M16 or AK-47

The AK-47 is very powerful, but overall it sucks. it is nothing but reliable junk. The m16 you can use in close quarters or long distance. The AK, you can spray at close distance and that’s about it. most of today’s combat is urban, but in war, you must be ready to fight in any condition and the AK is not set up for that. I fought against the AK in Iraq in 2003, and I had thousands of AK rounds fired at me from 10 yrds to 100 yrds and not a one hit me. Not effective, point blank.

but when you consider future significance the M16 wil probably win, because the M16’s design is being used to create even better and deadlier weapon platforms such as the HK416. assault rifles, snipers, and LMG have used the M16 for their inspiration

M-16 Is good but the M-AR-15 is even better an lighter/shorter but its like the cousin to the M-16 Assualt Rifle.An both Rifles Freaking Rock-n-Roll anyplace an I’ve had the pleasure to fire them in practice an Reallife combat situations an other nice weapons.

It depends on how you define greatness.

The AK-47 is cheap, rugged and dependable so it was cheap to deploy. The M-16 is expensive and requires more maintenance. The AK-47 can cheaply be put in the hands of a lot of people to spray a lot of lead. The M-16 is a more precision weapon with greater accuracy and range.

Probably the M3 is a more suitable weapon to compare to the AK-47. The M3 was developed by the US during WWII when we couldn’t afford to put Thompson submachine gun in enough of our soldiers hands. Like the AK-47 it was a simple, cheap, dependable weapon designed to spray a lot of lead in close combat.

No, you’re quite correct. But if the M16 were such an unreliable and useless weapon, they wouldn’t have been using M16s, they would have been using something lighter, like a grease gun or a CAR-15.

…and some soldiers DID use the CAR-15 and the M3… but that is beside the point. I’ve in no way implied as any time, that the M16 was unreliabe or useless.

depends on how you look at it the AK will put you to the ground with its amazing stopping power, but the M16 was designed so the the bullet shatters inside the body causing massive internal bleeding. the M16 is far more accurate. the M16 can also be highly customized with scopes, foregrips, and grenade launchers. the AK cannot say the same besides a grenade launcher in the first version. when you consider historical significance the AK will beat any gun in that subject it has been the symbol of revolution and main battle rifle of paramilitaries for a century

One of the things that made the M16 such a jam-o-matic was that the troops were told that the weapon was “self-cleaning” so crud built up inside and jammed them. I carry an AR15 almost every day and like her better than the AK47 that I carried a few years ago. The longest shot that I’ve made using my AR15 is approx. 1300 meters. (Some long range shooters prefer the AR15). The longest shot that I’ve ever made using an AK47 is approx. 500 meters. The AK47 will go through dirt and mud and still keep rockin’. That’s what it was made to do. The AR15 is made to fit the American soldier’s combat needs. Anyhow, the debate can go on forever. I wouldn’t take three AK47’s for the lady that I’ve carried for the past 3 plus years. That’s my take on it.

No, those snipers drug around M16s until they set up. They still due, because most sniper rifles are bolt-action.

Until they set up, yes… so they weren’t technically ‘sniping’ at that point.

No, those snipers drug around M16s until they set up. They still due, because most sniper rifles are bolt-action.

The fighting in the jungle often did reach out to the 50 yard line and beyond. You may say I’m quoting the movies, but that is a part they got pretty accurate. But, of course, you are right that there was a lot of close-up, sometimes so close that everyone grabbed for their knives. But then, if I’m not mistaken, there was generally a guy or two in your squad lugging around a shotgun, in case you did find yourself in that situation.

I have fired both weapons at a shooting range. My personal favorite is the M16A4 assault rifle. Better range and far more improvements than the original M16. Even though the AK-47 makes up for it if you want to spray bullets on everybody. The M16A4 is more for a percision shooting.

Also, back on Vietnam, no long range fighting? I beg to differ. Both sides had quite a number of snipers and designated marksman set up all over the place.

He didn’t say there was NO long range fighting; he said it was rare. In contrast to the close-range fighting, by comparison that statement is true. And most of those snipers you mentioned, weren’t using M16s or AK47s. They were using a different class of weapon, which has no bearing on this comparison in the first place.

the ak was made because of WWII and the fact that the russians were very behind when it came to weapons. the ak was designed to withstand the harsh russian winters and terrain. you could put it in water, bury it in the sand, or slather it with mud. it will shoot no matter what. thats why so many people use it

I have had good with both weapons. The longest distance I have made a target with an AR15 is 1300m.. As for the AK47, I have now been able to hit at 1000m. . Mainly because that was the maximum for the range that I was on with the AK47. My target was 12x18 inches and no scope was used nor was it on a bench (standing while shooting). If you look at the sights that are on an AK47 they go out to 1200-1500m.. Those numbers were not placed there simply because the maker liked the looks of them. Ugly is a matter of opinion. To some, my Uzi is ugly to others my AR15 is. I happen to think that the AK47 in all of its incarnations is a beautiful and well thoughout weapon. Years ago I use to carry one day and night while on the job. I guess what it all comes down to is that a weapon is only as good as its user and if the hand of God is protecting you then there is not a bullet around that can touch you.

ak’s because there there auto m16 is 3 round burst and you have to pull the trigger fast in close quarters but if I had to choose my gun of chice it woudl be the new one there just now shipping into troops the akr416 it shoots 900 rounds a minute doesnt jam great accuracy at long distances and self cleaning

There’s no such gun as an “akr416”. There’s the H&K M416, but that’s an M16 with some stuff implemented from the G36 to make it less likely to jam.

In real life, the auto and burst functions are rarely used on the battlefield, even in close quarters. At least, not to great effect. The M16A2 is the only M16 variant that fires purely in 3 round bursts, but most of the time, you’re sitting back at 50 to 100 yards firing in semi-auto anyway. ‘

Someone who’s spraying bullets around obviously doesn’t have any training. It’s not about how many bullets you get out, it’s how many actually hit. A single three round burst from an M16 will almost guarantee a kill unless the enemy has good body armor. Even one bullet is likely to kill you.

You’re comparing two guns that were made for different operations. M16 rifle was designed with American gun traditions since the 1800’s where firepower was not necessary, more like accuracy and long range fighting, with open plains or mountains. AK-47 was designed for Soviet operations in mind. This meant creating a rifle that can act as a machine gun and have massive firepower. They came up with this because of their battles in WW2 and in Berlin, where fighting was short-range and in an urban environment, a traditional rifle is ultimately useless here. And to prove the AK-47’s strength over the M-16, almost every developing nation has used this gun due to its cheapness, effectiveness, firepower, and reliability. Without it, the Vietnamese would lose against the Americans, the Somalis would lose against Americans, the Afghans would lose against the Soviets, and the North Koreans would lose against the South Koreans. AK-47 has made its mark on history already and is a proven weapon of death. Ak-47 has the most kills of any gun in the world.

Also, in the Vietnam war, fights were rarely fought from 300 yards or whatever. Fights were in jungle locations, with swampy conditions and trees for cover, and they usually fought no more than a couple of yards away from each other. Ak-47 is better here because it is designed to offer cover and suppressive fire, better operation in muddy conditions, can go straight through trees and wood, and basically annihilate whole platoons if used collectively. AK-47 was never meant to be used as a one on one gun fight anyway.

Well, on that note, a history professor brought something to my attention, and I can back it up with my own research. The original AR-15 platform produced by Armalite, whose features are only improved upon in the standard, current AR-15s, was superior and more reliable than the M16 and M16A1, due to certain features being removed or downgraded. While more current M16A2s and M16A4s have been improved upon when compared to the M16A1, they still don’t make full use of the AR-15s full potential, as do many civilian versions.

Also, I would like to bring to mind the issue of field stripping. An AK-47 may be a reliable trench gun(in the respect you could be wallowing in mud and still be able to fire), WHEN it has problems, you won’t be able to fix them as easily or quickly as an M16. An M16 can be FULLY stripped and reassembled in minutes. The AK-47, while retaining a primitive and simple design, also has a quite complex construction, in certain respects. One can not simply field strip it and attempt a diagnoses and repair should it fail in combat.

One gun I wish I brought up was the AR-10. So caught up on M16 and AR-15 that I forgot about its wondrous big brother, with more power than an AK-47, but retaining more accuracy and range than an M16, while still retaining field reliability rivaling that of a Kalashnikov. But, that’s for an entirely different argument.

But the M3 was a submachine gun, not an infantry rifle. The reason I brought this up is because so many people try to compare the AK-47 to the M16 because they are both meant to fill that role. I agree, it’s a poor comparison, but they are the two most common infantry rifles in the world, and a lot of people participate in that argument. People forget that in Urban combat, you’re generally looking for a balance between accuracy and stopping power because you can find yourself up close or at ranges exceeding 50 yards(meters).

—And to prove the AK-47’s strength over the M-16, almost every developing nation has used this gun due to its cheapness, effectiveness, firepower, and reliability. Without it, the Vietnamese would lose against the Americans, the Somalis would lose against Americans, the Afghans would lose against the Soviets, and the North Koreans would lose against the South Koreans. AK-47 has made its mark on history already and is a proven weapon of death. Ak-47 has the most kills of any gun in the world.—

To attribute military victories to mere infantry rifles is going a bit overboard. Back in the 1800s and early 1900s, yes, that could be the case, but often these days, it’s making the best use of your terrain and vehicles. The reason that WE’RE having such a hard time in Afghanistan is not because they’re armed with AK-47s, but because it’s such a mountainous country. In Vietnam, we weren’t really heavily involved in any large offensive campaigns. The South Vietnamese were the ones who did most of the fighting. We did a lot of bombing runs, provided the SOuth with a lot of equipment, and we eventually got caught with our pants down when the North went on its big offensive. We got a little scared after that, but we were cowards to back out, because if we were serious, Vietnam would have been another Philippines. The Somalis? We were hardly involved in that incident. North and South Korea? They don’t fight each other because there’s a strip of minefields between the two halves. There hasn’t been any large fighting since the Korean war, just a small, squad level incident every decade or so.

Also, back on Vietnam, no long range fighting? I beg to differ. Both sides had quite a number of snipers and designated marksman set up all over the place. And a couple of yards is an exaggeration(in most cases).

No, you’re quite correct. But if the M16 were such an unreliable and useless weapon, they wouldn’t have been using M16s, they would have been using something lighter, like a grease gun or a CAR-15.