Question For Gun Buffs?

[MikeK]

M-16 or AK-47. Which do you prefer. And why?

I've never handled either of them but based on what I've read and heard from experienced shooters I have my preference and I'd like to compare my thoughts.

 

[Mr. H.]

I think it boils down to accuracy vs reliability. If you want accuracy the M-16 is the way to go.
If you want to spray and pray, get yourself an AK-47.

 

[MikeK]

I think it boils down to accuracy vs reliability. If you want accuracy the M-16 is the way to go.
If you want to spray and pray, get yourself an AK-47.

Thank you.

If accuracy and reliability are the deciding factors, so long as the AK is reasonably accurate, meaning it can readily strike a man-size target at 75 yards, I will opt for mechanical reliability. And I have read and heard the AK is infinitely more reliable than the M-16, as well as considerably easier to maintain.

Both the AK and the M-16 are categorical "assault weapons," which I understand to mean they are intended primarily for close quarters, rapidly mobile engagement, in which case accuracy beyond 50 yards is not a primary concern.

Based on my personal experience, if accuracy is a primary concern I would choose the M-1 Garand, which is a supremely accurate rifle. I qualifed Expert with it and I can strike a man-size target at 500 yards (no scope) shooting prone, or 200 yards offhand. (The M-1 is also very mechanically reliable.)

 

[uscitizen]

I always preferred the M14 in Nam.

 

[Mr. H.]

I'm surprised more haven't chimed in.
Heck, get yourself one of each.

 

[asterism]

I think it boils down to accuracy vs reliability. If you want accuracy the M-16 is the way to go.
If you want to spray and pray, get yourself an AK-47.

Thank you.

If accuracy and reliability are the deciding factors, so long as the AK is reasonably accurate, meaning it can readily strike a man-size target at 75 yards, I will opt for mechanical reliability. And I have read and heard the AK is infinitely more reliable than the M-16, as well as considerably easier to maintain.

Both the AK and the M-16 are categorical "assault weapons," which I understand to mean they are intended primarily for close quarters, rapidly mobile engagement, in which case accuracy beyond 50 yards is not a primary concern.

Based on my personal experience, if accuracy is a primary concern I would choose the M-1 Garand, which is a supremely accurate rifle. I qualifed Expert with it and I can strike a man-size target at 500 yards (no scope) shooting prone, or 200 yards offhand. (The M-1 is also very mechanically reliable.)

The M-16 is not for close quarters. The Corps used M-16s at the same ranges for qualifying as you posted (300 yards sitting also).

 

[Zoom]

I think it boils down to accuracy vs reliability. If you want accuracy the M-16 is the way to go.
If you want to spray and pray, get yourself an AK-47.

Ah so they are both good for hunting and target shooting? Obviously they are not good for home defense unless of course you are attacked by an entire football team.



What exactly are those guns designed for anyway? I thought it had something to do with the military? NO?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The m-4 carbine is the shorter version of an M-16 and is for close quarters.

The M-16a2 is accurate to 500 meters. The Corps used to qualify with it out to 500 yards. Not sure what they do now.

If you get an AK-47 try and get a European made one, they are more accurate, the Chinese ones are mechanically reliable but I owned one and the sights were useless. If with it pegged all the way I was still hitting off the target to the right. at 25 and 50 yards.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I think it boils down to accuracy vs reliability. If you want accuracy the M-16 is the way to go.
If you want to spray and pray, get yourself an AK-47.

AK 47's are pretty accurate at close range. 100 to 200 yards out.
You can get a AK variant in 223 that is pretty accurate even further out.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I think it boils down to accuracy vs reliability. If you want accuracy the M-16 is the way to go.
If you want to spray and pray, get yourself an AK-47.

Ah so they are both good for hunting and target shooting? Obviously they are not good for home defense unless of course you are attacked by an entire football team.



What exactly are those guns designed for anyway? I thought it had something to do with the military? NO?

They are in fact protected under the second amendment.
Miller vs. U.S. and Lewis vs. U.S.

 

[MikeK]

I think it boils down to accuracy vs reliability. If you want accuracy the M-16 is the way to go.
If you want to spray and pray, get yourself an AK-47.

AK 47's are pretty accurate at close range. 100 to 200 yards out.
You can get a AK variant in 223 that is pretty accurate even further out.

As mentioned, I've never handled either weapon. But I've never like the M-16. I don't like the way it looks and everything I've read, heard, and seen in tv documentaries about it confirms my dislike -- especially its comparatively delicate nature and tendency to malfunction if not kept meticulously clean. That is a big turn-off where a battlefield weapon is concerned.

On the other hand I think the AK-47 is a good-looking piece. And everything I've read and heard about it says it's every bit as good as it looks and then some. What concerns me is the cost factor. I understand the M-16 costs almost three times as much as the AK to produce, yet it falls far short of the AK on the battlefield in terms of simple reliability -- which is by far the most important consideration under typical field conditions.

While the bloated military budget is always a concern the comparison of the M-16 vs the AK-47 seems a far more significant issue today than ever before. Not only does the much greater cost of the M-16 seem smugly wasteful, I'm a little pissed off at the fact that a lot of GIs lost their lives because of the inferior performance of early versions of the M-16.

Although the design of the M-16 has been improved my understanding is the weapon still is not as reliable as the AK, an extremely important consideration which is arrogantly ignored by the Pentagon.

I will appreciate knowing what others think of this.

 

[Mr. H.]

You'll have to speak up, I have a banana clip in my ear.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You'll have to speak up, I have a banana clip in my ear.

Eat the banana and put the clip on the paper.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I think it boils down to accuracy vs reliability. If you want accuracy the M-16 is the way to go.
If you want to spray and pray, get yourself an AK-47.

AK 47's are pretty accurate at close range. 100 to 200 yards out.
You can get a AK variant in 223 that is pretty accurate even further out.

As mentioned, I've never handled either weapon. But I've never like the M-16. I don't like the way it looks and everything I've read, heard, and seen in tv documentaries about it confirms my dislike -- especially its comparatively delicate nature and tendency to malfunction if not kept meticulously clean. That is a big turn-off where a battlefield weapon is concerned.

On the other hand I think the AK-47 is a good-looking piece. And everything I've read and heard about it says it's every bit as good as it looks and then some. What concerns me is the cost factor. I understand the M-16 costs almost three times as much as the AK to produce, yet it falls far short of the AK on the battlefield in terms of simple reliability -- which is by far the most important consideration under typical field conditions.

While the bloated military budget is always a concern the comparison of the M-16 vs the AK-47 seems a far more significant issue today than ever before. Not only does the much greater cost of the M-16 seem smugly wasteful, I'm a little pissed off at the fact that a lot of GIs lost their lives because of the inferior performance of early versions of the M-16.

Although the design of the M-16 has been improved my understanding is the weapon still is not as reliable as the AK, an extremely important consideration which is arrogantly ignored by the Pentagon.

I will appreciate knowing what others think of this.

You are grossly misinformed.

 

[Politico]

This is like the caliber debate. You basically have the folks who like AKs. And the ones who have never touched one and hate them. You can tell which ones they are. They usually say the AR can shoot the ass off a snail at 500 yards and the AK can't hit a barn at 100. It's all who's shooting it. And if either is pointing in your direction bad things are going to happen to you.

 

[MikeK]

This is like the caliber debate. You basically have the folks who like AKs. And the ones who have never touched one and hate them. You can tell which ones they are. They usually say the AR can shoot the ass off a snail at 500 yards and the AK can't hit a barn at 100. It's all who's shooting it. And if either is pointing in your direction bad things are going to happen to you.

That's the way it is with archery, too. I often hear novice archers talking about "more accurate" bows.

 

[Swagger]

I think it boils down to accuracy vs reliability. If you want accuracy the M-16 is the way to go.
If you want to spray and pray, get yourself an AK-47.

AK 47's are pretty accurate at close range. 100 to 200 yards out.
You can get a AK variant in 223 that is pretty accurate even further out.

As mentioned, I've never handled either weapon. But I've never like the M-16. I don't like the way it looks and everything I've read, heard, and seen in tv documentaries about it confirms my dislike -- especially its comparatively delicate nature and tendency to malfunction if not kept meticulously clean. That is a big turn-off where a battlefield weapon is concerned.

On the other hand I think the AK-47 is a good-looking piece. And everything I've read and heard about it says it's every bit as good as it looks and then some. What concerns me is the cost factor. I understand the M-16 costs almost three times as much as the AK to produce, yet it falls far short of the AK on the battlefield in terms of simple reliability -- which is by far the most important consideration under typical field conditions.

While the bloated military budget is always a concern the comparison of the M-16 vs the AK-47 seems a far more significant issue today than ever before. Not only does the much greater cost of the M-16 seem smugly wasteful, I'm a little pissed off at the fact that a lot of GIs lost their lives because of the inferior performance of early versions of the M-16.

Although the design of the M-16 has been improved my understanding is the weapon still is not as reliable as the AK, an extremely important consideration which is arrogantly ignored by the Pentagon.

I will appreciate knowing what others think of this.

Are you considering purchasing one; or are you attempting to elicit a justification for why the U.S. military fields what you seem to believe is an inferior weapon?

 

[asterism]

This is like the caliber debate. You basically have the folks who like AKs. And the ones who have never touched one and hate them. You can tell which ones they are. They usually say the AR can shoot the ass off a snail at 500 yards and the AK can't hit a barn at 100. It's all who's shooting it. And if either is pointing in your direction bad things are going to happen to you.

I have an AK and an AR. The AR is much more accurate.

 

[Politico]

Annnd we're off.

 

[MikeK]

Are you considering purchasing one; or are you attempting to elicit a justification for why the U.S. military fields what you seem to believe is an inferior weapon?

I'm not seeking to justify anything. But inasmuch as government spending has arisen as a primary factor in the present conflict between Republicans and Obama, it occurs to me that it's time to start looking closely at military expenditures which represent a major part of the Budget. Because I understand the M-16 costs three times as much as the AK-47.

In thinking about this I'm recalling things I've read, heard, and watched on tv about the M-16 and the AK-47. Because I have no experience with either weapon I'm asking for opinions from those who know better than I. And while I'm at it I might as well ask what kind of weapon you Brits field (it looks like an FN/FAL to me), how much it costs, and what you think of it.

Although I never was in combat I did spend four years in the Marine Corps, which included quite a bit of time on field maneuvers and in training exercises, so I have some awareness of what a weapon can be exposed to in terms of rain, mud, grit, and sand. The standard weapon at that time was the M-1 Garand, which is a supremely reliable combat weapon, as well as being deadly accurate and extremely powerful. It is known to take a beating and to function reliably under the worst conditions.

When the M-14, another highly reliable and efficient combat rifle, was replaced by the Stoner M-16, at considerable expense, the first distribution was defective. Those weapons, which were issued to our troops in Vietnam, jammed, causing a number (unknown to me) of deaths -- which is a goddam shame!

Although the cause of that problem was determined and corrected I am led to believe the M-16 remains relatively prone to malfunction if not kept meticulously clean. If that is true then the weapon cannot be considered reliable for combat deployment. And in my opinion reliability is a far more important concern than is long-range accuracy in a battlefield weapon. I can live with missing a 200 yard shot -- but I can't live if my weapon won't fire when I need it to most.

So what I'd like to elicit here are comments from those who have experience with either or both of the subject weapons.