Why do people think the M-16 is better than a AK-47, when it is inferior to it?

CHEPIBE72

The main advantage of the M16 is the accuracy. Otherwise in brute force and being with the elements, the AK is superior...you just have to spray and pray to hit anything.

Jen N

Well although the AK-47 has the M-16 beat on durability in harsh conditions, the M-16 is superior in accuracy at distance, and is also lighter. With proper maintenance the M-16 is a reliable weapon and superior to the AK.

I was just reading about the problems with the M-16 during Vietnam. The 5.56 ammunition given to the troops used a low quality sticky powder that caused massive buildup of dirt in the M16 mechanism and eventually led to jamming problems. When the ammunition was changed, the misfire problems disappeared as well.

rain_bringer

The M-16 requires training to use, and it is a very precisely machined instrument of death. If dropped, things fall out of place easily. Meanwhile, the Ak-47 is fully-automatic, making it well suited to use by an untrained guerrilla army. The Ak-47 is also very cheaply produced, making parts easy to come by. Plus, if you break the stock, you can carve a new one.

Vick B

Simple
Because it is what you have!
its way lighter. (who would drop their rifle in the mud?)
better accuracy.
and it is what you have.

I used a 47 to save my life and 3 others, sure it worked obviously. But I would never question the m14a or 16

Lu W

That doesn't make it better.

Bear

You have to take everything in its context. the AK-47 is a sloppy fit weapon allowing it to work when it is very dirty. What you gain in ability to fire you lose in accuracy which mean the M-16 is more accurate when it is able to fire.

SO it comes down to Yes it will fire but will it hit anything at distance, which is where you want your enemy. I personally want to kill them before they are able to kill me, if that means I must keep my weapon clean it worth it.

Now on the battlefield I will pick up and use an AK in a heart beat. The AK has a very distinctive sound and when fired it sounds like my enemy, If surrounded the AK-47 makes good sound camouflage.

Chuck J

In my experience the M16 variants are far superior to the AK's when employed by a trained soldier. The AK is easily the weapon of choice for uneducated, poorly trained masses though. The M16's are plenty deadly when used properly.They do require more maintenance than the AK's but that is by design, the AK's were meant to be employed by conscripts and are an amazingly successful weapon. I would feel well armed with either but would prefer the M16 if resupply was not an issue.

Mike W

It's all about the design. The AK-47 was designed to be used by a poorly trained, massive, army. It was designed to be manufactured in large numbers, by poorly trained factory workers. Its ability to take a lot of abuse and still function comes at the cost of accuracy, anything beyond pistol range, it's not very accurate. The M-16, on the other hand, is a finely crafted weapon, built with tight tolerances, and is quite a bit more accurate than the AK-47. It was designed to be used by a well trained, well equipped army. Unfortunately the first soldiers to use the weapon weren't properly trained in the use and care of the weapon, throw in some inferior ammunition, and you have trouble. When the weapon was introduced to the armory, those in charge of it were still in the mindset of one shot one kill, and that infantry should have rifles, not assault weapons, so there may have been some effort on their part to discredit the usefulness of the weapon.

diablo_6s

Well they both are formidable weapons first of all. Deadly just the same. The accuracy of the M-16 and its variants are better and anyone who says otherwise has no idea what they are talking about. A weapon that is fully automatic has its time and place, although most times its a waste of ammo, and unlike a video game you can't carry endless supplies. Because it is more accurate the M-16 family takes more maintenance due to its tighter tolerances, the AK-47 takes less due to the way it was designed with larger tolerances, making it more dependable and not requiring the maintaining level of the M-16. Most weapons that people love and think are great such as the SR-25 and M-110 SAS are based of the M-16 lets not forget.

To the guy that think the Dragunov Sniper Rifle was carried in mass numbers look up the old Soviet MTOE it wasn't and really isn't that good of a Sniper Rifle.

To the guy that thinks there isn't enough stopping power, you are right but then again unlike most people here I have used it in combat and it will lay down the enemy just the same.

The 7.62 x 39 will also not punch through modern body armor and ballistic plates, the 5.56 because of the tungsten penetrator and extremely high muzzle velocity will.

To those who say the M-16 and varients jam or have problems, do proper cleaning on them like you are supposed to and its not an issue.

So while both weapons have there ups and downs, and everyone with no experience actually using both of them, or properly knowing how to use them will give their two cents. Overall the M-16 or one of its variants mainly the M-4 I will be more than happy to continue to carry to close with and kill the enemy.

cm22486

"Patriotism and racism. America, more than many other nations, tends to overestimate it's own abilities and downplay those of others, friend as well as foe.

Naturally, this leads to unpleasant surprises like Vietnam, Somalia, and Iraq War 2.

America tends to go for the flashy. Russia prefers thing that will work in the most Godawful climates on Earth. Because that is how wars are won.

Quick note. The AK isn't as accurate as the M-16 due to the sheer number of soldiers equipped w/ the Dragunov Sniper Rifle. Plus, wide dispersal is an advantage at close range. Let's say you turn a street corner in a city, & find a whole squad of enemy facing you. Do you want: A, an M16 which will shoot in a straight line, only hitting 1 or 2 guys, or B, the AK's wide cone of mayhem that will hit most of them?

Plus, it was found in Somalia & in SWAT situations in the US, that the M16 lacks something in killing power. This 1 gunman took FORTY hits from an M16 before dying. I don't think it would take an AK that long to do the same thing. The AK is accurate enough for the job it was given."

you played call of duty 4 too much.

for the person asking the question.....

The m-16 is NOT designed to be a KILLING weapon. it is designed to shoot more accurately. and it will function in dust etc etc, due to newer designed weapons (newer variations, M16A4). the ak is designed to kill.

to put this into a better perspective for you, think of the ingenuity behind creating a casualty....as opposed to creating a dead body.

if you hit a man with a 5.56, he will be more likely to survive the shot than a 7.62 round. with that being said, a man gets injured...2+ of his buddies have to carry him to safety to be tended to etc. etc.

a guy who is shot and killed....his comrades know he is hosed and will just leave his *** alone. his comrades will continue to fight.

so you take a guy out of the fight with a smaller round, he is incapacitated and you also technically take a couple of his buddies out of the fight because they have to tend to him.

this is coming from many grunts ive spoken to, one being a gunner (CWO)

also, why fund to get ak-47s when their primary market is to evil? (terrorism, black market, drug dealers, etc.) im telling you, during training evolutions i have gotten an m-16 so damn nasty and full of dust without a damn bit of oil left in the chamber or on the bolt and no jams at all.

Submariner 1

Its a matter of opinion. I love shooting the M-16A3. It is very accurate, easy to adjust, and easy to get many well placed rounds down range quickly. It is fairly simple to breakdown and reassemble. I have never used the AK-47 or AK-74 to compare it to, but do know it is not as accurate, a few other minor short comings. Also I have never used the M-16 in the a dusty environment, the only issues I have had is hot brass landing on me prone on rare occasions (left Handed)

When I was in Vietnam, none of us thought the M-16 was better than the AK-47, and for the very same reasons you noted.

Ray J

a main reason people like the m-16 more than the AK is that for the same weight, you can carry more ammo. the 5.56mm bullet is lighter than the 7.62mm bullet, so you can carry more. the reason the 47 is better, is that it is a lot more reliable, as you have stated in you question, and that it has better stopping power, as a previous answer had stated. i'd rather use an AK, because i know that it has the stopping power and can be easily fixed.

ssg/emt

Why do people think a high performance sports car is better than an old Chevy pick up?

Because it is. The old truck may be reliable and go through a lot because it is rugged and simple, but it will never match the performance of the sports car.

armstrong

faster stronger, etc.

Fighter Pilot

i know! finally a person like you... people say ak-47 doesnt have accuracy?? you just don't know how to hold the gun... and people saying this are the ones saying that the 50 cal sniper rifle is the best while it has the worst accuracy for any sniper rifle

capn_jonas

Patriotism and racism. America, more than many other nations, tends to overestimate it's own abilities and downplay those of others, friend as well as foe.

Naturally, this leads to unpleasant surprises like Vietnam, Somalia, and Iraq War 2.

America tends to go for the flashy. Russia prefers thing that will work in the most Godawful climates on Earth. Because that is how wars are won.

Quick note. The AK isn't as accurate as the M-16 due to the sheer number of soldiers equipped w/ the Dragunov Sniper Rifle. Plus, wide dispersal is an advantage at close range. Let's say you turn a street corner in a city, & find a whole squad of enemy facing you. Do you want: A, an M16 which will shoot in a straight line, only hitting 1 or 2 guys, or B, the AK's wide cone of mayhem that will hit most of them?

Plus, it was found in Somalia & in SWAT situations in the US, that the M16 lacks something in killing power. This 1 gunman took FORTY hits from an M16 before dying. I don't think it would take an AK that long to do the same thing. The AK is accurate enough for the job it was given.

cm22486, I have never played that piece of trash Call of Duty game, AND I NEVER WILL. I have fired Ak47's, I have fired a Dragunov. And I have beaten almost every so-called marksmen who thought the M-16 or M-4 was "da bomb". The more time spent on maintenance is less time spent killing America's enemies. Remember Jessica Lynch? Her unit had M-16's that kept jamming! If they had a more reliable weapon, they would have likely beaten off the Iraqi attack!

As for body armor, how many terrorists actually wear the finest money can buy? Besides, if his "chest is a bulletproof vest", just shoot his legs out from under him!

As for ever Russian squad having one SVD, I quote Steven Zalogda, eminent historian. The majority of firefights happen at less than 100 meters. In urban combat even less.

And stop "thumbs downing" me!

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: