AK 47 VS M16 video

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
the slightest amount of dust will jam the mechanism
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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") ?
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...
.
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Because we give them M-16s for free.
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
The Israelis do issue Galils to support and some reserve units.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I meant en masse. Thanks.

Because we give them M-16s for free.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
In addition, the fact that the Galil doesn't use NATO standard mags pretty much prevents it from being widely used in the west.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
Video on why AR is more accurate than AK.
Replies
9
Views
585
Pulse
P
M
  • Locked
ak-47 vs M16
Replies
6
Views
861
Kaylee
K
35 Whelen
  • Locked
M16 vs. AK47/ 5.56x45 vs. 7.62x39
2
Replies
40
Views
1K
45B@cav
4
N
  • Locked
Discovery Channel Reliability....AR vs AK
2 3
Replies
51
Views
2K
innerpiece
I
8
  • Locked
AK47 inherently inaccurate... here's a reason why [VIDEO]
2
Replies
48
Views
4K
Thin Black Line
T
Back
Top