Which is better, the m16 or the ak-47?
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,
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
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 train
