AK-47 or M-16? NATO or Warsaw?

I dont think if they are still using ye olde AK-47s with 7.62 Warsaw pacts, They are replaced with AK-74s(which use 5.56 mm) AFAIK...

Originally posted by wshall I would argue for the new models of the m-16, although the comment about the carbine is also valid.

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

as both are ARs the firing rate is not important.

Firing rate is only important when u want to have conc. cone of fire. e.g. MGs & SAWs

One bullet is usually enough to stop a guy, however as AK uses 7.62, rather than 5.56 rounds they have a greater stopping power.

I have never ran a obstacle course with both of them, but anecdotal evidence suggest that the AK is hardier (breaks and IAs), and you want a hardier rifle when you go out.

The AK is supposedly slower to strip assemble and clean than the M16.

The AK is heavier, due to the fact that it is not made of composites materials, but if you want a really light rifle what for go for M16A1? go for the carbine, it is exactly the same as the M16 except with a foldable buttstock and couple of cms shorter barrel and almost a kilo lighter.

And i still think that semi-auto rather than burst is most commonly used by most armies. the only reason to use burst is if you are within like 40 metres of the enemy when you engage, e.g. street fighting or CQB.
That is why in the mode selector, it goes safe, semi then auto.

For my part AK-47 is the best!

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.

Originally posted by Zagros I have seen pictures of US and British soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan who were armed with AKs - why?

Some special forces prefer them. It is also a tactic to use AK's. When in a large firefight (especially at night) some US soldiers use AK's because the insurgents can judge the the position of coalition troops by the distinctive sound of their M-16's and Enfields if they can't see them. So, the use of AK's confuses the insurgents as to the postition of coalition troops during a confusing firefight. It's just an added advantage. This tactic was widely used in Vietnam.


Edited by Illuminati

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

I voted AK 47 for it's simplicity, people have mentioned "rate of fire", tell me, are the British the only people who still prefer to use "single aimed shots"?  3 targets, 3 shots fired, and hopefully 3 targets hit,  rather than 3 targets  500 rounds blazed away in the general direction of the enemy and hopefully 3 targets hit. 

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.

M-16 is better.Especially in Counter-Strike.