AK-47 vrs M16....?

Question

If an AK-47 rifle is more powerful, accurate, and efficient how come we still use an M16 over the AK?

AK's are very powerful and accurate... you could bury them in the sand come back a year later pull it out and start shooting... M16's constantly need cleaning, and maintanance so how come we still use it...

Answer 1

I have fired, used both and ripped both apart and put both back together with my eyes closed and in a "real world combat environment" not just in a training situation. As for sheer volume of fire, knock down killing power and enemy suppression I love the AK. Also the AK-47 AK-74 AKM etc family of weapons are very reliable easy as hell to maintain, operate in hell and are very very user friendly. Personally I have carried and AK in more missions than an M-16a2.

However the 5.56mm round that the M-16 family of weapons carries is a very nasty wound causing round due to cavitation. It has been known to go in your gut and pop out your neck. Also a M-16a2 or a4 is a very very accurate round and I have hit things out to 500m with open iron sights. However it does not use a gas piston design and is very very matince intensive. It also is a pain in the *** to clean and service. Weight does not seem to bother me and I carry just as many rounds either way. The m4 is a good choice but you did not offer it as a choice however it uses a gas tube design too ad I have had an M4 jam and almost get me killed.

There fore I prefer a AK but the US army doesn't oh well. That's why our unit has the new HK carbines that are a variant of the M4 with a gas piston design. Pretty soon the M16 is getting phased out due to its complications so its all good..................Shadow Stalker

Answer 2

While the Russians have stopped making the AK-47 in place and are now making the fiberglass AK-74 which shoots the .223 like the M-16, the U.S. has not come up with a replacement for the M-16 except it's cousin the M4 which again shoots the .223.



The M-16 has a 150 yard "effective" advantage over the AK-47 and the less kick is an added feature. Also the new M-16s have a better platform and it's harder to attach the extras (such as telescopic sights and the grenade launcher) on a AK-47.

Answer 3

The AK-47 is not accurate as far as assault rifles are concerned. They have a maximum effective range of about 200 meters. The M16 has a max effective range of 500 meters. The M16 has a higher cyclic rate of fire as well as almost 33% greater muzzle velocity. What this means is that the trauma chamber created by the round is actually greater than that of the AK making the rifle overall more deadly.



So the M16 is more accurate...more powerful...higher casualty producing..but you do have to clean it everyday. Of course, all that takes is a little discipline and some elbow grease, something US soldiers are never short of.



The reason the AK is more reliable is because the mechanical tolerances are so poor. There are gaps in the chamber and the way in which the bolt intereacts within the reciever. This allows for sand and grit to collect without jamming the rifle. The flip side is that you do not get consistant pressure behind your bullets with each shot and this is why the accuracy is so poor. Imagine that sometimes rounds will land meters higher at long distance and at others lower depending on where the bold face hits the casing, etc.



That is a rudimentary into to rifle accuracy ballistics put in layman's terms.



Also, the 7.62 rounds are heavier and this means that soldiers can't carry as many of them into battle.



The reality is that although the AK can fire with sand in it, hitting the target is more important than being able to have a dirty weapon.

Answer 4

You ask what assault rifle then finish your question with AR??? The M16 and AK47 are assault rifles.... An AR15 is not..... Its as if you asked us whether we like Buick or Mercury then ask us what Honda we prefer??? Anyways I think I get the idea.... An AR15 is more accurate hands down. And depending on the model or barrel its way more accurate than any AK could hope to be... Of course you cant get a 3 round burst AR15. - Well at least not without a huge paperwork hassle and that's even if your state allows it.... Why not get them both?? I have 4 AR15's and a couple of AK variants... Even though the AR15 is more accurate and built better the AK is fun to shoot... Both of these rifles use cheap ammo so that's a big plus.... Accurate??? I only shoot at 12 or 15 inch steel plates and silhouette targets and both rifle's are plenty of accurate for that to 75 and 100 yards....... Shooting little 1 inch holes in paper is lame -- besides that's not what either rifle was designed to do....

Answer 5

AK NOT more accurate by any means. The same thing that makes them so versatile is also their downfall: Loose tolerances on the moving parts. Anything past 200 yards on a standard AK is a crap shoot. M4 much more accurate. 7.62 might pack more punch, but .223 ammo can cause more damage to flesh due to its tendency to "tumble"; that is, ride bone and bounce, detaching muscle from tendon, scrambling internal organs, etc. as opposed to hitting hard and going straight thru. Ironically, I own an M4 thats chambered for 7.62 x 39, so I got a bit of both. I also own an AK, and would take the M4 in a combat situation over the ak any day.

Answer 6

the age old argument.....ive seen it so many times... i shouuld save the answer and then copy and paste....an ak-47 utilizes a larger bullet 7.62 which has a greater impact, true... but the ak-17 sights are crude and at medium to large distances, is inaccurarte... the ak-47 also has more moving part, primaraly the bolt, which with each shot in auto-mode becomes more inaccurate. the ak-47 is designed more like a machine gun, tghe saftey selesctor switch goes from safe to auto the to burst...the result of flame from the barrel is also indication of a machine gun deisgn.. the ak-47 was desighned so that a person with only a little bit of training could easily operate it... thats why it is so durable, to take the abuse it has to..

the m-16 on the other hand is more like a rifle. it utilizes a 5.56 bullet. the impact is less at close ranges but is dramaticaly more accurate at further ranges than the ak... the sights are better desighned and the recoil is less...flame does not shoot from the barrel or not as much as the ak... in a quick summary, the ak was produced hurriedly and with not much planning. its advantages is its extremely durable and can tajke heavy abuse and still operate. it does not take much to learn how to fire and maintain the weapon...its larger caliber gives it a greater penatration ratio at closer ranges. its cons is its accuracy at greater ranges and instability when firing in atomatic modes... its sights are also poor..

the m-16s cons is the time it takes to learn, operate and maintain the m-16. also the weapon has to be constantly cleaned so that is stays operational. also the bullet at close range is not as effective as a 7.62. but in the end the m-16 is alot better gun, belive it or not. a good soilder always keeps his weapon clean so that shouldn't be a problem. and when it comes down to it, the mn-16 is more stable and accurate... in a fire fight, a well maintained m-16 defnetly has the avantage over the ak-47.

Answer 7

The AK 47 is a nice gun, but it's not a perfect weapon. The AK has a shitload of problems, and the parts are getting old on it. It ***** up constantly, but they're really cheap to make, probably 40 bucks to buy, and like 2 dollars per cartriage(sp?). The reason it's so widely used is because it's a proven weapon and it's so easy and cheap to make. Even a child can operate an AK, and in alot of places, they do.

Answer 8

Great Question. The reason why we still use it is because the AK is a causualty producing weapon were the M16 is meant to wound. When a "buddy" comes to help out his fellow wounded soldier you can shoot him also, and when help comes for him you can do the same thing. Thats how it has been explained to me. Also the m16 is lighter and so is the ammunition. Because of that you can carry more rounds. M16.

Answer 9

Design and simplicty as well as interchangeable parts, and the ability to function no matter the environment, I would say the AK47. This weapon can be buried in mud, cleaned off and still fire. The parts are interchangeable with any other AK47 and that means every part. The M16A2 is an excellent weapon, however it has to be continually cleaned and very well maintained. The weight factor goes to the M16A2 as it's appx. 7.8 lbs. The knockdown power goes to the AK47 as it fires a 7.62mm round. My preference would be the AK47. We use it because it's the assault weapon that the military has chosen to use.

Answer 10

As a soldier in the Army i would stay with a M4 any day over a Ak-47. Its a matter of personal preference. If you can fire both of them at a range. I believe our rifle is clearly supperior

Answer 11

Accuracy I think goes to M-16 by a bit, better machining better barrel higher muzzle velocity, but lower energy. I think you can make an AK pretty accurate too but then it might need more cleaning and maint. So it's a push whatever you like.Boat tail bullets have tendency to tumble since the mass is in the rear as the point makes contact with victim point slows rapidly but heavier tail has momentum and causes it to tumble . making a mess of victim. AK more round nose 7.62 so less tendency to tumble but impact zone damage is more ugly. enough said

Answer 12

Both weapons have pros and cons and ussually it's like talking about Ford's to a Chevy guy or CHevy's to a Ford guy. However there are facts. As far as the AK being more powerfull, what would you mean by power? The Ak fires a larger round which naturally you would equate to having more kinetic energy, however that is not neccisarliy the case as a smaller round travelling at higher speed can generate the same amount of force. Force being mass times velocity. HOwever force doesn't matter anyhow because when we think of the power of a weapon we really should be thinking about how much power we need. In fact by and large Military success is more about effiency and productivity then it is about guns and killing. a .223 round will kill a man just as well as a 7.62. In fact I might point out that 7.62 is simply the metric version of what amounts to a 30 caliber rifle round. Most rifles from ww1 untill ww2 were 30 caliber. previous to that the US military had even larger rifles including the famed 45 caliber carbines used by custer's men at their last stand. All of which I might add where killed by Indians using smaller caliber repeating rifles. Over the last 2 hundred years the United states has been switching to smaller caliber rounds as well as many other countries for the obvious reason that any "power" above and beyond what is needed to wound or kill a man is excessive. And excess is waste. The .223 round also allows weapons firing it less recoil, which makes for a more controllable weapon. Control being perhaps the singlemost important aspect of a weapon, after what use is any weapon if you can't direct it's effect upont the target? The germans had set the stage for drastic downsizing when the created a custom shorter round for their "assualt rifle" towards the end of ww2 even though Hitler had forbade introducing any new ammunition. The designers realised though that if they had realised their fully automatic wonder rifle with a full sized 30 caliber round that the fully automatic feature would be useless in anything except supported firing (bipod etc.). As far as the 7.62 being more accurate that is largely a myth. Sniper rifles are commonly found in 7.62 (30 cal) ebcause the larger mass of the bullet maintais it's energy better then a smaller yet faster bullet. Meaning you get longer range. Longer range is not neccisarily an issue of accuracy. In fact by and large the m16 if a far more accurate weapon then the ak47 in it's effective range, in large part because of the lack of recoil and muzzle pull. In fact almost all accurate shooting (olympics and such) use small caliber weapons. If you doubt it, take an AK or one of its relatives to a range and fire standing, open sighted at just a hundred yards, and then try firing it rapidly. Then try it both ways with an ar15 or any of it's clones all the way down to the inexpensive keltek or mini14. True the ak has a much greater effective range because of the 7.62 round but that doesnt help it much. Many rifles in ww2 had effective ranges in the upwards of 1000yards. However after the war the military concluded that most men engaged at closer to 100yards. Switching to .223 also did something phenomally important to winning any war....it saved money and shipping. The .223 round is cheaper, and cheaper means more ammo to the boys that need it when they need it. Many Japanese died on Iwo Jima not because of a lack of skill of fighting spirit but because of a lack of supplies. It also took up less space and weight which allowed it not only to be delivered more easily but also carried more easily with less fatigue on the men. The united states has alwyas taken a firm look at ergonomics on soldiers. A tired worn out soldier doesn't preform very well, and our boys carry a lot of carp on them as is. If anyone thinks the change in weight of a few mags of bullets doesn't amount to much, they've never carried ammo for extended periods of time. The m16 is also a much lighter rifle in general. That not only reduces soldier fatigue but it also greatly reduces shooting fatigue. A pound or two held a couple of feet from your face is in essence much more then a pound or two. I can hold my ar15 for extended periods of time at the ready with no problem however my socom2 even with it's shorter barrel wears me out much much quicker (that rifle is a .308 winchester incidently, for all intense purposes a 7.62x54) As far as the m16 constantly needed cleaning, although its true that it is more finicky then the ak47 most of the negative reliability and maintanance claims against it are largly exagerated and the product of "hear say". Most non-baised studies of the effect of long term firing and hostile enviroments gives the ak only a slight edge over the m16. Also most of these complaints surfaced when the rifle was first introduced (complaints are very commen against most new technologies) and I might add that these same thigns were not Heard in the former U.S.S.R. largely due to their policy on the dissemination of information. I think you can see that there are considerable advatages to the m16 over the ak-47. Lastly (and i know this is not entirely fair as it does not take into consideration differences in training and support) but in every military engagement it was deployed the m16 has earned an obscenely high kill ration against ANY oponent feilding an ak47 or variant. Even today in Iraq the US fears roadside bombs and kidnappings more then small arms fire. Body armor defeats the russian round just fine (you can check the numbers but most wounds from small arms fire are extremities) and often times the shooters just aren't hitting their targets, while G.I.s are hitting theirs. Thats not to say there won't be a better gun around the corner but for now that's why we still use the m16. Oh and I am an owner of a mak90 (chinese variant of the ak-47) as well as an ar15 and a veriety of historic military firearms (those I can own..this is california and both my mak and ar15 can't be purchased anymore or even tranferred to my heirs when i die)

Answer 13

Two words, politics and profits. I have worked with a lot of ex-military types over the years and they have told me thus:



The M16 is made by several American government contractors who charge an exhorbitant amount per weapon to the US military, especially in times of war. Many soldiers have complained of its poor reliability and the relative weakness of the 223 caliber round it fires for over 30 years now.



The AK by design is simpler in operation and cheaper to build, therefore the profit margin on each sell would be smaller, so US contractors choose not to build it. It is not very accurate but extremely reliable and its .308 caliber round is quite lethal. Additionally there is a stigma attached to having the US military parade around in soviet-designed weaponry. Yet in Iraq now the new Iraqi military (and some US special forces) use AKs a lot, some as a matter of preference over the M16.

Answer 14

I don't want to be shot with either one.

Answer 15

Because it is made in Russia, not America.