So which one do you choose? Which would you rate as a more preferable rifle and why?

m 16

gotta go with the m16. it is more accurate it has the three round burst. full auto isn't always a good thing in combat. although the ak is more reliable it doesn't make up for inaccuracy and less muzzle velocity.

well, it depends on which version of the m-16 you are talking about.

As far as higher velocities, the smaller round must maintain this high velocity over distance. This has proven to be a problem when compared to the AK's heavier round.For the m855 round to be lethal, it must hit the target at more than 732 meters per second. With the m4, the round left the barrel at 790 meters per second but after 50 meters, the round had already dropped to 732 meters. At longer distances, stopping power was drastically reduced.

With the m16a2, the same round left the barrel at 914 meters and 200 yards away, the round was still lethal at 732 meters per second.The m4 has also had the complaints of heating quickly after sustained auto fire and that it's parts are delicate.

Soldiers in the 3rd battalion, 67th armor regiment of the 4th infantry division, who were on tanks and vehicles preferred the AK to the m4/m-16 because of the AK's simplicity, reliability, and knock down power which was absent from the previously mentioned guns.

Ak's were also preferred for "pray and spray" situations where the heavier round offered more penetrating power against insurgents in tall grass or behind buildings and defilade.

the AK-47, is very rugged, and can keep firing in the worst cases, it is also extremely reliable, yet the M-16 is more advanced, and i think a better weapon. I was surprised when on top ten "machine guns" ( this includes smgs, assault rifles, and so on) they rated the AK-47 as superior to the M-16

Yes, there are a lot better assault weapon than the AK47. They went by mass production. Because of its poor tolerance which makes it reliability it suffers both in power and accuracy.

You should check out the old U.S Grease Gun. The M3 "Grease Gun" (more formally United States Submachine Gun, Cal. .45, M3/M3A1).

Love to see someone re-tool this.

The M3 and M3A1 served through the Korean War and the Vietnam War. They remained in limited use with U.S. military into the 1990s, to include service in the 1991 Gulf War (e.g. drivers in the 19th Engineer Battalion, which was attached to the U.S. 1st Armored Division, deployed with the M3A1 as an alternate arm) and as a defensive weapon for the armored vehicle crews of M88A1 ARV and M60A3 main battle tanks.

Puts the AK47 to shame when it comes to American inginity.

My guess is that some of the ideas behind the M3A1 lead to the design of the AK47.


Frank

What is the production run for all models of the Grease gun?

Whats the total production run for Aks? 100 million and counting..


The ak was designed because the submachine gun was inadequate as a battlefield weapon. In certain areas, the Submachine gun excelled- close quarters, urban, or for tankers and crew on vehicles. The weapon was not adequate because it did not have the knockdown range of a rifle. A submachine gun (9mm) is a pistol round. Most people went with the Carbine method, which provided accurate rifle level firepower but the Germans came out with the concept of the assault-rifle. The sturmgewer, provided the rapid fire of a submachine gun but with greater extendability.

You are comparing two different classes of weapons-

The ak actually borrowed elements from the m1 garand. The way both guns feed bullets from the magazine to chamber are pretty much same. The ak's spent cartridge ejection system is also based on the Garand but both these features are modified slightly. The Germans realized why an assault weapon was needed. "The submachine gun's bullets were too light for the battles that were taking place at 300 feet to 1000 feet- such as in urban environments."* Machine guns were too heavy to carry around in quick reaction situations and they had a heavy recoil. The german round was thinner than a rifle round but thicker than a pistol round and was called the "pp kurz"

*L.kahaner "ak-47"

k i guess it would depend on whether your poor and just want something that shoots bullets and wont break. Or if you want a gun that will kill the enemy and do a good job at it.

wow deja vu, another guy up in the mythbusters section under "the topic of weapons" posted the same M16 VS ak47, check it out

townsy is right on this one. it comes down to how much money you have and how much you want to spend.

Yep, it also depneds on how many bullets you are willing to waste.

Did you see the old M14 is back in action.

Seems they needed a weapon that could pentrate walls and concrete. Small amo is great againt people but it flatens out and does not have the pentrating power of a high power true riffle bullet.

I think the MP3 has be upped to 4mm to give it better pentration of things like sandbags.

Frank

the m14 is back in use in afgahinstan right?

i saw on another discussion that china doesn't use the ak-47. i can't find out what they do use. what do they use?

The Type 56 assault rifle is a Chinese copy of the Kalashnikov AK-47. While early Type 56s were copies of the third generation milled receiver AK-47, later Type 56s were patterned after the improved AKM with stamped receivers. Visually, all versions of the Type 56 are distinguished from the AK-47 and AKM by the fully-enclosed hooded front sight (all other AK pattern rifles, including those made in Russia, have a partially open front sight). Some versions of the Type-56 also have a folding "spike" bayonet attached to the barrel just aft of the muzzle, and others have a rounded pistol grip similar in design to that of the Czech Sa 58. Also, the receiver metal is thinner than the AK-47 in order to reduce costs, though this also reduces durability.

The Type 56 was replaced by the Type 81 in PLA service during the 1980s.

The Type 56 is believed to be one of the most widely proliferated AK-47 copies in the world, having shown up on battlefields in Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe, South America, etc. It was used by Patrick Edward Purdy in the Stockton Massacre. While exact production figures are not known, it is commonly estimated that as many as 10-15 million Type 56 rifles have been produced since the 1950s, which means they may account for nearly one-fifth of the world's AK production.

Frank

is china developing any new small arms? i know they are really have a large build up of military forces. from the stuff i have read it seems like the whole purpose of their build up is to attack tawain. their new ships are patroling the waters between china and tawain and their new sams are all being placed near shore across from taiwan. i think china might try to take tawain soon.

Im gonna have to go with the AK. Because for one it will work in sand, mud ,water or just about anything else. Second, it fires the 7.62 round which packs a bigger punch. even though the M-16 is more accurate, it does'nt mean a thing if you can't kill the enemy on the first shot.

I do not think so. No value in it for China, they don't playbase ball and they don't need more people to feed.

I am hoping they go for North Korea and save us the trouple, it would be an improvement for the North Korea's/

Frank

that would be nice. don't forget that taiwan is becoming an industrial power house based on the size of the island. economically it is valuable to china's economy. if china goes for norht korea that could create a situation on the 38th parrelel.

Anyone would have to choose the M-16 and its Colt family of weapons. With the new A4 and A1 (for the M4 carbine) variants proving to be just as reliable as the AK-47 it has become an easy choice. On todays battlefield the AK is becoming a heavy weapon to shoot with it 7.62 NATO rounds. The M-16, and its 5.56 NATO Ammunition, would be a much better choice for the standard infantryman because the round is a much faster round and much lighter. To the country that fields the 5.56 NATO it eliminates costs greatly with fewer materials going into ammunition as a whole. It is also a plus to the standard infantryman because the size of the round allows him/her to carry more ammunition, a plus to any soldier with an automatic weapon. Unfortunately, stopping power has become a huge problem today for the M-16. Stories of insurgents so hopped up on drugs that they don't feel several rounds impact their vitals are common. Fortunately the U.S. is developing a 6.8NATO chambered M-16 that should solve this problem. With this in mind we should come to understand that the M-16 is and will continue to be on top of the heap of main battle rifles for a long while.

Very good points-

Would love to hear more about the barrett 6.8mm M-16. Anyone on here that has had any experience with the weapon?

One other point, when comparing these two weapons. An Ak can be purchased for less than 20-30$ in sub-saharan africa. In other parts of the world, the gun can be built using hand tools or crude machining. The ak has been responsible for many of the small coupes and govts. toppling in Central africa.

I think that one of the UN's greatest failures was in not regulating the proliferation of small arms- the AK has had a significant impact on world events.

How do you think the rechambered ak-74 compares with the M-16?

[quote]As far as higher velocities, the smaller round must maintain this high velocity over distance. This has proven to be a problem when compared to the AK's heavier round.For the m855 round to be lethal, it must hit the target at more than 732 meters per second. With the m4, the round left the barrel at 790 meters per second but after 50 meters, the round had already dropped to 732 meters. At longer distances, stopping power was drastically reduced.[/quote]

I would have to go with the M16 series weapons. While it did have a rocky start, it is a damn good weapon now.

I hear a lot of people talk about how the AK is better when it comes to lethality. But under battlefield conditions (inside 300 m) the 5.56 often creates a wound cavity equal to or greater than the 7.62 x 39. Because of the 5.56’s increased muzzle velocity, it will yaw (as will all spitzer type bullets) while in the body (this does not mean tumble) once it hits 90 degrees it will come apart and does massive damage. While the 7.62 round will also yaw, it does not come apart, and will exit the target rear first.

Now, while I do like the M4, there are some problems with it. Because of the shorter barrel. The bullet will not achieve the same muzzle velocity as it will in the M16, this often lowers the range where it maintains this lethal yaw and break. But it does not really matter with where we are now, because we rarely engage targets at more than 200m. But I do not think that everyone and their mother should be issued a M4.

Typical,

I have fired an AK and an AR-15 (civilian cousin of the M-16/M4) and have also discussed this extensively with a contact in the Corps. From my personal viewpoint, I would say that choosing one or the other would depend on who you were. If I was some rebel commander, in the middle of nowhere and was strapped for cash, I would want to equip my troops with the cheaper AK for many reasons. Aside from its’ indestructible nature, the choice would also reflect the quality of my soldiers. If your force is compromised of mostly conscripts or non-professional soldiers, the AK would make the most sense as it needs almost no maintenance and can make up for user inaccuracy with volume of fire. Conversely, if I was in an established organization that was well funded and had professional soldiers, I would definitely choose the M-16/M-4 platform. The speed of either round does not sure lethality- the only thing that can translate to ‘knockdown power’ is if the round hits vital organs. Moreover, the underlying infrastructure under the soldier who gets hit also determines the ultimate ‘lethality’. For example, the prevalence or absence of competent medical care will ultimately influence whether the person that was hit would survive. The older M195 round has just a led core and weighed 55 grains. The myth of ‘less lethality’ from a 5.56mm was unfounded as newer rounds such as the M855 have much harder tungsten penetrators and weigh in at almost 62 grains. Based of years of experience GySgt Keith Marine has an extensive knowledge of the Corps and of Infantry tactics/weapons. He once told me that,

“Knock down power is a misnomer. Regardless of round type, there is nothing that will actually knock down a man - they just fall forward. All the knock down stuff is pure Hollywood. There are a few things that will absorb all of a rounds energy and a box of rocks is probably the cheapest to do this test on. You can shoot an ammo can full of rocks picked off the ground from about ten feet away with a 12 gauge slug and it will only move the box a couple of inches. Shooting the same size box with a .50 call will not move it much farther.”


In the end I would say that the M-16/M-4 is a better choice although both guns offer tradeoffs in certain situations.


Regards,

A1rao

A1. Good post and I agree with you in almost all points, but before I continue I want to say that I agree with the following statements in their entirety.

[quote]the only thing that can translate to ‘knockdown power’ is if the round hits vital organs.[/quote]

and

[quote]Knock down power is a misnomer. Regardless of round type, there is nothing that will actually knock down a man[/quote]

Newton's third law. Obvious to anyone with a brain (not a flame directed at you in anyway).

But this statement [quote]The speed of either round does not sure lethality[/quote]

Is not exactly accurate. Let me explain.

See above where I talked about the yaw and break from the M16 out to and sometimes exceeding 300 m (depending on conditions).

Now when firing the same M855 from an M4 the shorter barrel lowers the muzzle velocity and in turn lowers the range at which this yaw and break occurs. It drops it down to about 230 m. Now that is not too much of a problem really (seeings as most of our shots take place within two hundred meters). But ok, now this is one of the reasons you are supposed to run the Mk 262 Mod 0/1 when firing M4s. They have a higher muzzle velocity and therefore keep their lethality out to about the same range with the M4 as the M855 from the M16.

Now while this yaw and break does not exactly equate to lethality. It does equate to time to lethality with proper placement. Larger final cavetation, quicker death (with proper placement). Because the tissue is torn it fails in tension and does not return to shape allowing for a much larger final cavetation, with rounds that fragment the final cavetation is often almost the same size as initial cavetation. This effect is often incorrectly referred to as "hydrostatic shock".

Do ya smell what I am stepping in?

Now The AK74s 5.45 does not have a high enough muzzle velocity to achieve this break with the yaw (it will still yaw, just will not fragment). And the AK47s. 7.62 does not fragment until about (IIRC) 23 cm (the round has already yawed twice and exited the body by this point).

But I do agree with you in the first part of your post about issuing what weapon to who (allthough in my experience with the M16A4, and my time crosstraining with the AK series weapons, they are amost dead even when it comes to reliability. FN makes a damn good rifle, minus the SCAR.)

[quote]it will still yaw, just will not fragment).[/quote]
Sorry, correction. This should have read. It will still yaw, just will not fragment out to the same range.

No weapon or rounds is more capable than the soldier who uses it in terms of both reaction drill, supporting arms (and sensors) and personal survival systems (PBA).

Since most of the encounters we face today are of increasingly sophisticated COE and/or combined arms methods with often mid to longrange sniping as a secondary concern for dismounts moving to the support of a damaged vehicle, the questions as I see them are:

1. Instantaneous Accurate Fire.
Neither. Because neither is supported by acoustic, FLIR or active laser targeting aperture, on gun. If you don't see the source of the fire and the sniper hunting gear just blew up inside the Hummer, you can't shoot what you can't see. Them's the rules.
2. Second Burst Survivability.
Again, neither. Because the sword doesn't mean diddly compared to the shield during 'occupational' efforts and to be properly protected in Iraq right now makes you look more like a bomb disposal expert than an infantryman. If you can't absorb the first burst, either because your armor has been compromised by high energy blast and fragmentation from an explosive device beyond any reasonable (walkable) protection level. Or because your armor classification doesn't include critical hit (head, underarm) protection against scoped, high power (Dragunov or better), sniping rounds or 'assault weapon' fire from the inner zone, your ability to white-knight usefully return fire is going to be limited to none anyway.
3. Reliability.
You need a weapon which will put down a larger round count than the enemy can sustain for the first 2 minutes of a firefight, no matter what the starting conditions or rates of fire. Without becoming inoperative (jammed, out of ammo or too hot) thereafter. Here, anything which doesn't work on a sealed piston system is just asking for trouble. Either the tolerances will be so loose that the bolt effect on gun aimpoint stability will be uncontrollable (AK) or they will jam and need clearing (M16). Chroming and bolt assists don't mean nothin' in really dusty environments.
4. Ergonomics.
It has to be able to come into play from a _stored_ position inside a vehicle and remain in play when going room to room without pulling the muzzle offline. It has to be sized to a woman or short man's shoulder to index finger lengths and even though it really messes with balance and reloads, it cannot be barrel heavy (which tends to dictate magazine location).

ARGUMENT:
Essentially, we need something that take's the soldiers capabilities (or lack thereof) entirely out of the loop. So that the muzzle index vs. boresight collimation of an actively scanned field of regard (looking for Q-pulse or FLIR muzzle signatures) is automatically tracked and trigger release occurs on a 'pickle' level of designated consent as much as aim.
This capability needs to come with at least 100rds onboard. And it needs to include effective single round kill capabilities at least out to 500m with a heavy bullet (nobody mentions the 7.62mm NATO vs. 5.56 here which I find telling) in a weapon casing which is effective for all users regardless of mounted state, biometrics or conditioning. i.e. It needs to be recoilless and probably less than 27" long and 6-7lbs weight.
It should effectively be maintenance free with the possible exception of barrels which should be single hand replaceable for changeout with an automated cleaning system (if you've ever seen the damage a recruit does to his training rifle with the cleaning kit, the reasons for this will be obvious). Head spacing and all other elements of 'adjustable' mechanical workings within the receiver should be case-sealed at the factory and replaceable under a warranty system. The ability to use the same basic furniture for heavy bore weapons to include automated shotgun/grenade launchers and future DEW would be nice (why pay for fancy sights and not be able to use them on heavy targets?).
Beyond all of the above, the weapon needs to be difficult to manufacture but _cheap_ so that enemy proliferation is delayed at least a decade and our own stockings can be replaced apace.

None of which either present rifle does in the least.

CONCLUSION:
And why should they? Both guns are effectively anachronisms with their design roots in the technology of 40-50 years ago. You might as well blame someone for using an Enfield or KAR-98 in Vietnam. The only reason they continue to remain in service is not due to any specific technological perfection but rather the evolutionary limiting factors on equivalent human performances.

Though both have been the object of partial and/or abortive replacement efforts in the ACR, OICW and AK-74/91 respectively, none of these future-gun efforts has been found 'cost effective' in any of the aforementioned
areas.
Why? Because the pundits never fail to reinvent the wheel which comes round to the base realization that, at the ranges involved, nothing you can do to improve the rifle will really offset the casualty rates of the infantry as a _tactical_ effort whereby engagements are either desultory and fleeting. Or so close-in that ambush conditions exceed reaction times and even supporting-fires capabilities to respond decisively by any significant degree.
A UAV that prevents the battle from happening is superior to any rifle that anyone can design.
Indeed, the modern battlefield environment, along with the 60 grande in training and 100 grande in bounty, errr 'life insurance policy' on every soldier's head has finally, effectively, rendered him less effective than a productionized SWORDS equivalent UGV system would be.
More armor. More eyes. Lower Profile. Fewer Vital Centers (with more fail-operative layering protection of same). Order of magnitude faster Low-Crawl Equivalent Speed. No sensitivity to recoil as a function of aimpoint stability with conventional, 'high power' (7.62X59 or better) rounds. Ability to fi