AK vs M-16 series
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=164231
Printed Date: 25 January 2026 at 8:53am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: AK vs M-16 series
Posted By: oldsoldier
Subject: AK vs M-16 series
Date Posted: 06 February 2007 at 9:56am
|
Interesting Discovery Channel video. Watch the flex of the AK barrel when fired, wobbles all over the place...accuracy issues.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6BpI3xD6h0&mode=related&search= - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6BpI3xD6h0&mode=related&sear ch= ------------- 
|
Replies:
Posted By: Jack Carver
Date Posted: 06 February 2007 at 10:32am
|
Very interesting video. Looks like they both have their strengths and weaknesses, and I think it's very fitting that our forces use the M-16 while the AK is more often associated with insurgents and the like. http://www.break.com/index/smokin_hot_barrel.html - Here 's another interesting one  |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 06 February 2007 at 10:38am
|
Having toyed with both rifles only for a limited amount of time, it was tough for me to form a preference. The M-4 I fired seemed a lot more comfortable to me to shoot. I enjoyed it. The AK was more robust feeling, but I hated the sights, and it was somewhat irritating to shoot. This is one of those "chicken or egg" debates that'll never really have a suitable conclusion. |
Posted By: BARREL BREAK
Date Posted: 06 February 2007 at 10:46am
|
Yup, the AK is not as much a precision insturment, but it most assuredly has it's strengths.
For example, reliability, ease of finding parts, ease of use, price, and durability. |
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 06 February 2007 at 12:08pm
-------------  irc.esper.net #paintball |
Reb Cpl wrote:Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 06 February 2007 at 12:20pm
|
Which one is cheaper to produce?
------------- 
|
Posted By: *Stealth*
Date Posted: 06 February 2007 at 12:23pm
The AK has such a amount in circulation already, it almost doesn't even need to be produced. I imagine the m16 is cheaper though. |
Posted By: Panda Man
Date Posted: 06 February 2007 at 12:52pm
|
Personally... The AK is better... Much simpler to produce, rounds are VERY easy to get a hold of, and they take a beating like you would not believe. Where the M-16, is kinda Rough to learn how to gut, put back together... I watched a thing on the Military channel about the best "Assault Rifles" of all time, and there was like 3 historians, Retired Major of the Marine Corp. and some Author or something... and they all Agreed even though the M-16 is a very nice gun, The AK is just smidge better... ------------- 
|
Posted By: Squishey
Date Posted: 06 February 2007 at 3:07pm
|
cool videos, the 2nd video is why america scares me. for the accuracy test in the first video i think it would have been better if the same guy shot both rifles, different people will have different accuracy. ------------- Canadians do it on top. 
|
Posted By: GI JOES SON
Date Posted: 06 February 2007 at 3:31pm
| yea, but all things considered the ak still isn't a bad rifle...sort of scary to see that kind of flex in it though |
Posted By: Panda Man
Date Posted: 06 February 2007 at 3:35pm
|
They were using some Romanian P.O.S. Clone.
-------------
|
Posted By: Predatorr
Date Posted: 06 February 2007 at 3:37pm
thats exactly what I was thinking, but both are apparently respected shooters |
Posted By: Hysteria
Date Posted: 06 February 2007 at 3:39pm
| Thank God for the subtitles. I wouldn't understand the videos, sans them. |
Posted By: sinisterNorth
Date Posted: 06 February 2007 at 4:08pm
|
Very cool vid. I've always like the AK mainly because of it's durability and ease of finding parts/ammo for it. M-16 is no joke though. ------------- Pumpker'd; (V.) When a pump player runs up and shoots you at point blank range because you thought 20bps made you good. |
Posted By: Pariel
Date Posted: 06 February 2007 at 6:40pm
| Cool vid, not exactly true though. They took limited information and turned it into an overall argument, and their argument is innately flawed in some ways, but it's a good view of those two (M16A1 and AK-47) weapons, without discussing upgrades or customization. |
Posted By: ANARCHY_SCOUT
Date Posted: 06 February 2007 at 6:56pm
------------- Gamertag: Kataklysm999 
|
Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 06 February 2007 at 7:29pm
|
This slow-mo vid has been out for some time. Unless the butt was placed on a brick wall, the reciver wouldn't have flexed that much. Anyways milled and RPK style AK-s do not have nearly the kind of flex. Replacement cost of the M-16A2 is what? $400-600? Replacement cost of the AKM is probably less than half that. |
Posted By: Kristofer
Date Posted: 06 February 2007 at 7:36pm
| All I'm going to say is that the M16 is not a pain to learn how to gut. Very simple to take apwart and put back together. Cleaning it on the other hand, well I dont even want to talk about that. Ive cleaned for 8 hours straight and there is still carbon on it.. |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 06 February 2007 at 10:00pm
|
The M-16 doesn't take any time at all to take apart...the AK seems easier because it's so easy to take the receiver apart, but putting it back together...the M-16 is a far smoother process. However, if my life depended on it, I'd say give me the AK. My AR was constantly developing surface rust, and they require fairly regular cleaning. My AK on the other hand...I've never cleaned it, and it looks and fires brand new. I need to, I realize, but the point stands that the AR wouldn't have looked near as good this far down the road without cleaning it. My only major issues with the AK are the sights and the absolutely horrendous trigger pull. AK's and SKS's have the worst trigger pulls, however with a good trigger and either a scope or better sights, the AK is the more reliable, rugged rifle IMO. ------------- 
|
Posted By: stick_boy_2002
Date Posted: 07 February 2007 at 2:22am
|
in my opinion that video is much better if you watch it while listening to metallica- seek and destroy ------------- 
|
Posted By: Panda Man
Date Posted: 07 February 2007 at 2:30am
|
Well... I got an idea... instead of taking a 1940's Weapon Vs. a 1970's Weapon.... Why don't they do this... AK74 Vs. M-16? Both were built around the same time... Because I think the 74 would Dust a M-16.  Edit: Another cool little Video about the AK... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L4iXNSCjfQ&NR - AK47 I'd really like to See a M16 go threw that "Stress" test. -------------
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 07 February 2007 at 8:09am
|
I would like to point out that I would prefere to play "dodge bullet" against a bad guy with an AK-47 than a "bad guy" armed with any M-16 series. Over 250m the AK is practically a spray and pray weapon, actually designed for that style of warfare by Soviet Doctrine, where a M16 series has a serious hit potential out to 450m, so that extra 2 football fields I have to play "dodge bullet" through is pretty impressive.
Till you have been on the recieving end of an AK there is little I can do to impress the differences to the uninitiated. I have shot both, and am a pretty good shot, yet over 250m my performance with AK confirms my belief, and faith, inside 250m weapons are basically equal in hit percentage, over 250m I'll be totin a M-16 series. And no matter what you have heard, a 7.62X39, or a 5.56, punchin through even a fleshy part will get the target to rethink the dedication to duty aspect of career progression. -------------
|
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 07 February 2007 at 8:54am
|
My brother shot my fiance's brother in the arm with a 5.56 round.
......okay so it was a fragment from a ricochet that barely broke the skin.....but its still a neat story. |
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 08 February 2007 at 8:32am
|
Personally i like the AK series of weapons. I've never found them to be anything besides good.
The M16 series also has it's serious advantages and disadvantages. I'm probbaly a little more Pro AK than M16, mainly because the weapons we use are Denel made R series of rifles. Which are slightly modified, lisence built Galils. Which are slightly modified Vlamet rifles, which are slightly modified AK's at heart. In all honesty the AK and the M16 are different weapons. The AK is a machinegun, which can be fired on semi auto. The M16 is a rifle that can fire on automatic. Personally if I HAD to choose, I'd probably take an M16, simply because it can do things the AK can't. Like hit a man sized target at 300m. This being said, the AK can hit targets at 300m, and it can do it with regularity, if you know what you are doing. At 300m,the 5.56mm is almost still like a laser. It's got a pretty flat trajectory,andit's easy to shoot. At 300m the 7.62x39mm is falling like a meteor. At 300m, with a 100m zero, the POI will be roughly 30 INCHES below POA. The 5.56mm will be about 10 inches low. One means a chest shot become a gut shot, the other means you miss him completely. It takes time to learn to use an AK to the same sort of level as an M-16, and even the you gotta have a good one,you gotta have mad skillz,and you gotta be able to use it. If it's taking you 30 seconds to set up your AK to shoot at a "badguy" at 300m,and all he has to do is shoulder his weapon and pull the trigger (and hold over by a little bit) youare screwed. In most cases I'd also prefer to be shot at with an AK than an M16, but if i got the choice, Id prefer not to be shot at at all, thanks. If I HAVE to be, I'd take my R6. Heavier than an M16, are robust as an AK. 
PS Rebel Capt like my story of getting hit in the chest with a .357 Magnum........back splatter fragment |
Posted By: Pump Scout
Date Posted: 08 February 2007 at 9:39am
|
Hold on a sec... there's some apparent flaws in that video.
First one that grabbed my attention was something that came into play on my own shopping trip recently. Shooting posture on the M-16 family teaches the shooter to put your nose to the charging handle (at least, it did when I learned) to ensure that your shots go to the same place every time. Shooter wasn't doing that, but he seemed accurate enough. I'm not sure yet what the proper body posture is with an AK, but I plan to learn (picked one up a week or so ago, been too cold & nasty out to go play with it). More glaring was the AK shooter very obviously jerking the trigger. Granted, mine has a harsh trigger pull, but there was in NO WAY any squeeze action going on with the AK. Jerk, jerk, jerk. It's no wonder that shooter wasn't hitting the target at 200. Another thing that struck me was the description of the selector switch that Mr. Bartocci gave. My understanding was that Mikhail Kalashnikov purposely designed the AK to go safe-auto-semi. Reason being that in the stress of combat, a not-so-well trained soldier would likely push the selector all the way to its stops when being fired at. That would put the rifle on semi, which would allow the soldier to return fire with aimed single shots, rather than spraying his ammo load all over. Full auto was desired, but not as the "go to" mode. It was to be a thought-out decision to put the rifle on auto. Now, ergonomically, the M-16 family has it all over the AK. Magazine changes (including how the magazine goes into the rifle, recharging an empty chamber, removing an empty mag), safety/selector reach and noise level, sights, overall feel. Price for the rifle and ammo put me in the AK camp for this year. Next year's purchase is likely to be an M-4gery, while I can still get one. Wanted one since 1985 or so.
Heh, in spite of my best efforts, on the ranges at Knox, I could barely SEE the 300m targets. I saved those four rounds for something I figured I had a chance at really hitting. 300 meters in my line of work was the turf of "back off and call mortars or tubes on him, bypass entirely, or let the M-60s and 50-cals do the work".  ------------- http://www.geocities.com/limitedpump - Limited Pump Paintball |
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 08 February 2007 at 11:35am
|
95% of combat occurs within 100 meters/yards. 90% within 50. First shot accuracy, fast target acquisition, fast second shot time, and ergonomics are thus key; as well as the ability to reload quickly and to quickly clear stoppages. Granted, the latter isn't much of a problem with the AK, but for pretty much everything else an AR carbine is pretty dominant. I'm not overly concerned about a weapon with great terminal ballistics beyond maybe 150 or 200m. At that range we're calling in fast air or artillery anyway- or lighting them up with 7.62 or 25mm. That said, an AR carbine will still hit a target pretty decently at 300m if it comes to that; I just have no faith in the wounding characteristics of the round. When I head over I'll likely be carrying either a Colt Canada C7A2 or C8- the former a 20 inch barrel right with a carbine stock, and the latter a more traditional carbine. In either case I'll probably have mounted a foregrip, an EOTech zeroed off at 50m, and backup ironsights zeroed for 200m. Add to that a Surefire and a laser module and we're talking a fairly bulky weapon, but still one pretty optimized for the job. I'd definitely prefer to face a 7.62x39mm than a 5.56 if I end up on a two way range; the lower velocity and larger surface area of the 7.62 means that if I forget to duck, I'll have a lot more luck taking it on the plates than I would with a round with greater penetration. Hopefully I never have to found out for sure... ------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: CarbineKid
Date Posted: 08 February 2007 at 3:03pm
|
Given a choice between the 2, I would vote for the AK(Valment version). However I still say the M-14 is the better rifle
|
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 09 February 2007 at 5:54am
|
Personally I'd prefer to be on the receiving end of a 7.62x39 as well. But mainly because so few people who'll likely be shooting at me with one will know how to use it properly.
In our R6's we still use M193 rounds. We don't have any greenies. And for the sort of ranges we'd encounter as cops, it's more room to room sort of shooting than 300m +.And, while *I*'ve never shot anyone with a 5,56mm, I've seen the end results, and it is not pretty. When the 5.56mm hits up close and personal it is like the Hammer of Thor. While the 7.62x39mm might have better terminal ballistics at 300m, it is easier to get your hits on the target with the 5.56mm, even if you are just punching little icepick like holes through them. As for all the comments about the ergonomics of the M16 over the AK, personally I find the AK points very well, it has super fast aquisition with it's notch and post sight, and it works very well within it's limitations. I do agree the mag isn't the easiest thing to manipulate, but I do find it works very well for fairly rapid mag changes. The other ergonomic problems can be worked on. Look at the R6. At bare bones it's an AK. However it has a thumb selector switch, a better grip angle, a better bolt handle, much better sights and while it retains the hook and lever mag action, it holds 35 rounds in it's mags. As one of the other posters said though, this debate is 30 years old. Can we move on? KBK |