M16 vs AK-47 my thoughts on it

[jamaldog87]

someone asked  me which one was better. well people always go by M16 of  now a days not by when it was made.  If you look at a m16a1 from vietnam is a better side by side. The m16 had to have several design changes and product -improved version like a heaver stiffer barrel and compensator to get the gun we have today. If the ak had the same it would be as good or better than the m16. Also the m16 needs lots of maintenace and cleanning, the ak not so much. the ar15 was made in 1958 and the ak was 1951 so there very close.

A better side by side look would be a century arms folding stock AK with command arms parts on it. I used a COLT 9MM AR15 and i lots of probelms with it. I could not get the mag loaded, had a hard time getting it to fire(bolt release), and i had to as the range master to help me with it. The ak you rock, cock, and fire. it easy. Also i seen the folding aks for 500-600$ and AR are 900$ at the gun stores around her. But there both good to me. AK get the cost point and the M16(the m16A1 was a ar15  most M16 now a days are base on the M4 or M16a2) for number of mods and things for it.

some  Upper and Lower Handguard with Rail for AK47/74($78.49 ) with that you can add Vertical Grip , scopes, lights ect. AK47 Interchangeable pistol grip($40.79 ) same grip as a M16 and you can add a  Six-Position Collapsible/Side Folding stock($119.95) and i would still cost less that a plan m16.   Now you would have what i would call a ak-47a2 with all the good stuff the m16 has.

[mcwoodduck]

Where to begin.
Some or most of the original problems we had with the M-16 and the failures were McNamera and his whiz kids.  Much like the Obama dolts they thought they knew it all and made some changes to the M-16 that caused the failures.
1) The government was already using powder for the 308 and ordered it used in the 223 rather than the proper powder for the 223 round.  I forget but it was stick powder Vs. Ball and the one for the 308/ 30-06 would gum up the direct gas system of the M-16.
The second thing they did was not add the Chrome lining the Military wanted stating that if it was needed the AR-15 rifles Stoner Made would have had them.  The combination of the wrong powder and un lined chambers and barrels in a humid enviroment lead to the initial failures.  Bother were later corrected.
2) Comparing a battle rifle to a SMG is apples to oranges.  The AK is a battle rifle and chambered in a medium power round.  The Colt 9mm Carbine is a modification of a battle rifle and converted to fire the 9mm round.
3) cost comparasons between the modification parts is also comparing apples to oranges.  The hand guards for either costs are similar for the set up and maunfacture for the parts of equal quality.  The AK tends to get more moulded parts rather than machined.  Machined parts are more labor intensive and there for will cost more.  But even if you look at the Mags for each the prices are about the same for stick mags.  Around $20 each.  There is also the whole supply and demand and the AR parts demand higher prices for the same or similar parts in they are precieved as being of higher quality.
No let's look at function.
I have one of each and both are similar in solid stocks and stock guns. No after market sights or other stuff hanging off either gun.
the Sights on the AR are better.  the peep sights is a natural pointing sight.  The old tangent sight is harder to line up and there are many who have problems with the sight picture.  the sights, the round and the over quality of the AR design is what makes it accurate.
the reverse of the action and the quality is what makes the AK reliable.  with loose fitting parts you can fill it with mud or gunk and it will still fire.  It is accurate out to 100 yards and will hit a 20 X 20 plate most rounds.  It will not take an apple off the top of the steel plate that the AR can do.
Now on further to the design.  the AR uses a drop magizine the AK has a hinged mag.  With the AR you insert the mag into the well till you hear the mag release catch.  With the AK you use the front of the mag and match it to a part in the reciever and swing the mag to the trigger guard and lock it in.  Something I and most others have flubbed many times. It is awkward to move and reload with it. I was shooting 3 gun and sometimes used my AK and had ot develope an over the shoulder reloading methode to reliably get the mag in the gun while moving but it is no where near as fast as the AR or reliable.  Adding a verticle grip and other junk to an AK may screw up your ability to use some mags as you need room up front to rock the mag back.
And finally as you pointed out the AK is an AK and the AR is a modular rifle system that the upper cna be changed to Pistol calibers, from a sniper 50 cal to 22LR and everything inbetween.  In theroy the same AR in the field could have a belt fed upper, a SMG 10 -15", a 24" varmint/ sniper, and your standard 16-20" and be field modified to meet the mission and all use the same caliber and mags.

[Mikey]

You're talkin' two entirely different rifles.  The US has put tons of $ into the AR platform to get it to perform and it does well out to a couple of hundred yards.  I surely would not want to get hit with a M16/M4 slug at all, regardless of the weight of the bullet.  I doubt being at 400 yds when hit would make it hurt less or allow it to cause less damage.  And let's please understand that in places like Iraq and Afganistan, if a bad guy is hit and not immediately abandoned by his buddies, he is counted as a hit/kill, or whatever however, if they run off wounded to die somewhere they throw them in a hole in the ground very quickly and very few know that he was even hit, much less dead or dying.  And how many of those 'innocent bystanders' that get hit and seek treatment at a local hospital were actually bad guys??

The AK has not changed since its inception, except for barrel length and stock options.  The Soviet 5.56 x 39mm round is a better field round than our 5.56 x45 but our gov't would never admit to it. 

The AR may be more accurate but that is only because of all the $ the gov't has put into it to try and improve it.  If the Soviets had spent as much $ improving the AK platform as we have improving the AR, the results would have been similar. 

I firmly believe there is greater variation in the quality of AK ammo than AR ammo. 

If I had to go house to house I would take a AK.  If I had targets out beyond 200m I would take the AR but only because of the sighting options allowing those rifles better accuracy.  If the AK came with longer barrels, say 21-22" and a more stable sight mounting platform I would be happy (ier). 

[jamaldog87]

they both good guns but i like the ak over the m16.  From j&g sales.com  Century C-15A2 Sporter AR-15 $699.95  with fix carry handle.   Olympic Arms 16in A3 Style AR15  with flat top $849.95 .

Now
Galil Style Golani Rifle, 223 caliber, with folding stock. $699.95 . Romanian AK-47  7.62x39  w/ wood pistol grip handguard $389.95  . Romanian AK-47 WASR10C 7.62x39 caliber, w/ collapsible stock(TAPCO AR style collapsible stock and a black synthetic pistol grip. ) $389.95

If i got a ak i would have 150- 460$ of cash to add what ever i liked with a gun that has a collapsible stock and/or folding stock on it.

the colt ar SMG is set up just like a ar in .233 and for me the controls and other things with it were hard to use but it was my 1st time with a ar type gun.  Now the CZ in 40S&W(also was used that day) i got that withen a few mags and made some very good shots with it and that was my first time with a auto in 40S&W. My point is if it is your first time with a AR 15 it take more time to know how to use it than a AK.  The first time i used a aK i had no problems with and had for fun with it.

Really i am a fan of  HK,  CETME, and M1 Carbine  but to me the ak is a very good gun for the money and you get very good stopping power.  I have the book of assault weapons and in there they is a story were a solider had to use a 30round mag to drop one bad guy in a home.

[mcwoodduck]

I have taken a few kids shooting.  And let them shoot the AR-15, AK 47, the fold under AK, the M1 Carbine, M1 Garand, Enfield No. 4, Mauser 96 and 98's.  Most of the kids were excited to shoot the AK most.  The folding under stock had a little wiggle to it and was hard to fire quickly and harder to hit the steel gongs at 150 yards or farther.  The solid stocked AK I have has a longer barrel 21" and came with a Bipod that i removed.  It is good for 100 yards and I was shooting it at High power matches till I got the AR and my scores went way up.
But back to the kids.  Again the solid stocked AK will hit the 20" plate about 1 of 3 times at the 150 yard mark.  Recoil is a lot greater than the AR and with the AR the kids like the Bang THAWK every trigger pull.
One of the kids wanted to know if the other 223 Ammo would fire in the AR after he shot all 400 rounds I brought for the AR and did not want to shoot any more of the AK or the carbine as they did not make the THWACK or DONG noise with every trigger pull.
The M1 Garand would give the same but with a lot more recoil.  The bolt guns were not as much fun as they don't go bang bang, but Bang, click, click Aim bang.

[cybin]

When I was in Vietnam I carried the AK47 as much as I could for almost 5 months--until the CO threatened to bust me if I didn't get rid of it. I liked the results of hitting gooks with it better than the results of hitting them with the M16 (.223)

The M16 was more accurate a rifle than the AK (7.62x39),but at the ranges I was using them both at--it really didn't matter much.

These days I own a SKS in 7.62x39, and am picking up a savage .223 shortly. The SKS seems to be more accurate than the AK in my opinion.

cybin

[Mikey]

My long barrelled AK is a NHM-91 and like yours came with a bipod and thumbhole stock.  I removed the bipod stuff, installed a Krinkov style flash hider and swapped out that awful stock set-up for straight AK furniture.  The rifle is much handier than before, but I don't have any problem with steel plates out to 200m - of course, since eye iz ol and sew iz my eyez, they put up bigger plates, I'm sure.........

[mcwoodduck]

My long barrelled AK is a NHM-91 and like yours came with a bipod and thumbhole stock.  I removed the bipod stuff, installed a Krinkov style flash hider and swapped out that awful stock set-up for straight AK furniture.  The rifle is much handier than before, but I don't have any problem with steel plates out to 200m - of course, since eye iz ol and sew iz my eyez, they put up bigger plates, I'm sure.........

 
Mine has a great trigger. and if I take my time I can hit what i am aiming at most of the time.  Again I was shooting High power with mine.  Still in the silly thumb hole stock. his is Ca after all and a pistol grip is evil. 
Pound for pound both guns are what they are.
I once wrote here that the AK, SKS, M1 carbine, pistol caliber SMG's and riot shot guns are not very accurate but are still very interesting when someone quoted Townsand Whelan and his "only accurate rifles are interesting"  I think accuracy depends on the size and distance of your target. 
A rifle shooting a 1 inch group at 100 yards is great if you are shooting at targets larger than 2 inches.  the same is true a 4 group is fine for an 8 inch target.  he reverse of that is also true a rifle shooting a 1 inch group shooting at 1/2 inch targets you will it it 1/2 or 1/4 the time.  I guess most of what you want or need the rifle for is what you intend to do with it.
 wanted to point out that the cool factor of folding this, collapisable that, fore end, sights and what have you do not aid accuracy.  one of my friends was the same way with that little fold under stock AK  I had.  He thought he could shoot it from the hip like in the movies.  We went out to the range and he was no where near the 100 yard gong.  So much so I had to make him fold out the stock and look down the sights or not shoot it.  Same whent for the nhm-91 with the bipod and the 100 round drum when he wanted to shoot it like rambo with a 60 from the hip.  Looked cool but not one gong.  ots of dust around the gong.

[no guns here]

Why isn't there a viable third option?  Maybe there is, I just don't know about it...

I'd really like something that gives a bit more range and accuracy than the AK...
Something that give a bit more "oomph" than the standard 5.56...
Something that will shoot dirty/rusty/wet/whatever like the AK...
Something in the range of maybe a 7mm (6.8 spc)...

Asking too much?

[bckskin2]

Now that we can get AK's in 5.56 & AR15's in 7.62X39 it would be possible to do side by side test in the same caliber. Would be interesting. I really want the Ruger mini 3o to work, but doesn't seem to from what I hear.

[mcwoodduck]

Why isn't there a viable third option?  Maybe there is, I just don't know about it...

I'd really like something that gives a bit more range and accuracy than the AK...
Something that give a bit more "oomph" than the standard 5.56...
Something that will shoot dirty/rusty/wet/whatever like the AK...
Something in the range of maybe a 7mm (6.8 spc)...

Asking too much?

Easy M1 Garand.  Or is that too much oomph? 
OK the Sig 556 is a good mesh of the AR and AK.
the Galil is a tighter tolarance AK
The M1A or FN Fal.  Would also be great all weather and condition.

[no guns here]

Garand and M1a/M14 are bigger than what I envision.  Something about halfway between the 5.56 and the .308/.30-'06 would give good range and better effect on targets.  I'm not sure we need a MOA gun (that has too tight of tolerances) but maybe a 2-2.5 moa gun that will shoot without much maintenance with a bullet twice as heavy as the 5.56.  Maybe a Galil but I don't know much about them.  Don't know, just thinking.


NGH

[JPShelton]

they both good guns but i like the ak over the m16. 

The above is akin to saying, "Rosie O'Donnell and my blonde, hard-bodied, 21 year-old college co-ed mistress are both good women," and then dumping the hot blonde for the big girl in the the comfortable shoes who doesn't like men.

-JP

[Mikey]

I think that if you neck down the 7.62x39 to a 6.5x39 or 6.5x40 (if necking stretches the case a bit) you would have the cartridge you want but the entire platform would have to be of sufficient quality to get it out there at longer ranges. 

The AK barrel length is 16.5" - not the best for longer range work and accuracy.  The SKS wore a 21.5" bbl and some AKs were barrelled in that length, like the NHMs.  You would need the longer barrel to begin to bring the AK platform to near AR accuracy capability, I believe. 

You would also need a much more stable scope mounting platform for the AK.  The receiver is stamped and no where near as rigid as the cast AR platform. I can see reinforcing the AK, along the left or non-port side, or possibly on both sides with through and through stabalizer bolts, sort of like the big bore Mauser stocks; actually, if you ran a stabalizing 'band' or reinforced 'band' around the entire action you might get the stabalization you would need for longer range accuracy with a 6.5 bore.

It would be a interesting project if you could find someone to (1) rebarrel the AK and (2) reinforce or stabalize the receiver.  Just a thought.

[no guns here]

I'm not interested in a "project".  My musings were directed at an entirely new platform.

Stamped AK's would flex but I'm not sure about the old milled AK's.

Don't need a long barrel for accuracy, just for velocity.


NGH

[SHOOTALL]

The M-16 goes to battle with several layers of maintance behind it . A long line of resupply aval. It still suffers some problems with its gas system but Sig may have found the ansewer with its short system . It will be around a long time . The AK-47 is the weapon of revolution and often is issued with ammo to troops , or others with little chance of anything other than field maintance . Often it is made in shacks in out of the way places one gun at a time . There are far more AK's than AR's in existance . The controls on the AK are big and easy to use , AR controls are more complex but well though out . In the end to compare it would seem to equip a well matained army either will work but in the rough the AK has won out not my opinion just fact . It won either by cost or aval. As to bullet the AK wins IMHO .

[Spanky]

the ar15 was made in 1958 and the ak was 1951 so there very close.

The AK47 was introduced in 1947 not 1951. Hence the 47 designation.
The AK is a better battle rifle than the AR platform.
The AR platform rifles require too much maintenance in the field to perform reliably. The AK's can get run over and not miss a beat.



Spanky

[AtlLaw]

Since I believe everyone with experience in a subject is entitled to their own opinion based on that experience, free from criticism, I try to stay out of these philosophical discussions for fear of having my statements viewed as argumentative.     Hi-ebber, and day always be a hi-ebber, I guess I'm entitled to my own opinion every once in a while.   

The AK is a better battle rifle than the AR platform.

I guess that would depend on your definition of battle rifle. 

The AR platform rifles require too much maintenance in the field to perform reliably.

That isn't the case in the tropics.  I can't speak to the desert.   

The AK's can get run over and not miss a beat.

True, true... designed for the peasant soldier.

I like the M16.  It never failed me.  Or any of my Troopers.  Well, there was that inciudent with Tau, my Kit Carson Scout, but that's another story.   

I like the AK also.  It never failed me.  Or any of my pilots.

You see, most Army pilots back in the day were only issued revolvers/pistols.  And, having found myself, on a number of occasions, always quite unexpectedly and certainly unintentionally, in an Infantry assignment after my aircraft decided to take the rest of the day off, I can say emphatically that being in such a position with only a handgun and 6 or 7 rounds of ammo is not a comfortable feeling.     A feeling I would spare others were I in a position to do so. 

So, since they had to fly, my only option was to equip the pilots for the other, and unfortunate, eventuality.  As the Air Cavalry T O & E didn't allow me to equip my pilots with M16's, they got AK's.  We usually had plenty of them laying around!     Plenty of mags and ammo also... 

Here's a pic from the long lost stash.  2 of my pilots are behind me and you can see the AK.  Yes, I made them train with the AK's!     BTW, that's an M1D I'm sighting in...   Personally, I carried a Thompson, partially visable in the second photo.

But guns is like wimmins!     I never went to a fight with a gun I didn't like or to b... um, you can figure out the other half!   

[AtlLaw]

Sorry guys, the "lost" pics got lost again for a while.     Here they are.   

[243dave]

AtlLaw,  I don't see you in any of those pictures, they're all young men. 

[Cheesehead]

Great pics, interesting assortment of rifles.

Cheese

[mcwoodduck]

Who or what were you shooting?
Notice I did not say at, figuring you were hitting what you wanted to.
I was surpised to see the Garand.

[SHOOTALL]

The Garand was one of the first "surplus" rifles supplied to South East Asian troops , then they realized the size was not a great fit .

[mcwoodduck]

When I was at Military school we had a teacher Lt Col Brown who tought Economics and was one of the early advisors to the south.
He said that he ordered M1 carbines and was shipped Garands.  One trip to the range had the Col with a saw cutting down the stocks to fit his advisies.  Again I was shocked to see the Garand and in tact.

[AtlLaw]

They had just about every type of weapon you can imagine over there.  At that time I also had a "grease gun" that I carried, but I did prefer the Thompson.      My first year, besides my M2 and M1 carbine, I had a German Schmeisser (sp?) MP 40, maybe a 38 I can't really remember.  Also a real UGLY little French machine pistol.

I always got a kick outa seeing an ARVN carrying a Garand, but you didn't see that many of them.  I had to give my M1D to an American civilian advisor to the vietnamese white mice to get my Kit Carson scout outa their jail...    It probably beat me back to the States.   

[Default_Required]

My father went through basic using the M1 Garand before being sent to Vietnam on the Enterprise .

 As to the old beaten dead horse " AK vs. AR " topic , I have to agree with alot of the comments made already and of course opinions being what they are , Mine differs from other comments as well.

 When I bought my first Armalite AR mid-lenght I was already a AK owner and believer , But was still giddy as a school boy over my new range toy ( also was the most I had ever spent on a rifle at that point ) So when the ex's Father showed up a month after I had the AR ( Back story on the Father, three tour Nam vet , married a south Vietnamese woman , other halves mom .. He too is a gun guy) I of course had to break it out of the safe and show it off .. He looked at it for a moment , Then said " Nice , Dont carry it into combat! " I without missing a beat placed the AR back in the safe and retrieved the AK and said that is what this is for. He smiled.

 He was one of those poor souls that had that first batch of M16s shoved onto them, And the horror stories and experiences then quickly insued ..

 The AR has a place in modern warfare as does the AK and its many variants , But like a mechanic, doesnt just use one tool for all fixes , like wise You choose the tool for the appropriate job... And learn tactics that are best suited for you enviroment and your weapons limitations.. And of course learn and remember your weapons virtues as well i.e the AKs 7.62 round will out penetrate the 5.56 every time on barrier penetration and twice on sunday .. This is a tactic taught to Finnish troops that used the 7.62, It is a virtue.
  
 As for my old man , His eyes arent what they once were and the long arms with peep sights dont work so well with him , his most profecient iron sighted weapon with his eyes is an old Soviet SKS .. So its easy to know what of his assorted arms he might be more prone to grab up in an emergency.. This would suit him better then his AR would with peep sights

 Some might argue that the SKS is the better all around SHTF gun , Ammo is available most any where ( virtue for the AK too) , stripper clips are lighter and cheaper then mags and the weapon system is alot less affected if you lose all your stripper clips then if your AK/AR mags all get lost along the way. It also has the added benifit of letting you get closer to the ground and continue firing, Oh and it fits a saddle scabbard or ATV gun boot a hell of alot better then the other rifles mentioned. And the young bucks of the world can tacti-cool them till their heart is content

 Personally My go to guns are my MAK 90 in traditional Soviet configuration furniture, My secondary rifle is my Weatherby 308 in a A2 aluminum bedded fiberglass stock and some long range glass.. Backed up by a Sprigfield Mil-Spec 1911 45acp , All can be toted with extras .

  

[Basicguy]

I liked your first person report.
Edit: Just read some other posts. All good.
I went into the US Army in 70 and was sent to Korea.

When I was in Vietnam I carried the AK47 as much as I could for almost 5 months--until the CO threatened to bust me if I didn't get rid of it. I liked the results of hitting gooks with it better than the results of hitting them with the M16 (.223)

The M16 was more accurate a rifle than the AK (7.62x39),but at the ranges I was using them both at--it really didn't matter much.

These days I own a SKS in 7.62x39, and am picking up a savage .223 shortly. The SKS seems to be more accurate than the AK in my opinion.

cybin

[Default_Required]

Now that we can get AK's in 5.56 & AR15's in 7.62X39 it would be possible to do side by side test in the same caliber. Would be interesting. I really want the Ruger mini 3o to work, but doesn't seem to from what I hear.

 Buck ,

 I dont know who told you that the Mini 30 doesnt work brother . Mine was a "reliable as the sun will rise in the east" type weapon, Never a failure of any type . Having had close to 1000 rnds through that weapon , left me with a fond impression only reason i let it go was when moving expenses forced me to let it go.

 I wouldnt hesitate to pick up another one in a heart beat , Especially now that ruger is making factory 20 rnd mags for it, now if they would get off their butts and make the 20s for the 6.8spc and then 30s for both those two calibers.

 

Why isn't there a viable third option?  Maybe there is, I just don't know about it...

I'd really like something that gives a bit more range and accuracy than the AK...
Something that give a bit more "oomph" than the standard 5.56...
Something that will shoot dirty/rusty/wet/whatever like the AK...
Something in the range of maybe a 7mm (6.8 spc)...

Asking too much?

 NGH that is really your only other option besides the 6.5 grendel , for a middle of the road cartridge that looks like it brings the benefits of both the 5.56 and 7.62 to the table ... I have considered having the barrel and dies made up to change my AR over to 6x45 or 6mm/223 if you will , just to experiment with what gains could be had in the AR with a 6mm projectile at the helm.