Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

AK47 vs M16 (again...)

Discussion in 'The Guns Galore Section' started by Simonr1978, Dec 27, 2006.

  1. Simonr1978

    Simonr1978 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    [Split from F-35 doing the Cobra manouver]

    Based on what? Cheaper, more reliable when used by less skilled troops or insurgents, more widespread, but that doesn't make it superior.
     
  2. sinissa

    sinissa New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    570
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    U cant expect some huge superioroty,but that minor ones what u say r enought.I must remind u how much problems M-16 had in Vietnam,and u will say this is fixed,and rifle is modificated.Still,it is more reliable,and Russian army use now AK-74,and they modificate it on AK-101,AK-103,and AK-107,so they keeped realibility,but improowed accuracy.AK-47 in basic wersion is compared with M-16 basic wersion.
     
  3. Simonr1978

    Simonr1978 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Why is it compared to the basic weapon when the basic M16 is no longer in service and hasn't been with the US army for what, over 30 years?

    The M16A2 in the hands of trained troops is reliable and accurate, the AKM in the hands of trained troops is more reliable but less accurate. So it's a trade off.

    Why are the "minor differences" enough to mean that the AK has proved superior in warfare? I don't think it has, it has proved cheaper, more widespread and easier to use by untrained peasants, but does that necessarily mean it's superior?
     
  4. sinissa

    sinissa New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    570
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Eawen the modern M16A2 need to cleen it alot in order to work propertly.AK-47 does not need cleening at all,and trust me on that.U make diferences ,traineed troos and untrained pesants,but on real long combat u can expect that troops can cleen their rifle.And im not shure that AK (with NATO ammo) got less accuracy then M-16.And again,cheaper.Like i sayed,in basic assault rifles diference is only in minor fines,so real edge is soldier who use them.
    And when i sayed that AK-47 proowed superiority under M-16,that was on warfares when that two weapons was used,so best exsample is again-vietnam.
     
  5. TISO

    TISO New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,231
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    A wierd blue planet
    via TanksinWW2
    AHHHH. You finaly come to your senses. :D
    You don't need to be so self critical :smok:
     
  6. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    1
    via TanksinWW2
    In what way did the AK-47 prove superior to the M-16 in Vietnam? That isn't a fact. It is an opinion. What specifically are you basing that opinion on?
     
  7. sinissa

    sinissa New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    570
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    On the fact that american soldiers admid it.It was not durable,prone for jaming,lower clip capacity,they droped M-16 and taked AK-47 in fights for their falen foes.

    Fact was that M-16 was prone to jam if:
    -u use 20 round in clip
    -u dont clean it regulary

    And it is it.U can ask me that i provide u proof,but u can see by urself,just try google.
     
  8. TISO

    TISO New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,231
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    A wierd blue planet
    via TanksinWW2
    I can only support what Sinissa said about AK-47, M-16 debate. As i Sinissa probably has experiance with the AK derivates (if he served "his time").

    Grieg why do you always have to become so defensive & dismissive if anyone says that certain thing is better then something made in the US?
     
  9. Hoosier phpbb3

    Hoosier phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    Messages:
    904
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Bloomington, Indiana USA
    via TanksinWW2
    Fact is, the Vietnam-era AK was also prone to misfire if the clip was loaded to maximum. The mag-spring being a common component for failure.

    I don't believe for one minute that anyone will change sinissas' opinion on any subject... but let me ramble-on anyways.

    The point was made earlier--by Simon I believe--that the M-16 was designed with tighter manufacturing tolerances which results in increased accuracy.
    The Russian AK-47 is based on the premise of putting lots of rounds down-range, with good cartridge knockdown-power, but suffers in accuracy due to loose tolerances... necessary no doubt to be reliable in Russian winters, the jungles of Vietnam, or in the hands of soldiers not in the habit of cleaning their weapons.
    American soldiers are taught to clean their rifles with zealous regularity. Not just with the M-16. They do so because they know their lives depend on their rifle functioning in combat. The average VC was glad he had an AK-47 cause if he took it apart, he probably couldn't put it back together again... let alone clean it. Apples and coconuts here I think.
    The American GI or Marine is trained as a rifleman, and requires a rifle with the ability to kill an enemy at long ranges. The Russians tended to be more assault-oriented I think, and their requirements for an infantry-arm resulted in a unigue, famous and historically important weapon.
    Not better. Just different and best-suited for each countries' war doctrine.
    Personally, I believe the AK--Vietnam-era--had the better man-stopping caliber--and the ranges of engagement tended to favor the AK-47, especially from ambush.
    Todays M16A2 is a far different beast from the M16 first introduced. The same is true with the current issue of AK. Either one will drop-you like a dirty-shirt... when shouldered by a competent shooter.

    Tim
     
  10. smeghead phpbb3

    smeghead phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,269
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Melbourne, Orst-Ray-Lia
    via TanksinWW2
    Dont be silly Hoosier, everyone knows Russian women are the best as well :D
     
  11. Ome_Joop

    Ome_Joop New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    Indeed true when you look at certain russian female tennis players...

    [​IMG]
    I wouldn't mind if she would carry my balls :lol:

    But still what has this all have to do with Pugachev's Cobra ?
     
  12. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    1
    via TanksinWW2
    Google won't be necessary since I was issued an M-16 and used it for 4 years. You can Google what you like and can find just about any opinion you want from people who may or may not be what they claim to be or may or may not know what they are talking about.

    Many men who were intially issued the M-16 doubted it's durabilty because it used fiberglass and aluminum whereas this was a new innovation and rifles in the past were made from hardwood and steel.
    Of the millions who served in Vietnam only a small percentage actually used their weapons in combat. Around 8 in 10 soldiers stationed in Vietnam were in non-combat support units.
    I have not read of reliable reports of American combat troops dropping their M-16s to pick up the enemies AK-47s. BTW It would make no sense even IF they were so inclined to do so since most grunts carried 10 to 15 loaded magazines as no grunt wants to risk running out of ammo in a fight and he isn't about to pick up an AK which he cannot get ammo for and drop his M-16.
    Only the very early M-16s were prone to jamming which is the reason for the improvements of the M-16A1. American combat infantrymen were highly trained and certainly were trained to load magazines with 18 rounds and to keep their weapons clean.
    BTW A dirty rifle being prone to jam is not a characteristic that is unique to the M-16.
    The clip capacity was equal to the AK-47 when the 30 round curved magazines were introduced early on.
     
  13. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    1
    via TanksinWW2
    I think that what you define as defensive and dismissive is daring to hold an opinion that differs from your own. I notice you don't give me the same credit as you do your countryman for having served my "time".
    If he was issued an AK-47 then why is he any more authoritative about the M-16 than I am about the AK-47 since I was issued an M-16?
     
  14. jeaguer

    jeaguer New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2006
    Messages:
    929
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Sydney Australia
    via TanksinWW2
    .

    there is a lot of coutries who can boast beautiful women ,
    but having had the occasion of waiting in stavanger airport on my way
    from frigg field , I can swear that stavanger has ( had ? ) the higgest ratio
    of beautiful ladies , it was close to 100% !!



    . :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
     
  15. TISO

    TISO New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,231
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    A wierd blue planet
    via TanksinWW2
    But then why are you authoritative about AK? Fact is that anyone the thing that he knows intimately. :D
    My "beef" with M-16 is not jamming or such things but i'm very doubtfull of the small caliber round. AFAIK the new derivates of M-16 (short carabines) have problem with accuracy on ranges over 200m when bullet becames unstable and starts tumbling. Becouse of shorter barrel exit speed is smaller which results in lower kinetic energy of the bullet. Also small light bullet loses energy more rapidly with range.

    About accuracy of AK and M-16. AK is relatively short barreled comparing to M-16 which is primary couse of accuracy problems on longer ranges. If you take M-72 LMG (basicly Yugoslav Kalashnikov with long 50cm barrel and legs everthing else is the same) for example it is hell of a more accurate than standard M-70 (Yugoslav AK) even when fired from kneeling or standing position (i.e. not having it standing on it's legs). This i can confirm as i was M-72 gunner. Hitting a "basketball player" (full standing target) from 400m is a childs play. Accuracy of AK has little to do with tolerances used in area of moving parts and more with lenght of the barrel.
    One thing that M-16 is better is recoil and weight of the rifle and ammo which is smaller than that of AK. Recoil of AK has nasty consequence of disipation of fire when fired on full auto (long burst) as first 1-3 bullets go where you aim, everything else is wastige of ammo. This is countered by drilling the men to use semi-auto or short burst fire. We were also always drilled not to waist ammo. Standard ammo issue (BK -Bojni komplet) is 5 mags (1 in the rifle other in the pouch - ROP) + reseve in the rucksack (usualy for few extra mags).

    About AK jamming.
    Romnian and Albanian AK were notorious for jamming problems (becouse of lousy production standards). Fact is that normal AK (non Rumanian) will jam if you cram 32 round in the mag. This can be done. M-70 won't jam if you load mag with 31 rounds (tested by me) + 1 in the chamber. This is also question of which ammo are you using (brass or steel cartridge) and how long the mag was overloaded.
     
  16. Hoosier phpbb3

    Hoosier phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    Messages:
    904
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Bloomington, Indiana USA
    via TanksinWW2
    Smeg/ Ome:
    I was waiting for one of you lads to pick-up on that catagory!

    sinissa:
    ONLY circumstance I can think of where a US serviceman might arm themselves with an AK-47 in the Vietnam era would be LURPS, or SEALS that operated deep in enemy territory, and if forced to fire their weapons... wouldn't want the distinctive report of an M-16 giving them away as Americans.

    jeaguer:
    I work at a major midwestern USA university, and we have a very high percentage of "hotties" from around the country, and the world. This has resulted in a number of campus auto-accidents over the years! Yes, they is FINE. Oh to be 18 years old again...

    Tim
     
  17. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    1
    via TanksinWW2
    Apparently you aren't familar with irony? That was my point; he was issued an AK and is making statements about the M-16. I was issued an M-16 and I'm making comments about the M-16 (the only thing I said about the AK was that the M-16 was considered a more accurate weapon and that fact is so widely accepted that it doesn't require my expertise with an AK-47 to substantiate it.) Yet you refer to his opinion as authoritative while dismissing mine as being defensive of American equipment.

    BTW I have fired the AK-47 many times as I used to belong to a local gun club and several members owned them. The best of the bunch in my experience had poor accuracy beyond about 150 meters. The best M-16s of the same era were very accurate well beyond 300 meters.
     
  18. TISO

    TISO New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,231
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    A wierd blue planet
    via TanksinWW2
    It's all the matter of how you use it. Soviet and even today our training gives emphasis on close combat and combat in urban and wooded areas (ranges seldomly over 300m). At close ranges accuracy is not all that important. But hitting power is. Where light small caliber can't penetrate or is deflected big 7.62 goes trough (like trees and brick walls - seen it done).
    Basicly both rifles were built on two completly different principles. M-16 is basicly semi-auto rifle with full auto option. AK is rifle calibre submachine gun with semi-auto option.
    Is is true that AK it is built for dirt, which M-16 is not. Even so we were drilled that cleaning and mentaining the rifle comes first always and everywhere.
     
  19. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    1
    via TanksinWW2
    The 7.62 x 39 round will not penetrate trees or brick walls. Wound ballistics studies that I have seen indicate that more destructive human wounds result from the 5.56mm NATO round particularly at close range. A 7.62mm x 39 projectile will likely penetrate through and through in a human leaving a small hole and not transferring all it's energy to the target whereas the higher velocity 5.56mm tends to do several things,
    causing damage through shockwave and cavitation.
    There are principally three mechanisms for tissue damage in wound studies due to projectiles;
    laceration and crushing, shock waves and cavitation. The higher velocity 5.56mm round can cause all three types of tissue damage whereas the lower velocity rounds, despite their larger size tend to only do laceration and crushing damage. The tendency of the 5.56mm round to fragment at close ranges also adds to the damage as the wound path is enlarged by the fragments and has multiple paths. In big game hunting where extreme penetration through hard tissue and bone is required fragmenting of bullets is a bad thing but in soft skinned humans it can add greatly to the damage done.

    Didn't the Russians switch to 5.45mm x 39? If the 7.62mmx39 was as good as claimed why not stay with it?
    EDIT..I just realized that Simon made a similar point in the other thread (that is in the propert forum) about the switch away from the 7.62mmx39.
     
  20. TISO

    TISO New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,231
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    A wierd blue planet
    via TanksinWW2
    Basicly true but you forgot hydraulic shock.

    At close ranges 7,62 CAN penetrate brick wall and trees.
     

Share This Page