AK 47 VS M16 video


PDA






AtticusThraxx
November 6, 2007, 08:47 PM
I apologize if this has already made the rounds, but I've never seen it and found it interesting:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=G6BpI3xD6h0

If you enjoyed reading about "AK 47 VS M16 video" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
pdowg881
November 6, 2007, 08:51 PM
I think the AK is more accurate than that demonstration points out.

eldon519
November 6, 2007, 08:59 PM
That was a good video.

RockyMtnTactical
November 6, 2007, 09:08 PM
Yep, it's made the rounds alright. Interesting video though nonetheless...

SlamFire1
November 6, 2007, 09:54 PM
Well, well, well. Someone comparing the M16 to the AK. Yes the reciprocating mass of the AK bolt carrier and bolt is greater and therefore gives more recoil. But guess what, that is a major reason the AK is so darn reliable in feed. Call it ratio of primary mass to secondary mass. . Weapon designers used the ratio of carrier mass/bolt mass as a technical quality measure. The more weight you have to relative to that bolt, the more momentum the mechanism will have to move that bolt and close it. The AK has a very high carrier/bolt mass ratio, higher than the M14. And last I heard, the M14 was considered a good weapon platform.

So, what do you want, something like the M16 that has little recoil, but the slightest amount of dust will jam the mechanism, or do you want something that will go bang each and every time you need it? Even if it is loaded with sand?

The AK excels in two characteristics that I think are absolutely primary in weapon design: It is reliable, and it is easy to maintain.

Also, most of the GI’s who report here, talk about conflicts up close and personal, like 50 yard range. Something that close, I would want something that works each and every time, and has good close up performance.

Make mine an AK.

Just wish mine had a better trigger. More darn creep than a cheap shotgun.

JonB
November 6, 2007, 10:45 PM
but the slightest amount of dust will jam the mechanism,

Huh? says who?

esmith
November 6, 2007, 10:53 PM
the slightest amount of dust will jam the mechanism

Im sure if the slightest amount of dust would jam the M16, our forces wouldn't still be using them.

The video sheds poor light on the AK. The person shooting the AK jerks to hard on the trigger and is a bad shot. If they wanted a more constant testing they would have had the same person shoot both rifles.

ernunnos
November 6, 2007, 10:55 PM
That's a good point about the relative mass. Similar issue to limp-wristing with pistols. But I don't think enough people give credit to the 7.62x39 round. That tapered case not only makes for a heavily curved magazine, it helps keep 'em feeding into the chamber even with a lot of fouling. .303 is also reliable for similar reasons.

1lostinspace
November 6, 2007, 11:00 PM
I have said it a million and one more time tha m/16/4/ar15 family are far more reliable then given credit for.

Now on the other hand that an AK can't hit a torso at 200 yards is a bunch of bull. I can hit an 18" steel plate 24-26 out of 30 shots using iron sites and I am not a super shot, just a good shot.

Nolo
November 6, 2007, 11:10 PM
The person shooting the AK was definitely not shooting properly. He was pulling the trigger, not squeezing it.
I'm quite impressed with the 7.62x39's power against structures. Quite frankly, that video made me want an AK over an M16. Now, I do like being a marksman, but that sort of crushing power is truly impressive to me.
I'd want a rifle that was capable of that kind of destruction, of AK weight, accurate enough (able to kill somebody at semiauto, allowing for combat conditions) at medium ranges, with a 30 round magazine and with the option of full-auto. I'd want near-AK reliability, and as little weight as possible for ammo. I'm thinking some sort of 6.8mm round attached to a 7.62x39mm case, in an FNC-type platform.
Of course, I just described numerous concept rifles. I think a simple change in bullet weights for the M16/M4 would be enough, 62 to 87 grains, at 2700 f/s.

Don't Tread On Me
November 6, 2007, 11:12 PM
He probably can't use the sights well. The AK should be good enough to make COM shots at 200 yards. I'm talking about a regular decent AK. I've seen some junk WASR types that shoot pie-plate at 50y that wouldn't hit a silhouette at 200 yards.

While the show is exaggerated or not 100% accurate, I think the idea being conveyed is ok. Take an AK to the range, take an AR-15. Set up at 200 yards. Iron sights. You will make more hits with the AR-15. It's just that simple. Sights are better for this purpose, rifle has better ergonomics and it is more accurate.

If you shoot better with the AK, then there is something wrong with you.

james_bond
November 6, 2007, 11:19 PM
thanks hadn't seen that one yet.

Ignition Override
November 7, 2007, 02:15 AM
Thank you Atticus for the excellent video.

There was an interesting excerpt from a book about the southeast Asian conflicts (among many others?) which pointed out the AK's reliability.

In a book call "A Bright Shining Lie" by Neil Sheehan (believe he won the Pulitzer Prize for it), the book's central character, Col. John Paul Vann, found a dead VC soldier who had been in the mud for about three days. Maybe it was in the book by David Hackworth ( ret. Army). I can't find the books.

Col. Vann picked up the AK-47, which also had been partly or totally covered by/buried in the mud, pulled back the bolt then fired the gun a few times.

Might the AK's motto be " Veni, vidi, vici" ("I came, saw, conquered") ?

Claude the Libertarian
November 7, 2007, 02:42 AM
What I have told people before, is that the AK, could be scary good, if some US manufacturers, re worked it. Just some slight changes.

I have not heard enough, but have any of our forces, reported how well a tabuk fires? I have heard it is much better than a reguler AK.

SlamFire1
November 7, 2007, 10:45 AM
In a book call "A Bright Shining Lie" by Neil Sheehan (believe he won the Pulitzer Prize for it), the book's central character, Col. John Paul Vann, found a dead VC soldier who had been in the mud for about three days. Maybe it was in the book by David Hackworth ( ret. Army). I can't find the books.

Col. Vann picked up the AK-47, which also had been partly or totally covered by/buried in the mud, pulled back the bolt then fired the gun a few times.

A Special Forces shooting bud had the exact same experience. For whatever reason a road was being scrapped and they found a VC buried from a shell impact. He was in his full equipment, and had been under for longer than 3 days. (I think he said 3 months, how to tell I don't know) My bud picked up the AK, racked the bolt, and fired the weapon.

Im sure if the slightest amount of dust would jam the M16, our forces wouldn't still be using them.
The M16 is very dust sensitive. I have talked to any number of Iraqi vets, around military bases, or in the pits at Perry, that confirm this. The weapon has to be kept clean. One Marine told me of cleaning his weapon four times a day. He was in an area where the dust is like talc. In that same area, he and his buds had picked up an AK, took the top cover off, and were pouring handfuls of sand into it. And it worked! What a contrast between weapons.

Talking to a early 70's Navy guy, who went into Navy basic just as the Vietnam war was ending. He told me they had just removed Garands(!) from the inventory and were training the Navy guys on the M16. They also had an AK. The Navy guys were given a demonstration. The trainers put just a little sand in the M16 and got the gun to jam. Then they poured teaspoons of sand into the AK and it still worked. The trainers then proceeded to tell the trainees the demonstration showed the high standard of workmanship that went into the M16, whereas the AK was obviously a POS.

After 30 years of this indoctrination the guy still believed that a well built weapon that jammed easy was a quality attribute. I upset him when I told him otherwise.

The military has this weapon. It was shoved down their throats in the 60’s. They are going to salute, say “yes Sir, and use it. They are going to what is necessary to build confidence in recruits that they are issued the finest weapons, (even though this is not true), and they are going to do what is necessary to avoid scandal.

If the gun jams and a Solider gets killed, they will blame the Solider for poor maintenance, not the weapon platform for poor design.

ClickClickD'oh
November 7, 2007, 10:59 AM
Oh god, I'm sorry but that video is crap. Any comparisson that starts of by calling one of the two items to be compared "high precision" isn't attempting fairness.

Oh, and that part of the AK that is "clearly flexing" during fire... that's the cleaning rod morons.

HorseSoldier
November 7, 2007, 11:46 AM
The military has this weapon. It was shoved down their throats in the 60’s. They are going to salute, say “yes Sir, and use it. They are going to what is necessary to build confidence in recruits that they are issued the finest weapons, (even though this is not true), and they are going to do what is necessary to avoid scandal.

Strangely, I don't know anyone who shares your opinion of the M16/M4 who has actually carried it in combat. And that's not "put on a brave show for the press so the brass won't get angry," that's just general satisfaction with the weapon while discussing its attributes and performance downrange.

ernunnos
November 7, 2007, 11:46 AM
The AK is scary good when reworked by other nations. It's called the Valmet. Or the Galil. The closest thing available for sale in the U.S. right now is the Golani.

The Tabuk is based on the Yugo M-70, which is just an AK with a heavier receiver & trunion. It's one of the better examples of an AK-based design, but nothing to get too excited about.

RockyMtnTactical
November 7, 2007, 01:42 PM
If the Galil is so great, why don't the Israeli's even issue it?

ernunnos
November 7, 2007, 01:49 PM
Because we give them M-16s for free.

JHansenAK47
November 7, 2007, 03:11 PM
Because we give them M-16s for free.
Military aid to Israel isn't 100% free they pay $100 dollars for an M16 rifle and the US springs the rest.
If the Galil is so great, why don't the Israeli's even issue it?
The Israelis do issue Galils to support and some reserve units. The Galil is being withdrawn from active service. The new Tavor rifle is replacing M16s and M16s are in turn replacing the remaining Galils. However the Israelis still use the Galatz rifle which is a Galil in 7.62 with a scope. They use it as a kind of DMR/Sniper Rifle.

RockyMtnTactical
November 7, 2007, 03:17 PM
The Israelis do issue Galils to support and some reserve units.

Yeah, I meant en masse. Thanks.

Because we give them M-16s for free.

Even if we did give them M16's for free, or even dirt cheap, that still doesn't answer my question. If the Galil was so good compared to the M16 (or any other rifle), don't you think militaries would insist on using them?

Other than the IDF in limited numbers, who even uses the Galil?

JHansenAK47
November 7, 2007, 03:30 PM
South Africa is one of the countries that adopted them.
The problem with the Galil is it has a milled receiver that makes it heavier and more expensive than an AK.
Why get a Galil when you can get an AK.
The Galil was actually meant to be the rifle of the IDF but military aid gave them dirt cheap M16s Vs Galils they would have to pay full price for. The Galils just never took off as the issue rifle.
BTW the Israelis have thousands of captured AKs.

Ian
November 7, 2007, 03:37 PM
In addition, the fact that the Galil doesn't use NATO standard mags pretty much prevents it from being widely used in the west.

JHansenAK47
November 7, 2007, 03:39 PM
IWI has mag adaptors for the Galil to use M16 mags.

RockyMtnTactical
November 7, 2007, 03:43 PM
The Galil was actually meant to be the rifle of the IDF but military aid gave them dirt cheap M16s Vs Galils they would have to pay full price for. The Galils just never took off as the issue rifle.

Which is exactly my point... It's simply not that great of a rifle. If it was unequivocally better than the M16, the Israeli's (who happened to invent the design) would be using it... and so would everyone else.

It's not bad, but it's not any huge improvement...

JHansenAK47
November 7, 2007, 03:51 PM
Sights aren't that great either. They work but are not nearly as refined as an M16 sight.

SlamFire1
November 7, 2007, 03:54 PM
Which is exactly my point... It's simply not that great of a rifle. If it was unequivocally better than the M16, the Israeli's (who happened to invent the design) would be using it... and so would everyone else

Money is a far higher greater barrier to replacement than performance. If something is in inventory and meets miniumum requirements, why replace it if it costs lots of money?

You can see this in real life all the time, folks driving around in clunkers, when for $50,000 they could get a plush mobile. Somehow, it seems, the cash outlay is a barrier, and a clunker becomes good enough.

Governments have budgets too, you know.

Heck the Russians used the Mosin Nagant until what, the 1950's? And they are still using the 7.62 X 54R. So why did they not replace the Mosin's with M98 Mausers, and the rimmed round with rimless? $$$$$ Money $$$$.

RockyMtnTactical
November 7, 2007, 03:58 PM
why replace it if it costs lots of money?

The main reason you would replace it is if it was significantly better... which it is not.

JHansenAK47
November 7, 2007, 04:02 PM
You got to remember the Israelis had troops in Lebanon for most of the 80s. Plus they were running ops all over the Gaza strip and west bank. They Designed the locally produced Merkava tank and had to buy hundreds of those. Ask a US tanker which tank is better the Abrams or the Merkava. They have mandatory military service because they use their military. If you were running the budget what would you do? Buy Galils or save money and get more equipment. They spend more per capita for defense than any country I can even think of.

ClickClickD'oh
November 7, 2007, 04:08 PM
The main reason you would replace it is if it was significantly better... which it is not.Which explains why the USAF no longer has any F-16s or F-15s now that the F-22 has entered service right?

JHansenAK47
November 7, 2007, 04:30 PM
The main reason you would replace it is if it was significantly better... which it is not.
The Galil was originally designed to replace the Israeli FAL. Which would jam with all the dust.
More of a case of dropping a rifle for a cheaper one than anything else.
A lot of people were surprised that Israel decided to go forward with the Tavor project. They have to pay full price for domestically manufactured rifles than US made ones.
Thats another stipulation of Military aid to Israel is it has to be manufactured in the US otherwise we won't help pay for it.

RockyMtnTactical
November 7, 2007, 04:43 PM
Which explains why the USAF no longer has any F-16s or F-15s now that the F-22 has entered service right?

No, that is why we don't have F4's and F14's.

We can't build up thousands of F-22's on a moments notice. But, we are putting them into service and they are recognized as THE most advanced fighter. We're not giving them to reserve units or looking to phase them out...

Also, having F-22's along with F-16's is similar to how we have M16's along with M14's, M9, etc... Different tools for different missions. The M14 gets used because we have them, yes. I'm not saying that budget doesn't play an issue, but if budget were all that mattered couldn't we be saving a lot of money by not developing new innovative designs and just making more F-16's?

Not to mention, firearms have been around for hundreds of years and advancement comes slowly with them now.

Planes have been around for only about 100 years and took until WWI to see how big of a role they could play in battle. Comparing the Galil to the F-22 and the M16 to the F-15 or F-16 just doesn't really make sense... There's no way the Galil is any where near that much more superior (IF AT ALL)...

Unless you believe that one guy with a Galil is at a distinct advantage over 6 similarly trained guys with M16's...

ClickClickD'oh
November 7, 2007, 04:49 PM
No, that is why we don't have F4's and F14's.

We can't build up thousands of F-22's on a moments notice.

Also, having F-22's along with F-16's is similar to how we have M16's along with M14's, M9, etc... Your attempt at defeating the analogy has completely fallen apart.

First of, the F-14 is a Navy bird... not of concern to the USAF. Second, the Phantoms were phased out and replaced with F-15s and F-16s in their respective roles. The Phantom has nothing to do with the F-22/F-15/F-16 issue.

And now for the reality check. The F-35 will fill the role of the F-16 but is not going to unit for unit replace it because of economic converns. The F-22 directly fills the role of the A&C model eagles, but will not unit for unit replace it for economic concerns.

Production rates aren't the issue. The USAF has no intention of replaceing the elderly birds because of economic concerns despite the fact the F-22 is far superior to either aircraft.

Face it, your argument is completely and totally debunked. Economic concerns play a huge role in military procurement.

RockyMtnTactical
November 7, 2007, 04:57 PM
No your argument is making no sense. You attempted to say that the Galil is esentially an F-22 and the M16 is an F-16.

That is a ridiculous analogy. An F-22 is so superior to the F-16 that the F-16 would be lucky to even get a shot off at an F-22. There is a HUGE difference in performance. Even a man armed with a Mosin could get a shot off and even kill a man with a Galil...

Also, the difference in pricing is EXTREMELY huge as well.

I never discounted budgets. I am only saying that the Galil is not that much better (if at all) than an M16, whereas the F-22 is a dramatic upgrade over an F-16, but also a dramatic price increase as well.

This is an apples and oranges argument that you claim to have won.

Like someone else pointed out, the IDF has tons of AK's as well, but they don't issue those. So, does that make the AK the F-4 or P-51? :rolleyes:

ClickClickD'oh
November 7, 2007, 05:04 PM
No your argument is making no sense. You attempted to say that the Galil is esentially an F-22 and the M16 is an F-16.
Please stop. You have invented this argument. I simply presented a case where clearly superior technology is not replacing inferior equipment in service because of economic concerns. The only parallel that should be drawn was the price comparisson between the expensive Galil and the cheap M-16. Through extension, the expensive F-22, which is only going to be used in very limited numbers, versus the F-15 and F-16 which are cheap by comparisson and will be very plentiful for decades.

That is a ridiculous analogy. An F-22 is so superior to the F-16 that the F-16 would be lucky to even get a shot off at an F-22. There is a HUGE difference in performance. Even a man armed with a Mosin could get a shot off and even kill a man with a Galil...That's great, but you're arguing to defeat an argument that you created.

I never discounted budgets.Yes, you did. It was pointed out that the Galil didn't see widespread service after introduction because M-16 rifles were given away virtually free. You discounted that. Post #22 & #26.

SammyIamToday
November 7, 2007, 05:07 PM
"The main reason you would replace it is if it was significantly better... which it is not."

"Also, the difference in pricing is EXTREMELY huge as well."

So, which one is it?

RockyMtnTactical
November 7, 2007, 05:08 PM
The only parallel that should be drawn was the price comparisson between the expensive Galil and the cheap M-16.

Than you missed the whole point entirely. :eek:

Yes, you did. It was pointed out that the Galil didn't see widespread service after introduction because M-16 rifles were given away virtually free. You discounted that.

Like I said, you missed the point entirely.

The Galil is not that advanced... and you have yet to prove otherwise.

RockyMtnTactical
November 7, 2007, 05:12 PM
"The main reason you would replace it is if it was significantly better... which it is not."

"Also, the difference in pricing is EXTREMELY huge as well."

So, which one is it?

The difference is, we ARE building the EXTREMELY high price tag F-22's because they are THAT GOOD in comparison to what we have now, and using them. We aren't giving them to the reserve units either... Why?

Whereas, the Galil isn't that much more money in comparison, but despite that, they aren't getting made in large amounts and/or getting put on the front line.

The F-22 is so good, we'll take as many as we can get our hands on and use them on the front lines.

Apples and oranges...

ClickClickD'oh
November 7, 2007, 05:24 PM
Than you missed the whole point entirely
Let me see if I can get your point... It attempted to be, "The Galil can't be a superior weapon to the M-16 platform because it saw limited use."

Am I right in that being your point?

Okay, I'll proceed with the assumption that it is your point.
1) Your point is a giant logic flaw. If A is B and B is C, then A is not necessarily C. The widespread use of a weapon is not directly attached to it's superiority to other weapons. How many nations do you see trucking around Ohio Class SSBNs?

2) Isreal procured M-16 rifles from the US for $100. Each Galil Rifle would cost ten times that amount. If the USAF can't justify paying three times the amount per unit for a new fighter, what makes you think the IDF would pay ten?

We aren't giving them to the reserve units either... Why?
Actually, yes. The Airforce Reserve is getting F-22s.

The F-22 is so good, we'll take as many as we can get our hands on and use them on the front lines. One problem. That's not at all what happened. We didn't take nearly as many F-22s as we could. In fact, we cut the production number from the original order.

SammyIamToday
November 7, 2007, 05:27 PM
The difference is, we ARE building the EXTREMELY high price tag F-22's because they are THAT GOOD in comparison to what we have now, and using them. We aren't giving them to the reserve units either... Why?

If your price was no matter argument held any water, we'd have been pushing them out as fast as possible and replacing all obsolete units. However, that's not reality.

Whereas, the Galil isn't that much more money in comparison, but despite that, they aren't getting made in large amounts and/or getting put on the front line.

In a country like Israel (with a much smaller budget) that's basically in a sustained state of war, the amount of monetary difference between almost free weapons (that work) and fully paid for weapons produced domestically (that are arguably an upgrade) is very substantial. Trying to say that it's simply based upon how much of an improvement a new piece of equipment adds is simply wrong.

The F-22 is so good, we'll take as many as we can get our hands on and use them on the front lines.

Apples and oranges...

Actually its a good comparison because it shows that money slows down any equipment acquisition process by a military. No matter how much of an upgrade the new equipment offers.

RockyMtnTactical
November 7, 2007, 05:35 PM
"The Galil can't be a superior weapon to the M-16 platform because it saw limited use."

No, my point is that the Galil simply is not much of a better weapon. Can you prove otherwise?

That would be my only real point everything else is secondary in my argument. Please provide proof that the Galil is a substantial improvement over the M16.

Wiki states that the price of an F-16 is "US$18.8 million (F-16C/D) in 1998".

It also states that the F-22 cost "US$137.7 million as of 2007" not to mention the "US$ 62 billion" program cost...

I'm no math guy, but that is a substancial sum to pay...

You're comparison simply doesn't work. The US is paying HUGE money to get these planes and putting them on the front line with their best pilots (I am assuming), not just with their reserve units.

If the Galil is so good, why aren't they using every Galil they have with as many of their elite troops as possible?

Hell, I want to know what (if ANY) gun gives you the advantage that an F-22 does over an F-16....

Apples and oranges. Sorry, your argument sucks, but you won't admit it...

If your price was no matter argument held any water, we'd have been pushing them out as fast as possible and replacing all obsolete units. However, that's not reality.

I agree. But that wasn't my point there was it? Besides, the US is using the F-22, it is not "arguably an upgrade". It is 10x the fighter the F-16 is.

Actually its a good comparison because it shows that money slows down any equipment acquisition process by a military. No matter how much of an upgrade the new equipment offers.

But that has nothing to do with the argument.

This is about whether the Galil is an upgrade over the M16. To say that it is an upgrade is arguable in your own words.

That the F-22 is an upgrade is simply not an argument.

ClickClickD'oh
November 7, 2007, 05:43 PM
No, my point is that the Galil simply is not much of a better weapon. Can you prove otherwise? It's not that hard to prove. The Galil won over the M16A1 in a head to head procurement competition.

Wiki states that the price of an F-16 is "US$18.8 million (F-16C/D) in 1998".Good for Wiki. There's a very good reason no reputable academic institution allows Wiki as a source. The USAF pays 45 mil per airframe.

RockyMtnTactical
November 7, 2007, 05:45 PM
Good for Wiki. There's a very good reason no reputable academic institution allows Wiki as a source. The USAF pays 45 mil per airframe.

Hey, at least I stated where I got my numbers. I am not saying they are accurate... I have no clue, but it's the only source I could find in 1 minutes time.

Do "reputable academic institutions" allow ClickClickD'oh as a source?

Are in charge of buying/selling equipment for the military?

It's not that hard to prove. The Galil won over the M16A1 in a head to head procurement competition.

That's funny, because you've spent a lot of time rambling on about F-22's trying to prove your point about the Galil... and still have yet to prove anything...

SlamFire1
November 7, 2007, 05:51 PM
It is my considered opinion, based on what I have read and seen, that if a weapon system meets minimum requirements, it will stay in inventory for a long time. That is until outside events show that the system is so militarily inferior that it has to be replaced. Funding is the primary reason for this inertia.

To this back into the firearms world, we look back and see something like the Trap Door. The Government went the “cheap” route and decided to save money by converting muzzle loaders to cartridge by using the Trap Door mechanism. Well it was not long when they decided converting muzzle loaders was a bad idea, and they started manufacturing new Trap Doors. In for a penny, in for a pound. This obsolete mechanism was the primary service arm all the way up to the Spanish American war in 1892. We all know how outdated the Trap Door was at the time. The fact the Trap Door met the “minimum” requirements, kept it in inventory until outside events required change. These decisions are always funding driven.

As for the capabilities of USAF planes, heck if I know. The cost growth on USAF planes is such, that in time it will require the entire Defense Budget will buy one plane. Pilots will draw numbers to see who gets to fly the thing.

Ships are so expensive, the Navy has a 100 year hull program. That is, design the ship so you can refit and refurbish the thing for a service life of 100 years.

atblis
November 7, 2007, 05:58 PM
While pretty slick and well produced, that video is not a good source of info.

Neither of those shooters know what they're doing. They should have had the same person shoot both rifles.

Regarding the Israelis, they don't buy their equipment simply based on what's the best. There are a few political concerns involved.

JHansenAK47
November 7, 2007, 06:04 PM
First of all the Galil was never designed to replace the M16 rifle. It originally came out of the 6 day 1967 war because the FALs were jamming in dust. The Israelis saw how well the AK performed and decided to make their own version. So they start making and issuing them to their armed forces. While they are transitioning they start getting cheap M16s which get the job done for less per unit. Normally a country would keep with a domestically manufactured rifle to help its economy. However they chose to save a significant amount of money using US military aid. US military aid won't pay for anything not made in the US.
Nobody said the Galil was meant to replace the M16. They came on the scene later and were chosen over the Galil because the Israeli army hadn't transitioned fully to the Galil. They just changed course to save money so they could have their budget stretch further. Otherwise I know they would have chosen a domestic design or in the least a domestic manufacturer.

REOIV
November 7, 2007, 06:11 PM
I just like how the guy shooting the AK at 200 yards didn't adjust the ladder sight to compensate for the bullet drop in addition to the goofy way he pulled the trigger.

Notice later when they show a close up of it in his hands. The damn thing is still set for 100 yards or less.

Great job there Einstein, no wonder you're only hitting the bottom of the paper.

It's a mystery!!!

ClickClickD'oh
November 7, 2007, 06:45 PM
Hey, at least I stated where I got my numbers. I am not saying they are accurate... I have no clue, but it's the only source I could find in 1 minutes time. Perhaps you should do more than one minutes research then.

$45million is the cost of a F-16C Block 52 aircraft at delivery.
That's funny, because you've spent a lot of time rambling on about F-22's trying to prove your point about the Galil... and still have yet to prove anything...Wait, the Galil winning in a head to head competition againt the M-16A1 doesn't prove anything?

Is there anything you would consider proof then?

RockyMtnTactical
November 7, 2007, 07:19 PM
Perhaps you should do more than one minutes research then.


Frankly, I don't care, even now. This is still an apples and oranges comparison, regardless of if the price is $18mil or $45mil. If you want to start a thread on military aircraft, go right ahead though.

We are talking about rifles, not aircraft. I know a thing or two about rifles, I am not the military aircraft expert and don't claim to be, but with what little I do know, I can say emphatically that this comparison is not even close... There is no comparison between an F-16 and an F-22. They are a world apart, it is no contest...

An army of 100 men armed with M16's is not at any distinct disadvantage to an army of 100 men armed with Galil's.

That is my point and has been all along.

You never answered this question.

Do "reputable academic institutions" allow ClickClickD'oh as a source?

My point is, you keep stating things like facts, but you have zero credibility and cite no source. I don't know if you are correct or if Wiki is correct... Not that it matters, it is really a moot point. I don't even know why we are still talking about F-22's...

I simply stated that the Galil wasn't a significant improvement (if at all) over the M16. You have yet to provide one shred of evidence for one thing you have posted. But you have spoken like an authority...

Wait, the Galil winning in a head to head competition againt the M-16A1 doesn't prove anything?

Is there anything you would consider proof then?

Who conducted the test? When, where? What possible biases did the test people have? How many test's were conducted? What were the exact results? By what margin is the Galil better?

How are you a more reliable source than Wiki or any other random person on the internet? When you state things I am just suppose to believe it?

Your argument with the F-22's and F-16's is ridiculous. If they came up with a rifle that made the user "invisible" in some respect and allowed the user to engage/destroy multiple targets at once before the enemy even knew they were there... it would be in use in the military... and probably put into the hands of our elite forces...

ClickClickD'oh
November 7, 2007, 07:23 PM
My point is, you keep stating things like facts, but you have zero credibility and cite no source.If you want to be treated like a child and have everything spoon fed to you, I can oblidge you. I gave you the information you need (F-16C Block 52) and you have the tools necessary (google) to find out.

Who conducted the test?Who do you think conducted a head to head test between the Galil and the M-16A1 to chose a service rifle for the IDF?

Seriously, do you want to be treated like a child?

RockyMtnTactical
November 7, 2007, 07:30 PM
You can't answer the question, which is why you won't.

Who do you think conducted a head to head test between the Galil and the M-16A1 to chose a service rifle for the IDF?

You never stated anything about who conducted the test and for who until just now...

Face it, you started this argument, you cannot back up your claims that the Galil is significantly better than the M16, but your pride won't let you drop the subject.

HorseSoldier
November 7, 2007, 07:33 PM
The Galil was actually meant to be the rifle of the IDF but military aid gave them dirt cheap M16s Vs Galils they would have to pay full price for. The Galils just never took off as the issue rifle.


First of all the Galil was never designed to replace the M16 rifle. It originally came out of the Yom Kippur war because the FALs were jamming in dust. The Israelis saw how well the AK performed and decided to make their own version. So they start making and issuing them to their armed forces. While they are transitioning they start getting cheap M16s which get the job done for less per unit.

It's not that hard to prove. The Galil won over the M16A1 in a head to head procurement competition.


Assorted misinformation and semi-accurate statements in this thread now that the Galil has entered the picture.

Reality: The Israelis procured a bunch of Galils besides any and all M16A1s, CAR-15s, etc., they got from the US for a reduced rate as military aid. Galils are still in service with some units, both their active service units and some reserve units.

But Galils are issued as personal defense weapons for armored vehicle crews and the like. It was completely replaced in the hands of infantry and other people who pull rifle/carbine triggers for a living by M16s year ago. This begs the simple question if the Galil is a superior weapon, why did the IDF only keep it for guys who are not expected to fire their personal weapons in combat, and why did they replace it in the hands of shooters with the "inferior" M16? Why not keep it for the infantry and give the cheap American M16s to the tank crews?

The answer appears to be that the Galil was simply not nearly as well regarded by its actual IDF users as it is by American gun magazine writers and folks on the internet. The situation is not much different in Colombia, who adopted the Galil but then issue M4s to their elite/special operations folks.

I'd argue that there are flaws and issues with the Galil above and beyond simple consideration of its weight, mostly related to its cruddy AK control placement that make it less desirable as a combat long gun than is readily apparent simply from reading about it or even shooting from from a relatively static position at the range. It is an improvement over the basic AK pattern, with better sights and a more or less ambidextrous charging handle, but it's still stuck with the AK safety and left-side safety that is not much more useful for quick handling. Trigger slap on Galils is also the worst of any AK-pattern rifle I've ever fired.

The fact that the magazines are surprisingly delicate and from what I've seen break quite readily (much higher failure rates than USGI M16 mags or normal AK-47/74 magazines) when training new users to use the weapon may not have helped its service history, either.

ClickClickD'oh
November 7, 2007, 07:49 PM
You can't answer the question, which is why you won't.

No child, I would have liked you to discover knowledge on your own. It's more useful that way.

F-16C Block 52 cost:
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_users_article5.html

Galil vs M-16A1
http://www.remtek.com/arms/imi/galil/index.htm

This is commonly available information on many web-sites if one cares to look for it.

I'd argue that there are flaws and issues with the Galil above and beyond simple consideration of its weight, mostly related to its cruddy AK control placement Actually, the Galil improved the AK control placement greatly by placing a thumb control for the fire selector on the left side at the pistol grip.

JHansenAK47
November 7, 2007, 07:59 PM
Actually, the Galil improved the AK control placement greatly by placing a thumb control for the fire selector on the left side at the pistol grip.
If you have ever seen the Galil fire selector you would also know that it moves front to back. All the way forward is safe and then I believe middle is auto and all the way back is semi. If you play with it you notice it is backwards to what it should be. Pulling the selector back with your thumb is unnatural and uncomfortable. If it was opposite and you pushed it forward it would be quick and easy to take it off safe.

RockyMtnTactical
November 7, 2007, 08:01 PM
ClickClickD'oh,

So your resorting to name calling and answering the irrelevant questions? You're taking an immature argument to new levels.

I don't know if you recall but this thread is not about aircraft. Maybe you should re-read the thread. You turned this into an aircraft thread. I don't care what a F-16 costs.

You've yet to prove how the Galil is so superior. Even if one study says that one weapon is better, it still didn't refute my original claim (that the difference is not significant).

You need to re-read the thread, because you have a reading comprehension problem.

The Galil is not substantially better than the M16. Once again, an army of 100 men armed with M16's is not at any distinct disadvantage to an army of 100 men armed with Galil's.

If an army of men with Galil's were even twice as effective (only a small margin when compared to the F-22 vs. F-16 margin), it would actually be a cost saving factor. I could employ half of the troops and get the same results. What does a Galil cost vs. the cost of employing a soldier?

HorseSoldier
November 7, 2007, 08:02 PM
Actually, the Galil improved the AK control placement greatly by placing a thumb control for the fire selector on the left side at the pistol grip.

Right -- I mentioned that. You must have missed "but it's still stuck with the AK safety and left-side safety that is not much more useful for quick handling."

Have you actually tried using the Galil left side safety? Possibly tried using it at speed doing up drills and the like? It simply doesn't work. It moves backwards to go hot, making it impossible to thumb sweep it from safe to fire as you bring the weapon up. You're better off finger sweeping the AK safety on the right side to go hot.

At least that's been my experience running a whole bunch of rounds through Galil SARs as well as teaching others how to operate them. Your mileage may vary.

ClickClickD'oh
November 7, 2007, 08:33 PM
So your resorting to name calling and answering the irrelevant questions?Okay, so which question have I missed answering?
You've yet to prove how the Galil is so superior.You are kidding me right? You really don't accept the Isrealis testing both weapons and finding the Galil to be the better weapon for them to mean that the Galil was the better weapon for them? That's just.... no, nevermind. I'm not feeding this troll anymore.

Right -- I mentioned that. You must have missed "but it's still stuck with the AK safety and left-side safety that is not much more useful for quick handling."My bad, I managed to not read that sentance.

Have you actually tried using the Galil left side safety? Yes I have. I found it cumbersome at first, but it kinda grew on me. I used my shooting hand index finger to sweep off safety like a normal AK, but used my thumb to go the other way. So, it was index for safe to auto to semi, and thumb from semi back up to auto.

RockyMtnTactical
November 7, 2007, 08:49 PM
ClickClickD'oh,

You weren't able to address the original issue, that is the source of your frustration in this debate. You started apples and oranges comparisons, you have reading comprehension issues (this cannot be helpful in a debate on a board like this), and you resort to name calling when you realize that you're being called out on your BS.

esmith
November 7, 2007, 09:01 PM
It was shoved down their throats in the 60’s. They are going to salute, say “yes Sir, and use it. They are going to what is necessary to build confidence in recruits that they are issued the finest weapons, (even though this is not true), and they are going to do what is necessary to avoid scandal.

This doesn't make that much sense. Even if the M16 was so terrible as you say, you still do not tell me why they wouldn't use something else other than because they have been using since the 60's and that they are using the rifle to build a false sense of security among troops. Okay. Why would we be still using it when theres things that are better?

Justin
November 7, 2007, 09:43 PM
This is commonly available information on many web-sites if one cares to look for it.

As the one making claim to certain facts, the impetus is on you to provide documentation to back them up either at the outset of your statement, or when they are requested of you.

Not only is it good manners, it's also common practice among people debating a given topic.

ClickClickD'oh
November 7, 2007, 10:23 PM
You weren't able to address the original issue, that is the source of your frustration in this debate. You started apples and oranges comparisons, you have reading comprehension issues (this cannot be helpful in a debate on a board like this), and you resort to name calling when you realize that you're being called out on your BS.Please re-read post #36. You are pressing a comparisson that I never intended.

As the one making claim to certain facts, the impetus is on you to provide documentation to back them up either at the outset of your statement, or when they are requested of you.At what point does sourcing become pointlessly rediculous? That is my point. This particular information was way too common and readilly available to require sourcing. It's akin to requiring sourcing for an AK-47 being chambered in 7.62x39mm. Certainly, we could source every point that could be called into contention in a post, but then a common length post would become a torrent of links pointing to common information that a responsible poster could easily find on their own.

But, as long as we are talking about good manners and practices amongst posters:
Face it, you started this argument, you cannot back up your claims that the Galil is significantly better than the M16, but your pride won't let you drop the subject.Where did I ever make the argument that RockyMtnTactical is claiming that I did?

In point of fact, I have never stated the Galil is across the board significantly better than the M16. I did say Isreal found it better for their needs. And, yes, I did back that up.

As for who started the argument: Post #19
If the Galil is so great, why don't the Israeli's even issue it?No one called the Galil great. RockyMtnTactical just felt like slamming on it. He wants to claim I started this argument, but there's a post sitting right there to prove it's his.

elmerfudd
November 7, 2007, 10:35 PM
Personally, I prefer the stock AK controls to those of the Galil. The Galil safety may be on both sides, but the left side safety is more awkward than the standard AK safety, (unless you're putting the rifle on safe that is, but then time is not of the essence), and the charging handle becomes even worse than the AK if you mount optics. The sights are the only significant improvement that I can see.

The best AK's in my opinion are Valmets.

RockyMtnTactical
November 7, 2007, 10:47 PM
The main reason you would replace it is if it was significantly better... which it is not.

Click - this was the quote that got it all started with you. That is my only point. The Galil is not a significant improvement compared to the majority of the common rifles out there, including the M16.

I never even said that it absolutely was NOT an improvement (although in my own personal opinion the M16 is better, which opinion I am entitled to with or without facts, proof, or testing to back it up). I simply stated that it was not a significant improvement. I'm not sure what about that statement is so confusing.

Also, let's assume that your sources on testing are credible... By what margin is the Galil better? Is it 1% better? 100% better? Or 1000% better, as your analogy between the F-22 and F-16 would imply?

Also, does that mean that they tested every facet of it? Were their findings 100% conclusive? I doubt it, but maybe for themselves... The criteria that the IDF would test a weapon might be very different from the criteria used to judge a weapon by the US, Russian, FBI, or my standards...

At what point does sourcing become pointlessly rediculous? That is my point. This particular information was way too common and readilly available to require sourcing. It's akin to requiring sourcing for an AK-47 being chambered in 7.62x39mm. Certainly, we could source every point that could be called into contention in a post, but then a common length post would become a torrent of links pointing to common information that a responsible poster could easily find on their own.


It probably doesn't help that the information in question has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. I shouldn't even have pressed for that info, it was pointless and I let you take the discussion into a pointless direction without directing you back to the main point (the Galil is not significantly better if at all over the M16).

Where did I ever make the argument that RockyMtnTactical is claiming that I did?

In point of fact, I have never stated the Galil is across the board significantly better than the M16. I did say Isreal found it better for their needs. And, yes, I did back that up.

You equated the M16 to the inferior fighters in the USAF and the Galil to the F-22. That is an incredibly bold claim which you haven't even tried to back up, other than citing the costs...

Besides, if you don't feel that the Galil is a significant improvement over the M16 than there is no debate. That was my point all along, that the Galil was not a significant improvement over the M16.

No one called the Galil great. RockyMtnTactical just felt like slamming on it. He wants to claim I started this argument, but there's a post sitting right there to prove it's his.

I never slammed it. That is a bold faced lie and you can see it if you go back and read the thread.

The fact is, I think highly of the M16 family of rifles. Anything would be hard pressed to impress me more. I still like and respect many weapons out there, including the Galil and the AK.

Sorry, but I don't dislike the Galil like you seem to be claiming. I simply don't find it to be any kind of significant improvement over the M16.

ernunnos
November 7, 2007, 10:56 PM
I would call the Galil great, but just because a product is great doesn't mean its marginal value over the next best product is unlimited. A Galil or Valmet is worth more to me than an AR-15, but there are limits. In my case, I chose to purchase two AKs instead of one Galil for the same price. Even though I like it better, I don't like it 100% better. For the Israelis, the marginal price is even higher, so I'm not surprised they made the choice they did.

ClickClickD'oh
November 7, 2007, 11:35 PM
That is my only point. The Galil is not a significant improvement compared to the majority of the common rifles out there, including the M16. So you still don't accept that the Galil won over the M-16A1 in competition?

Of course, this is all predicated upon you being right in one place you aren't... saying that the sole reason to replace equipment is significant improvement. That very premise is wrong.


You equated the M16 to the inferior fighters in the USAF and the Galil to the F-22. That is an incredibly bold claim which you haven't even tried to back up, other than citing the costs...For the third time, only you are trying to make that parallel. I'm not trying to back it up since I'm not making that comparisson. It is merely a vehicle to demonstrate that equipement is not replaced simply because something better comes along and that finances are commonly a very important consideration in military equipment orders.

Fact of the matter still reamins the same. The Galil beat the M-16A1. Something about it was better for the Israelis.

RockyMtnTactical
November 7, 2007, 11:53 PM
So you still don't accept that the Galil won over the M-16A1 in competition?

I never said either way.

Did it win by a significant margin?

Besides, like I said, their criteria may be different from yours and mine, and the US militaries... So it's not an objective test.

Do you or they believe that an army of 100 armed with M16's is at an distinct disadvantage to an army of 100 armed with Galil's?

For the third time, only you are trying to make that parallel. I'm not trying to back it up since I'm not making that comparisson. It is merely a vehicle to demonstrate that equipement is not replaced simply because something better comes along and that finances are commonly a very important consideration in military equipment orders.

You made that claim, not me.

I never stated that finances never played a part in replacing equipment. It obviously does. That you are trying to make an argument between us on this point shows me that you just want to argue.

Fact of the matter still reamins the same. The Galil beat the M-16A1. Something about it was better for the Israelis.

Not significant improvement obviously. Otherwise they would probably be ditching the M16.

JHansenAK47
November 8, 2007, 12:02 AM
Not significant improvement obviously. Otherwise they would probably be ditching the M16.
They are ditching the M16 they are paying out quite a bit more money to start issuing Tavors. Why don't you look into it for yourself.
I wouldn't be surprised if they were still using M16s in two decades though.

RockyMtnTactical
November 8, 2007, 12:04 AM
They are ditching the M16 they are paying out quite a bit more money to start issuing Tavors. Why don't you look into it for yourself.

What does this have to do with the Galil?

JHansenAK47
November 8, 2007, 12:06 AM
Nothing I just like talking about Tavors.

ClickClickD'oh
November 8, 2007, 12:09 AM
Not significant improvement obviously. Otherwise they would probably be ditching the M16.If you could buy one gun or ten guns for the same price, which would you buy?

elmerfudd
November 8, 2007, 12:10 AM
One other thing to consider, their Galils were made 35 years ago and they have been in use since then. Whether you like the Galil or the M16 design better, I don't think anyone would choose a worn out rifle over a newer one, so it's no wonder that their front line troops aren't carrying them anymore. It's actually pretty amazing that any troops are still using them. Can you imagine American soldiers carrying M16A1's that had been in use since the Vietnam War?

RockyMtnTactical
November 8, 2007, 12:19 AM
If you could buy one gun or ten guns for the same price, which would you buy?

I could buy 10-20 mosins for the price of one AR-15 build... but I don't own any mosins. I do own AR-15's though... but then again, there's a significant difference in the performance of the two.

An army of 100 men armed with Mosin vs. an army of 100 armed with AR15's... The latter group has a distinct advantage.

JHansenAK47
November 8, 2007, 12:19 AM
In Russia they send AKs back to the factory to get refurbished rather than buy new ones.

ernunnos
November 8, 2007, 12:28 AM
I think we can all agree that a Porsche GT3 is a significant improvement over a Honda S2000 in many respects... but not enough for me to justify the additional price. For some people it is. As long as prices differ, price will be a factor.

JHansenAK47
November 8, 2007, 12:28 AM
An army of 100 men armed with Mosin vs. an army of 100 armed with AR15's... The latter group has a distinct advantage.
What about 100 men with Mosins VS 100 men with Schmidt Rubins
I think we know who would have the advantage.
or 100 elves with bows VS 100 orcs with axes

HorseSoldier
November 8, 2007, 03:00 AM
So you still don't accept that the Galil won over the M-16A1 in competition?


I'd again note that Israelis don't seem inclined to agree with this claim, regardless of RockyMtnTactical's opinion of it. The Galil simply is not used by IDF troops who pull rifle and carbine triggers for a living -- they carry the M16, CAR-15, or M4 (and now Tavor). The IDF issues the Galil to guys who have other jobs, like crewing their tanks or artillery pieces, and have only occasional/notional need for a personal defense weapon.

When the famously thrifty IDF pulls an otherwise servicable weapon design from front-line service by shooters and relegates it to a decidedly secondary role it does not suggest the weapon is held in high regards. These are the same people who are still using T-55 tank hulls captured 40 years ago from the Syrians and Egyptians, and rolled into Lebanon in the 80s with some troops still mounted on half-tracks. They don't throw away money on a whim, and don't phase out good kit if they don't have to.

As I noted, even if the M16 is significantly cheaper than the Galil, if it is of superior (or even comparable) quality as a combat long gun, you'd think the shooters would use it and the tank crews would have M16s/CAR-15s/M4s as personal defense weapons. But the exact opposite is true. This is only logical if the Galil was found wanting by the IDF in actual operational experience, in comparison to the M16A1, regardless of what a blue-ribbon panel of IDF testers (with just as much national pride and potential for NIH syndrome as their American, British, etc. counterparts) claimed after peacetime evaluation.

JHansenAK47
November 8, 2007, 03:26 AM
The Galil was replaced because the M16 better suited their needs.
Obviously it was several reasons why it was replaced and not necessarily one thing.
What I want to know is why they never came out with a stamped version of the Galil? or What happend to all the M14s we gave them?

1lostinspace
November 8, 2007, 03:34 AM
I don't know about you guys but I lubed my AR with some lube my friend recommended it was like vaseline or something. Anyways I must have fired over 600 rounds that day when I got home it was all caked on nasty carbon mc nasty stuff going on I could barely get the bolt broken down, Needless to say I am never using that crap again but the point is that my ar was running fine. I could not imagine getting the bolt nastier then it was that day I mean you had to see it to believe it. I have never been in combat in dirt or sand but can tell you that weapon was almost frozen with debri

Running clean the I would take the AR but been stuck in the middle of no where well I could not imagine another weapon I would rather have then the AK.

JHansenAK47
November 8, 2007, 03:51 AM
I suggest you try Militec and you may just become a believer too.
AR15s need to be dry in the desert otherwise the oil makes the dust stick.

1lostinspace
November 8, 2007, 12:12 PM
I think the AK in 5.56mm is the way to go you get almost the accuracy from an ar but the reliability of an AK.

ClickClickD'oh
November 8, 2007, 12:27 PM
I'd again note that Israelis don't seem inclined to agree with this claim, regardless of RockyMtnTactical's opinion of it. The Galil simply is not used by IDF troops who pull rifle and carbine triggers for a living -- they carry the M16, CAR-15, or M4 (and now Tavor). There is an inherant flaw in this line of reasoning. That is, it ignores thirty five years of changes in technology and combat conditions. The M-16A1 that was tested against the Galil is not the same weapon that is currently in use.

Also, when the Galil was chosen the Israeli army was geared for an open desert conflict against neighboring nations. Current concerns point more towards urban conflict with non-national hostile factions, and thus there will be a corresponding shift in equipment.

Pointing to modern decisions in an attempt to cast doubt on a contest thirty five years gone is simply flawed.

As I noted, even if the M16 is significantly cheaper than the Galil, if it is of superior (or even comparable) quality as a combat long gun, you'd think the shooters would use it and the tank crews would have M16s/CAR-15s/M4s as personal defense weapons. But the exact opposite is true. This is only logical if the Galil was found wanting by the IDF in actual operational experience, in comparison to the M16A1There is also another explanation. Logistics. The M-16 being the more numerous firearm, you logically give it to the person more likely to break it (infantry break everything you give them, this isn't a shot at the M-16s sturdiness) since it's easier to have a large supply chain for. The Galil, being the more rare weapon, is given to the people who won't wear it out as fast, and aren't nearly as far up S creek if they have to wait a day or two for it to be fixed.

Still 2 Many Choices!?
November 8, 2007, 03:13 PM
Nothing to add to the ongoing "galil or m16" debate, but the video is definitely biased, or atleast could have been done better. Simply having both shooters reshoot the same 200 yard targets with the opposite rifle would have made for a more realistic comparison of the deficiencies or attributes of each rifle.

Still 2 Many Choices!?(and make mine the M16 please:o)

Justin
November 8, 2007, 03:19 PM
At what point does sourcing become pointlessly rediculous? That is my point. This particular information was way too common and readilly available to require sourcing.

Plainly it wasn't, or else others wouldn't have asked you to cite your sources.

PILMAN
November 8, 2007, 04:19 PM
Even if we did give them M16's for free, or even dirt cheap, that still doesn't answer my question. If the Galil was so good compared to the M16 (or any other rifle), don't you think militaries would insist on using them?

Other than the IDF in limited numbers, who even uses the Galil?

There are a lot of countries still using the Galil. Take a look at this picture thread of Galils around the world if you don't believe me :)

http://israelmilitary.net/showthread.php?t=3650

It is used by South Africa, other African countries, Columbia, Peru, Guatemala, Estonia, Portugal, Serbia, Burma (their own version), Phillipines, Haiti, Tonga, Indonesia and a few others.

There are a few advantages of the Galil, but the Galil is really just based off the Valmet RK62 with some tweaks and a change of caliber. The original Galil used the Finnish RK 62 receivers. Israel started producing it's own, differences were the handgrip, handguard, the stock, charging handle pointed upwards so you can use either hand, 5.56 caliber with 35 round magazines (instead of 30), thumb safety on the pistol grip, and some better sights along with a milled receiver which made it a improved ak47.

The Galil is not a bad weapon, a lot of Israelis I talk to feel it was too heavy but very reliable. The Galil is not dead, it's simply evolved. IDF still uses them in Sayeret but not as the original form, it is now the GALIL MAR or Micro Galil. Also tank operators still use the Galil SAR due to how compact it is. Many younger Israelis prefer the M16's because they are more accurate and lighter. Cost and politics also had a lot to do with it. The Galil is not the best weapon out there but it is a nice expensive version of the AK47 or closely more so to the Valmet RK62.

Columbia is now the only licensed country to produce the Galil, they sell these to other South American countries. Israel sold their factory equipment to them and it's still produced though it may start being phased out for the Tavor over time.

South Africa produces the Galil as the R4, R5, and R6. R4 is the ARM version, R5 is SAR, and R6 is kind of like the MICRO Galil.

The South Africans originally purchased Galils to try and replace the R1 (FAL), they needed rifles that would last them a long time due to the boycotts regarding Apartheid (to my understanding). They started producing their own rifles (the first ones from Israel). It was manufactured by Lyttleton Engineering Works (LIW) and now, Vektor Arms, a division of Denel. South Africa hasn't had complaints about it, the SADF loved it and haven't heard any complaints about the weight either.

Serbia and Croatia have based their new rifle designs off the Galil as well. Burma makes a rifle based off the Galil too.

I wouldn't say the Galil is a superior design, I wouldn't say the M16 or the M4 are superior either. I think both have their pros and cons depending on the situation and the operator.

Wolfgang2000
November 8, 2007, 04:51 PM
A little research will show that after the first 2 wars the Israels R&D ask the troops what rifle they wanted and they pointed to the AK. Why because it worked when everything else didn't. They (Israeli's) know their bread was buttered by NATO (US) so they choose the 5.56 round. They took the Valmet did some research thus the Galil was born.

In 73 the US sent a bunch of M16A1 during the war. For free. After that war they had enough of either weapon (AK, M16, Galil) where units could pick what they wanted. Except for their SBS unit, (they chose the AK), most units chose the M16. Why? It was the lightest one to carry. To quote (loosely) isayeret.com, their spec ops site, ( is was free), The M16 is the easiest to carry, and if cleaned regularly reliable enough even with the 5.56 round.

The Galil weights in close to FAL as compared to M16 or the CAR version which are under the 7 pound mark, (without all the toys mounted on it). Bottom line the M16 is just easier to carry. Most troops carry a weapon a lot more than they shoot it. Thus their priorities.

Will the M16 jam if dirty? Sure it will, just ask Jessica Lynch. Her unit jammed every thing they had including a M2HB. I didn't thing you could jam one of those. But the AK that were shooting at them in the exact same environment didn't jam.

Something to think about.

If you enjoyed reading about "AK 47 VS M16 video" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!