 family of weapons with increased lethality being a strong concern.

__________________
"For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified."

What about their ability to survive the elements in combat situations?

The AK series is pretty close to no maintenance required. My experience is that the guys who use them can generally get them to shoot whenever they need them to. Because of loose tolereances, it is less affected by dirt than other contemporary weapons, but the trade-off is reduced accuracy. Tactically it functions more as a sub-machinegun than an assault rifle; troops who use it tend to be conscripts and "irregulars", so reduced maintenance is ideal.

The M16 series is more ideal (IMO) for trained professionals. It requires regular cleaning. When I was a junior enlisted Soldier, I couldn't take two steps without someone telling me to clean my weapon. The M16 rifle/M4 carbine will, once battle-sight zeroed, put a bullet wherever you point it, and do so rapidly and repeatably; with modern optics, more so.

Both weapons have benefited from 40+ years of development, and are mature technologies, but which one I would chose is dependant upon whether I'm equiping a professional all-volunteer force, or a large group of conscripts with limited training and low motivation.

By way of full disclosure, I am an American Soldier; I am about three feet from my issued M4. I'm more than a little biased.

__________________
"For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified."

Regarding accuracy: In a combat situation, since troops often let loose tons of rounds spraying the area they are aiming out, is that really such a big deal? I think I'd rather know that my gun is going to work after slogging it through the mud or sand.

Western forces seldom spray. There's an M249 light machine gun for that. Meanwhile, every thirty rounds of ammo (one mag) weighs about a pound. It adds up quickly. And I AM sure my weapon will fire, because I cleaned and inspected it. Drag anything through the mud and you'll have problems, and likely make anything into a single shot. But Navy SEALs drag theirs through the surf and they still go BANG when the time comes.

If you could listen to the sounds of Western troops against "irregulars", apart from the distictive muzzle reports of AK series weapons versus M4/M16s, you could tell which side was which by the character of the firing: one side lets rip with a full auto blast and sprays half a mag...the other side: POP-POP....and they'll trade off until one side wins.

__________________
"For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified."

Are you kidding??? The AK47 fires a larger round and does punch through armor. But its accuracy and general clip size is pathetic. Don't let Call Of Duty fool you. The Muslim recruits for the American Middle East bases refuse to aim down the sights because "if it is the will of Allah, He will guide the bullet to strike the enemy." Even the extremists know how pathetic their rifles are.
The M16A4 and M4 Assault Carbine, on the other hand, are quite efficient at what they do. Incredibly accurate, very sturdy over years of modification, have a variable clip size, and are rather cheap to produce. Unlike the AK-47, which can be chambered for the 5.56mm or 7.62mm rounds, the M16 and M4 rifles fire a militarized version of the .22 rimfire rounds. Most terrorist organizations don't wear armor. You know what happens when a .22 round penetrates the human body? It bounces, ricochets off the bones in the body, causing more damage than a 12-Guage shotgun at point-blank rage. And there's usually 30-33 rounds per clip. Add that on top of how efficiently our military is trained to use them, it is an undeniable fact that the Colt Assault series is much better than the Assault Kalashnikov rifles and all its clones.

is it better? I don't know.

But the truth remains that the AK47 is the one firearm responsible for more deaths around the world than any other firearm. Is it better? Eh, I dunno. More dangerous? It appears that way.