M-16 vs. AK-47/AK-74

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-11-23 05:13am

You're going to catch hell for suggesting the AK-47 is a ripoff of the Sturmgewehr-44.

Brother-Captain Gaius · Post by **Brother-Captain Gaius** » 2003-11-23 05:17am

Howedar wrote:You're going to catch hell for suggesting the AK-47 is a ripoff of the Sturmgewehr-44.

Hmm... successful, innovative, useful German weapon which never got to see much action... weapon with similar characteristics, combat role, and physical appearance shows up 3 years later in the country which took Berlin... hmm, coincidence?

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-11-23 05:33am

Yes. The operating mechanism is significantly different. Maybe the concept was adopted by Kalashnikov. Probably nothing more.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-11-23 05:54am

Howedar wrote:Yes. The operating mechanism is significantly different. Maybe the concept was adopted by Kalashnikov. Probably nothing more.

Not even the concept, the Soviets where already well on the way to the AK-47 when they first encountered the Sturmgewehr-44.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-11-23 08:19am

The Russian 7.62x39mm M1943 is also a better bullet for the assault rifle role than the German 7.92x33mm of the Stg 44, IIRC.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2003-11-23 10:21am

Master of Ossus wrote:The modern M16 is actually a fairly resilient weapon that does not have serious issues with reliability the way the early M16 models did. It also has a much greater range, better accuracy, and slightly better firepower than the AK variants. I would go with the M16, due to its light weight and superior workmanship.

WTF? Better firepower? It's a 5.56mm, the AK is a 7.62mm
Still, even with the improvements to the M16 the AK still is leagues ahead in durability.

Solid Snake · Post by **Solid Snake** » 2003-11-23 11:30am

His Divine Shadow wrote:
Master of Ossus wrote:The modern M16 is actually a fairly resilient weapon that does not have serious issues with reliability the way the early M16 models did. It also has a much greater range, better accuracy, and slightly better firepower than the AK variants. I would go with the M16, due to its light weight and superior workmanship.
WTF? Better firepower? It's a 5.56mm, the AK is a 7.62mm
Still, even with the improvements to the M16 the AK still is leagues ahead in durability.

It's a larger caliber weapon, so what? The AK-47 has better knockdown power, but the M-16 will kill you better. The larger 7.62mm rounds will blow right through you, which is good. But the 5.56mm round will enter the body, richochet off bone, and cause more injury.

Tolya · Post by **Tolya** » 2003-11-23 11:35am

I think comparing AK47's vs M16 is nonsense without one thing - each model had numerous versions and they were improved constantly. So If you want to compare, go for:
AK47 vs Armalite Ar15/M16 (and later M16A1) - And im talking about the first version that hit US Army shelves during the Vietnam war and replaced the M14's. M16 sucked at that time - 20 round clip which could be only loaded with 18-19 rounds to prevent jamming problems. It was also advertised as 'self cleaning', which was a load of crap. You had to clean the gun few times every day - and for god's sake do not drop it into mud/water.
AK74 vs M16A2 - Soviet's saw that NATO took 5.56 round as a standart, so they designed their own 5.45mm round. As for the capabilities, I don't know much.
AK101-105 family vs M16A3 (and maybe A4, but lets first see what Kalashnikov comes up next).

Comparing Ak47 to any M16 rifle would be producing huge amounts of bullcrap, since you can always take M16A2 (or even M16A3/4), which dates back to 80's and Ak47 which dates back to 1947. Like comparing Yak9 with F5 Tiger, good luck kids.

Ak family is much more reliable and condition proof. I heard of an experiment they did in the Polish army years back with Ak47 (or was it 74? I dont remember) on a training range - tied one end of the rope to the rifle, the other to a jeep and drove a few kilometers. And the rifle was still shooting. Imagine M16 tested that way.

One thing I can say about the two rifle families - M16 is lighter and has better range. Ak's are heavier, but more reliable. And they were produced in millions.

I like the M16 visual side - its very very nice. And probably would choose M16, because its much lighter.

Oh, btw, is that true that US soldiers in Iraq began using Ak's and FN-Fal's they got from Iraqi army and guerillas? Here's your answer, if an american soldier prefers to take a russian (or belgian) weapon over M16...

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-11-23 11:49am

One thing I can say about the two rifle families - M16 is lighter and has better range. Ak's are heavier, but more reliable. And they were produced in millions.

Tens of millions of each one have been produced. Equipping most of the world takes a lot of rifles.

Ak family is much more reliable and condition proof. I heard of an experiment they did in the Polish army years back with Ak47 (or was it 74? I dont remember) on a training range - tied one end of the rope to the rifle, the other to a jeep and drove a few kilometers. And the rifle was still shooting. Imagine M16 tested that way.

An M16 probably wouldn't survive that depending on the road and speed. But in its initial tests one gun was run over repeatedly with an M60 tank, the only thing which was damaged was one sight which bent slightly.

Oh, btw, is that true that US soldiers in Iraq began using Ak's and FN-Fal's they got from Iraqi army and guerillas? Here's your answer, if an american soldier prefers to take a russian (or belgian) weapon over M16...

Some tank crews have picked up AK's, but only because each four-man crew is only issued with two M4's and four M9 handguns. Cases of infantrymen taking up captured rifles are almost non existent. But there's always a few people who switch weapons and it really doesn't mean anything.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2003-11-23 11:53am

Solid Snake wrote:It's a larger caliber weapon, so what?

So it has more firepower, duh.

The AK-47 has better knockdown power, but the M-16 will kill you better. The larger 7.62mm rounds will blow right through you, which is good. But the 5.56mm round will enter the body, richochet off bone, and cause more injury.

Not relevant to anything I said, thats efficiency and not firepower.
And I don't really see it making a difference on a battlefield, if your shot you're pretty much out of action.
We where taught it's better to wound the enemy soldiers, prefferably by shooting them in the gut, a wounded soldier in the hospital requires much more resources for the enemy than burying a dead one.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-11-23 12:04pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Nathan F wrote:
MKSheppard wrote:Long live the M-14!
And, by extension, the Garand!
What's with all this "self loading" nonsense? It merely encourages the solider to waste ammunition, what they need is a fine bolt-action weapon of the longest range. The Boer war has after all shown what great value long range fire is. To meet both these requirements the modern solider needs the Lebel M1886. Its sights are calibrated out to 2000 meters and the eight round tubular magazines ensures that the soldiers will concern himself with the matter accuracy and conservation of ammunition.

There's also a need for a new long-range light machine gun, I would suggest the Maxim '08/15. This incredible Hun weapon weighs a mere 40 pounds with water and bipod, but its unlikely it can lay down accurate fire at 4500 yards so the infantry shall be issued with the full weight version of the weapon, but one fitted with an indirect fire sight.

The demands of the modern long-range battlefield also call for infantry accompany guns firing the marvelous shrapnel shell.

Although I wanted the G3 or SLR to come back, this gave me an idea.

Martini-Henrys chambered for the experimental Enfield .402 round for everyone!

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-11-23 12:29pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:
Although I wanted the G3 or SLR to come back, this gave me an idea.

Short ranged crap with more of that self loading nonsense. Waste ammunition is all that I'll do. Bolt action is the key, allowing for a high volume of well aimed accurate shots.

Martini-Henrys chambered for the experimental Enfield .402 round for everyone!

A single shot rifle is just silly, and while I assume the step down in caliber is because of the adoption of a smokeless powder I doubt the gun would get the mile plus range, which this new rifle must have.

Tolya · Post by **Tolya** » 2003-11-23 03:52pm

Sea Skimmer:
M16 being ran over by an M60 tank? A bit hard to believe that it survived. And the terrain was the training range, with bumpy roads. Not on the tarmac.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-11-23 04:02pm

Sea Skimmer wrote: Short ranged crap with more of that self loading nonsense. Waste ammunition is all that I'll do. Bolt action is the key, allowing for a high volume of well aimed accurate shots.

Bah, they work, dammit. Range was a secondary concern, I'll hvae guys with AI .338 Lapua Magnums doing the ranged work. Mwahah!

A single shot rifle is just silly, and while I assume the step down in caliber is because of the adoption of a smokeless powder I doubt the gun would get the mile plus range, which this new rifle must have.

Okay, okay, I took the "don't waste ammo" thing a bit far. What rifles would you recommend?

EDIT: How about the Lee-Enfield No. 4 Mk II?

Soulman · Post by **Soulman** » 2003-11-23 04:08pm

His Divine Shadow wrote:
We where taught it's better to wound the enemy soldiers, prefferably by shooting them in the gut, a wounded soldier in the hospital requires much more resources for the enemy than burying a dead one.

If you're on the attack wouldn't you take this guy prisoner and then have to look after him? An injured soldier may still shoot you anyway.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2003-11-23 04:40pm

Soulman wrote: If you're on the attack wouldn't you take this guy prisoner and then have to look after him? An injured soldier may still shoot you anyway.

Then you kill your enemy instead, simple as that, these are guns, they kill people.
Then again the Finnish military is made for defence, not offence.

Vendetta · Post by **Vendetta** » 2003-11-23 04:52pm

Dorsk 81 wrote:I've heard stories about the M16 and I think somewhere I read that it does not hold 30 rounds due to it's cotinuous jamming, or some such crap.

No.. That's the SA-80

Solid Snake · Post by **Solid Snake** » 2003-11-23 05:41pm

His Divine Shadow wrote: Not relevant to anything I said, thats efficiency and not firepower.
And I don't really see it making a difference on a battlefield, if your shot you're pretty much out of action.
We where taught it's better to wound the enemy soldiers, prefferably by shooting them in the gut, a wounded soldier in the hospital requires much more resources for the enemy than burying a dead one.

Yeah, i was taught that too. But the M-16 still has an insane amount of firepower. It's an ALMOST perfect light infantry weapon. But from what I've heard, one of the major contributers to weapon jamming is the M-16 magazine. If the springs arent in very good condition, the weapon might seize up. That's why a lot of soldiers and Marines load the thirty round magazines with 27 rounds, to keep the springs... springy.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2003-11-23 05:59pm

JediNeophyte wrote:M16A2 owns the ass off of any AK-74 variant. The AK-74 ups the -47's paltry 300m effective range to 500m, which still pales in comparison to the M16A2's 800m effective range.

Typically, 300 meters is all a rifleman ever needs, because firing over iron sights against an enemy who will be moving and seeking cover limits his range substantially. Only marksman and machinegunners actually need a gun which can reach out and touch at 800m.

The -A2 doesn't jam nearly as much as the Vietnam-era baseline and -A1, but the AK line does do better in that respect.

True. For a regular army the current models of M16 are better than the Kalashinikov series, because of the smaller size, lightness, and accuracy. The Kalashnikovs are undeniably better for equipping a conscript army.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-11-23 08:18pm

Solid Snake wrote:
Yeah, i was taught that too. But the M-16 still has an insane amount of firepower. It's an ALMOST perfect light infantry weapon. But from what I've heard, one of the major contributers to weapon jamming is the M-16 magazine. If the springs arent in very good condition, the weapon might seize up. That's why a lot of soldiers and Marines load the thirty round magazines with 27 rounds, to keep the springs... springy.

The magazines only develop problems after considerable use; some nations have adapted better ones however that have much stronger springs. From what I've heard its common for troops to load and then fire two rounds from each magazine there issued to check them.

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2003-11-24 01:07pm

justifier wrote:But the AK-47 is cooler, and thats all that really matters in the end.

Amen to that

I also heard that the AK bullets had a tendency to stay in the body and cause all kinds of infections while the M16 bullets tended to just fly thru somebody's body making a kinda clean wound. So AK was more lethal probably.

But yeah, looks better. Anyway a G3 or such are better.

Tolya · Post by **Tolya** » 2003-11-24 01:34pm

HK G11 is a weapon for infantry. I saw a chart comparison of M16 and G11 in respect to the amount of ammo each soldier could carry (with the same weight limits for each gun) and a soldier equipped with G11 ended up having twice or even triple the ammo that the M16 soldier had. Too bad the project was stopped.

I still don't know about the mechanism and all that stuff concerning reliablity - but if HK does something, its usually good.

PeZook · Post by **PeZook** » 2003-11-24 01:44pm

EmKay wrote:HK G11 is a weapon for infantry. I saw a chart comparison of M16 and G11 in respect to the amount of ammo each soldier could carry (with the same weight limits for each gun) and a soldier equipped with G11 ended up having twice or even triple the ammo that the M16 soldier had. Too bad the project was stopped.

I still don't know about the mechanism and all that stuff concerning reliablity - but if HK does something, its usually good.

You're probably talking about this chart. But what about the cartridge's stopping power or lethality?

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-11-24 02:01pm

The 4.7mm caseless round gives a muzzle energy rating of 1,460J compared to the 5.56mm NATO's 1,798J. Bare in mind that in reality, one bullet does not always equal one kill.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-11-24 02:37pm

EmKay wrote:HK G11 is a weapon for infantry. I saw a chart comparison of M16 and G11 in respect to the amount of ammo each soldier could carry (with the same weight limits for each gun) and a soldier equipped with G11 ended up having twice or even triple the ammo that the M16 soldier had. Too bad the project was stopped.

The thing is with the G11's puny high velocity 4.7x33mm round you'd have to shoot the enemy two or three times to get them to drop and even then the bullets will be very ineffective espically at any signification range. A small high velocity round loses its energy much faster then a larger slower round even if both start out equally.

There are strong arguments that 5.56x45mm is too small, and the optimum cartridge for a rifle has been calculated to be 7mm or .276 many times, though politics or financial reasons always seem to prevent its adoption. Going smaller then what is standard today is just stupid. The G11 also rapidly overheats and has to use different and more expensive propellant for its ammunition to avoid cook offs.

The G11 might make an okay submachine gun for special forces or counter terrorist units, (which is what is currently being used for) but that's about it.