These two rifles have met, are meeting and will continue to meet each other in the field of combat. The first is heavy, has a large-capacity standard magazine, fires large bullets, simple and easy to maintain mechanism. The latter is light, bayonet not ready-mounted so can be used for hand-to-hand combat and other stuff, higher rate of fire. What do you think?
I've shot from AK-47 in Ukraine during my former pre-military training. The instructors also did a "2-hour test." This test was compiled of basically putting both rifles in soil and water, 1-hour duration each period of time. AK-47 was still working well, while M-16 got totally jammed and had to be cleaned before firing ('cause it simply couldn't fire at all after dirt and water exposure). End of story. AK-47 is simply better. By the way, the Russians have updated their rifle. The latest version is AK-12. It's mechanism is still simple, the weight is lighter, higher rate of fire - If you also look up the history of M-16 vs. AK-47 testing, the Russian rifle has always ended on top.
Impressive, that AK-12. On another note, is it true that the Israeli Galil is a rip-off of the AK albeit using smaller caliber bullets?
Israeli Galil was based on the Finnish Valmet RK.62, which was a licensed modification of AK-47. So, indirectly, yes, it was a rip-off of the AK.
I prefer Ak. It's made tough and has been used in many places. Even in 'Nam some American soldiers abandoned their m16s and took aks from Vietnamese soldiers when they had the chance.
AKs definitely, their reliability and ease of use (and price) is what makes it the most well known firearm in the world. The M-16 jammed easily (see the vietnam war) and was not nearly as simple as the AK.
As an American, it kills me to say this, But the AK is more reliable, easier to clean and has a larger caliber. It is just simply better in every are, but the rifles user isn't always as skilled in combat as the soldier carrying a M16.
Well, that "skill factor" is about to be annulled by the AK-12, I must say. I am seriously awaiting the modification of the famous AK. It looks much tougher as well.
I think the skill factor has long been annulled! When faced with the bare-foot Vietcong guerrillas, American forces handily won. However, facing the NVA regulars was something else. I agree that a weapon is only as good as the man wielding it. But, would be a great advantage if a good soldier is holding a superior weapon!
Which IS AK-47, and, soon-to-be AK-12. Like I said, all the testing of the two rifles has usually been in favour of AK. That's a fact and history. No more, no less.
Well this debate has been going on for decades. From what I have seen so far, AK-47 is more reliable, easier to maintain, do more damage to targets without body armor. M16 is more accurate at longer range, but it is less reliable and hard to maintain, however it can penetrate body armor easier. I have seen this on TV where both guns were tested in multiple subjects. When firing against a brick wall, M16 penetrates the first layer with small holes, while AK-47 smash through. If I am not mistaken, some version of M16 can only fire 3-shot bursts. It is also a disadvantage at close combat where you need to fire continuously. There was a video on Youtube, the owner of an AK-47 fired like 5~6 clips in a row (continuously firing without stop) without a problem. I very much doubt M16 could do the same.
