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

[TigerKanga]

It shoots a larger round that I'm told punches through body armor better than the M-16 round does. I've also heard its more reliable, jams less. Is this true, is it better or are there other considerations that change the balance?

 

[TigerKanga]

I can't believe 24 viewers in the military forum have no opinion on this one.

 

[spandexwarrior231]

If your asking for personal opinion, and not facts or something indepth like a ballistics test...I dont think *many* people here have shot an ak47 and m16 AT human targets, carried their weapons IN country (ie. sand, mud, dusty conditions, increased chances of jamming) to really draw their own conclusions and not use outside bias. I can say from my experience I would prefer the accuracy of the m16 and reduced recoil over an AK style weapon(I have shot an SKS which uses the same round as an AK: 7.62x39mm).

 

[The Fourth Horseman]

It shoots a larger round that I'm told punches through body armor better than the M-16 round does. I've also heard its more reliable, jams less. Is this true, is it better or are there other considerations that change the balance?

The Ak-47's adavbnage is it's extreme cheapness and few mvoing parts so yes it is reliable. The round is a 7.62 mm and the M16 and M4 fire a 5.56mm but the 5.56 tumbles so they inflict about the same damage to unprotected flesh.

The M4 and M16 are however a far btter weapon in this day and age. Far more accurate and btter produced. AK047 is hardly a bad rifle and when it was originally manufactered was probably the best gun in existence.

 

[Jerry Horse]

If you're looking for a weapon that's cheap, readily available and has the ability to fire under any condition, then the AK is for you. Outside of that, you need to look elsewhere.

 

[Fenrir003]

I can mostly agree with what has been said already. The AK is the Timex of assault rifles. You can beat the crap out of it, it's cheap, reliable, and readily available in today's world. But It is an aging design. It has more sheer stopping power than the original AR-15, is certainly hardier, and when out of ammo it makes a decent case for the average buttstroke. However, the Ar-15 weapon platform has been rejuvenated in many ways since it's debut in the early 60's. Both weapons have seen major upgrades to parts and basic design over the years, but, while the Ar-15 has changed into a reliable and serviceable weapon, the Kalashnikov has remained much the same..But hey..Why fix what works?. The the AR-15 has evolved into the model A4 and M4, the AK-47 has had a myriad amount of types and designs based around it. But the basics remain the same.. For the average individual, the AK WILL work under almost any circumstance and fire when needed. It's cheap, rugged and reliable. The M-16 A4 has also proved itself in the desert and cold climates.. Does it still have a Temper?..Yup .. But It's range and accuracy are generally better than the AK. The issue of penetration has largely be resolved by modern ammunition. While the A4 can't cut through a wave of trees like the AK can, the A4 ammo has a higher velocity. That leads to better long range accuracy and penetration. The issue of jamming has been resovled mostly through chroming the interior of the weapon and using higher standard ammuntion. Does the weapon still jam??. Occasionaly. When I've used the model A2's they would jam consistently.. But they were also thirty some years old. The M4's and A4's I have used have performed admirably. The only issue that many people still have is that the weapon could use more stopping power. But hey, they are two separate weapon systems designed for separate goals. The AK-47 carries on the russian tradition of being absolutely rugged, inexpensive, and having sheer product numbers on it's side. The M-16 is doing what it was designed to do as well. It's a solid platform with excellent accuracy, little recoil, and fills the role of light weight rifle.. They both have faults, but I'll take either one when the zombies come...Until then I'll use my Mosin Nagant.

 

[aldar]

Heh in country the general opinion is that if the terrorist is shoot at you with the AK-47 he probably ain't gonna hit crap. Give me that M16 and ill knock down that 300 meter target all day long.

"...feed me ammunition, keep me in the third division..."
Third infantry division song.

 

[Aces High]

Heh in country the general opinion is that if the terrorist is shoot at you with the AK-47 he probably ain't gonna hit crap. Give me that M16 and ill knock down that 300 meter target all day long.

"...feed me ammunition, keep me in the third division..."
Third infantry division song.

You do realize a lot of these "terrorists" who carry that AK-47 in the ghan have been using their weapon since they were like 9-years-old and are quite accurate with that weapon?

The AK-47 recoils a lot more from what I've heard, I've only ever fired rifles that use the 5.56mm NATO rounds and supposedly they are more accurate, but it ultimately depends whose hands these weapons are in. Someone who has been using the AK-47 for years is undoubtedly going to be quite proficient with it, and will probably take you out from 300m away.

 

[aldar]

Well that's a silly argument to get into, I told you what some consider to be the situation based on experience. You don't have to agree.

 

[aldar]

You do realize a lot of these "terrorists" who carry that AK-47 in the ghan have been using their weapon since they were like 9-years-old and are quite accurate with that weapon?

They obviously could be.

The AK-47 recoils a lot more from what I've heard, I've only ever fired rifles that use the 5.56mm NATO rounds and supposedly they are more accurate, but it ultimately depends whose hands these weapons are in. Someone who has been using the AK-47 for years is undoubtedly going to be quite proficient with it

Not necessarily. But what's your point?

and will probably take you out from 300m away.

Heh I smell a nasty troll with a chip on his shoulder. You make a post that does little but disagree with me... heh why?

 

[spandexwarrior231]

You do realize a lot of these "terrorists" who carry that AK-47 in the ghan have been using their weapon since they were like 9-years-old and are quite accurate with that weapon?

The AK-47 recoils a lot more from what I've heard, I've only ever fired rifles that use the 5.56mm NATO rounds and supposedly they are more accurate, but it ultimately depends whose hands these weapons are in. Someone who has been using the AK-47 for years is undoubtedly going to be quite proficient with it, and will probably take you out from 300m away.

I wouldnt give that much credit to these guys.

 

[aldar]

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.

 

[Rocky1960]

It shoots a larger round that I'm told punches through body armor better than the M-16 round does. I've also heard its more reliable, jams less. Is this true, is it better or are there other considerations that change the balance?

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

 

[supersoldier71]

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.

 

[Rocky1960]

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

 

[supersoldier71]

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.

 

[Rocky1960]

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.

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.

 

[supersoldier71]

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.

 

[rapture1.0]

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.

 

[mpok1519]

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.