Talk:Comparison of the AK-47 and M16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale

Additional information:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.

Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information and associated task forces:

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status:

Referencing and citation: not checked
Coverage and accuracy: not checked
Structure: not checked
Grammar: not checked
Supporting materials: not checked

To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call:

|B-Class-1=yes/no

|B-Class-2=yes/no

|B-Class-3=yes/no

|B-Class-4=yes/no

|B-Class-5=yes/no

This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

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.

Archives
Archive 1

1 Russia or Soviet
2 too much unnecessary info
3 Weight
4 MOA
- 4.1 Small caliber
5 always comparing m16a1
6 Aluminium
7 AK47 may be favored
8 Opening Paaragraph needs to be edited
9 Colt firearms
10 Fact versus Opinion
11 Bad Comparison
12 WP:V and WP:OR
13 Unaddressed issues
14 Data
15 M16 Manufacturer

[edit] Russia or Soviet

In several places, Russia is mentioned where Soviet or USSR would be more appropriate. To the best of my knowledge, the AK-47 was superceded by the AK-74 long before the collapse of the USSR. 217.31.178.94 (talk) 16:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] too much unnecessary info

this article repeats too much information from the M16 and AK-47 pages. It should focus on the comparison of the two weapons and not repeat the history, the decisions, etc. It should be simple to read this article and get a decent idea. If someone wants more in depth, they can read the other articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.107.130 (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weight

Article claims AK-47's weight without magazine is 4.3 kg. I have used G-3 during my military service, a battle rifle much heavier than the AK-47 (which is famous with lightness). But even the bulky G-3 is 4.25 kgs. There may be a mistake about this. I remember Kalashnikov's weight without magazine is 3.9 kg. But i am not sure, this may be weight of AKM. Still i think the 47 should be lighter than 4.3 kg.

(I just checked the article about AK47, there it says AK-47's weight is 3.8 Kg and AKM's weight is 3.68 kg)

[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 an MOA? The section takes for granted people's knowledge of military acronyms, and deserves to have some sort of explanation 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)

Essentially 1MOA = 1 inch at 100 yards. so 3-4MOA would = 3-4 inches at 100 yards, 6-8 inches at 200 yards, 9-12 inches at 300 yards. With a 9-12 inch Circular Error Probability at 300 yards, you can still reliably hit a man-sized target. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 01:03, 14 April 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)

Forgive me, but what is the MKb 42? Thanks, heqs 05:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

In comparison the cost of the AK knock-off is about 1/5th that of an M-16. It would also be good to see an estimate of the number of weapons in existence (I think there are about seven times the number of AK-47 derivatives when compared to the M-16). Finally, there could be a situation comparing the AK-74 as it uses a smaller caliber round (indeed the AK-47 would be better compared to an M-14) --Avimimus 15:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC) ok i woulds say this in my opinion the thing its wrong here is some fact for the AK47 and the M16

the development of the M-16A1, which introduced a chrome-plated chamber to prevent rust, better powder and a 30 round magazine. 1978 saw the weapon undergo a weapon improvement program and the M-16A2 was brought into service. Several improvements lead to greater accuracy and the fully automatic setting was replaced with a more controlled 3 shot burst setting. In 1994 the US Army adopted its second carbine of the 20th century the M4 based on the M-16. M-16 based carbines had been used before but only but very small select units, with the end of the cold war and an increase in the demand for covert operations and Special Forces the demand for such weapons increased. It uses a 14.5" barrel, and a four-position telescoping stock while maintaining the ability to mount an M203 grenade launcher, it measures less than 30 inches, and weights just over 5 1/2 pounds, with an effective range of 600 meters. The M4 is available with 3-shot bursts (M4) as well as full-auto capabilities (M4A1). The M-16 has been a very successful family of weapons and has had a very long service having now served the US military in one form or another for over 40 years. It is now coming to the end of its service life with moves already in place to design its replacement. Such a weapon will have a tough act to follow, seeking to replace one of the world’s most successful weapon systems and an icon

the ak47 Since it was first produced around 10 million have been made. It was the standard rifle of the Soviet bloc during the Cold war and remains the main weapon of its type in Russian service since 1957. It has spread throughout the world being a symbol for many insurgent movements around the world. the AK-47 is the perfect weapon for Guerrilla warfare , sturdy, cheap, small and impressively reliable even when exposed to dirt, sand and abuse. It has a 30 round magazine and fires a 7.62mm round at a velocity of 710m (2329ft) per second, with an effective range of 300 meters (330 yds). It has been manufactured in most former Warsaw Pact countries as well as China (as the type 56), North Korea, and Finland (M62 and M76 variants). Their are many variants with plastic, wooden and folding stocks but the best way to determine country of origin is to examine the language of the words on the 'Single shot' and 'Auto' selectors.

[edit] always comparing m16a1

Why does this article always seem to compare the ak to the m16a1,just wondering it seems that the only one ever compared (Esskater11 20:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC))

I agree, shouldn't the rifle compared be the most recent iteration of it? Using the M16A1 is highly unfair as it suffered from many defects fixed in later incarnations. 67.166.28.81 (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aluminium

Aluminium is far stronger and lighter than Steel this article says otherwise.

It's not. It's stronger for it's weight, but for two parts of equal size, it's much weaker and more prone to cracks and heat deformation. 217.31.178.94 (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AK47 may be favored

The author seems to always mention the AK47 first in every section. Although, I may just be paranoid

It is preferable for ease of reading to be consistent between sections as to the order in which items are presented. The AK-47 comes before the M16 both alphabetically and chronologically, therefore it does not seem unreasonable to select it as the first of the two items surveyed. I don't see this as a particularly major neutrality issue.

[edit] Opening Paaragraph needs to be edited

The AK-47 and the M-16 aren't the two most common rifle "families", they might be the most common riffles but they aren't "fammilies". Cody.raab 00:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colt firearms

It says that Colt is the manufacturer of the weapon, but i thought offical production was moved to FN back in the 90's(ForeverDEAD 15:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Fact versus Opinion

Given the number of facts and opinions that have not been substantiated by expert references, it is easy to see why there was a call for deletion. The original writer obviously put a good deal and time and energy into the article and it would seem that writer could make the necessary adjustments. I would guess that over time those adjustments will be made, but it would also seem that Wikipedia will have to decide whether product comparisons are appropriate subject matter for a fact based publication. PeaceNow 08:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I hate to say it (I *REALLY* hate to say it... I own both... the AK is easily better :P ), but, there are just too few references. The last AfD was in 2005, and, this article is STILL mostly WP:OR, and, almost totally unreferenced. As Igor said "AK-47 and M16 and their many variants are arguably the 2 most popular guns used by many Military and Civilian organizations around the world.". You're 100% right, and, that's why we have M16 and AK-47. Both firearms are indeed notable. --SXT4 19:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no way this article needs to be deleted. Although it is missing references, I have just added one and corrected a section. I think this is a great article worthy of wikipedia by all means. AK-47 and M16 and their many variants are arguably the 2 most popular guns used by many Military and Civilian organizations around the world. An article comparing them is is definitely encyclopedic. Igor at work 01:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bad Comparison

one of the largest problems here is the fact that this article compares the 7.62x39 AK-47 to the 5.56x45 M-16A*. a fair comparison would be 5.45x39 AK-74 to the 5.56x45 M-16A* and the 7.62x39 AK-47 to the 7.62x51 M14, otherwise its just apples to oranges and can't be done. User: 24.26.74.143 18:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I see your point but respectfully disagree with you. The chambers you are talking about are much less common and would make no real sense to someone who wants to compare the AK-47 and the M16.Igor at work 18:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

the 5.45x39 is flooding this country right now and has been in use for over 30 years now, its quite common.

i could give you links to several dozen sites selling 74 kits right now.

Russia designed the 5.45x39 because America went to the 5.56x45, only reason the round even exists. User: 24.26.74.143 18:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

problem #2 is the fact that most comparisons are done with Lake city mil-surp, commercial or hand loaded 5.56x45 vs mil-surp or Wolf 7.62x39. a high quality commercial round or a hand load would preform much better. User: 24.26.74.143 18:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:V and WP:OR

As it stands, almost nothing in this entry is source. This leaves it open to deletion or trimming on grounds of WP:V and WP:OR. I know many of the facts on this page to be true, and share most of its opinions so I will not take it as that would be disruptive, but I would ask users to find some sources for it. - perfectblue 17:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unaddressed issues

Actually, the M16 can only fire 800RPM, where as the AK-47 can fire 900. And I would like somebody to bring up durability, because the AK-47 is nigh impossible to break, it can be shot, kicked, stabbed, run over with a duce and a half, and still keep working, whearas the M16 will break if you set it down wrong, and you can forget trying to hit somebody with it, or trying to use a bayonett, because it will be completely destroyed. also, the AK is extremely reliable.

[edit] Data

please, will someone stop messing with the data, the AK-47 fires 900RPM so stop putting 600RPM, and by the way, please compare penetration, the M16 won't go through a sheet of plexiglass, but the AK-47 will go through a brick wall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avianmosquito (talk • contribs) 04:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The AK-47 page lists it at 600rpm. In order to have consistency among pages I would recommend bringing arguments over there. Whatever consensus is reached will be shown here. And also bring some sources for the 900RPM. Homersmyid 23:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] M16 Manufacturer

Apparently, the current manufacturer for military M16A4 is FN Manufacturing. Colt makes M4A1 instead. But on the chart at the beginning of the article, it states that M16's are still made by Colt. But FN won the contract since 1980's. So what should be the real manufacturer stated in the article. Or can we put the manufacturer as "various?"24.6.160.190 (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)