Actually we all know that they changed the barrels of many AK-47s to 7.62 so that they can now be used by NATO bullets.

For example the Turkish Gendermarie is using AK-47s although Turkey is a NATO country from top to bottom...

  I voted G3 because it served well my country.

  I realized it was reliable even in a wet enviroment as in the jungles of southern Mexico.

  We were able to difference the sound of it blast compared with the AK's and other weapons of the EZLN.

  Plus, the accesories were helpfull as the grenade fired by a blank cartdrige, or the M203 grenade launcher.

  Regards

Originally posted by demon I don't like how M-16 rattles.  And its too light  And I think more ppl use Ak-47 than any other gun

If you think an M16 rattles, you should try a Kalashnikov. They sound like they don't contain a single non-loose part 

m-16 is superior, most countries cant afford them.

EDIT: dont want to pay for them

bullpup enfield is the most advanced, best all around performance, but if I was trapped out all alone the extreme reliability of the AK would be my pic.

I voted the AK but I think that in the hands of highly trained soldiers the M16 will perform better because they know how to use it to its fullest potential while the AK is better for the run of the mill conscript because he does not need to learn much or maintain it.

but the AK is more reliable, there's not her automatic rifle that can be fired in a sandstorm and still works.

Israeli Galils are good dessert ARs against the finest sands but some of its design is based on the AK.
 

the AK47 is rugged,reliable and probably the best reason why it is distributed in mass form but the M16 if taken care of is just as reliable.If you throw some AKs at monkeys, i guess they will last longer.
 

It boils down to a preference which i would want to be outfitted with.I believe a unit armed with M16/CAR-15s which makes less noise and flash to give away positions and has the superior shot in accuracy will be more successful against a unit armed with AKs in most battle scenarios.I will have the better shot.

We just have to admire a gun that stands the test of time since 1947 ..or 1944

Gunpowder which used in AK-47 is better than M16'S Gunpowder we saw the defeat of M16 at Viet-Nam war

the m16 of then and now are completely different, besides the US defeated the Vietnamese on the field but had to pull out for political reasons.

The newest models are as good as a conventional gun is going to get.

Gunpowder? Hahahahahahaha What age are we living in Arcan?

We sure as heklefjäll called it gunpowder in the army, because that is what it is, whatever fancy title you want to use.

M-16 is in my opinion the superior weapon and here's why,

-Its made entirely of composite material so its lighter

-Faster rate of fire

-higher velocity causing more damage to the target even if AK rounds are a bit bigger, under 100 meters the 5.56 round has a tendency to fragment after impact causing a devastating effect on flesh

-More accuracy at range

-Less recoil, less affect on accuracy in automatic fire.

Personally I think a better comparison would be the M16A1 V the AK 74

              higher rate of fire is not necessarily better...

       Steyr Aug hands down...i've fired one before...and it's gooooooood...

none of these guns is as good as the bofors ak5.........

Firearm ammunition hasn't had gunpowder since the boer war when the british started to use early maxim MG's in the field and all the smoke from blackpowder made it so you couldn't see f*ck all. So they switched to cordite same bang no smoke.

I chose the G3 as it was used by most nato and commonwealth nations from the 60's until the mid 80's. Another assault rifle that has a special place in my heart is the Steyr AUG. And the FN F2000

AK-47 VS M-16 A1 is almost an exact match. The AK-47 bullets are a bit wider at the head, that's about it.

AK-47 VS M-16 A2 (Current Issue) isn't even a challenge. With the A2's lack of weight, it's so much better than the AK-47.

AKM VS M-16 A2 I'd say the AKM is a step up from the AK-47, but still doesn't match the A2. Still too heavy to be effective.

AK-74 VS M-16 A2, AK-74 hands down. A bit lighter, smaller, doesn't fire as far, less recoil... It's basically a Russian MP5.

[q]higher rate of fire is not necessarily better...[/q]

it is only a problem if the gun also has a higher recoil, or muzzle climb.  Since the M-16 has less recoil the higher rate of fire isn't a problem.

[q]It's basically a Russian MP5.[/q]

I think you've got the wrong gun, AK74 is the same as a 47 only its made of lighter materials and has a smaller calibre.  the AKSU 74 is a Ak74 in sub machine gun size.

For penetrating power, ie a guy behind a 8 inch tree, the AK will kill him and the M-16 will not.

Originally posted by Illuminati The new gun that the US Army is going to adopt is going to destroy both the M-16 and AK-47 XM29 - Its better with environmental factors than bot the M-16 and AK-47. There ar a few different models that are being worked with. They are still playing around with teh XM29 to try and make it a bit lighter, but it is supposed to place the M-16 as the standard weapon for the US military. They are planning on getting it into the Army gradually by having 4 OICW XM29's per 9 man squad. Eventually, it'll take over

Any more info on the XM29. Is that a 12-gauge above the automatic rifle. Nasty looking weapon by the way!

Ehm..., you can't actually compare all these rifles. They have different logic.

The AK-47 is too old to be compared to M-16, it uses bigger bullets which causes lot of recoil. Especially the G3 uses 7.62mm NATO bullets, with which automatic fire is pretty much useless. The 7.62 NATO bullet has 3000-3500 J muzzle energy, while the 5.56 NATO has like 1500 J. The M-16 has a limited range compared to G3 and other such rifles (M14, FN FAL), but can actually fire automatically. I think that the british version of the FAL didn't even have automatic fire as an option.

The M-16A2 is considered one of the best 5.56 rifles, as it has solved its reliability issues.

I've used the AK and the M-16. Fortunately for me, I fired those weapons (and some other) only in training, I haven't actually been involved in a real military conflict. I would say that the M-16 would have been a better choice for me (when carrying a gun in a 40 km march I think that I would have preffered anything lighter than that  4 kg piece of wood and metal!). Nevertheless, I think that the AK is better, just like the T-34 was the best tank in WWII. There are a lot of other weapons that are superior to the AK, but that doesn't mean that the AK became obsolete or useless. It does what it was designed to do! It is not a brilliant weapon, it is the best weapon of choice.

I prefer M-16 for style,AK-47 for sound,and G3 for weight.

Yes, but the AK-47 is a better club in close combat! 

Doesn't the AK-74 fire 5.45 mm.

Yes.

New AKs use however the 5.56mm NATO bullets!

Seems that the old classic G3 is now history in the Greek army. The agreement for their replacement by G36 has just been signed. The ammunition they use is new NATO standard, 5,56 mm and the order is to be executed "immediatelly" for 115,000 rifles. Overall value is 250,000,000 Euros, so a bit less than 2,200 per piece... I wonder how much they cost in retail.

Here's the picture.

!

I always had the impression that the M16 would succeed the G3 in the Greek army. Afterall the army already has many M16 in use with the special forces.

I think that 115000 pieces are not so many. I don't know how exactly infantry operates, but I think it seems the G3 will remain in use with the rest 200000+ infantrymen that supposedly Greece will present in a possible war.

Btw, I have the impression that the greek army is gradually copying the german in more and more aspects.

I fired something like 3000 rounds with only two different AK47. I noticed no inaccuracy developing. Inaccuracy is related to maintenance, you take care of your weapons, they will work fine.

Xristar, 115,000 are the initial order. I'm sure the G3 will be kept as back up in the warehouses and G36 will be the rifle for the operational units. How many soldiers we have operative now? 30,000 Professionals and I bet, no more than 50,000 drafted, especially after the latest reductions of military service. Isn't is supposed to become 6-8 months soon?

That's actually a 20 mm grenade launcher.  I heard these weapons have a lot of problems which is only to be expected with a new sytem.  The grenade launcher is not that lethal, and the gun itself is very expensive, heavy, and bulky.

Still though, I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of one.

Yiannis, probably the G36 will equip the actual combatants, and the G3 the supportive units.

I don't know if the service will be reduced to 6-8 months. Karamanlis had said before the elections that it will reduce to 6 months, but the Army does not like it, as it will cost seriously to the readiness of the army. I heard that the service was planned to be reduced to 11 months, but the Minister of Defence has not spoken about it yet.

The US used the M-14 in early vietnam and used the M-16 in later years. And believe me the M-16 itself killed far more people holding the AK, than the other way around, eventhough it wasnt even used for the whole span of the war.

There's some speculation that the AK-47 owes some of it's design to this German late war design.

When it comes to sniping at long distances this is the one:

'Big Mac’ — McMillan’s Tac-50
Neither the Canadian government nor DND are willing to comment on CF sniping in Afghanistan but unconfirmed reports put ‘kills’ by 3PPCLI snipers at more than 20. A particularly successful CF rifle is the new 12.7mm McMillan Tac-50. One shot, in the Shah-i-kot, set a gruesome new distance record for sniping — 2,430m. The combat effectiveness of the Tac-50 and CF snipers (nominated for five US Bronze Stars) has now been proven.

Our Canadian snipers have been used by the US forces

in Afghanistan on occasion. 

Here's some pictures, one showing the present Canadian army med. range sniper rifle and one similar to the new one which will replace it.

8.6mm / .338 cal.

What many of you haven't realised is that the M-16s reliability issue has been overstated.  When the Army first purchased the M-16 Colt maintained that the firearm, due to its space age design, never needed to be clean.  This might have been true with the stick propellant the gun was designed with Secretary of Defense Mcnamara had decided for the gun to use a finer grain ball propellant which although increased the firing rate it also substantially increased barrel fouling.  Anyways the first M-16s were sent to Vietnam without cleaning kits and it wasn't too long before the guns started jamming to the point of being unusable.  Many of these problems were corrected with the design of the M16A1 which arrived with cleaning kits and a push bolt for use in a jam. 

Also I believe many of you are entirely wrong when making the claim that the AK-47 possesses greater stopping power, actually the reverse is true.

The AK-74 makes a decend comparison to the M16 but the AK-47 is completely outmatched.  The M16 is lighter, has nearly 200 meters in extra range, is demonstrably more accurate, and significantly more lethal, see above post.  There's a reason the USSR quickly designed the AK-74 in response to the M-16.  Yet even in comparison to the AK-74 the M-16 possesses a more modular design which allows the incorporation of many different accessories thus enhancing the M-16s effectiveness.

and I'm sure the tests didn't play to the strengths of the AK-47... did they compare the ease of fitting different components to each weapon?  Did they compare the effects of the rounds on a soft target where the NATO 5.56 and Warsaw 5.45 are significantly more lethal than the 7.62?  In comparisons involving these factors the M16 stands head and shoulders above.  Oh and did the test also consider logistics, number of rounds carried in the field?

The test was based on what was effective for soldiers with a small amount of training vs a well trained group. For an insurgent group the AK-47 was best since it could handle more neglect due to it's loose fitting parts.  It was mentioned that smaller, lighter bullets permit carrying more of them into battle. The M-16 wins that one. They did do ballistic gell tests which showed the tumbling and fragmenting effect of the M-16 round whereas the AK round just tore thru it. By the way, the M-16 round also fragments when it hits water at an angle.  In the jungle I'd want the AK and in open areas the M-16. I would not want to be hit by either. As for the absolute best... it hasn't been invented yet.

I wonder how a wound by a 20mm minigun would be.

That's stopping power!

Accuracy?! Wahta that that has to do with it? Are we talking about some snipers here?

Take the Dragunov. It was a modified AK47. I hit at point blank at 500 meters with that gun. I tried it at 1000 meters and it was about the same.

Stopping power? What if a round hits a bone? You wouldn't like that to be a 7,62!

What if you get a clear wound by a AK47 instead of a nasty one by a M16? "Oh, great, it was a 7,62 that blow this hole on me! It has less stopping power than a 5,56! I can go on! I'm Rambo!!!"

AK-47

Come on, the M16 is all fine and dandy... until you're in the field.

Or at least that seems to be what the American soldiers in the field are saying these days. There's some page about this somewhere...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1526448/posts - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1526448/posts

1) The M-16 rifle : Thumbs down. Chronic jamming problems with the talcum powder like sand over there. The sand is everywhere. [The Marine] says you feel filthy 2 minutes after coming out of the shower. The M-4 carbine version is more popular because it's lighter and shorter, but it has jamming problems also. They like the ability to mount the various optical gunsights and weapons lights on the picattiny rails, but the weapon itself is not great in a desert environment. They all hate the 5.56mm (.223) round. Poor penetration on the cinderblock structure common over there and even torso hits cant be reliably counted on to put the enemy down. Fun fact: Random autopsies on dead insurgents shows a high level of opiate use.

2) The M243 SAW (squad assault weapon): .223 cal. Drum fed light machine gun. Big thumbs down. Universally considered a piece of sh*t. Chronic jamming problems, most of which require partial disassembly. (that's fun in the middle of a firefight).

3) The M9 Beretta 9mm: Mixed bag. Good gun, performs well in desert environment; but they all hate the 9mm cartridge. The use of handguns for self-defense is actually fairly common. Same old story on the 9mm: Bad guys hit multiple times and still in the fight

4) Mossberg 12ga. Military shotgun: Works well, used frequently for clearing houses to good effect.

5) The M240 Machine Gun: 7.62 Nato (.308) cal. belt fed machine gun, developed to replace the old M-60 (what a beautiful weapon that was!!). Thumbs up. Accurate, reliable, and the 7.62 round puts 'em down. Originally developed as a vehicle mounted weapon, more and more are being dismounted and taken into the field by infantry. The 7.62 round chews up the structure over there.

6) The M2 .50 cal heavy machine gun: Thumbs way, way up. "Ma deuce" is still worth her considerable weight in gold. The ultimate fight stopper, puts their dicks in the dirt every time. The most coveted weapon in-theater.

7) The ..45 pistol: Thumbs up. Still the best pistol round out there. Everybody authorized to carry a sidearm is trying to get their hands on one. With few exceptions, can reliably be expected to put 'em down with a torso hit. The special ops guys (who are doing most of the pistol work) use the HK military model and supposedly love it. The old government model .45's are being re-issued en masse.

8) The M-14: Thumbs up. They are being re-issued in bulk, mostly in a modified version to special ops guys. Modifications include lightweight Kevlar stocks and low power red dot or ACOG sights. Very reliable in the sandy environment, and they love the 7.62 round.

9) The Barrett .50 cal sniper rifle: Thumbs way up. Spectacular range and accuracy and hits like a freight train. Used frequently to take out vehicle suicide bombers ( we actually stop a lot of them) and barricaded enemy. Definitely here to stay.

10) The M24 sniper rifle: Thumbs up. Mostly in 308 but some in 300 win mag. Heavily modified Remington 700's. Great performance. Snipers have been used heavily to great effect. Rumor has it that a marine sniper on his third tour in Anbar province has actually exceeded Carlos Hathcock's record for confirmed kills with OVER 100.

11) The new body armor: Thumbs up. Relatively light at approx. 6 lbs. and can reliably be expected to soak up small shrapnel and even will stop an AK-47 round. The bad Hot as sh*t to wear, almost unbearable in the summer heat (which averages over 120 degrees). Also, the enemy now goes for head shots when ever possible. All the bullsh*t about the "old" body armor making our guys vulnerable to the IED's was a non-starter. The IED explosions are enormous and body armor doesn't make any difference at all in most cases.

12) Night Vision and Infrared Equipment: Thumbs way up. Spectacular performance. Our guys see in the dark and own the night, period. Very little enemy action after evening prayers. More and more enemy being whacked at night during movement by our hunter-killer teams. We've all seen the videos.

13) Lights: Thumbs up. Most of the weapon mounted and personal lights are Surefire's, and the troops love 'em. Invaluable for night urban operations. [The Marine] carried a $34 Surefire G2 on a neck lanyard and loved it.

I cant help but notice that most of the good fighting weapons and ordnance are 50 or more years old!!!!!!!!! With all our technology, it's the WWII and Vietnam era weapons that everybody wants!!!! The infantry fighting is frequent, up close and brutal. No quarter is given or shown.

Bad guy weapons:

1) Mostly AK47's The entire country is an arsenal. Works better in the desert than the M16 and the .308 Russian round kills reliably. PKM belt fed light machine guns are also common and effective. Luckily, the enemy mostly shoots like sh*t. Undisciplined "spray and pray" type fire. However, they are seeing more and more precision weapons, especially sniper rifles. (Iran, again)

Fun fact: Captured enemy have apparently marveled at the marksmanship of our guys and how hard they fight. They are apparently told in Jihad school that the Americans rely solely on technology, and can be easily beaten in close quarters combat for their lack of toughness. Let's just say they know better now.

2) The RPG: Probably the infantry weapon most feared by our guys. Simple, reliable and as common as dogsh*t. The enemy responded to our up-armored humvees by aiming at the windshields, often at point blank range. Still killing a lot of our guys.

3) The IED: The biggest killer of all. Can be anything from old Soviet anti-armor mines to jury rigged artillery shells. A lot found in [The Marine's] area were in abandoned cars. The enemy would take 2 or 3 155mm artillery shells and wire them together. Most were detonated by cell phone, and the explosions are enormous. You're not safe in any vehicle, even an M1 tank. Driving is by far the most dangerous thing our guys do over there. Lately, they are much more sophisticated "shape charges" (Iran ian) specifically designed to penetrate armor.

Fact: Most of the ready made IED's are supplied by Iran, who is also providing terrorists (Hezbollah types) to train the insurgents in their use and tactics. That's why the attacks have been so deadly lately. Their concealment methods are ingenious, the latest being shape charges in Styrofoam containers spray painted to look like the cinderblocks that litter all Iraqi roads. We find about 40% before they detonate, and the bomb disposal guys are unsung heroes of this war.

4) Mortars and rockets: Very prevalent. The soviet era 122mm rockets (with an 18km range) are becoming more prevalent. One of [The Marine's] NCO's lost a leg to one. These weapons cause a lot of damage "inside the wire". [The Marine's] base was hit almost daily his entire time there by mortar and rocket fire, often at night to disrupt sleep patterns and cause fatigue (It did). More of a psychological weapon than anything else. The enemy mortar teams would jump out of vehicles, fire a few rounds, and then haul ass in a matter of seconds.

5) Bad guy technology: Simple yet effective. Most communication is by cell and satellite phones, and also by email on laptops. They use handheld GPS units for navigation and "Google earth" for overhead views of our positions. Their weapons are good, if not fancy, and prevalent.

That said... the M-16 is the rock in Battlefield 2. ESPECIALLY the grenade launcher option. Sooo easy to take out a squad or a soldier on foot trying to run evasively.

Pshhhh... replaced?

There are far, far, far too many million 47's out there to replace them in several decades. Even modern armies reuse inferior (but expensive) weapons...

ok. You have to start with what the respective countries desired in a service rifle. The Soviets devised the AK to give to poorly trained troops. As such, its pluses are:

Lower manufacturing abilities required

Minimal training for maintenance and use

Loose tolerences for use in harsh condidtions

The detractions are

measurably less accurate than western weapons

7.62 X 39MM is only efective out to 300-350 yards (if there are any American hunters out there, it is ballisticaly comprable to the .30-.30 Win)

rudamentary sights

The M-16 pattern was designed to take advantage of emerging plastics technology in 1959 by Eugene Stoner. Its pluses are:

Accurate out to 880 meters

Garand type iron sights

light-weight

the down side of the M-16 pattern is

More expensive to manufacture and difficult to make

Requires more training than the AK patterns

Requires more maintanance than an AK.

So, if i am a General, i would base my purchase on the following criteria;

1. Am i equiping my own men, who i am going to train well to maintain the weapon or am i going to arm someone elses militia that i am going to spend minimal resources on training?

2. Am i going to train the troops to use aimed, disciplined fire, or am i going to teach them to "spray and Pray"?

If i answer yes to the first part of both questions, i am going to go with the M-16. If i answer yes to the second segment of each question, i am going with the AK.

One caviat to this is if i know that my troops will never engage the enemy at ranges beyond 300 yards, I will lend much more to the AK than before.

As far as the M-16 rattling when fired, that is because the recoil spring is located to the rear of the upper receiver and functions "in-line". When the weapon is cycling, the recoil spring or "buffer group" is two to three inches below the operators ear. The Kalishnakov pattern weapons, as do the  majority of service rifles in current use, have the recoil spring located forward of the receiver, either below (Garand, M-14) or above (AK, G-3-MP-5 series) the barrel.

Most service rifles in modern use come from the STG-44 of the closing days of WW II. The AK, the galil, the G-3......