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

[Admiral Valdemar]

While the cook off problem was largely solved, I have to agree, the calibre was far too small to be really effective, it suffers from the same flaws the FN P-90 and Five-seveN have.

I have heard that Remington will release their 6.8mm round for rechambered AR-15s next year, but that is just one intermediate 5.56/7.62 replacment to be suggested. There are also the 6, 6.5 and 7mm alternatives.

[Sea Skimmer]

While the cook off problem was largely solved, I have to agree, the calibre was far too small to be really effective, it suffers from the same flaws the FN P-90 and Five-seveN have.

They solved the cook off issue, but the gun still heats up very rapidly which will probably result in a short service life.

I have heard that Remington will release their 6.8mm round for rechambered AR-15s next year, but that is just one intermediate 5.56/7.62 replacment to be suggested. There are also the 6, 6.5 and 7mm alternatives.

And 6.25 and 6.45.... There's a bunch of existing suitable cartridges in the 6-7mm range. But since no army has adapted any of them there's nothing to be gained by using a preexisting cartridge. So any project for an higher caliber rifle might as well develop its own to be exactly what is needed, the costs involved are minimal after all.

[Tolya]

Hmm, you are right. Caseless rounds still have their advantages having small weight. Still I wonder why they'd never started off with a bigger calibre caseless round.

And since I see some experts here, what about the FN2000? Its still the old 5.56x45, but its got a modular design from what I've seen. And all the ups of the bullpup system.

[Rubberanvil]

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.

Iirc the U.S. Military no longer use that of bullet anymore.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Caseless rounds will always be an interesting possibility, just not in the calibre the G11 came with. Anything that increases power and decreases waste is worth a look.

[Sea Skimmer]

Caseless rounds will always be an interesting possibility, just not in the calibre the G11 came with. Anything that increases power and decreases waste is worth a look.

The Germans adapted caseless ammunition to allow an ultra high rate of fire, which was in turn the only way such a puny bullet could even hope to be effective. However a high rate of fire won't change the bullets ballistics. Caseless ammunition does save some weight and give a tiny increase in power for a given size bullet but neither is really a good enough reason to adapt it.

Iirc the U.S. Military no longer use that of bullet anymore.

That's basically true. The US's current ball ammunition has an AP component in the form of a steel core in front of the reduced sized lead core, and is highly stable in flight. That makes it more effective against NATO's expect onslaught of body armor clad Soviet infantry, but against unarmored troops the bullet tumbles and breaks up much less often and to a lesser extent then earlier ball ammunition.

It's just another example of the old saying, "If you want to improve a weapon leave it alone and work on the ammunition."

[Admiral Valdemar]

Hmm, you are right. Caseless rounds still have their advantages having small weight. Still I wonder why they'd never started off with a bigger calibre caseless round.

And since I see some experts here, what about the FN2000? Its still the old 5.56x45, but its got a modular design from what I've seen. And all the ups of the bullpup system.

The F2000 as far as I know hasn't been combat tested yet. There are problems with the design evident to some who considered it. Marines, for instance, didn't like how the ambidextrous friendly casing ejection system was another long barrel with an exit at the end of the true muzzle. This could get easily clogged with dirt and cause a lot of problems.

On the plus side, it is a bullpup design, can have that computer sighting system and the grenade launcher is handy as well as it being able to take STANAG mags.

Time will tell.

[The Kernel]

Shouldn't the real comparison here be between the AN 94 and the M-16? After all the AN 94 is the current top end rifle of the Russian military (not sure if their regular infantry units carry it yet) and although it is unlikely to see combat against the M-16 anytime soon, it is the modern successor to the AK-47/74.

I had a chance to hold one of these babies last week and it is an extremely impressive gun. I didn't get a chance to fire it, but I've been told by the owner that he finds it superior in every way to the M-16.

[Sea Skimmer]

The F2000 as far as I know hasn't been combat tested yet.

I don't think anyone has even bought it yet, which isn't surprising given that it only entered the market in 2001.

If someone really wants a short 5.56mm gun its near impossible to beat, its shorter then an M4 with its stock collapsed, while having a barrel about 1.1 inches longer, 15.7 vs. 14.5 inches. 400 vs. 370mm. That's still carbine range however.

[Master of Ossus]

Hmm, you are right. Caseless rounds still have their advantages having small weight. Still I wonder why they'd never started off with a bigger calibre caseless round.

Larger caseless rounds magnify the problems that smaller rounds have. Also, the additional powder doesn't help as much, since it's no longer a significant enough increase in volume, next to the weight of the round, to affect the muzzle velocity as substantially. Also, attempting to cool larger firing mechanisms is much harder than attempting to cool much smaller ones.

[Pendragon]

Having handled and fired both the M16 and AK47, I figure I'm qualified to add my 20 öre (wich, with todays currency ratings, is slightly more than 2 cents, so there).

First off, accuracy.

On the M16 you adjust the sights to accomodate the shooter. On the AK47 you adjust the shooter.

The AK is NOT a sharpshooting rifle, nor was it ever meant to be. You should also note that the AK's fire selector is SAFE - AUTO - SEMI, instead of the traditional SAFE - SEMI - AUTO, and that really says a lot of the weapons purpose. Yet I was still surprised. You might not make a headshot with it every time, but hitting a 1/3 mansized target at 100m is as easy as with any other rifle.

The M16 is a fairly accurate rifle on the other hand, but nothing special really. Its about on par with swedish AK5, but sighting over the raised carrying handle is more comfortable. It cant compare with AK4/HKG3 at range, but then again thats .223 vs .308.

The AK is fairly heavy weapon compared to modern "plastic" rifles like the M16 and Steyr AUG, but I didnt find this a problem being accustomed to the all-metal AK5. I do find the weight comforting to handle, and it handles pretty sweet on full auto, wich is what this beast is built for. I just wish I'd had the chance to see a whole squad let rip with them at the same time. On the other hand, on an extended hump i probably wouldnt appreciate the extra weight.

The M16 feels very... plastic to handle. Overall, it feels wobbly and fragile. At 2/3 or so of the AK's weight its a lot easier to carry around, and the handle really is pretty neat (not that you should carry the M16 in this manner, it's a bitch to get into a decent firing position). On full auto... well... It feels like this baby sprays it all over the place compared to the AK. I havent really compared the accuracy on full-auto (the whole concept is pretty much a contradiction in terms) but the AK feels comfortable to fire while the M16 feels like trying to hold down a bucking horse.

On the durability side, the AK scores 10/10 and steals another three or four points of the M16's scale. Yes, its really that good. It never breaks down. Hell, you can ignore cleaning it and it will work until it rusts shut. I have seen it banged against trees, buried in mud, immersed in water and it came out firing every time. Interestingly enough, this durability isnt as unique as i thought, the AK5 (modified FN FNC) takes the same abuse in a stride as well. Another thing, fixed sights dont get misaligned very easily, so thats not something you have to worry about either.

The M16 on the other hand...well... I guess we must have gotten used to playing it rough by the time we got out hands on them because they didnt last very long at all. One rifle butt shattered when banged against a bunker wall by accident. And both rifles charging handles snapped of when used (on seperate occasions though, once on the firing range, once "in the field"). Jams were constant, and the curses that accompanies such events were as well.

Conclusion:

M16 Pros: Lightweight. Good ergonomics. Decent accuracy.
M16 Cons: Achy-breaky. Unreliable. Feels less macho.

AK47 Pros: Indestructable. Reliable. Feels very macho to handle.
AK47 Cons: Poor accuracy with fixed sights unless youre used to it. Heavy.


If I had to pick, it would probably be the AK47, but I still prefer the good 'ol swedish AK5.

Note, that this was M16A1's we were using, so I guess they have improved by now. Then again, it's hardly fair to compare brand new M16A4's with half-century old AK-47's.

Would be interesting to see a comparison of the latest M16's and the AK-100 series.

[His Divine Shadow]

The AK is NOT a sharpshooting rifle, nor was it ever meant to be. You should also note that the AK's fire selector is SAFE - AUTO - SEMI, instead of the traditional SAFE - SEMI - AUTO, and that really says a lot of the weapons purpose.

The M76F(slightly modernized RK-62, precursor to the M95), the finnish AK-clone, has SAFE - SINGLE SHOT - 3 SHOT BURST - AUTO
I never thought there was much difference between the two, however the M76F does seem superior.

Yet I was still surprised. You might not make a headshot with it every time, but hitting a 1/3 mansized target at 100m is as easy as with any other rifle

With the M76F I didn't have much problem scoring around 8-11 hits out of 12 shots at 300 meters at a torso sized target, I think thats pretty decent.

[Sea Skimmer]

The M16 on the other hand...well... I guess we must have gotten used to playing it rough by the time we got out hands on them because they didn't last very long at all. One rifle butt shattered when banged against a bunker wall by accident. And both rifles charging handles snapped of when used (on separate occasions though, once on the firing range, once "in the field"). Jams were constant, and the curses that accompanies such events were as well.

What version where you using? The early ones are structurally much weaker then an A2/3/4. Though you got some very shitty examples regardless of the model, and ones that had been heavily used. M16's aren't nearly that fragile normally.

[Pendragon]

The M16 on the other hand...well... I guess we must have gotten used to playing it rough by the time we got out hands on them because they didn't last very long at all. One rifle butt shattered when banged against a bunker wall by accident. And both rifles charging handles snapped of when used (on separate occasions though, once on the firing range, once "in the field"). Jams were constant, and the curses that accompanies such events were as well.

What version where you using? The early ones are structurally much weaker then an A2/3/4. Though you got some very shitty examples regardless of the model, and ones that had been heavily used. M16's aren't nearly that fragile normally.

A1´s, wich probably were quite old. On the other hand, the AK's were most likely at least as old and worked fine. I guess that says something.

But you have to keep in mind the inherent differences in their purpose.

The AK is meant to be easy to use with little or no training, like militia and guerilla. In this role I'd say it's pretty much unbeatable.

I think the M16's is more a professional soldiers rifle, as it requires more from it's user.

I read an excerpt from Jessica Lynch's book the other day in Time Europe. Apparently her M16(A2 i presume) had jammed completely due to dust coming in from the car window, despite allegedly cleaning it regularly.

I guess REMF's are better off with AK's...

[Pendragon]

What about a hybrid?

http://www.quarterbore.com/kac/sr47.html

[Pendragon]

The AK is NOT a sharpshooting rifle, nor was it ever meant to be. You should also note that the AK's fire selector is SAFE - AUTO - SEMI, instead of the traditional SAFE - SEMI - AUTO, and that really says a lot of the weapons purpose.

The M76F(slightly modernized RK-62, precursor to the M95), the finnish AK-clone, has SAFE - SINGLE SHOT - 3 SHOT BURST - AUTO
I never thought there was much difference between the two, however the M76F does seem superior.

Yet I was still surprised. You might not make a headshot with it every time, but hitting a 1/3 mansized target at 100m is as easy as with any other rifle

With the M76F I didn't have much problem scoring around 8-11 hits out of 12 shots at 300 meters at a torso sized target, I think thats pretty decent.

Correct my if I'm wrong, but isnt the M-76 chambered in 5,56x45 rather than 7,62x39?
And were the sights adjustable? Because the major issue with the AK's accuracy were that you had to compensate "manually" instead of zeroing the sights. With adjustable sights, I dont see why it shouldnt be as accurate as any assault rifle.

[Sea Skimmer]

A1´s, wich probably were quite old. On the other hand, the AK's were most likely at least as old and worked fine. I guess that says something.

If they where A1's then they where probably more then twenty years old. That kind of age isn't an issue for the US military at least, since it seems to buy a new design about once a decade.

I read an excerpt from Jessica Lynch's book the other day in Time Europe. Apparently her M16(A2 i presume) had jammed completely due to dust coming in from the car window, despite allegedly cleaning it regularly.

I guess REMF's are better off with AK's...

Well that was after a huge sandstorm, and the lubricant the US Army issues is really bad in the desert, many front line troops at least buy different oil out of pocket. But then that unit also managed to have its M2 machine gun jam, I wouldn't put jamming an AK-47 beyond them.

[Pendragon]

Well that was after a huge sandstorm, and the lubricant the US Army issues is really bad in the desert, many front line troops at least buy different oil out of pocket. But then that unit also managed to have its M2 machine gun jam, I wouldn't put jamming an AK-47 beyond them.

Heh.
I guess that would qualify them as "special" forces.

[Howedar]

Yeah, fuck knows how you jam a Ma Deuce.

[His Divine Shadow]

Correct my if I'm wrong, but isnt the M-76 chambered in 5,56x45 rather than 7,62x39?

Probably comes in both forms, however in the finnish military we all use 7.62mm

And were the sights adjustable? Because the major issue with the AK's accuracy were that you had to compensate "manually" instead of zeroing the sights. With adjustable sights, I dont see why it shouldnt be as accurate as any assault rifle.

Yeah, adjustable sights.

[Oberleutnant]

Correct my if I'm wrong, but isnt the M-76 chambered in 5,56x45 rather than 7,62x39?

Probably comes in both forms, however in the finnish military we all use 7.62mm

Yup. (I like the new avatar, by the way)

A pic of the Finnish military version of Valmet M76 chambered in 7.62 can be found from here

The American "fan site" for Valmet stuff, Valmet Weapons, is pretty nifty if anyone wants to know more.

[Sea Skimmer]

Correct my if I'm wrong, but isnt the M-76 chambered in 5,56x45 rather than 7,62x39?
And were the sights adjustable? Because the major issue with the AK's accuracy were that you had to compensate "manually" instead of zeroing the sights. With adjustable sights, I dont see why it shouldnt be as accurate as any assault rifle.

Because the action is very violent. As I've said the AK-47 is very reliable because it's overpowered, which also makes it less accurate.

[His Divine Shadow]

Hey, do you remember what the real name for the MG-88 machine gun is? That russian beltfed machine gun you know.

Also, we had the Model 62 in use on our brigade still, though I got a model 76, good ole 943389(might be wrong about that, can't remember the serial anymore).

[Vympel]

Hey, do you remember what the real name for the MG-88 machine gun is? That russian beltfed machine gun you know.

Finland got the PKM machine gun from East Germany and liked them so much they bought new build models from Russia proper, is that what you mean?

[His Divine Shadow]

I dunno, we just called it MG-88 Machine-Gun model 88 or something, they said it was russian, I never found out much about.
7.62mm it was.