which is better, the m16 or the ak-47?

both guns are really . for different styles of combat..m16 far more powerful but heavier..ak47 less powerful but more agile. and lighter..

The M-16, currently in the "M4" carbine model, is still after 40 years the standard issue weapon for all US services. The AK-47 is the most widely used weapon in the world. The current issue is the AK74 in 5.45mm

As far as which is "Better". One must define "Better". Here's my take, as a guy who's used the M4 while being shot at (well by AKs actually) and owned both weapons:

Reliability - AK series is legendary for being able to operate in the worst conditions. Tolerances are large to allow for dirt, dust. The stories about M16 problems stem from Vietnam, where the design ammunition was replaced by a batch that was corrosive. Current ammo is non-corrosive, but the weapon does require some care.

Weight: M4 weighs about 6lbs full up. AK about 8-10.

Accuracy: M4 has a longer sight radius, and better sights than the AK. The M4 uses a peep iron sight (and is designed to take an optical sight); the AK uses blade and notch. In fact, this is a notable weakness of this series. Other countries, notably Finland have lengthened the sight radius, and added a peep sight to correct this.

Ease of use: AK is specifically designed to be used by illiterate peasants. The M16 takes a little more instruction to use effectively.

Of the two current models, M4/AK74, personally I prefer the M4.

Both. They were designed with two completely different philosophies of warfare in mind.

A very general overview:

AK and variants are cheap to manufacture using minimal strategic resources and loose tolerance machinery. The loose tolerances and simple design also lend themselves to reliability and ease of use. Good for arming revolutionary movements with limited weapons training in underdeveloped countries. Designed with the knowledge that most engagements with the enemy take place within 300 meters.

M16, AR15, and variants are light and generally considered accurate. These excellent qualities come at the cost of necessitating high precision machines and expensive light weight materials being utilized in specialized plants. The tight tolerances and numerous working parts can present reliabilty issues (more so with earlier variants) and therefore require a more strictly regimented maintenance/cleaning schedule. The maintenance schedule and more complex design requires a more highly trained soldier with armory support near extended operations. The M16 was designed with the idea in mind of taking fewer more accurate shots from distances of 300 meters or farther.

So, to sum it up, depending who and where you are determines which weapon will work better for you. A revolutionary with little training and living off the land in the jungles of Southeast Asia would probably be better served by an AK variant. A weapon that is accurate at distances farther than 100 meters won't be much of an advantage in densely foliated rain forests anyway. On the other hand, if you are a soldier in the most highly trained army in the world operating from a large heavily supplied base, you'd be better off with a descendent of the M16/AR15 family.

That really depends upon what you're doing with it.

The AK is much more robust, rugged, and reliable than the M-16.

However it is heavier, less accurate, it's ammunition is heavier, it's louder, and it's quality is quite debatable. But it WILL fire under just about any circumstance you can name. The 7.62mm ammo has better range and penetration. It's cheap.

The M-16 is lighter, carries LOTS more ammo, is more flexible, is truly a weapons system, is more accurate, easier to use in tight quarters, more complex, and it's 5.56mm ammo does hideous things when it gets inside of you, rather than just zipping right through like the AK's 7.62mm round.

You'll find an endless debate on which round is better - I know people who've been hit by AK's and had a nice, neat 7.62mm hole all the way through. I've seen people hit by M-16's who had a single 5.56mm hole on the way in and no exit wound. But their guts looked like a bomb went off inside them. On the other hand, I know of people who've been shot with M-16's who got up and ran off. It's more expensive than the AK.

So...for what?

So far, in every battle I'm aware of M-16 vs AK-47 in the real world, the M-16 came out on top.

Take that for what you will...Special Forces guys who can carry whatever they want will take the M-16 more often than the AK from what I've seen. Again, depending...If you're behind enemy lines, the sound of an AK going off is a lot less 'hey, what's that?' than the sound of an M-16...

Apples and Oranges in many ways. When I ship out, I want an M-16. I've fired AK's and hate 'em. I've fired M-16's and love 'em. I'd rather have nearly 3x the ammo in my loadout and be able to drive nails with the rounds than have fewer bullets that are less likely to hit what I'm aiming at. Especially if I can have that M203 grenade launcher slung under it...Oh yeah, baby. Reach out and touch someone...

EDIT: Brit - You owe me a new monitor. I sprayed Coke all over mine after reading your comment.

Orion

Depends on what you want to accomplish with it. The AK is in fact a very durable rifle with a great intimidation factor included with it. But it is not very accurate. The M-16 has improved greatly over the years (thank god) and is very accurate up to about 300 yards, holds more ammunition than the AK, is a lighter rifle and has many different combat missions. If I had to chose today I would go with the M-16. 30 years ago I would have taken the AK over the M-16 without question.

ak-47 is for militaries who can't afford an m16. thats why most all of the allieds use a form of the m16. the ak-47 isn't good for skill shots.

The AK-47.. and I base this on the following, there was a theory I had one shoot me thru the brain 39 years ago yesterday.. and carried an carried the M 16 which they had to inspect once / twice and makr sure I had the m16A1... which would fire..

There's no doubt, the M-16 is a more technically superior weapon. It's more accurate and dependable than the AK-47. The AK-47 is agreat pray and spray type weapon. It's rugged, needs very little maintenance because of it's simplicity, and has great fire power ! It's the guy who is handling the weapon that determines which is better!

M16 for sure I shot an AK in Iraq (my everyday weapon was a SAW which is a machine gun) and the AK almost knocked me on my butt and the accuracy sucked It also spit hot lubricant all over me and burned my hand. Cheap crap.

The M16 wins and here's why:

Multiple firing modes: single, 3-burst and full auto

Better build quality

The AK-47 has the advantage of being very cheap to build and easy to obtain.

M16 is the best. AK's are cheap and junky now, all stamped metal parts. They are death-traps waiting to happen for the shooter. Stay with the M16.