Which is better, an M-16 or an AK-47?

In My Humble Opinion
1

I don’t think this is a great debate, as I have a good guess which way the Board will go on this. But if a mod disagrees, feel free to move it there.

I am curious for information about why one is (or is considered) better than the other. I am looking for information in relation to use of these guns in the field in combat (by armies, insurgents, etc.). Please consider the following factors (in no particular order):

  1. Accuracy
  2. Stopping power - although this might be more related to the bullets used
  3. Fire rate
  4. Ease of use
  5. Reliability - jam frequency
  6. Ease of maintenance in the field
  7. Time between having to perform maintenance
  8. Magazine capacity
  9. Cost - of the gun and of the bullets it uses
  10. Availability of spare parts to repair
  11. Versaility - attachments (?)

If any of these factors don’t really matter, tell me why. If other factors not listed here are relevant, list them and say why. (I don’t pretend to know anything about this.)

If you have fired both, please let me know which you felt was better and why.

I am also curious if one could say something like “they’re both good enough” in the sense that although one may be better than the other, in the real world, it doesn’t really matter too much. (As opposed to a matchup say, between an M-16 and an M-1.)

And is the U.S. military still using the M-16 (or variations of it) nowadays?

2

I’ve used several varients of the M-16, as well as the Galil - as Israeli rifle based on the AK series - and here are my impressions. If you compare weapons of the same generation (M-16A1 vs. AK-47, A2 vs. AK-74, carbine vs. carbine), the leader in everycatagory is:

  1. Accuracy - M-16, no question. By a significant margin

  2. Stopping power - a 7.62 (Russian) round will go right through you, a 5.56 will bounce around a bit inside. No real difference it the field - hit him in the head, he’ll go down.

  3. Fire rate - roughly the same, if you’re unprofessional enough to use full auto in an assault rifle.

  4. Ease of use - roughly the same. The M-16 is more “delicate”, but the Kalatch has an uncomfortable right-side safety catch.

  5. Reliability - AKs are more reliable. No debate here.

  6. Ease of maintenance in the field - The AK was designed to be used by illiterate Russian peasents.

  7. Time between having to perform maintenance - Again, the AK.

  8. Magazine capacity - both are theoreticall 30 rounds. I believe, but the M-16 mag is more delicate, and most soldiers load it with only 28-29.

  9. Cost - The AK is obscenely cheap.

  10. Availability of spare parts to repair - depends on where you are. If your stuck in the middle of Turkmenistan you’ll have an easier time finding Kalatch parts.

  11. Versaility - M-16, by a lot; the newer models especially have special rails for attaching scopes, lights and whatnot. There’s a nearly infinate amount of stuff you can find to attach to them. The AK series, OTOH, because of the way it’s constructed, you ca’t really attach anything to the top, which is a real disadvantage.

You forgot the most important criteria, at least for the infantryman:

  1. Weight - the M-16 is a much lighter weapon.
3

There was a great show about exactly this on the discovery channel not long ago. I’ll try and regurgitate what I remember:

  1. Accuracy - M16 (IIRC) was the hands down winner. It fires smaller bullets at greater velocity, which are more accurate.
  2. stopping power - this was an advantage for the AK47, as in jungle warfare and such, the AK47 bullets were capable of penetrating some trees and injuring soldiers on the other side.
  3. Firing rate - I don’t think that that’s as much of an issue with an automatic rifle…you only have 30 round clips, so what advantage is there of getting throught the clip in 2 seconds as opposied to 3 seconds? Firing an automatic rifle on automatic is usually a waste of bullets.
    4)Reliability…this is the AK’s biggest advantage. It is made from lower-precision parts and is less prone to jamming. On the show I was watching, the designer went as far as to say that even if you never clean it, it will always fire. It won’t fire AS WELL as if it were clean, but it will always fire. This is not true of the M16, as the first batch that were sent to Vietnam were notorious for jamming. PArt of the problem was that the army used the wrong powder in the cartridges. Nevertheless, jamming was a HUGE problem for the M16. The army at the time thought that it was supposed to be some space age indestructible weapon and didn’t even issue cleaning kits to the first unlucky soldiers to be given M16s! One soldier told an anecdote about how he accidentally brushed some sand over his rifle when he went to pick it up in a hurry and that was enough cause the bolt ot jam. The AK on the other hand, was tortured as part of its design trials. Dragged through mud and sand and would always fire.

Another thing that was interesting: you might think that bigger bullets = better, but the documentary was saying that smaller ones (e.g., M16) were better because a soldier could carry more of them.

Basically, M16 = hi tech, high precison, long range. More of a rifle than a machine gun.

AK47 = low tech, low precision, shorter range. More of a machine gun than a rifle.

4

I’ve heard the newer M-16 variants are more reliable, and the tht the new OICWS tops that. Anyone know how they compare?

5

IMHO Big time. I’m sure the mods will move it there but I’m happy to add my 2¢

For starters the AK-47 is not a front line weapon anymore as it has been replaced with the AK-74 which is similar aside from being in 5.45x39mm caliber which is ballistically similar to the 5.56mm NATO used in the M-16. As for the M-16 the shorter barreled M4 variant - 14.5" barrel, flattop upper with scope mounting rail and collapsable stock instead of 20" fixed carry handle/rear sight and fixed stock - is becoming dominant even though it has reduced effective range.

The M-16 has superior ergonomimcs. You can reach the safety/selector and magazine release with the firing hand without changing grip. Bolt release is easy to reach. It has a bolt hold back though I am not sure if newer AK variants have added this. Recoil is very mild. I find an AK type in 7.62x39 caliber to be jarring for extended firing. The M-16, particularly the M4, is very light due to a forged aluminum alloy reciever and physically smaller parts all around.

As for reliability the AK wins hands down. Some may consider it an inelegant design as everything is twice as big as it needs to be - gas port size, bolt carrier mass, clearances, etc. etc. - but it will work under the worst conditions. By contrast the M-16 is designed around tight tolerances, parts don’t rattle around. Consequently a little dirt can wreak havoc with function. It has a direct impingement system instead of a traditional gas piston. That means hot barrel gas is literally piped into the reciever. This causes a buildup of hard carbon on the bolt and inside the carrier which is a mother *$%&%er to clean. Lots of folks consider this to be a massive design flaw in the M-16 for those who can’t clean it frequently.

On a side note I attended a gun show and talked with a local manufactuer who has a gas piston upper reciever assembly for AR-15s. I’m going to consider one for myself as it isn’t any more expensive than a fully tricked out M4 type upper.

The M-16 is vastly more modular and versatile. The hottest trend is in the civilian market are rail hand guards on the barrel which have a picatinny scope mounting rail on all four quadrants. A vertical foregrip is the norm but that is an advantage in itself. The rails allow mounting flashlights, lasers and optical sights. Take a look at nearly any photo of US soldiers in Iraq as the M4s tend to look like a swiss army knife held together with duct tape.

I have civilain examples of both. I enjoy shooting my M4gery lots more than an AK. If the doo-doo hit the fan and society collapsed I’d far rather have an AK.

6

My Dad got drafted for the Vietnam War (fortunately didn’t wind up seeing combat), and was one his division’s best marksmen with a rifle (though claims he was horrible with a pistol). One of his duties was to demo firearms, and he shot pretty much everything the VC used that could be carried by a single human being. He thought the AK-47 was hands-down the better weapon, at least for Vietnam. He put it this way: You could throw the AK-47 in a muddy swamp, fish it out, rinse it off a little, pour the water out, and fire it. Submerging an M-16 (at least the vsn. available to him) for even a moment rendered it almost useless until thoroughly cleaned. The Kalashnikov is a simpler, sloppier design, but the greater tolerances afforded with this sloppyness meant the weapon could withstand considerable abuse, and the the M-16 couldn’t hold a candle to it in wet, dirty conditions. According to my Dad, even in relatively dry conditions, a bit of sand or grit could cause the M-16 to jam. He thought the clean M-16 was an excellent weapon, highly accurate for an assault rifle, with superior ballistics, but in the field, they just broke down too easily for his tastes.

His major complaint about the AK-47 was it was very heavy compared to the M-16.

Some of the M-16’s problems were, according to him, easily resolved by changing the ammunition (why that mattered I don’t know) to something better, and that happened while he was training. But it still could never outperform the AK in what he felt were realistic conditions for Vietnam. He also told me many of the problems with the M-16 revealed in Vietnam have since been resolved, though he doesn’t know how a modern iteration of the M-16 would compare to its Kalashnikov counterpart.

7

Wow! I thought you guys would be going for the M-16, if not out of patriotism, just because it’s a better quality weapon. Fascinating stuff guys, thanks.

But you haven’t chimed in too much on which is overall the best for people engaged in combat (of course I’m thinking of Iraq here).

Nunavut Boy (are you really?), I (knowing next to nothing about these things) would think that reliability in the field would be absolutely key. If your rifle doesn’t work, you’re a dead man, no? Especially in a sandy, dusty climate like Iraq?

How would you weight some of the factors? Which are more important?

How much more accurate is an M-16 than an AK-47 or -74? Is an AK accurate “enough” so that this is just being picky? Or is it range we’re talking about here - with a scope on an M-xx, can you drop someone at 1000 yards? What percentage come with scopes?

Padeye, is the M4 what the U.S. troops are using now? I think it looks close to an M-16, but subtly different. Other than less range (forgot that category too) what are some of the other differences between an M-16 and an M-4?

Also, are the ergonomics on an M-16 or M-4 that much better so that you would get the drop on someone? (Picture rounding a corner, insurgent with AK-xx, Marine with M-xx, both have safeties on. Who gets their shot off first?)

Alessan, what’s the difference in weight? How many bullets extra does that translate to? Or, how much extra gear (MRE, water)? Also, how big of a disadvantage is it not to be able to attach something - like a scope. does that reduce the effective range because you can’t be accurate?

Do they both take bayonets? How important is that in 21st century warfare?

BTW, IIRC, the M-16 can be set to shoot a 3 shot burst. Is that useful? Wouldn’t the second and third shots be much much less accurate? Can the AKs do that?

smiling bandit, what’s a OICWS?

8

AFAIK, the OICW is based on the H&K G36 rifle

9

Padeye:

What’s the 39mm here?

10

The M4 carbine was originally used for special forces but I’ve read that it is being deployed more and more widely. It is essentially a shortened M-16 but it has more gingerbread.

The lower reciever is the same as an M-16A2 but it’s my understanding the M4 has full auto instead of the A2’s three shot burst. The buttstock is collapsable, similar to the old CAR-15 but with a slightly angled and larger buttplate and a bit more length of pull.

The upper reciever has a detachable carry handle/rear sight that attaches to an intergal Picatinny rail in the top of the reciever forging. This is a very standard attachment rail for any variety of optical sights and is pretty much interchangable with Weaver mounts used commercially.

The barrel is 14.5" long instead of 20" and is countoured to use the same M203 grenade launcher as the M-16. The distance from front sight to muzzle is actually longer than the M-16 with the length behind the front sight is significantly shorter. It originally used a similar molded plastic hand guards split top/bottom as the M-16A2 but now most M4s have a rail handguard which places a Picatinny rail top, bottom and both sides for mounting lights, optics, lasers and vertical grips.

M-16 is vastly quicker with safety on as it is only a thumb flick to switch from safe to fire. The AK’s safety/selector is a pivoting flap over that slides to cover the ejection port in safe position. It can’t be reached without taking one hand from firing position. I suppose it can be done with the left hand but I find that extremely awkward. I expect this to be moot as someone with an AK would probably carry at low ready with selector to fire and hopefully finger off the trigger.

European cartridges are comonnly designated by bore diameter and case length. 7.62mm caliber bullet with a case 39mm long.

Note that in Europe it’s common to use the smaller bore diameter than the larger groove diameter of the barrel to designate caliber. The bullet used in 7.62x39 is actually about 7.9mm/0.311" in diameter which more closely matches the groove diameter of the barrel.

In the US we have a little bit of everything. 7.62mm = 0.3" exactly. The calibers 30US and it’s civilain counterpart 30-06 Springfield, 7.62mmNATO and its doppleganger .308 Winchester all use a 0.308" diameter bullet. 7.62mm NATO is sometimes called 7.62x51mm.

11

jgroub > yes I really am in Nunavut. I like it here!

As to your questions, I don’t remember the exact ranges for each weapon. I remember the people on TV said that in certain conditions (flatlands with no trees) soldiers with M16 could fire effectively on soldiers with AKs without them being able to return effective fire.

As to what I would want…it would depend. If I were a Iraqi insurgent or Vietnamese guerilla fighter, I would want an AK. Like you said, having your weapon fire when you need it is KEY. If I don’t know when or where I will have a chance to clean it or get spare parts, low tech is the way to go.

I used to be in the Canadian military and we had C7s (which are scoped M16s). It DID in fact jam on me in a live fire exercises. (mostly due to large amounts of rounds being put through it without cleaning.) I can only imagine what a soldier would be feeling if he were in a firefight and his weapon stopped working.

12

My machinegun shooting is limited mostly to 9mm subguns but some of the same principles apply. “Spray and pray” is a good way to miss targets. When shooting IPSC cardboards it’s easy to get first and second shots on target but the third in a burst is almost always a high miss. I use a friend’s MP5K-PDW which was built with a special trigger pack that has single, two shot burst and unrestricted auto. The two shot position is the best for getting the most hits on target as single is not allowed in the matches we shoot. The AK has a lower rate of fire than an M-16 so it is probably easier to control short bursts with the trigger.

However… I only shoot at targets that can’t shoot back. Longer bursts are probably very useful for covering and suppresive fire.

FWIW there are commercial trigger groups for registered M-16s that have safe/semi/3 shot burst/unrestricted but AFAIK the military doesn’t use these.

13

In response to this particular part of the OP:

I remember hearing (but unfortunately don’t remember the details) of a coherent argument for the AK47 being regarded as one of the most influential elements of 20th-century history. For all the reliability reasons noted above, it enabled people to fight who otherwise could not. For better or for worse. Many successful (and many more unsuccessful) civil wars, uprisings and revolutions featured that one gun, when no other gun would cope. Why else does Bin Laden always appear with an AK-47 in frame?

14

Incorrect. The 7.62x39 is well known for “keyholeing”. It begins to tumble in the air and subsequently does far more tissue damage on impact. I have seen some spectacular damage done (to nonliving objects) with my SKS because of this. It is the 5.56/.223 round that the M16 fires that tends to pass right through. If you have read “Black Hawk Down”, there were instances of US soldiers firing 6-10 rounds into enemies before the enemy was brought down, becaue of the low level of damage done. On the flip side, American soldiers who were hit in unprotected limbs tended (and still do in Iraq) to be severely maimed by 7.62 rounds.

15

The OICW:

http://www.hkpro.com/oicw.htm

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/oicw.htm

16

Generally, an M-16 will be usefully accurate to 400-450 meters or so, while the AK is limited 200-250 meters of useful range. Now, most combat is under these distances, so it doesn’t matter much, but there have been a couple occasions where US forces engaged insurgents at ranges where the M-16 had the advantage over the AK.

Both the Ak and M16 support bayonets, but they haven’t gotten much use in real combat. Still, having bayonets out is quite useful when facing down unruly crowds - people have more of an instintive fear of sharp pointy things than they have of guns.

17

The “ugliness” attributed to the M16 wound is due to the light weight/high spin of the bullet. The light weight of the M16 round allows it to ricochet off of bone, and the rapid spin can turn into a flesh-pulverizing tumble. Aside from that possibility, the AK47 round has better knockdown power. I think it’s 6 of one and a half-dozen of the other as far as lethality goes.

I have never used an AK, but I’ve used an M16A1 and it jams a lot more frequently than I’d be comfortable with in a combat situation.

18

IIRC, the first powder used in the M-16 ammo literally attracted moisture (as a powder residue within the upper receiver around the bolt area), which then attracted dust and sand to no end, as well as possibly accelerating corrosion.

Gun geezers can be as partisan as anyone else on any other topic (politics, cars, fishing lures. etc), but all-in-all, you came to the right place for The Straight Dope. Most of us can analyze firearms fairly objectively.

As far as what’s “best” overall would really depend on the tactical situation, and the level of familiarity the soldier has with machinery in general, and firearms in particular.

As has been stated, the AK was designed for nearly-illiterate, poorly educated Russian proles, who had never fired a firearm before, and had little discipline for keeping them clean and functional. Same goes for the average Chinese soldier, and the VC and NVA in Vietnam.

So, if “your troops” are basically poorly-trained soldiers/militia/terrorists with little in the way of mechanical aptitude or support infrastructure, then the AK is the way to go. If civilization “broke down” and we lived in a Road Warrior world, the AK would be the way to go.

But in an organized, disciplined, proficient military like the US Armed Forces, the M-16 is more than adequate.

Reread the book. The Rangers went out with mostly Armor Piercing rounds, for some reason I don’t recall. The hardened core and full-metal jacket is what caused overpenetration, not the basic terminal ballistic of the 5.56mm round.

The Delta and SEALs had standard rounds, which worked just fine dropping the Somalis.

19

One of the best things that Mikhail Kalashnikov did (aside from his recent venture into Vodka entrepreneurship) is to overengineer the AK to prevent jams from occurring as frequently as they did in the old M16 variants.

20

Sometimes this place is spooky. Just over Thanksgiving, I was sitting with my Dad watching TV, and commenting on how the Iraqi “insurgents” were able to pose such a deadly threat to our superior armed forces often using what were essentially oversized bottlerockets and junky Kalashnikovs. He then replied “Hey, those AK-47s aren’t bad at all,” and regaled me with a lecture coving the pros and cons of AKs and Vietnam-era M-16s, what a pain in the ass the latter might be in the desert, etc. A lot of the facts mentioned above jibe with what he said, though I’m fuzzy on all the details. He admired both weapons, but felt the M-16 was a finicky Cadillac when what was needed was a low-end Jeep that could withstand lots of punishment.

Anyhoo, that’s the only reason I can contribute to this conversation.