AK47 vs M16

I own both variants. Despite the armchair warrior arguments, I'd say the 5.56 is a more devastating round than the 7.62x39

Both are badass guns though.

oh, only read a quarter of your post before I reponded. I sure hope you've had ample time with the AK 47 cause if you haven't then you don't know what the fuck your babbling about.

I wish I had an AK, my AR is too expensive to shoot these days.

Plus, they changed the bullet to a small size to match the tumbling capability of the 5.56 instead of the .30 cal of the AK-47

Buy AK47 replica so Nazi American cops could do you faster like that kid not long ago. Who knows what would have happend if the kid had had M16 ... replica.

Had and used both.
Another thing negative about the AK is when slung, the bolt handle digs into your side/back.
Safety is a PITA.
Bolt doesn't stay open after the last shot.
They are very reliable however.

AR platform has a lot of bad history, all of it deserved.
But that was 40 years ago, and the bugs have been worked out.

Now it's a first class fighting weapon, just as reliable as the AK, and much more accurate, easier to field repair, scope, NV, etc.
Ammunition is lighter, when carrying 300 rounds all day, 5.56 makes a big difference compared to 7.62x39

I really don't know why people argue so furiously about these two guns. You can wish upon a star that the AK 47 isn't "that accurate" but if someone shoots you at 300yds with either gun its gonna fucking kill you. Both of them.

I've never fired the AR-15 style rifle nor the .223 cartridge for that matter. I own a AK rifle. Made by Roma Arms in '87 I believe. Quite pure; just a different receiver jammed in there to disable the automatic function.

The kick from the 7.62x39 is fun when you're at the range.

I've got a few close (experienced) friends who've told me about the destructive power of the smaller .223 round. It's all about the "tumbling."

I think most of these debates about the intricacies of firearms are superfluous for non-elite combat units and military strategists - and of course the weapons manufacturers, themselves.

In a home defense scenario, most of the time, all you need is the sound of that charging mechanism being manipulated to send cold shivers down the would-be assailants' spines. At least from what I've heard.

I feel pretty confident, however, given I had proper time to realize what was happening and obtain my rifle, develop a good firing position, and line up any hostile intruders, one connected round is all it would take to end the invasion. Of course, I'd end up firing more than necessary. And chances are the neighbours' would not be too happy with the bullet holes in their stucco walls.

My friend used to have an inch thick slab steel plate. The 7.62x39 whopped it pretty good, but the 5.56 nearly dug half way through it. I was pretty surprised by that.

Thats why I shake my head everytime I hear some dumbass say its only a glorified .22 round.

M-16.

I talked to allot of American soldiers. I asked which would you prefer an M4 or M16 and they all said M16.

The M16's long barrel allows the small 5.56 bullet too explode and tumble upon impact hollow point or not which means every shot in fatal.

The 5.56 is smaller so you can carry more rounds with the same weight.

The 5.56 is a long range bullet so the M16 acts as a good counter sniper weapon over the AK.

When you pull the trigger others with M16s know your a good guy, if you pull an AK trigger your buddy's might blow you away.

OH AND DO NOT FORGET THE NUMBER ONE REASON WHY THE M16 IS THE BEST RIFLE EVER CREATED. EVEN THOUGH WE FIGHT MODERN WARS.

ITS LONG DESIGN ALLOWS YOU TOO ATTACH A BAYONET SO YOU CAN KILL SOMEONE WITH AN AK BAYONET.

When it comes down to it, you will need a bayonet.

I'm no armchair warrior.

Just a hunter and avid recreational shooter. That being said, the AR platform is the way to go. You can buy/register a stripped lower, and purpose-build the rest of the rifle to exactly suit your needs and the environment you shoot in.

Not much you can do with the AK. But they're a blast to take to the BLM and shoot old appliances and such.

As for SHTF scenario, I dunno. Would rather avoid a gunfight.

Last Edited by Sikhed on 11/05/2013 12:21 AM

The question should be AK vs. AR vs. PTR.


Don't know what a PTR is? Look it up. So many opinions about AK-this, AR-that.... Get a god damn PTR and forget about the rest.

real men would rather put their dick in a meat grinder than own a black aluminum piece of shit like the m-16 or any variant of it. real men shoot guns that are at least 30cal. and all that bad mouthing of the AK is pure bull shit.

That is, my friend, because most of those fools don't understand basic conceptual physics and the STRICT scientific processes involved with super-sonic precision devices.

That small .223 round is propelled by a significantly higher-pressure vaporization chamber in that large grain cartridge. Smaller objects are more easily excited to higher levels of kinetic energy for much less energy input. In other words, smaller rounds can be made to erupt from the muzzle at a much higher velocity than their larger round cousins in similar sized cartridges. And of course when there is more "speed" there is more damage.

This goes without saying that the shape and structure (as well as metallic and non-metallic substances)that go into the final concept also have much to do with the effects of the round. In addition, the very specifying of the bullet travel behaviour has much to do with it as well.

The next time someone tries to use that terrible quip about the .223 round, ask them if they've ever heard of the Rail Gun.

Since I was trained to use the M16 A2 rifle in the Army, I will vote for that. Both are good weapons though.

Ehmm correction, the M16 is not American Technologie, it's a product from FN build under license in the US ... Last time I checked FN was Belgian.

LOL

pod m16

m16 is a piece of shit widow maker.

The AK-47 and AK-74 are designed to be produced cheaply, in large numbers and with a minimum of equipment. Also inherent in the design is extreme ease of use with maximum potential from minimum training. Additionally, it can be maintained with the most basic of inputs.

The M-16/M-4 are expensive to produce in any numbers and require much more equipment. The firearms require much more training (comparatively), not only for use but also for basic maintenance. Finally, maintenance requirements are comparatively high.

The AK series of weapons are specifically designed for function regardless of external condition. It is far more durable. Magazines in particular are exceedingly robust as are all components of the weapons system. Due to this, it suffers from comparative inaccuracy and speed of operation. It is best described as function over finesse.

The M-16(AR) series of weapons are specifically designed to maximize the combat effectiveness of the individual at the price of external inputs and function. It is far more accurate with a marked advantage in overall cycling speeds due to faster reloading times. The magazines are disposable and the gas driven bolt system requires much more maintenance time per same round count as compared to the AK series. Additionally, specialized tools are needed for basic repairs which tends to consist of smaller parts designed for replacement rather than repair. It is best described as finesse over function.

In the end, the weapons are a reflection of the societies which spawned them. The collectivist mindset vs. the maximizing the individual, regardless of cost. The definition of consumables and the assumption made by each of availability. From the steel casing of the AK series ammunition to the more expensive brass casing of the M-16 series, the differences are rather stark.

The M16 is designed with a fully functioning industrial technological logistical system as its foundation.

The AK is designed in the assumption that such a system may not be available at all times, if at all.

it depends on who the rifles are for

russia made them because they were cheap and simple, and they had numbers in people, there reliable and has a 30.cal projectile. not bad, for a dumb user and a poor country


the USA thanksto eugene stoner and armalite, made the m16, its a great weapon, with a good flat shooting low recoil round, built for control, it travels at about 3000fps and at that speed its NASTY. the trouble is in needs proper lube and has 30+ moveing parts that might break, that doesnt mean it isnt reliable, but it does take a more educated person to operate and maintain


honestly the better weapon is the ar platform, but a decent ak is hard to beat.

i look at it like this

m16 = fast/flat round,medium maintence, and a marksmen rifle

ak47= cheap reliable, low maintence, and a heavy bullet, spray and pray

AR platform FTW

What era are we talking here?

The latest AK variant is the AK 12, though Russia is sticking mainly with the AK-74 even though the official rifle of the govt and Russian Army is the AN-94

Are you talking Vietnam?

AK is heavy? have you ever picked one up?

AK fires slow? What does this mean?

Russia uses the 5.45x39.5mm round not the 7.62x39mm. this is still in use in many countries though.

Both are good. Its all a matter of personal preference. Aging eyes need some sort of scope. I prefer the Eotech. I also like the fact that I can carry more 5.56 than 7.62x39.

Get your ammo now, dork is closing the last lead smelting plant in the USA.

Nothing like .30 cal for penetrating cover. Things being shot at tend to take cover.

After reading so far I've made my choice..

Is it cheaper to buy a full M16 or build your own?

In a desert climate and urban area what type of barrel, stock, sights and attachments should I buy?

Its cheaper to buy the M16 whole, but if you buy separate parts that adds up to an M16 when put together you can also innovate, though I wouldn't do it without professional help with it... I would just buy the M16 whole and buy the latest accessories for it.

One is more powerful one is more accurate end of story

are we talking M16 like fullauto? or are wetalking ar15 varient?

cause its way cheaper to build a ar15 $800 could get it done

a m16 is fullauto and cost over 10k to buy plus class 3 license, and probably a 11 month wait

The AR-15 is a superb rifle, when barrel twist is matched with the 77gr match ammunition. Not such a fan of the M4 short-barrel, short gas system. A 20" barrel of med or heavyweight with the heavy 75/77gr match bullet gives you a 500+yd weapon, but one still light enough for quick response.

Not a fan of the 55 or 62gr ammo.
Not a believer in the "tumbling" concept.

A 77gr bullet started at 2750fps has as much energy at 500yds as a .357mag 158gr factory round at 25yds. Pretty impressive for all those who tout the .357mag

I am a believer in heavy bullets.
Match bullets have thicker jackets and deform less.
Have recovered hornady 75gr bthp from rock backdrops and they maybe bent like a pretzel, but they don't break apart. Penetration and sectional density, plus ballistic coefficiency much better than light bullets.

A 20" AR-15 will toe the line right there with any AR-10 or M1a, IF using heavy bullets. Heavies will penetrate very deeply and deliver a lot more energy. They also deflect less in wind conditions and remain accurate way out there.

For single shot situations, IE Long Range, there are 80 and 90gr bullets designed for 600 and 1000yd shooting. Feed these singly and if you can see it, you can hit it.