Talk:Comparison of the AK-47 and M16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Additional Notes

I started looking with a general google search on M-16 Congresstional Hearings. I found what I wanted (though not the actual text) however much of what I found out there bothered me a great deal. 1st I would like to point out that there are many urban legends about both the M-16 and the AK-47. Whole sections of this article came straight out of other web sites without much if any rewrite. Much of it is just a miserable rehash of the urban legends as well. The talcum powder reference that I eliminated came directly from a site that talked about fine sand in Iraq, yet there it was in the middle of a history of the rifle in Vietnam. I would ask that anyone with an axe to grind on the M-16 please keep in mind that it has been the U.S. Battle Rifle for almost 40 years. I believe that is longer than everything else but some some fusil musket types. During that time the M-16 was in Nato Trials winning out right once and never placing lower than 4th. Three programs have tried to replace it without success. Virtually thousands of enemy combatants have died under the fire from the M-16. To date there have been no verified complaints of lack of power or deadly effect. The complaint listed here came from a Stars & Stripes report that was careful to point out that no after action report could be found with this claim. That frankly disappointed me. There are veterans out there that have good reason to be upset with the policies that put an unfinished weapon in the hands of infantry. They are correct, it was wrong, repeating ad nauseum that the weapon continues to be unreliable and ill conceived is a diservice to Wikipedia, history, and the truth. Please be sure to quote sources on contraversial issues Tirronan 14:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


This article was nominated for deletion on October 19, 2005. The result of the discussion was Keep(Moved). An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

After reading this page I would like to change a section that stood out as being not up to snuff. This is the section

(The design is inherently less reliable, due to the variety of springs and small parts in the M16 as well as the precision with which the parts are assembled within the rifle. The infamous reliability problems were due to production errors and an arbitrary decision by military brass to use a cartridge that the rifle had not been designed to fire (the M16 was originally designed to fire 7.62x51 mm NATO ammo as the AR 10; only after being redesigned for 5.56 NATO did problems surface). Chronic jamming problems with the talcum powder, poor penetration, even torso hits can't be reliably counted on to put the enemy down. In Vietnam, American soldiers threw away their M-16 rifles and used [Kalashnikov] AK-47s from dead Vietnamese soldiers, with bullets they captured. That was because the climate is different from the environment the M-16 was designed to work in.)

The term military brass is objectionable slang. I don't understand the referrence to talcum power at all. The cartridge was not the problem in the M-16 but the change from gunpowder types (flake vs. ball.) The wounding/killing probability of the 5.56 mm round without verification of sources is opinion. We are discussing a military grade rifle that has been in service over 40 years. There have been dozens of studies in the effectiveness of the round by dozens of countries. If we are going to dispute that fine but we'd better have sources capable of backing that up and not presented as fact. The only point that has to be made is that the M-16 is a direct gas inpingment system that requires more cleaning. Early problems resulted from a ball powder being used in a humid environment, lack of a chomed barrel/chamber, and no cleaning kits. Tirronan 16:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why you removed the Origins part and the Weight and Size part. They're completely relevent. This page isn't only differences in their firing, it's very vague, as "vs." not only refers to the technological comparison but the historical comparison, as well. I'm going to revert it, but reply and tell me why you'd remove all of that.

the topic is not only vague, but in the end doesnt conclude anything. I'm hoping you havent finish with it yet, otherwise, this is a complete waste of time.

It's not for a conclusion, it's mainly just to give a comparison. Anyway, it is admittedly vague, but it does highlight the main differences in the operation and features of the guns. Other comparisons are really not as useful, and more detail on the individual guns is seen elsewhere on Wikipedia. The purpose of this article is to highlight main differences to realize the different qualities of the gun. Anyway, you're a vandal and you could be banned from wikipedia for what you put on the article, so you should learn some wiki-manners.

Requesting that this be cleaned up.


      • Chrome lining has virtually no effect on the accuracy of a gun, as it says in the AK section. At most it would *maybe* lose 1/4 MOA, which in a combat rifle is meaningless. In fact, all M16 style rifles (mil. grade ones) have chrome lining, with no ill effects. The point of the chrome lining is to prevent corrosion.***

[edit] Rewrite.

I have rewritten much of this article because I believe it to be factually inaccurate and potentially biased. I will attempt detail each major change and why I have made it so.

First change: The M14 is NOT simply an M1 modified to full auto. It uses a detachable magazine instead of the fixed magazine fed by clips. The M14 used a shortened 30-06 cartridge, 7.62x51, which duplicates(or nearly so) M1 ball(More information at http://world.guns.ru/assault/as15-e.htm). And the selector switch allowing the operator to use full auto was often locked to semi-auto. I have changed the language accordingly. It is also debatable whether the M16 was designed with the AK-47 in mind as a rival. The AR-10, the first of the AR family, was designed by Eugene Stoner in the '50s and was chambered in the same round as the M14(http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m16.htm). I have not changed this part, however.

Second: Perceived bias in the comments "but the M14 was relatively ineffective on the battlefield" and "the superior Soviet design". These comments were deleted in favor of what I contend to be more neutral statements.

Third: Removed reference to barrel length and accuracy. Among firearm enthusiasts and researchers it is generally held that barrel length has little to do with actual accuracy. See http://www.accuratereloading.com/223sb.html and http://www.gunsmoke.com/scot/guns/1022/barrels.html as just a few examples. A longer barrel can increase effective range by increasing velocity but the M16's vaunted accuracy likely comes from other mechanical considerations. Also added information about the weight of the M16A2, which was some two pounds heavier than the M16(A1), removing one of it's prime advantages.

Fourth: Changed "7.62mm bullet" and "5.56mm bullet" to "7.62 cartridge" and "5.56mm cartridge", respectively. A bullet is a component, the bit that is launched down the barrel. A cartridge is the casing, bullet, power, and primer. Other uses of "bullet" in place of cartridge have been corrected.

Fifth: The 7.62x39mm cartridge does not produce more kinetic energy because of the larger caliber, that in and of itself carries no weight in the formula. It is because of the heavier WEIGHT. Changed accordingly.

Sixth: rewrote the entire section on the 5.56mm's wounding ability. ALL long, spitzer rifle rounds tumble, given enough material. This is because the weight of the bullet is not properly balance, so the bullet attempts to correct this. All such rounds will eventually end up with the base first. See http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs13.htm, third article.

Seventh: The statement that the AK-47 was designed to by fully-automatic while the M16 is select fire sounds illogical. They both have a selector switch with safe, semi-automatic, and fully-automatic firing mode. The only difference is the location and order of the switches. The M16's switch is on the left side, above the pistol grip. It can be operated with the thumb(assuming a right handed person) and is safe-semi-full. The AK-47's is on the right side and is a large lever-like affair. It is safe-full-semi. Edited to reflect this. (This can be verified by checking the manuals for the respective weapons, http://www.ar15.com/content/manuals/ has several for the M16. http://www.biggerhammer.net/manuals/ has some for the AK-47)

Eighth: The M16A3, 'A4, and M4 were listed as being full auto. A number of manufacturers offer such rifles in that configuration. But only the M16A3(used by the Navy) and M4A1 come standard with those firing modes. Other models deleted from list. There was also mention of a barrel change-out required. I have never heard nor seen anything about this. There is no reason for this change and every source I know of says the M16A3(at least) is identical to the 'A2, save for the trigger group. Deleted/modified. (Wikipedias own article on the M16 agrees with these assertions)

Ninth: Rewrote almost all of the "reliability" section. "Blowback" is not the correct term for the M16's operating system. A blowback design uses the rearward force of the gasses to operate the mechanism. This method is not practical for 9mm pistols, let alone rifles. The firearm would beat itself to death from the incredible force, not to mention unlocking too soon. The M16 uses a gas operating system, like the AK-47. But the gas in an M16 acts directly upon the bolt carrier, eliminating several parts such as a gas piston, tube, etc. The only problem with such a system is that burnt up carbon and power can more easily clog the system. (See articles on "blowback", "gas operated" and "direct impingement")

Tenth: The M16A2 does NOT use a piston driven gas system. There is no evidence to support this claim anywhere that I may find. A glance at a parts diagram of the M16A2 will show no such piston. Some designs, such as one made by Heckler and Koch, have used piston systems but none that I am aware of have been adopted by the military. Deleted.

Eleventh: Added section on accuracy.

--Fean 21:47, 2005 September 8 (UTC)


Good edit, I agree with all of your points. Though, it was I who wrote most of the initial article (flawed as it may have been), and I don't think that there is much bias about the M14 being a modified M1 (it did share a lot of design elements with the M1; though not identical, these two must be closely related.) As to your remarks on my bias, The M16 was adopted for the reason of replacing the M14, which had to be relaced because it was inadequate against the AK-47. True, saying that the Soviet design was superior sounds very biased out of context, but with a change of vocabulary it can easily be argued very even-handedly. Since the M14 was deemed inadequate against the AK-47 (for what other reason would it have been replaced in the midst of war?), the AK-47 got the reputation of being superior on the battlefield.

Also, about the argument that the AR-15 wasn't designed specifically to counter the AK-47, the AR-10 line of assault rifles wasn't in as wide-scale use as the M1 line of rifles until the M14 clashed with the AK-47. The AR-15, in particular (not the rest of the AR-10 line) was developed as a response to th AK-47 in light of the M14's failure. Jolb 02:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Point taken on the M1/M14 issue. I do agree that an even-handed argument about the supposed superiority of the AK design is possible. I'm not the person for it. However, there are many reasons for replacing a rifle in the midst of a war. Especially a war that seemingly had little direct effect on national security. A small scale(relatively, of course) conflict like Vietnam may only have had an indirect bearing on the small arms development process. Cost of the rifle and ammunition, ease of manufacture, weight, and other myriad factors can just as easily be cited for the replacement of the M14. It could be suggested as a possibility but it might be better to relegate that to the M14 and M16 pages. I still stand by my assertion that the AR line of rifles was not directly made in response to the AK-47, at least not in an easily shown manner. The United States Army Continental Army Command (CONARC) sponsored development of a light weight, .22 caliber rifle in 1957. This was done in light of a Operations Research Office's(ORO) report on casualties, distances, etc.(http://www.ar15.com/content/articles/history/birth.html) It seems to me that the AR-15 was a natural evolution of those ideas, using an operating system originally developed to compete with the M14.
I'm glad to chat with you and hope that discussions like these can help to edify and enlighten. --Fean 09:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AK origins

The AK-47 was not a completly Russian design and as such i have changed the article to reflect the true origins of the rifle.

By same logic, you could claim that M16 is not completely American design, as it borrows heavily from earlier French and Swedish designs. --Mikoyan21 10:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The First Line

The AK-47 was NOT derived from the Sturmgewehr 44/MP44. The MP44 inspired the Simonov (an early AK contemporary) and other similar designs.

[edit] In reference to the previous:

However, the MP44 did inspire the Soviets to create an intermediate 7.62 round. The Soviets also copied some of the manufacturing methods from the Germans. But saying that the MP44 was directly remade into the AK is false.

Not true , the russians developed the 7.62x39mm round on thier own. The year of its adoption was 1943. They would not have had time to capture, examine and test the round if they copied th germans. The Mp43/44 and the 7.92x33 kurz rund did not appear on the battlefield for testing by the german army until late 1942.

NOt true the Ak47 was directly inspired by the Sturmgewehr 44/MP44. On the theory of an assult rifle of an intermediate cartridge and high rate of fire. So technaly the Sturmgewehr wis directly linked to the creation of michaiel klishnivok. ~fujii

[edit] About 7.62 versus 5.56

This is the first time I've editted wikipedia, so I hope I've done it correctly. I've fired both the NATO and Russian 7.62mm rounds as well as the 5.56mm, and I wanted to clarify the article about the rounds used in the M16 versus the AK-47. Specifically, a lot of people think of 7.62mm Russian as similar to the 7.62mm NATO and therefore the comparison of AK-47 versus M16 is similar to the M14 versus M16. But, in fact, the 7.62mm Russian cartridge is waaay smaller and less powerful than the 7.62mm NATO (.308) cartridge. If you hold all three cartridges in your hand, it becomes clear right away that that 5.56mm NATO and 7.62mm Russian cartridges are quite similar in size while the 7.62mm NATO is huge. And firing the rounds bares out this comparison. The ammunition fired by the M16 and AK-47 is rather comparable. While the 7.62mm NATO (fired by the M14 and Garand) is obviously much more powerful.

The moral of the story here is that bullet size is what the public pays more attention to, but powder weight is what really matters. For another (more extreme) example of this, look at .22LR versus 5.56mm NATO. Same sized bullet, but dramatically different powder charges. The .22LR is a very weak cartridge. And you can see it easily just comparing the cartridges side by side in your hand. The size of the cartridge as a whole is quite telling, while the size of just the bullet itself is not.

Anyway... hope that helps. 209.128.67.234

response: the Soviet 7.62x39 cartridge actually has much more penetration than the NATO 5.56 round.

If you have fired all of the above rounds, why are you confusing the .308 Winchester (7.62 NATO) with the .30-06 used in the M1 Garand? Granted, they are both similar, but at a glance, the .30-06 is longer and would certainly damage most firearms designed around the 7.62 NATO (if you could rechamber them to fit the longer cartridge in the first place). Also, the effectiveness of a cartridge is a combination of factors and it's intended mission (AP, JHP and FMJ variants for most common calibers support this), thus it's not as simple as the powder used or the bullet size. Third, the M14 was changed because it wasn't effective in its intended role, and that wasn't because of it's caliber since more effective rifles that use the 7.62 NATO round were made and are still in service in many countries (FN FAL for example). Finally, the M16 is more expensive than both the M14 and the AK47, in fact it's one of the most expensive assault rifles outside of HK rifles, so i find it illogical to cite costs as a possible reason to change weapons (as a sidenote, the army was initially skeptical about the AR15, not only for it's small caliber round, but because it was rather fragile and required frequent maintenance). Changed the article a bit. --Lyojah 08:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Response: The Russki 7.62 has superior penetration against intermediary barriers; however, the NATO 5.56 penetrates armor better. -Chin, Cheng-chuan

Yes, this is correct. 5.56 penetrates hard material (such as steel) better. 7.62x39 penetrates soft and semi-hard materials better (such as wood, most structures, human tissue...) because it doesn't usually fragment and doesn't tumble as easily. Terminal ballistics (ie. effect on humans) is somewhat complicated and controversial issue, but most agree than usually, 5.56 performs better here. As for range and accuracy, it is certainly true that 5.56 has flatter trajectory, however it is NOT true as claimed in the text that it's useless beyond 100 yards. IIRC, the bullet drop at 300 metres for 7.62 is about 20cm more than for 5.56 - not insignifant difference, but certainly not an order of magnitude worse. --Mikoyan21 18:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Response from the writer of this section: Re: Confusing .308 with 30-06... I don't understand your claim that I confused these cartridges. I never once mentioned the M1 or the 30-06. I think you must be referring to material someone else wrote and attributing it to me. Btw... I have fired all four rounds...30-06, 308 (7.62 NATO), 5.56 NATO (.223), and 7.62 RUSSIAN. 30-06 and 308 are quite similar... the casing is a bit shorter on the 308, but that pretty much just eliminates an empty air space gap in the 30-06 case. I do agree that gun powder charge is not the only factor in cartridge ballistics, but I do maintain that it is the predominant factor. You can look at any two cartridges with similar powder charges, and they will have largely similar destructive power. Where conversely, an element like bullet size or weight says nothing. Pistols often fire much larger bullets than rifles, yet they are typically several times less destructive. This difference is reflected in the dramatically different powder charges between the two... More explosives = More Power. 209.128.67.234 17:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Folks, I think the fellow was simply pointing out that the 5.56 mm and the 7.62x39 mm were lower power assault class rounds vs. the 7.62x51 mm Nato round. In point of fact the 7.62x51 mm Nato, 30.06, 308, 7.56x54 mm, rounds all have very comparable performance despite having small packaging differences. Tirronan 18:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] COST

Someone needs to point out how much time and resources were needed to make each weapon and how much they cost in comparison, ie how many dollars did one m-16 cost to make includeing materials and labour and how many dollars did the ak-47 cost includeing materials and labour. Also life expectancy of each weapon ie how many months/years before you needed to get a new one if you treated it good and if you treated it bad. Deng 2005-11-30 05.10 CET

[edit] Massive edit

Following the idea of being bold i did a major rewrite of the article. It's still not as good as it could be, but i trust it's better than it used to be and i hope it fills the criteria for articles better. Editing was done in several sessions due to stability problems in my computer. --Lyojah 10:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

"The M16 of the Vietnam era was not adequate for the humid, dirty jungle environment of the Vietnamese jungle" Can someone justify this statement? It sounds like an opinion to me. The basic design itself is not a problem.

[edit] Some more on COST

Well I added some information concerning cost, you see cost is not only cost per unit but also plant setup cost. This is were using modern CNC machinery the AR-15/M-16 is much cheaper to produce then an AK. One should also consider that the Soviet Union and other communist states never were able to calculate the cost of anything. Nowadays it is simple to setup a small plant to make ARs, but you still need the same massive plant to make an AK because the machinery needed to do the stampings is huge. MeSwiss

Jaw2jab 18:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)The stamping you are refering to is on the receiver correct? That is only for a AKM, AK-47's are machined from a chunk of steel. So there would be no massive plant needed for AK manufacturing, just AKM's.

The AK-47 and ar-15/m-16 receivers can be manufactured using many different methods. For example, ar-15 receivers can be machined using a CNC setup or even relatively unsophisticated hand tools - or they can be cast in some gigantic industrial plant. Obviously what we have here would be setup cost vs. production time. Is the goal to make 1 or 10000? The same goes here for the AK, but some methods require bending the receiver which incurs more risk imo of FUBRing the whole thing. Btw, https://www.vbd.com/noc/shop/products_detail.asp?CategoryID=35&ProductID=276 <-DIY AK receiver (I am not affiliated with vbd)Abitw 18:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reliability

While the AK series are reliable, they're not 100% reliable. Like all semi automatic rifles they do develop feeding problems after enough use and abuse. As to say that the M16A2s and M4s are "not reliable" my information tells me that the M4 and M16-A2s are doing better in most places then comparative western products. Even the much praised German G36 and Swiss made SIG 550 don't fare any better in Iraq or Afghanistan then the M4s... not to mention the British SA-80 which seems to be worse then the very earliest M16s by adding the famous SA-80 auto destruct feature. From my own experience, having played around plenty with the SIG 550 and an AR-15 (A2) the reliability is similar for both, provided that you oil or grease em properly, but then again there is no desert in Switzerland. Still I have my doubts that you need to clean an AR 3 times a day down there, unless of course one used some rather bad lube. MeSwiss

I cleaned my m16a2 twice daily in the desert, but we rarely if ever put lubrication on there (which would capture the sand particles and grind things to a halt).Swatjester 22:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guns in general...

I've been involved with firearms since I was 18 years old. I am now 56 years old. Just about every day of my life I've carried, lugged, worn, strapped on or slept with a gun of some sort on my body or very close to it. I've taught soldiers, civilians and police officers how to use and shoot them. When I was in Viet Nam, my last 7 months there I used an XM-21 sniper rifle while I was with the 1st Battalion of the 173d Airborne (Separate) Brigade, a very elite paratrooper unit. One of the things that I keep seeing is that most people, about 99% of them, do NOT understand that different guns are designed to meet very specific needs or to do a very specific kind of job. Glock pistols were NOT originally designed to be tackdrivers or super accurate. Glocks were designed to be robust, sturdy guns that would function when used in a combat (police or military conflict situation) role. Originally the Colt 1911 Government model pistol was designed just prior to World War One for cavalry troops (REAL horse soldiers) to use. The original Colts were meant to be used by a man holding the reins of a horse in one hand and his 1911 pistol in his other hand. For years I have observed that there are so called "experts" out there who want to compare the AK-47 rifle to the M-16 rifle. To me, that's like comparing oranges to pineapples. Because of all the contrasts, the comparison is just NOT right. Recently a noted "gun guru" said that a rifle was used in the offense and a pistol was a defensive tool. What this "guru" failed to understand is that any gun can be used for either an offensive OR a defensive purpose. What makes ANY gun offensive or defensive is the INTENT OF THE USER!! Bear with me as I explain the REAL differences between the AK-47 and the M-16 rifles.

The AK-47 was designed right at the end of World War Two. It was forged in the late 1940s and uses wood and metal for its structure. Based off of the needs of what the Soviet Army wanted, the AK-47 was designed to be a robust, dependable rifle. Russian Army research indicated that most of their soldiers never shot much, if at all, beyond 350 to 400 meters. The bullet used by the AK-47 is actually one that was designed to be used by the SKS carbine, a very short range shoulder-mounted firearm. The AK-47 basically replaced the SKS carbine, the PPSH submachinegun and the Mosin-Nagant bolt action rifle. This rifle shoots a medium diameter (.311) bullet that weighs about 122 grains. This rifle is actually designed to be used against enemy personnel and to stop a group of swarming enemy soldiers in the attack. The AK-47 is a good close-range rifle primarily used for defending a position. It is NOT meant to be a highly accurate sniper rifle.

The M-16 rifle was designed over 10 years AFTER the AK-47. The M-16 uses metal, aircraft aluminum and plastic in its construction. The M-16 is a more modern rifle than the AK-47 in its design and function goals. The M-16 shoots a small bore (varmint round) type bullet in .223 caliber. The bullets weigh about 55 grains and up. In other words, the M-16 shoots a bullet that is LESS THAN HALF THE WEIGHT of a bullet fired by an AK-47. The M-16 was originally meant to be used by lighter weight and smaller sized allied soldiers, not bigger American soliders. The first military service that started ordering the M-16 rifles was the U.S. Air Force. The USAF originally wanted their M-16 rifles to be used by rear echelon personnel and security police groups. So the original purposes of both rifles led to how they were initially developed. One was actually designed for combat infantrymen (AK-47) and the M-16 was designed for security work. What makes the M-16 effective as a combat rifle are the tactics that American soldiers have developed around it. The trouble is that it, the M-16, is STILL too small a rifle caliber shooting too light of a bullet for really effective infantry work. That is exactly why the military forces are looking to replace the .223 bullet with the 6.8 SPC variant of the M-16 (M-4) rifles.

Advantages: AK-47 medium weight bullet useful at close range. M-16 small bore, high speed bullet that is very accurate at distances farther than the AK-47's. AK-47 is a robust, dependable rifle. The M-16 is a good rifle but it need to be maintained and kept clean. The AK-47 has a practical use range of about 300 to 350 meters. The M-16 rifles can be used with a practical distance of 450 to 500 yards. The M-16 rifle can be adapted to be a good sniper rifle with little or no problem.

Disadvantages: M-16 has tighter tolerances which make it more accurate BUT also proned to problems involving dirt or failure to keep it clean. The AK-47 does not have the range that the M-16 has nor the accuracy.

If I were going to be involved in close-range shooting where my life depended on putting a hostile enemy soldier down, I would want a good AK-47 rifle. If I were going to be doing long distance shooting and required extreme accuracy, I would want an M-16 rifle with a decent scope on it.

Keep in mind that almost ALL guns have their positive and negative sides to them. It is the shooter or user that must know what his particular gun can do for him and how he, the user, intends to use it.





FINALLY! SOMEONE WHO KNOWS WHAT HES TALKING ABOUT! -(from a guy in tucson)

My thoughts exactly. The AK-47 was never meant to be a sniper rifle. It was based on the philosophy of a bunch of soldiers laying down a wall of lead rapidly. The early M-16's were unreliable but that has been remedied and mostly it is from the fact it was incorrectly billed as "self-cleaning". The AK-47 is a good weapon for what it is designed for as the M-16 is as well. I hate when people compare the two, they are meant for different things. Though it is inevitable as they meet each other on the battlefield all the time in almost every war fought on this planet since the 60's. --Big Mac 01:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


The only caviat I would make to your excellent points above is that the AK was not primarily for defense in the Soviet tactical scheme; rather, it was more for the offenseive operation, where soldiers armed with AK-47's could use the short-range firepower ability of the weapon to supress the fire of US and NATO troops armed with (at the time) M-14s and FN-FAL's, and get in close to the point that the larger weapons of NATO would be a disadvantage, and the NATO force could be split into pockets and destroyed in detail. For more info on the subject, check out Chris McNab's book "The AK-47," or look at the post-communist era manuals that the US government has produced on Soviet tactics of the 50's and 60's. AK person 01:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AK-74

I think there should be some mention of the AK-74. This seems only fair as the article already mentions M16 variants

I don't. The AK-74 is not an AK-47 variant. It's a completely new weapon chambered in a different caliber. That alone should be why it isn't included. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 16:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, the article makes no mention of AKM, which is signifantly lighter than original milled-receiver AK-47. If M16A2 is mentioned, then AKM should be mentioned as well. In reality, AK-47 vs M-16 debate becomes quite pointless because both rifles have many different incarnations with different characteristics.
The article also contains way too much POV, such as claim that AK is "uncomfortable to shoot from prone position", also the open sights vs aperture sights is just a matter of preference, it is certainly NOT a hard accepted fact that aperture sights are superior - otherwise armies and rifle manufacturers would not keep installing open sights to their rifles even today. And the claim that "7.62x39 accuracy suffers beyond 100 yards" is just complete BS. Sure, 5.56 has flatter trajectory but the difference is not exactly enormous. --Mikoyan21 22:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The statement that it is uncomfortable to shoot from the prone position could be reworded, but the intent is to state that the magazine design makes it more difficult to fire prone than the m16.

My major concern with the AK74 is that it is a completely different caliber. This is a comparison of the AK-47 and the M16, not the AK-74 and M16. Now, the AKM should be mentioned.

And it's well considered in the shooter community that the AK has inferior sights to the m16.⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 01:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Not in here, certainly isn't...--Mikoyan21 13:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Ummm...while I agree with SWATJester generally, I have to say that the AK-74 is most certainly not a completely new weapon. It is, in fact, an almost identical weapon, with the exception of the caliber, and the muzzle brake, and some other very minor details. The operation, general look, and design of the AK-74 is exactly the same as the AKM/AK-47. A "completely new weapon" would be a different design, like the AN-94 now being tested by the Russians. I also agree with Mikoyan that the AK's accuracy doesn't suffer at 100 yards. If you know how to use it, you can hit a man sized target at 300 yards. Also, I agree that iron sights are sometimes preferable. AK person 02:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is a poor comparison

The more logical comparison is AK-47/AKM vs. M-14 and AK-74 vs. M16. The AK-47 and M-16 are a generation apart in small-arms design. Even on the most basic level of caliber, AK-47s and M-14s are both .30 caliber weapons, and AK-74s and M-16s are both .22 caliber weapons.

I fail to see how the AK-47 is a generation apart from the m-16 in small arms design. And caliber has nothing to do with it, if you're going to argue that, the technically, the AK47 and m14 fire different rounds, and the AK-74 and m16 fire different rounds, so you can't use caliber as an equalizer. The m1 carbine also fires a .30 cal. round. that is widely considered to be underpowered. a .45 ACP, .45 long colt, and .45-70 are all technically .45 caliber rounds, but have vastly different muzzle velocities from their respective typical firearms. Caliber is not the only standard to judge by. Vietnam: ak47 vs m16. Persian Gulf: largely ak-47's vs m16s. OIF, largely still aK-47's vs m16s. Afghanistan, largely still Ak-47s vs m16s. the Ak-74 is still much less numerous in the ex-soviet satellites and arms-contractees than the venerable 47. (Forgive my grammar, but its late.) ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 08:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Forgive my generalization, The AK-47 and M-14 both use cartridges which attain their combat effectivness based on a heavier bullet wheras the M-16 and AK-74 use cartridges designed to be more effective based on their velocity. I appologize if it was not clear that i did not mean to imply that all .22 caliber weapons fire similar cartridges.

The M14 was too long for an effective weapon, as shown in Vietnam; also, the '.30' calibre you mention (I presume .30-06) is the same as the 7.62 × 51, which is about the same size (ofcourse not indentical to) as 7.62 × 39 soviet, used in the AK-47. The M16 uses 5.56 × 45 (not .223 Remington, although they are very similar), which is comparable to the 5.45 × 39 soviet (because the latter is based n the first). Now should probably see the similarites and dissimilarities.

I am not sure if you could arbitrarily say that the 5.45 cartridge is "based" off of the 5.56. It did take a number of features and ideas, like the small diameter and even the idea for the smaller round itself, but the bullet itself is a completely different design from the 5.56, and the 39mm casing length of the 5.45 was dictated by the length of the existing 7.62x39 casing, not by the 5.56x45 casing. AK person 02:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The .30-06 is not the same as the 7.62x51. The .30-06 is technically a 7.62x63. You're just paying attention to the bullet diameter and not paying attention to the case length. Longer case length = more propellant = more muzzle velocity = more energy. Marty4286 14:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC) Jaw2jab 18:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Also, the .30 cal mentioned for the M1 carbine is 7.62X33 not .30-06, big difference.

More importantly the 7.62Nato round and the 7.62Soviet round are infinitely different. From case length, to general ballistics, to weight, to accuracy, to purpose of design. And purpose of design is a the key element that is not truely discussed. The AK is designed to be mass produced and handed off to untrained personel. That is why it is built to losser tolerances. The M16 was designed for trained personnel, sadlly this didn't happen during the early days of Vietnam. I have used both the AK and M16 in combat (Algeria and Iraq repectively) I can tell you that while I prefer the AK in those conditions, In Europe I would use an M16. The only true fault in the M16 is the difficulty to maintain the weapon. I would clean the weapon three times a day. Whereas the AK in the same dirty sandy climate, I would lightly oil once a week. I have also used an M21 (which is essentially an M14 with a scope), Its purpose is to, for lack of better terminology reach out and crush someone. A comparison of this weapon with the others is even more lopsided. It could be written that the M14 is ineffective as an assault weapon, or it could be written that the AK and M16 are ineffective as long range weapons.

These comparisions are innately flawed. Weapons are tools, and an aresenal is a tool box. Choose the right weapon for the job. Anybody want to compare a hammer and a screwdriver? (CPT King)

It's more like comparing a phillips head and flathead screwdriver. Youknowthatoneguy 07:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

Added Kaliskonov comment on American GI's prefering his weapon. That goes to the heart of the article!!!--Will314159 16:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

And the inventor of a rifle stating this conforms to NPOV... how? --Kuroji 07:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Wait, other than Kalashnikov himself saying it, where else does it say that US soldiers started using AK47s? Marty4286 14:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

That quote is shaky at best. First of all, it's on a forum with no sources listed. Second of all, I don't know how mainy days Kalishnakov spent in Iraq, but I doubt its more than the 373 days that I spent over there (on a line unit), and during all my days over there, I never ONCE saw an American soldier carrying around an AK-47. I can tell you that I would much rather have my M16 than an AK. I say delete the link. -jtwilson

Also spent many a day in Iraq. And while I did see quite a few of the Specops guys carrying AKs, the only case I encountered within the traditional army was a guy that kept an AK in his Hummer. He also carried his M16 though. I think the AK was more of a trophy. Most Army units would not permit their soldiers to carry AKs. I think this rumor can be attributed to the fact that American civilian contractors are carrying AKs.

I was in an SOF unit in Iraq (I did 2 tours with them) that used AK's. Not all the time, but under certain circumstances, we did use AKM's or AK-74s because they were better able to stand long periods w/o cleaning, and when the OpTempo of a mission is high, it can be helpful to not have to clean a weapon. At other times, we used M-4s or M-16, because we needed the weight reduction from the AKM. Still other times we used other weapons, as the mission dictated (including a few PPSH's that found their way in). Like others have said on this forum, it all boils down to using the right weapon for the job. Sometimes the AK is better, sometimes the M-16, sometimes neither. AK person 02:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaned up some text, and changed some facts

I haven't done a Wiki before, but I thought I should clean up a few things and make a contribution. Although technically this is a poor comparison, it's a very popular topic for discussion. It could probably do with a substantial rewrite - maybe when I'm unemployed ;-)

One of the issues I cleaned up were some claims about accuracy. Recoil (for example) does not make anything inately less accurate. So, I took out a few of those claims. However, it may make it harder to shoot accurately, and it may make it harder to train operators to shoot accurately. Therefore, I would think accuracy is inbuilt to the machine, and effectiveness (or some other term) describes how that inherent accuracy can be applied. I hope I distinguished between them a little.

Same with velocity. This does not change the accuracy. It may make range estimate less of an issue which may make it more effective, but it does nothing to accuracy.

[edit] Fragmenting 5.56?

Could somebody please cite any sources saying 5.56 ammo fragments in the body or fragments once fired? I have used US Air Force M-16s and have seen absolutely no proof of this. From the article:

"The original ammunition for the M16 was M193 ball, a 55 grain (3.6 g) projectile that exited the muzzle at 3,250 ft/s. It is often stated that this round "would tumble" upon striking a target. All bullets tumble. This is not the wounding mechanism. At ranges of up to 75 meters the lead cored round is traveling fast enough that the force of striking a body will cause the round to fragment along the cannelure (crimp where the bullet is clamped to the casing) into at least three pieces (front, back, and jacket). Three fragments are far more likely to strike something vital than one, hence the fearsome reputation of the M16 in close range jungle combat. The much slower and heavier AK-47 round even from the muzzle enters a target at a velocity below which it would fragment, unless it strikes a bone. During the 1970s and 1980s the quest for greater accuracy, penetration and armor piercing capability from light machine guns led to the adoption of a heavier, slower, hardened steel cored round, the M855. The heavier 62 grain (4.0 g) SS109 projectile used in the later generation of 5.56x45 cartridges (M855) sacrificed some initial speed (muzzle velocity) but increased the ability of the projectile to penetrate solid targets-especially at longer range. However, as a result, a major grievance of American troops in Somalia in 1993 was that the M855 round would drill cleanly through a target without fragmenting."

The Hague Conventions makes fragmenting ammunition illegal. From the hollow point bullet article:

"The Hague Convention of 1899, Declaration III, prohibits the use in warfare of bullets which easily expand or flatten in the body. This is often incorrectly believed to be prohibited in the Geneva Conventions, but it significantly predates those conventions, and is in fact a continuance of The Declaration of St Petersburg in 1868, which banned exploding projectiles of less than 400 grams, and weapons designed to aggravate injured soldiers or make their death inevitable. Despite the ban on military use, hollow point bullets are one of the most common types of civilian and police ammunition, due largely to the reduced risk of bystanders being hit by over-penetrating or ricocheted bullets, and the increased speed of incapacitation. In many jurisdictions, it is illegal to hunt game with ammunition that does not expand, and some target ranges also forbid full metal jacket ammunition."

The statement that 5.56 ammo fragments is setting my BS detector in the red. --132.33.132.19 06:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Unfortunately, I think that entire section neds a re-write, though I am not qualified to do so. In addition to whatyou said, I know the statement "All bullets tumble" to be false. --Professor London 11:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


That section refers to the original M109 bullet, which has different terminal ballistics than the M855 bullet. And technically, all bullets tumble. And as for a ban on military use, not ALL hollowpoints are banned, for instance the M118 special ball round is technically a hollowpoint (as a byproduct of the nature of the bullet. It does not actually expand on impact however, making it legal..)⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 06:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


Well than London, and the other guy it proves how much you know about 5.56 NATO. All rounds tumble because of their needle nosed shape they carry a lower center of mass. The whole point of switching to 5.56 was because of fragmentation. Why dont you research some ballistic gelatin tests, before you spew non-sense from counter-strike. M193 fragments within 200 meters and SS109 has a lower effectiveness to about 150 meters, because of it's lower velocity. There's a lot of bull being flung on Wikipedia by kids who never seen a rifle, stop abusing your right to edit things. - A US MARINE . Hydro


I would cite this information here [1] as well as the specific accompanying photo for fragmentation of the M193 [2] and the M855 [3]. The body of research the information cites is from government research performed on pig carcasses at the Presidio in San Francisco California. From the work the conclusions are that the whole thing with 5.56 is the velocity, once you take away a few hundred FPS is turns into a simple long range 5.56mm hole puncher. There is information on 7.62x39mm ammo as well. B4Ctom1 00:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The 5.56 round will SOMETIMES fragment. No tests have been run to show whether or not it RELIABLY fragments, especially in the actual human body. The few tests run in Vietnam *by Colt* have since been questioned. The article has been changed to reflect this. 69.226.24.162

[edit] Urgh

This is a very long, poor-quality article that reads like the collected works of a group of high school students. "In the field the M16 proves superior to the AK-47, due to its similar weapons system based off the M1 Garand and the M14"? So many things are "considered by many" or "generally considered". I note that the AK-47's ballistics are yet again described as looping, something I mocked as far back as 2002. [4] The M16 is described as reliable in one sentence, and in the next sentence we are told that all soldiers everywhere must clean in three times a day, but that this is normal. The article states that "the Minute of angle of a standard issue AK-47 is 3-4 MOA"; what standard issue AK-47? Standard issue where, and when? The "Different Philosophies" section repeats the introduction. The article is bitty and staccato. It is full of pseudo-military terminology and does not seem like the work of an adult. I am wary of editing it for fear of being associated with something unpleasant. I have a vision of macho young men like myself of ten years ago, pretending to be grown up. -Ashley Pomeroy 01:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. As a combat veteran, I've done a bit to try and fix the inaccuracies on the m16 side of it (such as the "Standard to clean it 3 times a day" or "soldiers are trained to do it in under 10 seconds" nonsense). If you've got a problem with the article, fix it instead of bitching about it. As for fear of editing it...it's only the internet, it can't hurt you. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 05:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

While I don't have any desire to get involved in editing Wiki, those of you who do would probably benefit from reading this <a href="http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=AD838604&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf">1968 study of M16 Reliability compared to the M14 (422 pages, 15.0MB)</a>.

[edit] MOA

In the accuracy section of this article, it say "The M16 came from the factory shooting with an MOA of 3-4 MOA and under which allowed it to reliably hit targets up to 300 yards." What the heck's a MOA? The section takes for granted people's knowledge of military acronyms, and deserves to have some sort of explaination of what it means. Kevin 01:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The minute of arc article describes it. Unicyclopedia 05:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Small caliber

I deleted

"This smaller, higher-velocity NATO cartridge should not be confused with the full power 7.62x51 mm NATO round, which was used in other battle rifles of the 1960s and 1970s, and is still used in medium machine guns. In metric caliber designations, these numerals refer to cartridge dimensions. The initial set of numbers refer to the diameter of the actual projectile in millimeters, while the subsequent set of numbers refer to the cartridge case's length."

Anybody who doesn't already know this can look on an ammo page (I'm guessing it's explained somewhere...), & it isn't on point to the comparison.

Also, the remark "WW2 combat experience indicated" is inaccurate. German research after WW1 found most engagements were at under 500m, which is 1 reason the MKb 42 was introduced.

And I'd agree with the "staccato" assessment. I found the article repetitive & disjointed. It needs serious attention, but I'm to unfamiliar with the subject to tackle it. Trekphiler 13:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/m/Talk%7EComparison_of_the_AK-47_and_M16_93df.html"