M16 vs AK47 Documentary

[BlackFalcoN]

I've uploaded the Discovery Channel documentary 'Greatest Military Clashes - M16 versus AK47' to Rapidshare.
It gives a 25 minute comparison between the American M16(A1) and the AK47 assault rifle.

It also covers a bit of the history behind both rifles and provides some designer-insight by both Eugene Stoner and Mikhail Kalashnikov.

Part 1: http://rapidshare.de/files/28394159/Greatest_Military_Clashes_-_M16_vs._AK47.part1.rar.html

Part 2: http://rapidshare.de/files/28399009/Greatest_Military_Clashes_-_M16_vs._AK47.part2.rar.html

Password: roguesci.org

Size: 167 MB

The following wiki page contains most of the same points as stated in the video along with some more numeral data : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47_vs._M16


While I agree with most of the video, the 'accuracy test' seems a bit over-exaggerated.

The AK-47 isn't a very accurate rifle to start from, scoring around 3 MOA on most rifles. But at 200 yards, with no-wind conditions, it failed completely to hit a man-shaped target with 5 bullets.
Put into the hands of a competent shooter who is used to the inferior iron-sights of the AK47, I think it could have scored a little better.

I don’t want to start-off a fan-boy discussion, but what are your thoughts on both these assault rifles? (based on rational arguments please)

[ShadowMyGeekSpace]

The AK-47 isn't a very accurate rifle to start from, scoring around 3 MOA on most rifles. But at 200 yards, with no-wind conditions, it failed completely to hit a man-shaped target with 5 bullets.
Put into the hands of a competent shooter who is used to the inferior iron-sights of the AK47, I think it could have scored a little better.Due to loose tollerances, the AK-47 suffers from accuracy issues. Its max effective range is ~300-400m, which is relatively short for a full sized rifle cartridge. The AK is designed to put out a wall of lead at short to medium range - and be operated by an untrained farmer that just had it buried in his potato garden, with dirt it in still. The dragunov svd was fielded to extend the range of a squad to ~600-700m.


The M16A2 has an effective range of ~500m using M193 ball, or if you want to feed it match loads/hand loads, ~900-1000m. But don't let it get too dirty or you're going to be cleaning the gas tube with dental tools for an hour.

[Storm on the Horizon]

The AK-47 (7.62 x 39mm) as mentioned before is a good peasants rifle. Because of it being operated by a gas piston, much of the fouling is located away from the action. It is a low maintenance weapon. With the “loose” tolerances - carbon buildup has less of an effect on performance and dirt/sand tend to not cause failures like M16/M4s.

It’s far from being a match grade rifle - but it was never intended to be one. The round (7.62 x 39mm) has just as much effect on the weapons accuracy as the weapons tolerances. As most exchanges between ground troops is going to occur at relatively close ranges (200m or less) it fits its intended role quite well.

I had the opportunity to fire quite a few variants during a “Former Warsaw Pact Weapons Familiarization Course”. Most were captures with Iraqi (Desert Strom I) and Yugoslav (Bosnia) origins. We really used and abused them including running them with mud and sand in the actions.

The reactions were very favorable by all the soldiers firing them. Reliability was the big point with most guys. A few of the Yugos were the 74 types (5.45x39mm) and were found to be much more accurate - a reason the Soviets & satellites dumped the antiquated 7.62 x 39 mm round. In the long run all of us said we preferred our M4s. I know most - including myself were biased. It’s what we were drilled to use day in and out and felt completely familiar/comfortable with.

The M16A2/M4 (5.56 x 45mm) suffers from having its gas run back directly to the action via a gas tube. Carbon builds up on and around the bolt - this does effect the weapons performance over a period of time. That said - it’s a White man’s rifle. A soldiers rifle. It is expected that the weapon will be maintained and cared for. Not fired the fuck out of day in and out and hidden in waterways and rice paddies by some jungle ape with not so much as a single cleaning.

With it’s Match Grade sites and great 5.56 x 45mm (.223 Rem), it’s a very accurate rifle. Compared to the AK-47, it is excellent and longer ranges. It’s also very controllable and muzzle control/rise in nice.

I think to a point were almost comparing apples to oranges. The operations (mechanics) of the weapons, the eras that they were designed in (technology/use/doctrine changed quite a bit between the time these weapons were developed), the rounds - 7.62 x 39 vs 5.56 x 45, sights, etc. Too may different variables. Both are great rifles with plenty of pros and cons.

Due to loose tollerances, the AK-47 suffers from accuracy issues. Its max effective range is ~300-400m, which is relatively short for a full sized rifle cartridge. The AK is designed to put out a wall of lead at short to medium range - and be operated by an untrained farmer that just had it buried in his potato garden, with dirt it in still. The dragunov svd was fielded to extend the range of a squad to ~600-700m

Some may call the AK-47's round a "full sized cartridge".... it's more of an intermediate sized cartridge. The Soviets and Germans developed these short bottle-necked rounds as an in-between from the full sized rounds of the time and pistol cartridges.

Also the AK and SVD were differnet calibers. The AK (7.62 x 39mm) and the SVD (7.62 x 54R - rimmed). Hence the extended range/accuracy of the weapon - which by the way, is also a pleasure to shoot.

My 2.5 cents.

[Czech Guy]

The great thing about the AK47 is that it is so low maintenance and that you can get the AK47 very dirty before it starts affecting its preformance. I once saw a testing video were they submerged it in mud for 4 hours and it still worked like before (not that you would let a gun get that dirty before you cleaned it tho). Just think what would happen if you did that with a M16.

The AK47 is a real people’s sort of rifle. The kind of thing that could turn a peasant into a freedom fighter (or terrorist, depending on how you look at it). If any one here has fired one, you know it gives you that feeling and the feeling of how something so simple can work so well.

[Ord]

I think the AK 47 is the better of the two due to the fact that it can take an incredible amount of abuse, dirt, mishandling etc. while still being able to operate normally. It is also well suited to an urban fighting environment that requires buildings to be cleared out or covering fire to be applied. It would be great in a situation such as intense fighting that doesnt allow time to clean it out, but at the same time cannot afford a malfunction related to mud, dirt, roughandling etc.

The M-16 is more suited for rural combat, that requires a gun to have more range, but at the same time a gun in rural combat is more likely to become dirty.

Overall I would take an AK 47 over an M-16 anyday, knowing that the AK is alot more forgiving and can be relied upon even in the harshest of conditions.

++++++


We capitalize our I's around here. People who don't, don't last long. :)

[5_seven]

I like the AK-47 because it uses a more powerfull cartridge, is much tougher and forgiving, and eats a smaller hole in your wallet. Though, not as accurate as the M-16, it can still hit the target with some practice. I am a little biased for the Ak-47, because I like it, and I have no experience with the M-16. The AK-47 is tough, and doesn't need to be regularly cleaned to function properly. I also like the weight, heavy, but not too heavy, just right, (though it must be a bitch for the soldiers to carry all day every day, with all their gear). I don't think either is better than the other though, it really depends on what kind of fighting you're going to be doing. Both are definately wonderfull weapons, and they compliment each other in a way. The M-16 is the sophisticated rifle with the long range capability, and light recoil. The AK-47 is designed for down and dirty fighting in the mud, sand, rain, and whatever else mother nature wants to throw at you. Too bad our soldiers can't have a choice in which one they want to use.

[salbahis]

Well every weapon has it's pros and cons, well perhaps the upside of AK is that it's more lethal that the M16!, but i still i fell in love with M16 than AK!

[defiant]

Uploaded the video "American Gunsmithing Institute - How to Build an AK From a Parts Kit" to the ftp.

One of the things that can be learned from the video is that the AK's accuracy is going to depend on the conscientiousness of the builder.

I had a Norinco that would put rounds through the same hole at 100 yards(with a scope - the AK's iron sights suck). The 7.62 is not as accurate at longer ranges as the .223 - but that's a matter of ballistics.

The AK's potential for accuracy (in its range) is also clouded by the fact that there are a lot of AK's on the market that are shot out military surplus crap - the type of junk that's dumped on Middle East third world nations.

The AK/M-16 comparison is as much a comparison of ballistics as mechanics. The .223 was adopted with the idea that soldiers could carry more ammo, and that a wounded soldier would require two able bodied soldiers to carry him out of the "theatre of operation". The takedown power of the .223 is further reduced in the short barrel (16" or less) models.

The 7.62 is limited by a slower velocity, a shorter range, and a curved trajectory (explaining the rear sight range adjustment 100 meter in increments).

A fairer comparison would be the AR-10 (/equivalent) and the AK-74. The 7.62 x 54 and the .308 are more similar ballistically.

[InfernoMDM]

The marine corp did a little thing on several weapons. I think a few of you will find it interesting as it shows what the AK-47 (7.62x39) will do to several building substances, as compared to the AR (5.56). Let me know if the link is messed up I watched it three days ago, but it's not running this second.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=dKhMOfaYwvE

[atlas#11]

I think in all honesty I'd prefer reliability to accuracy at 200 yards any day. I might not be able to hit the bastards 300 yards down the road, but atleast I'll know the gun will still work when I run into the same bastards coming around the corner later on.

That being said, the m-16 is no longer as unreliable as it was in Vietnam. The marines wouldn't be using a rifle if it jammed everytime dust got in it. The gun is relativly reliable, storm has said it earlier, we train our troops well to maintain a clean rifle. They know how to take it down, clean it, and get it working again fast.

As far as troops having the choice between the two, no one is stopping them from picking them up off of their fallen adversaries. Though Vietnam was the only war I've heard of soildiers doing so in.

The m16 got a bad rep in vietnam because it was new. It was an experimental round, and a new rifle to shoot it with. The designers wern't really expecting sending the rifle into a slimy mud hole hanging off of china for it's first combat testing. The origonal magazines had holes in them so you could see how much ammo you had left, design flaws like this have been patched as best as possible.

[InfernoMDM]

atlas - I agree that the M-16 isn't a bad rifle. It still has several issues. Since most of you have a bit of engineering knowledge I will put it like this. The AK is like a normal car engine exhaust wise. The AR/M-16 feeds its exhaust right back into the cylinder heads. All the burnt carbon in a engine? Why would it be wise to do that with a rifle that produces far more carbon each time it cycles?

That is why cleaning is SO important. Also it now has to have special lubrication because if you don't lubricate it differently in the desert you you will attract this god awful fine dust(Iraqi sand) which pretty much destroys and seizes everything up.

That being said the AK can reach out very far and touch people, but that isn't understood in the US because we don't play with the rifle that much. A guy named Sonny Pushika(last name spelling) has proven that several times. He shoot both weapons and was originally Russian MVD I believe. The guy now teaches AK classes. He is a amazing shot at distance as well as close up. That being said he has taught others to be just about as good with a AK. Do not underestimate "accuracy" based on some cheap romainian AK. Thats like getting a Franken AR and seeing it fail and not hit worth shit. Some guys cheap piece together job shouldn't be compared to a manufactured and inspected weapon.

No soldiers can't pick up AK's off dead soldiers. Most of the brass doesn't want that and will throw UCMJ and other nasties at you if you attempt to change from the AR. Some of the PMC guys are using AK's, but as far as US soldiers its pretty much forbidden.

[atlas#11]

"No soldiers can't pick up AK's off dead soldiers. Most of the brass doesn't want that and will throw UCMJ and other nasties at you if you attempt to change from the AR. Some of the PMC guys are using AK's, but as far as US soldiers its pretty much forbidden."


I didn't realise it was that frowned upon. I would think that in the heat of combat it would be forgivable, but I can see why they would not want you picking up an untested forign rifle and relying on it to protect yourself and the rest of your company. Not to mention that unmistakeable sound's ability to draw friendly fire.

[festergrump]

No soldiers can't pick up AK's off dead soldiers. Most of the brass doesn't want that and will throw UCMJ and other nasties at you if you attempt to change from the AR. Some of the PMC guys are using AK's, but as far as US soldiers its pretty much forbidden.
Forbidden, yes, but done very often all the same. You'll never see one of our soldiers carrying an AKM around on base or in camp, but many will have it in the humvee waiting for them when they go out on patrol. So many soldiers just don't feel they can rely on the standard US issue weapons in the sandbox.

Naturally, a folding stock model is preferred, too, for ease of entering and exiting vehilcle as well as comfort within the confines of cramped quarters.

Lets face it, AKMs are a dime a dozen over there (only dropped once), and our soldiers are often under equipped by our own supply lines, even regarding the correct weapon for the job at hand.

Ask any soldier recently deployed at any gun forum and you'll see I'm not pulling your chain.

[Jacks Complete]

Knowing what I do about the US military, and the way they work, I can imagine a "genuine" M-16 is a different league to the AR-15. Of course, I don't know how many different people in how many different companies make M16/AR15 type rifles (to template) but I imagine that every last one of them uses some form of quality control. I know for a fact that there are thousands of AK template clones out there that were mostly made using a set of hand files and a brace and bit. Comparing the two side by side is a bad joke.

Remember, no matter waht, tight tolerances are good for accuracy, and bad for reliability. That's just the Sod's Law of physics.

[defiant]

A miltary and commercial m/ar weapon is generally manufactured to mil specs - so theoretically there shouldn't be a difference (while in actuality there are differences in quality and compatability of parts between some US manufacturers).

The AK is a mil spec weapon as well, but the specs vary somewhat from nation to nation (and have been somewhat disregarded altogether with regards to U.S. receiver manufacture).

The tight fitting vs. loose firearm question has always bothered me. A weapon thats properly fitted to higher tolerances ought to be more accurate, and the higher tolerances should keep debris out of the mechanisms and slide. The argument that a looser fitting weapon is more functional under extreme circumstances may be an argument propogated by Colt, whose tolerances are loose and whose firearms are less accurate than many of their competitors. In my opinion the loose vs. high tolerance reliabilty argument is overplayed, as whether a weapon will cycle also depends on the strength of its springs (and a variety of other factors).

The issue of why our soldiers aren't picking up AK's is probably pretty much as described above. But its worth noting that the documentary "Shadow Company" describes that there being 20,000 mercenaries working for private companies in Iraq (more troops than all US allies combined) - as well as that mercs were buying AK's on the black market (and became dissatisfied with rising prices for increasingly poorer grade/shot out weapons).

The dispute as to whether the AK or the M/AR is not easily resolved, so think about buting a couple of each. Given the current market and availability, its not a bad idea to stock up and cache a couple of Yugo M70 AB2 underfolders (in Krinkov's and 16") - as well as some DPMS or AR's in .308. :D :D :D