AK47 vs M16?

Have you ever picked up a loaded AK-47 magazine and a loaded m16/m4/AR15 .223 magazine. The difference is noticeable.

1- 7.62x39 ammo is heavier than the 5.56x54.

2- The m16/m4 is a much more lighter rifle.

3- The 5.56 fires at a higher velocity than the 7.62 (almost double) thus getting a flatter arc, better for longer range shots.

4- The m16's magazines are MUCH more convenient that a AK's magazine. I MilSim airsoft and the #1 problem a AK-47 user will have is the magazine size.

5- The AR-15 is a domestic gun, the AK-47 is foreign.

6- A .223 (5.56) will penetrate body Armour better than a .308(7.62).

7- Many people say the 7.62 has much more stopping power than the 5.56. And that the 5.56 has a problem of over penetration. The solution is Hollow Point bullets, although they are "Illegal" to use in war, I believe they should be legalized for our troops in Iraq, for we are not fighting a regular army, they are combatants without a country, criminals.

P.S. I actualy held a Romanian Ak-47 (semi) today, Just reminds me of why terrorists can't hit anything, the sights SUCK!

...pride and propagada like some of the previous answers. US invested a lot in the rifle and it's no good...Define "no good" - it jams at the worst times!!! and that's all you need...you need a weapon that was built to last as it is your bread and butter...all Kalishnikov rifles made in Russia and not copies made elsewhere and built to last and that is the one thing that pushes the AK over the line. Saw a docu on the maker and he said the same thing, he's still alive and old and lively. Also, have a friend in the Army that would swap the M16 for an AK any day due to the above mentioned comments....and it's simple maintenance which as said previously makes it simple to operate and use...AND yes the AK is less accurate, but at least it will always keep firing.

Regarding the USA and pride...they have a policy to never buy foreign weapons which has been stated categorically. The only weapons platform in the US military inventory that is foreign is the British Harrier. They bought many of the aircraft and justified buying it to congress as it was unique and no American firm was in competition to built such a platform(VTOL aircraft), & had no capacity to do so(at the time). In the end they redesigned it and rebuilt many, and a new version was built by an American Company McDonnell Douglas under license...!

The AK47 was a 7.62 round about a 30 caliber. Both the AK74 and the M16 are a 5.56mm round about a .225 caliber. The idea was that in modern warfare (read tank warfare with the USSR in Europe) limited accuracy light weight and high firepower were the way to go. First the US the the USSR went to the smaller (you can carry more of them)round. With the lighter smaller round you give up accuracy and punch. Many people currently serving in Iraq and in Afghanistan say that the M16 will not make a one or two shot torso stop on an opponent and wish for a higher caliber. I have read that some M14 are being reissued. This was the 7.62 NATO rifle that replaced the M1 Gurand, The civilian version of the M14 is ofter used in match rifle shooting. The weapons that a country uses are a huge investment in the US that means that the selection of a main battle rifle usually rests on factors other than what the grunts like. When I served folks hated the M16 calling it the Mattel plastic rifle. I am told that the new versions work better. But many of the troops who blog from the field say different.

That would make too much sense. Government rarely works that way. The replacement of the M16 is a on again / off again thing. There has been at least 3 programs to come up with a next gen rifle. All are in the crapper. The Ak-47 is a better gun because it follows the KISS engineering principle(keep it simple & stupid). Low tech, sheet metal and wood construction. Loose tolerances, simple controls. Hell, a 12 yd old kid in the Congo can operate one. The M16 is a great range gun. The AK is a great Soldiers gun. That's why it is the most popular in the world.

I have held an M16 once and its really light!You can actually hold

the handle with one hand and it just stays there and you will not stagger much (I held an unloaded one at a OSC educational program).As for the AK47 which at an Indian beach in a balloon shooting contest I held it.It is really heavy.You can never do the same thing with the AK and hold it in one and.Its probably

the wooden finishing that makes it not get very warm but it makes the AK look really old and unimpressive.If you are

trying to fire the AK the gun tends to move upwords but its a very

powerfull gun and it would do a lot of good in gurrilla warfare.

You pretty much shoot everywhere and it causes a lot of damage.But since its heavy its not much of a use as well

as the fact that it moves upwards when you fire.Its really loud

and freaky (scary) when you shoot.You press the trigger and the

noise perhaps will make you drop the thing.Its probably considered better s a weapon because once someone trains himself to aim with it they ar good for long and close distance.The

M16 a person who has never used a gun cn fire easily.

The ak47 fires a 7.62 round. Where as the m16 or ar15 fires a smaller 5.56/.223 round. The u.s./ u.n. Decided they wanted a bullet that was small allowing troops to carry more of them, and at the same time having a more kill/injure rate making it difficult for the enemy being that it takes up to 4 people just to pull one wounded man out of the fight. It is also a more cheap and plentiful round. Having used the m4 or ar15 civilian version in combat I can tell you this. It will jam eventually if it gets pretty dirty so you really gotta know how to clean and take care of it. I personally own an ar15 and would say that it is well worth owning one. The ak 47 with its 7.62 round will punch through concrete walls, and small trees and the rifle itself is highly reliable. Soldiers in Vietnam were known to pick up ak's in the heat of battle and use them rather than their own rifle. The rumor that the Ak is inaccurate is false. You can easily pick off a target at 300 meters with ease.

Do a 300 round day with an old 03 Springfield, and find out how tough your grandfathers were. Regardless of how accurate the rifle is, accuracy is lost due to the effects of recoil on the shooter with large caliber rifles. In other words the first round out of an AK is far more accurate than the last round from that clip is. Where with the M-16 accuracy remains much more of a constant.

M16 isnt an assault rifle, It is way more effective at longer ranges than an AK. AK's are good because you dont have to take very good care of them, and they almost always work. The M16 needs some TLC to work all the time. I would say they are about even.

My M16 is a pretty fine weapon and the AK47 is a good

weapon, but the firing pin makes too much noise and keeps breaking.

Because personal handheld weapons, such as assault rifles, are ignored by the defense contractors and the Pentagon brass. They would rather develop more devistating weapons, able to kill from miles away and doing a lot more damage than a single bullet.

Tbe best you can hope for is that they develop effective personal laser guns.