National Gun Forum banner
1 - 20 of 39 Posts

·
Big Gun Enthusiast
Joined
·
420 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Ok, I have ALWAYS thought the AK-47 to be far better than the m16. I love the AK because it is border line indestructible, i mean you can literally dunk in mud, water, sand, and run it over with a damn Hummer, chamber a round and shoot...i just don't see how that can be beat. So the AK has unsurpassed reliability and, I have no problems getting targets at 200 yards so it has decent range and accuracy. But lately I've been arguing with some people that say the M16 is WAY better and the AK is **** and the 7.62 cartridge is ****. Now thats just bullshit and they dont know what they're talking about. But i was thinking, the M16 HAS to be better than what i give it credit for cause just so damn popular. Now it definitely has better range and accuracy, but the 7.62x39 sure as hell is more powerful. And I was talking to my father about this (Dessert Storm Vet, ex-Special Forces, got a Bronze Star) and he said that he would have rather had the AK than the m16. Now I guess in the end it all comes down to preference, but if there are any CURRENT military members here who have maybe done a tour using the m16 can you please comment. Thanks or reading this long *** post, and thanks for any comments.
 

·
Texas Legal Gunslinger
Joined
·
3,531 Posts
I'm not current or former military, so I hope you'll allow my post. I've spoken on this very issue with my wife's uncle, who is recently retired from the US Army. His statement to me was that the military chose the .223 and the 9mm rounds (smaller than their predecessors) for two main reasons. The balistics on the .223 and 9mm are really very good. But, in his words, one of the biggest reasons, if not the biggest reason, was that these smaller cartridges have been chosen because of their propensity to wound rather than kill. In his words, a wounded enemy is better than a dead enemy because when an enemy is killed, one man is lost from the field of battle (the dead soldier), but when a man is wounded, an average of three men are lost from the battlefield (the wounded soldier, one to carry, and a medic). Second hand knowledge, but knowledge none-the-less.
 

·
Red State Rising
Joined
·
2,215 Posts
Interesting thoughts TX - Strategy at its best right there (if that really was the case).
 

·
Big Gun Enthusiast
Joined
·
420 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
I'm not current or former military, so I hope you'll allow my post. I've spoken on this very issue with my wife's uncle, who is recently retired from the US Army. His statement to me was that the military chose the .223 and the 9mm rounds (smaller than their predecessors) for two main reasons. The balistics on the .223 and 9mm are really very good. But, in his words, one of the biggest reasons, if not the biggest reason, was that these smaller cartridges have been chosen because of their propensity to wound rather than kill. In his words, a wounded enemy is better than a dead enemy because when an enemy is killed, one man is lost from the field of battle (the dead soldier), but when a man is wounded, an average of three men are lost from the battlefield (the wounded soldier, one to carry, and a medic). Second hand knowledge, but knowledge none-the-less.
first off let me say i would never NOT allow a post, all thoughts are welcome. Now let me say, that actually makes a lot of sense and thank you very much for the post
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
211 Posts
I'm not current or former military, so I hope you'll allow my post. I've spoken on this very issue with my wife's uncle, who is recently retired from the US Army. His statement to me was that the military chose the .223 and the 9mm rounds (smaller than their predecessors) for two main reasons. The balistics on the .223 and 9mm are really very good. But, in his words, one of the biggest reasons, if not the biggest reason, was that these smaller cartridges have been chosen because of their propensity to wound rather than kill. In his words, a wounded enemy is better than a dead enemy because when an enemy is killed, one man is lost from the field of battle (the dead soldier), but when a man is wounded, an average of three men are lost from the battlefield (the wounded soldier, one to carry, and a medic). Second hand knowledge, but knowledge none-the-less.
It makes sense but I would like to think that if I have to shoot someone they are not going to be back on the battlefield / streets attacking me later if I am going to shoot someone I want to kill them outright.

I am not a member of the Military and I am not in Law Enforcement, but I tried to get into the army as an 11B but was unable to because of medical issues and I am waiting to be old enough to go into Law Enforcement
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
568 Posts
Im not Mil or LE, but i have been around AK47's, 74's, and M16's. Also, im an ROTC shooting team member, and i plan on joining the mil. I also have a facination with weapons and have a near encyclopedic knowledge of mil firearms. Its a hobby. Also i wrote a paper pretty much on this topic.

The M16/Ar15 pattern weapons are good. They are lighter, more ergonomic, and more adaptable. Unfortunatly, the weapon is made with very high tolerences, and made from lightweight materials.

The AK is heavier, much older, and very loosely made. Its heavier, but that is from the wood and machined steel instead of kevlar reinforced plastic, and aluminum. I have seen videos of Russian Spetnaz troops doing pushups with their guns...litterally putting the mag on the ground, and putting thier hands on the stock and forward handguard. You do that with a M16, and youll put the mag through the top of the gun and break the stock clean off.

Balistically, the .223 round is much better than the short 7.62. With a much higher muzzel velocity, the lightweight projectile can reach out twice the distance of the 7.62, and has a much flatter flightpath...

The 7.62 round is big and fat. Poor range, but seeing as the sights of the AK arnt great, it dont matter, you couldnt accuratly get out that far anyways. Unlike the .223, it will do alot of damage at any range, whereas the .223 will lose power after about 500m.

The M16 is made better and smarter in my opinion. Its safty can be opperated with finger still on trigger. With the AK, you have to take your hand off of the trigger mech to opperate the safty and the bolt.

Honestly...i feel that the M16. I hate the M4, but the M16 is good. All in all, its personal preference. I dont like the weight or sights or layout of the AK, but it is so much more reliable. And i value reliability more than anything else, but it just feels awkward to use for me, and i prefer the .223 over the 7.62short.

So for me M16>AK47.

But if you bring in the AK74 or the AKSU74, it is a TOTALLY diffrent ballgame...


What do you value more, Stopping power and reliability, or Accuracy and customization?

So as it stands, If i had either rifle when faced with a horde of bg's comming at me, im grabbing the AK first. But i would be praying for a G36, AUG, FS2000, or especially an AK74.
 

·
Big Gun Enthusiast
Joined
·
420 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
i dont see how you can beat superior stopping power and reliability....just dont be a little girl, suck it up and carry the wieght...and i hit targets easily at 200 yrds and thats good enough for me
 

·
Big Gun Enthusiast
Joined
·
420 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
568 Posts
The 74 has a much better caliber than either the 7.62 or the .223, and the weapon with the muzzel break has almost no recoil or muzzel climb. It has intermediate range between the two, and is just an all round perfect rifle.

And i couldnt care about the weight, hell, i want a barrett. But for me, if you cant hit anything reliably and quickly, who gives a crap about power? A .50 cal missing still dont do the dammage of a .22 hitting home. And yea, the AK can get good patternes at 200m, but you have to try. I would prefer to have an AR or M16 with an optic sight that will make accurate shots quickly.
 

·
Big Gun Enthusiast
Joined
·
420 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 · (Edited)
what caliber does the 74 use?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,633 Posts
Before I begin, allow me to make one comment about the whole AK V. M16/AR15 thing.



Thanks....let's begin.

AK versus the M16 the Official Dogsoldier Version:

1. Anyone who says the 5.56x45 round is ineffective has never been shot or seen anyone shot with one.

2. The 7.62X39 is an intermediate round, not accurate beyond ranges of 200 meters. It tends to behave like 30-30's weak sister. With that said, yeah it will still kill you.

3. The AK was designed for Russian plow boys who never held a firearm before. It was designed around the concept of massed fire. In other words, send enough rounds down range, you'll hit something eventually.

4. The M16 is a corvette. It was designed to be a light weight rifleman's rifle capable of very good aimed fire accuracy out to 600 meters.

5. The AK is a carbine, the M16 is a rifle. There is a difference.

6. you can't easily BEND a M16 receiver (milled T6 aluminum), you can easily bend the receiver on a AK (sheet metal).

7. The operator needs to know what he is doing with the M16, therefore is more efficient in the battle field. The AK is more of a spray and pray firearm. See my comment on #3.

8. The M16 was designed to be used in all theaters of operations. The AK was actually designed as a urban weapon.

9. The AK47 is a good firearm.

10. The M16 is a good rifle.

There are a lot of myths about these firearms. Most of them are pure BS. I carried and used both in the service I own both right now. The comment that AK's can be run over by a tank and still work is pure bunk. You can put one out of commission with one stomp of your boot. I've done it bunches of times. To kill a M16 you literally have to smash it against a rock or a tree. You can submerge an M16 in mud or water and it will still run (personal experience and more common than you think). And you can do the same with an AK. In both cases, you still will need to clear the chamber and barrel of obstructions. Pack any barrel with mud and there is a good chance of a KB no matter what you have. Any military battle rifle will function after getting wet or smuzed up with mud. If not they will fail the testing and not be selected as a battle rifle. PERIOD! I do not care if it is for the American Military of the Glorious Army of the Republic of Togo. The firearm must be functional under adverse conditions. I have seen the reports of M4's failing in the sandbox due to sand and dust. But guess what. I will bet that most of those failures happened to rear echelon units and the gun wasn't maintain properly. No infantryman or combat soldier will ever let his rifle get that bad.

Bottom line is both of these firearms are good weapon systems. I believe the M16 is more versatile than the AK. Both guns have the pluses and minuses. If I had to depend on one, I will take the M16 because there is a real advantage in hitting what you are aiming at with a reasonable amount of confidence.​
 

·
Big Gun Enthusiast
Joined
·
420 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 · (Edited)
i didnt think the ak was a carbine...i was rather sure it was an automatic rifle...and i never said you could run an ak over by a TANK and have it still work, i said you could run it over with a HUMMER, and thats a fact. but good review
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,633 Posts
You know what, you caught me exaggerating that comment, fair enough. But I will say that it is still not true. Don't believe me, go google it up. You will see pictures of our military guys crushing captured AK's by driving hummers over them or simply by stomping on them. The sheet metal of that reciever is only .060" on a good one. Many of the Com-Chi ones found around the world were closer to .045". The AK is not indestructible and in reality are more fragile than most people want to believe. Please note the operative phrase is "more fragile than most people want to believe".

Oh the Ak75 chambers the 5.45X39 round.
 

·
Just Some Dude...
Joined
·
1,142 Posts
I own both of these rifles... they're both great for very different reasons.

A sports car is a sports car, and a truck is a truck... That's all there is to it!
 
G

·
I own both of these rifles... they're both great for very different reasons.

A sports car is a sports car, and a truck is a truck... That's all there is to it!
I'll have to agree. But I will add my own two cents:

The AK was designed in 1945-47, while the M16 was made in the early 60's, late 50's (from what I gather). Here is also something from teh M16 Wikipedia article:

In 1948, the Army organized the civilian Operations Research Office (ORO), mirroring similar operations research organizations in the United Kingdom. One of their first efforts, Project ALCLAD, studied body armor and the conclusion was that they would need to know more about battlefield injuries in order to make reasonable suggestions.[4] Over 3 million battlefield reports from WWI and WWII were analyzed and over the next few years they released a series of reports on their findings.[4]

The conclusion was that most combat takes place at short range. In a highly mobile war, combat teams ran into each other largely by surprise; and the team with the higher firepower tended to win. They also found that the chance of being hit in combat was essentially random — that is, accurate "aiming" made little difference because the targets no longer sat still. The number one predictor of casualties was the total number of bullets fired.[4] Other studies of behavior in battle revealed that many U.S. infantrymen (as many as 2/3) never actually fired their rifles in combat. By contrast, soldiers armed with rapid fire weapons (such as submachine guns) were much more likely to have fired their weapons in battle.[5] These conclusions suggested that infantry should be equipped with a fully-automatic rifle of some sort in order to increase the actual firepower of regular soldiers. It was also clear, however, that such weapons dramatically increased ammunition use and in order for a rifleman to be able to carry enough ammunition for a firefight they would have to carry something much lighter.
Now of course, combat is different now, yadda yadda, etc. This is just something to think about. The bold is just specific things I wanted to point out.
 
G

·
but if there are any CURRENT military members here who have maybe done a tour using the m16 can you please comment. Thanks or reading this long *** post, and thanks for any comments.
M16 any day of the week. Terminal ballistics are far superior, I can carry more ammo, lower recoil for more accurate follow on, lighter, and if you take care of it it is just as reliable. Yes the AK can take some serious punishment, I just do not see that as outweighing where it is lacking.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,633 Posts
I'll have to agree. But I will add my own two cents:

The AK was designed in 1945-47, while the M16 was made in the early 60's, late 50's (from what I gather). Here is also something from teh M16 Wikipedia article:



Now of course, combat is different now, yadda yadda, etc. This is just something to think about. The bold is just specific things I wanted to point out.

That is a great study you posted. But it should be noted that it was written in 1948 and they were evaluating the weapons of the time. It is correct that in battle, most soldiers will hold fire until the targets are within a couple hundred rounds. One reason not touched on is that the soldiers want to see what they were shooting at. In more modern infantry doctrine, the aimed fire is still very much alive. But the use of suppression and harassment fire is more influential in a combat zone. You know there is a bad guy in the bushes over there. You can't see him, so as the fire team leader you have the squad lay down fire on the bushes. This is to either eliminate the target by the effect of indirect fire, or flush him/them out and leaving the field. either way, you have controlled the zone.

That is one of the reason the M16 was redesigned with the three round burst. The military realized that the soldiers would pretty much go into rock and roll mode and really not be effective. The Marines never gave up the doctrine of the rifleman and aimed shots. It has been widely reported that the Marines were making so many kills with head shots that there was an investigation to see if the grunts were executing prisoners. As it turned out the Marines were firing on BG's who shooting from deep cover. The only target available was a small section their head that was exposed when the BG peeped over walls, out of windows and so on trying to get a shot at the Marines.

In general terms, the only time you want to go full auto is to start the attack, end the attack, suppression of an enemy position or create/break out of an ambush. The rest of the time, fire control discipline is one of keys to a successful mission.
 

·
Big Gun Enthusiast
Joined
·
420 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
You know what, you caught me exaggerating that comment, fair enough. But I will say that it is still not true. Don't believe me, go google it up. You will see pictures of our military guys crushing captured AK's by driving hummers over them or simply by stomping on them. The sheet metal of that reciever is only .060" on a good one. Many of the Com-Chi ones found around the world were closer to .045". The AK is not indestructible and in reality are more fragile than most people want to believe. Please note the operative phrase is "more fragile than most people want to believe".

Oh the Ak75 chambers the 5.45X39 round.

hahaha...when i saw "you know what" i thought i pissed you off...anyways PLEASE watch this (its NOT the AK vs M16 vid that everybody has seen) :

, oh and just skip to about 3:50...the rest is just history and common knowledge
 
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
Top