AK47 vs M16

Yes, it was bound to happen here sooner or later...

consider any upgrades, modernisations and variants you wish

 

Would that include the M4, Ak-74 and other Polish versions based on the AK?

http://kalashnikov.guns.ru/models.html

this site lists most if not all of the AK variants.

 

By all means compare M4's and AK74's... even consider the RPK if you wish. as long as it is manufactured by either Colt/Armalite or Kalashnikov and is based upon the guns' original design

as for Polish variants... sure! why not? as long as the gun is directly developed from the AK design, like the Kbk AK or Chinese Type 56, and is not just an imitation like the Galil... i dont know any national modifications of the M-16 but if they exist feel free to use them as well

 

What goals are the comparisons made for?
I'll list pro/cons:
AK pros- simple construction, reliable in harsh environments, easily used by troops with little to no training.

AK cons- poor accuracy, lacks range for longer distance engagements, difficult to modify, not easy to attach accessories to, has to be cleaned from the muzzel end.

M16 pro- very accurate, has ability to engage targets at longer distances, easily modified by simply swapping upper receivers components, grenade launchers, lights, and other accessories are easily attached, can be cleaned from chamber end

M16 con- requires more attention to cleaniness, heavier than AK

 

AK-47 has a bigger & more poweful round IIRC, which can be an advantage (though that is a debate all ito itself )

 

I have a question, since the Ak's accuracy is not great but over lets say 200m would the M-16 have a better chance of penetrating the armour that most American soldiers wear in combat?

 

That has nothing to do with accuracy, it is a question of stopping power.

 

might i add that the mechanism of the AK is actually capable of greater accuracy at longer ranges than that of the M-16, the reason that the AK is less accurate is due to higher recoil and a crude sight. if you simply replace the AK's crappy 'V' sight with, say, the M-16's sight, you get a much more accurate weapon

 

The AK design has very loose tolerances to allow it to operate in harsh environments. These tolerances along with short barrel and bad sights make the rifle inaccurate compared to the much finer design of the M-16.

Nobody uses AK's in rifle competitions but the M-16's civilian cousin, the AR-15, gets used very very widely in highpower matches. If the AK was more accurate at any distance or even had the ability to be, all the match shooters would it as winning is name of the game.

As for AK bullets and knock down power, lets remember that the Soviets went to the 5.45mm caliber in the AK-74 and it's still in sevice. They obviously saw a benefit to the lighter, smaller bullets too. The 7.62mm Soviet bullet carries more knock down power because of it's size but the 5.56mm NATO cartridge can be loaded with heavier bullets as well.

 

many Russian soldiers in Chechnya are discarding their AK74's in favour of AKM's kept in surplus since the 60's due to the slighter stopping power of the 5.45mm round. also, 7.62mm ammunition is much more globally abundant, and the Russians lost a few customers when they brought out the AK-74. thats why the newest AK's are available in three calibers, NATO 5.45mm and 7.62mm.

 

I would have thought its more a question of what kind of soldiers you have. If they're peasants, conscripts or fanatics who are likely to get five minutes training before their sent out to fight the Capitalist-American-Pig-Dogs (or whatever) then the AK47 is way to go. On the other hand professional soldiers who are going to receive several months training before they get sent out to defend life, liberty and mom's apple pie are probably going to be able to make better use of the M-16.

 

Trying hard not to end up debating small vs big calibres again, but it is interesting that while most militaries made a shift from 7.something mm to 5.something mm, most soldiers on active service (see evidence from Iraq and Chechnya) tend to prefer the 7.something mm, apparently because it can do things in practice that the smaller round apparently cannot. Like knock holes though walls and be a more effective man-killer.

 

Comparing the guns overall - Ebar makes a good point. They are rather intended for a different audience.

If I had a professional army, I would probably go for an M-16. If I was conducting a guerilla war, or had an army of limited budget and limited scope for training, AK-47 all the way. Stuff your fancy AK-74...

 

Ok, first, I know Finnish RK62 http://world.guns.ru/assault/as43-e.htm is not AK 47, its a copy with better sights and tighter tolerances.
I used that gun during my military time and found out few things:
1) Generally, that gun was much more accurate than shooters using it. And even lousiest shooters hit with it at man-sized target 4/5 times at 150 meter range.
2) At good day I might put 3 rounds at heart-sized target, average day at head-sized target. This at 150 range and prone.
3) If target was visible more than 3 seconds at ranges below 200 meters, it will be hit. Atleast at shooting range conditions.

I dont think M16 would have fared much better.


Generally, arguing about gun accuracy when talking about short range engagements is a bit stupid if both guns are more accurate than their users.

 

Actually I doubt the average engagement between two enemty forces if more than 100m especially when the majority of it occurs in urban areas.

 

Are you saying that the average range of engagement in urban areas is 100 meters, or that the average range of engagement in all areas are about 100 meters?

Outside of urban areas methinks your statement is false. 100 meters is really not that far, one can spot an enemy from much longer distances...

 

No the average engagement is under 100 meters. And yes outside urban areas you can spot a target over 100 meters and you can engage the enemy but, in that case your chance of hitting the target is greatly decreased and the amount of casualties will also be decreased.

 

Simon has the "The Toastinator", Panzerman should become "The Pummeling Pedantic".

The M16 has light weight going in it's favor, as well as allowing the soldier using it to carry more rounds. The 5,56mm is, as far as I know, a very adequate round, even better with armor-piercing types of course. While the Ak-47's 7.62mm round has more of a punch to it, can't it be said that this advantage has been circumvented by support gunners carrying GPMGs like the M240 that fire 7.62 rounds?

I'm with Ebar; a firearm's potential is only equal to the person using it.

 

Source?

I still find that hard to believe.

 

Couple documantaries, I dont recall which ones.