m16/ak74 comparison

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PlayMaker

Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2007
Messages
150
I saw a video on you tube comparing an ak47 with an m16. It stated that the m16 is used more like a rifle and the ak is used more like a machine gun due to the m16 accuracy and the ak's power.

Well what about an ak in 5.45 like the ak74? How does it compare to an m16? Since the power of the cartridge is reduced is the recoil reduced making the accuracy similar to the m16 or is it an inherent design in the ak that prevents the ak to be less accurate?

If anhybody has any experience or knowledge on the 2 feel free to leave your input.
 
The AK's design and assembly methods do not lend itself to sub-MOA accuracy in any caliber. This only means that one has to work harder with fitting and machining to get the group sizes down. I think the accuracy in its design is limited by the barrel/trunnion engagement, receiver flex, and handguard arrangement.

With that said, my Arsenal stamped SLR-106 in 5.56 is shaping up to be a solid sub 3 MOA gun (and possibly better, but I don't have the version with the scope mount and I've never really tried to shoot it for precision and accuracy). Arsenal uses the finest components and methods I've seen in a standard production AK.

The AR platform, on the other hand, can more easily be assembled (with careful component selection) into a more accurate weapon. The handguards can be free-floated, the ergonomics are FAR superior to most other platforms, and the receivers are designed to be very rigid and resist flex in the direction of recoil, and can also be machined very precisely.

Noveske's uppers (from what I hear) with the stainless barrels are .6MOA uppers.
 
The M16 has more inherent accuracy for a variety of reasons. It also costs much more to produce. The AK design is cheaper and simpler to produce, and as already noted does not have great inherent accuracy.

Either one can be used as spray and pray with little effect. Both can be used for aimed fire, but the M16 has a slight edge in accuracy for this. More importantly, the cost of the M16 means that most of its users are better trained and equipped than most AK users. In the hands of the same soldiers, the effectiveness of both would be similar, though the M16 should have an edge. The M16 design also tends to reduce recoil more, which helps.

I think everyone knows the AK's reputation for reliability. I have not personally used either design in sand or mud so I don't have anything to add. I personally have found both the civilian AR-15 and the M16A1 (courtesy of the US Army ROTC) to be perfectly reliable if the most basic maintenance is performed.

It's worth noting that the Israeli military seems to prefer the M16, despite using it in desert conditions, and despite having a homegrown AK derivative (the Galil) that has all the good AK features with some useful improvements.
 
Z-Michigan said:
It's worth noting that the Israeli military seems to prefer the M16, despite using it in desert conditions, and despite having a homegrown AK derivative (the Galil) that has all the good AK features with some useful improvements.
Click to expand...
It's also worth noting that they get their M16s for free.

This lets them save their money in lieu of building Galils or Tavors.
 
I'm not going to argue that the AK platform is as accurate as the AR platform. You can buy Sub MOA AR's for $1500 and sub 3 MOA AK's for $250 (My Saiga x39 shoots 2-3" groups at 100yrds)

BUT! I use $0.20/rd ammo to shoot 2-3" groups and not $1.00/rd match ammo.

ALSO, I don't have BULL barrels, Free-Floated barrels, and Flat-rop Receiver mounted Optics.

Say the average man is 18" accross at the chest, and 30" from hips to shoulders. That means at 500 yrds, even a 3 MOA rifle aimed at CoM will hit the intended target with great reliability.


I'd also like to point out that the difference between .6MOA .223 and 6.0MOA 7.62x39 at 10 yrds (30 ft) is only about 1/2 an inch.

So in close quarters, what does a tack driver get you over a 6MoA rifle? nothing.
 
I saw a video on you tube comparing an ak47 with an m16. It stated that the m16 is used more like a rifle and the ak is used more like a machine gun due to the m16 accuracy and the ak's power.
Click to expand...

I saw that too. Actually, they made that assessment based on the safeties of the rifles. Those guys were complete morons. Also, did you notice the AK guy's trigger control? He was slapping the trigger like a red-headed stepchild. No wonder he missed all 5 times at 200 yards.

Anyway, they said the AR is primarily a rifle because "single" is the first thing right after safe, while the AK is primarily a machine gun because it's "auto" instead. Really moronic. Try messing with an AK safety sometime, and you find that it's not that easy to stop the safety in the middle, even if there is a detent there. Under stress, most people are going to push the safety all the way down. And the detent there is a lot smaller than the "safe" one, so it's going to be easier to move the lever from single to auto.

But then on the M-16's selector, it's not a problem. You've basically got two movements. Push down for single, push forward for auto.

Then of course, HKs are safe-single-auto, over a very narrow arc. Because teutonic operators are always able to move their thumbs precisely 5 degrees, even when under fire. Also because you suck, and they hate you.
 
since the AK74 5.45 is about on par with the M16 5.52.... and the Ar platorm is much more accurate due to tighter tolderances, I don't don't see much of an argruement coming up for which one might be the better weapon.... would be the AR, shooting ballistacally the same bullet, with an advantage over better accuracy.... (I'm not shooting from the hip, I own both... but I'd take the ak first, as they seem fundamentally indestructable).
 
The 16" AK barrel shoots 3250 fps using Russian 7N6 and my buddy's Chrony. The 16" AR shoots 2920, +/-. The AK74 will shoot as accurately for practical purposes as the AR series, the bullet penetrates most barrier material better, and initiates a horrific yaw when it hits flesh. The muzzle brake is quite effective on Automatic, and the rifle weighs less, has less perceived recoil, and shoots as well as an AR. It doesn't break in half when used to bayonet. There are many graces of the AK74.

They are not the same, but to say one is better than the other seems to me to be error. In a practical situation, the sights on the AK are for many, easier to use. The practical accuracy at 300 meters is the same.

If you are shooting Camp Perry then I would have to agree with you that the AR is the better choice for that format of shooting.
 
It's also worth noting that they get their M16s for free.

This lets them save their money in lieu of building Galils or Tavors.
Click to expand...
They actually want to completely rearm to the Tavor, but that isn't going to happen any time soon, when you pull as many military operations as they do. I could definitely see the Tavor getting put on the back burner.
 
Although not an AK-74, I have an Arsenal SLR-106fr (side folder AK. in 5.5mm) with a Belarus-made PK-ASV dot sight. This is a pretty nice setup, with a nice trigger, and apparently put together with some care.

Out of some curiosity, I took it out to my last qual and shot it against my work Colt M4, with 2x ACOG. With the same ammo, at the same range, they grouped similarly.

Take it for what it's worth. Shoot both and make up your own mind.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6BpI3xD6h0
Click to expand...
Realize that when they were shooting paper, they were at 200 yards, and the M16 was shooting what appeared to be 9" groups. The guys test firing these rifles were two gonzo's from the same lineage as the fat bald guy describing the AK's function.

Also, read Guns and Ammo's annual on the AR-15; there is a good article on the lethality of the 5.56 vs the x39.
 
Said fat bald guy (W. Atwater) runs a firearms museum, and was once a Marine. Doesn't mean much. He's not a firearms designer or mechanical engineer.

He thinks that the reason that the AK is inaccurate is its "big hunk of metal" bolt carrier group (which happens to be the same weight as the M16 BCG, and is used in the very accurate Sig 550 virtually unchanged) and the "barrel flexing" (which happens well after the bullet leaves the barrel).

Reason the AK is inaccurate is that all the parts are loose fitting, it's fired most commonly with military grade ammo instead of match ammo, and the sights just aren't made for a rifle.

Rack grade military M16's are 2-4 MOA weapons, read the armorer's manual.
 
Hey hey, that fat bald guy was a Marine in Vietnam! Give him a break! I've got an AK that I'm in love with, that can shoot a bottle cap a 100yrds on a bench-rest. Believe it or not, its a Romainian WASR-10. The main reasons why the Ak is frowned upon for its accuracy are: -crappy outdated sights
- surplus ammo
- short stock/bad angle
- range with 7.62x39

You would be surprised of the precision that you can get out of an AK, by changing a few things: Optics- Vortex Strikefire
Mount- Scout Scope or Ultimak
Recoil Buffer- Blackjackbuffers
Stock set- Advanced Technology Strikeforce
Package - (Stock, pistol grip, foregrip)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

2
  • Locked
M16/AK bit
2 3 4 5
Replies
121
Views
5K
Correia
C
2
  • Locked
M16/AK Bit II
2
Replies
48
Views
2K
Wynterbourne
W
P
  • Locked
Would you buy it?
Replies
4
Views
330
ugaarguy
ugaarguy
5
  • Locked
M16\M4 Performance in Iraq
2 3 4 5
Replies
111
Views
7K
JShirley
JShirley
D
  • Locked
Another take on the AR vs AK debate
2 3 4
Replies
87
Views
4K
nathan
N
Back
Top