M16/M4 versus AKs
I saw this a PajamasMedia. State of Flux compares the M16-series weapons with AKs. Any feedback on this discussion is welcome. Remember, comments on this site take anywhere from two to four hours to post.
Opening graf:
There are those out there who hold the Kalashnikov in high regard, especially in comparison to the US M16/M4. The myth of Kalashnikov superiority is anything but a myth. It is in fact a very crappy weapon – for various reasons that I will discuss later. The belief that the M16/M4 is an expensive but fragile weapon is also an unfound myth. It is true that Kalashnikov (the inventor, not the weapon) was an able weapon designer, but he was not superior to Eugene Stoner (the father of the M16/M4). Kalashnikov designed a weapon for an ill-trained conscripted army. For that purpose, the AK47 was and is a superb weapon. Stoner designed a weapon for a professional army. Any professional soldier would prefer the M16/M4 family over the Kalashnikovs…
NOTE (after reading the first couple of comments): M-16s have to be kept clean– as in particle free. That’s been my experience on the range. I think the comment about keeping M-16s in plastic bags in Iraq is telling. The AK is a direct descendant of the German Sturmgewehr 44. Anyone ever fired one of those? How does it compare to the AK?
I spent my deployed career armed with a .45 or nine millimeter pistol. I prefer the nine millimeter because I could actually hit the target with the nine. Our .45s were of course old and anything but tight. My police and SOF friends prefer the .45 for knockdown capacity. Of course, they are crack shots.
Emailed comment:
“…re comments m16/m4 minh-duc with his worn out national guard m16-could it be that the looser action fit due to wear had made his more reliable in that environment? i do know from 11 years of hipower rifle competition at camp perry that the action needs to be cleaned after each match due to combustion residue in the action. keep up the good work. merry christmas…”
I haven’t touched an AK or a M16 Mk2 since Nov ‘69 in Nam. The Mk1 sucked the Mk2 was a great weapon if you kept it clean. Sounds as if the current M16/M4 vs AK debate is still just like the 9mm vs .45acp debate recycled. Ft/lbs. on Target. Give me a 3-tap on target over ft/lbs. in the air any day. When I’m in Texas, not California, I carry a 9mm kurz Sig that’ll fit in my pocket and give me a 6 to 8 inch pattern at 50 fifty feet. Good enough for a reliable concealed carry self defense weapon.
Comment by RiverRat — 12/25/2005 @ 9:23 am
As someone who spent years as an armorer, and who has fired numerous types of weapons, including the M16 and the AK, in all sorts of conditions, I would like to say that the author of the piece is full of it. The M16 in any form is the least reliable weapon I’ve ever seen, and during Desert Storm we had to keep them taped up in garbage bags to ensure they would fire when needed, and they often wouldn’t anyway. Once inside Iraq after the invasion, I picked up an AK from a bunker and stuck it inside the cab of my truck so I would have a functional weapon if I needed one. After riding in the cab of my truck for two months, and rather infrequent cleaning, I loaded the AK up and took it out to fire before I got rid of it as we were going home. It fired four 30 round mags without jamming, and it was full of dust. My M16 would barely fire a full mag even immediately after cleaning. The simple fact is that the M16 is the most unreliable weapon our soldiers have ever been saddled with, and has probably caused a lot of deaths due to malfunctions in battle, whereas the AK just goes bang every time you pull the trigger, which is what it’s supposed to do.
Comment by Improbulus Maximus — 12/25/2005 @ 9:27 am
I lack the ability to evaluate the two rifles from engineering stand point. Obviously, the AK is cheaper to make - its receiver is stamped and riveted together. The M16 Uses castings and its finish and fit exhibits much greater refinement. I have used rifles and the M16 is capable of greater accuracy. From a practical stand point, the question I would as is, which rifle has accounted for more battlefield casualties? Based upon the numbers of fifles deployed, I would expect that the AK has inflicted more damage than M16.
Comment by Steve Johnson — 12/25/2005 @ 9:56 am
This controversy has been going on for a long…long time. Last night I was reading “Vietnam Chronicles: The Abrams Tapes 1968-1972.” Gen. Abrams, in ’68, was working to get M-16s to the RF/PF (sort of the Vietnamese national guard). The Vietnamese were convinced this would give them an advantage over the AK-armed enemy. Some American officials weren’t convinced. The conventional wisdom among America soldiers at about this time was that the M-16 was probably superior “when it worked.†This was probably a little unfair since we had no direct knowledge of how well an AK “worked.†I was a combat engineer company commander in Pleiku province in 67-68. We had not yet been issued M-16s. That was fine with me; I was perfectly content with my M-14 and M-1911 Colt.
Comment by George — 12/25/2005 @ 11:05 am
The AK47 has killed a lot more people than the M16. Most of them were civilians. As a tool for murder, terror, and despotism the AK has no peer. When you are cleaning your M16 don’t forget the pocket in the bolt carrier where the flange on the firing pin rests. Over time - a long time - the gas that leaks past the bolt builds up a deposit under the flange that can keep the firing pin from moving forward far enough to reliably fire.
Comment by Mark — 12/25/2005 @ 12:38 pm
There is a great disscusion going on at Stratagy Page, http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2005121234843.asp The military has been looking for a replacement for the M16/M4. That replacement was to be the XM8 This was recently cancelled because of the bullet. While it did solve the problem with jamming due to sand in the action, it still was bassed on the 5.56 NATO bullet. (.223 Rem) Troops today are much better shots, better training and better sights. The problem has been with the bullet. You can’t shoot through walls like you can with the 7.62×39 (AK/SKS). Plus they are finding that it’s taking as much as a dozen rounds to put down a terrorist, who are loosing respect for that round . The military will either go back to the M14 round 7.62 NATO (.308 Win) or to the new 6.8mm.
Comment by Steven — 12/25/2005 @ 2:00 pm
Like #1 above, my experience w/ the AK & M16 was in ‘68-’69, RVN. I do not like either weapon. The M16 can be acccurate to 300m but lacks stopping power. It is unreliable even when given the most meticulous maintenence. It is useless in close combat. This appears to be a re-hash of the chnages in small arms that arose from the Phillipne Insurrection. There, US Forces saw that the Huks (Islamic terrorists, by the way) did not fall when hit by the Krag or the .38 pistols then issued. From this arose the superb M1903 Springfield (a copy of a Mauser, I believe) & the Browning designed M1911A1. The M14 is superior to both as a combat weapon. The M16 persists, I think, because one can carry 400 - 600 rds as a BA instead on 200 or so. It is short & light. And it sucks. Why not an HK mechanism at 7.62mm or, better, 8mm? This would create stopping power. Surely they could design a short cartridge for this.
Comment by John Schedler — 12/25/2005 @ 2:42 pm
Many different companies make the M16/AR-15 in the 7.62 NATO. Bushmaster comes to mind. They are out there in the civilian market. The Army wants a whole new gun and now caliber. The XM8 was to be that gun but they scrapped it. The major down side to the 7.62 NATO has always been recoil for the average grunt. This isn’t a problem for snipers who love it. But it’s not something you can control on full auto or three shot bursts. They will probably go for a 6.8mm which would shoot a 100 grain bullet rather than the 62 grain bullets they shoot now.
Comment by Steven — 12/25/2005 @ 5:26 pm
I don’t have any military experience with either gun. I’ve worked in the US civilian retail firearms for seven years. I’ve owned the AK-74 (semi) and still have an AR-15. I would not say I have extensive experience with either from a maintenance/combat perspective. This argument always tries to solve three or four different issues by focusing on one or two subjects. Reliability with no accuracy is useless. Accuracy with no reliability is useless. Knockdown power with too little ammo is nearly useless. Unlimited ammo requiring more than one hit is nearly useless. The Army can’t maintain inventory of 5.56 ammunition with three different bullet weights (55, 69 and 77 grains) due to the differing twist rates of barrels required, let alone add 6.8 SPC uppers & ammo to the mix. I see don’t see anything the 6.8 round will do that the 6.5×55 or the 260 Rem won’t do, except fit more rounds in a given magazine and provide a slightly better ratio of weight/rounds for an individual rifleman. Does that justify the additional equipment and inventory problems? From a my perspective, I wouldn’t think so. We’ve had the ability to use the Stoner design with the 7.62×39 for years, but nobody is really calling for it that I can see. I don’t think it’s a case of the AK round being inherently preferable to the 5.56, either for knockdown or for loadout purposes. I suspect the Pentagon will carry on with the M4 until some sort of caseless ammo can be justified from both ballistic and financial perspectives (undoubtedly regardless of whether the troops themselves or the individual services like it). Then they’ll do a clean-sheet design upgrade and enable some contractor to make a pile of money producing the new design and debugging the thing for 20 years. If I was in Afghanistan, I think I’d want to carry an M14. For Iraq, the M4 is close to the right answer, but not yet it. The civilian market has done extensive research and development of both the Stoner design and the 223 Rem cartridge. I would love to hear someone with extensive and applicable military experience give their opinion on what value that research over the last 40 years has been to the military.
Comment by Brian Butt — 12/25/2005 @ 10:18 pm
“The AK is a direct descendant of the German Sturmgewehr 44.” No it’s not. Aside from having the gas piston fixed to the bolt carrier, the AK and Stg. 44 don’t have anything in common. Actually, I think the M16 resembles the Stg. 44 more than any other modern assault rifle - like the Stg. 44 it has a two-part receiver and the return spring is in the buttstock. No other assault rifle (well, aside from those derived from the M16) have these distinct features. I’ve never fired it though.
Comment by Wombat — 12/26/2005 @ 12:54 am
Unless I completely misunderstood my basic training in the 70s, the main idea of shooting your rifle at the enemy is to kill them. Any evaluation should consider this first. Let’s not get carried away with the technical superiority of the M16 over the AK47. The M16 was designed in the 60s, the AK47 in the 40s. The AK74 was designed later with a 5.56mm round. Does anyone have reports on its effectiveness in Afghanistan. Stoner’s weapons were designed when we had the draft, so he had better have designed them to work with conscripts because that is what we were using. The size of tbe round is important because Stoner originally designed his weapons around the 7.62mm NATO standard. It changed to the 5.56mm because the US wanted to change the NATO standard to 5.56mm. The reason, so the troops could carry more ammunition. Why, because they either couldn’t shoot straight, or couldn’t see the target. The prevailing thought was that spraying rounds in the direction of the target would give you time to get into a position where you could find the enemy. So where does this leave us. The M16 does not have the stopping power for use in Iraq or Afghanistan. The comparison to the Phillipines is exactly correct. I bet the first use of shotguns was illegal use of a private firearm. The AK47, while built to loose engineering tolerances, has proven to be a better battlefield weapon. Why, because it can operate under less than perfect conditions. The 7.62mm gives much better killing power. I would suggest the main reason thatb there are not more coalition casualities from direct AK47 fire is because of the lack of training of the users and the fact that they are often high on drugs. The replacements offered will allways have the same problem. Clsoe design tolerances, because that is what we do best. Someone needs to relook at looser tolerances as a way of improving battlfied performance.
Comment by davod — 12/26/2005 @ 6:24 am
I think accuracy and reliability are to some degree tradeoffs. When you build a target rifle, the principal thing you try to do is to reduce tolerances — essentially you want each round to be fired precisely like the previous one and that means absolute uniformity in the fit of all the moving parts (and soemtimes the seemingly immovable — e.g. machined metal bedding plates). Reliability comes from either using excessive force to work the action (increasing wear) or looser tolerances. A little piece of grit will keep a target rifle bolt from properly locking — but if you allow the slop to let it close, you are going to lose accuracy. So…what do you want?
Comment by John Lederer — 12/26/2005 @ 9:21 am
re Steven in #8. I trained on the M14 & used it for several months in the RVN. Those of us who had M14’s had to break down MG belts to get ammo or beg some match ammo usually saved for the snipers. I did not find the recoil for the M14 to be a problem. Surely a good buffer could solve this. If Stoner originally designed the Armalite for NATO 7.62, it had a buffer, right?
Comment by John Schedler — 12/26/2005 @ 9:52 am
RE: John in #13. Yeah the M14 is a great gun. A friend of mine who is deploying to Afgahnistan next year is buying some ’special’ .223 rounds that are not exactly Geneva convention. Basicly for use in those dire situations. There are several in his batallion that bought aftermarket M14s and then put on custom attachments for their deployment. The Discovery Channel did a great comparison between the merits of the AK and M16. AK having greater reliablity and energy and penitration (shooting through walls or trees) and the M16 having better Accuracy in both full auto (now 3 shot burst) and more ammo. Given the choice from the local Guardsman they would rather have the M14 for Iraq and Afgahnistan then the M16.
Comment by Steven — 12/26/2005 @ 9:27 pm
Sorry Wombat, but you’re wrong. Mikhail Kalashnikov was inspired by the StG 44, but didn’t like the tipping block bolt or gas piston much, two designs which made their way into the FN FAL, by the way, and are part of the cause of the expense of the FAL compared to the AK. The G3 looks more like the StG than any other weapon, but its roller locking bolt was taken directly from the MG42. Just about all modern military rifle designs are descendants of the StG in one way or another, except for the M16, which has almost nothing in common with the StG or any other rifle except for the most insignificant aspects.
Comment by Improbulus Maximus — 12/27/2005 @ 12:01 pm
Our doctrine in the 60s and on up into the 80s emphasized volume of fire and not long range marksmanship (as far as the army was concerned, for the marines, ymmv). Given that your soldiers were going to be shovelling out ammo with both hands it made sense to have something that allowed them to carry more ammo. We appear to be doing a much better job teaching marksmanship now so it would seem that we could benefit from equipping the troops with a rifle that takes advantage of that. Perhaps a step into the wayback machine to the days of the battle rifle/carbine combo…
Comment by JSAllison — 12/27/2005 @ 12:44 pm
My late father worked at Edgewood Arsenal (now part of Aberdeen Proving Ground) in Maryland in the middle ’60s and the early ’70s. In the course of his work on small arms there, he and his colleagues tested the M-16 in sandy conditions and found that it became unreliable after several hundred rounds had been fired. The bolt-carrier would ride forward, strip off a round from the magazine, chamber the round, force the bolt to rotate into “lock”, but the bolt would then rotate out of “lock” and the bolt and bolt-carrier would fall back from the breech a fraction of an inch. To fire the weapon, you had to tap the forward-assist to force the bolt into “lock” and make the rifle ready to fire. Apparently what happened was the sand would get caught up in the receiver where the bolt-carrier rides back and forth, and the motion, together with the sand, would cause the small gap between the bolt-carrier and the receiver to widen. This gap is critical, as the friction from the air trapped in that gap is what regulates the speed of the bolt-carrier. The wider the gap, the less friction there is, and the faster the bolt-carrier moves. And the faster the bolt-carrier moves, the harder the bolt-face strikes the breech, and the strike can become so violent as to cause the bolt to, in effect, bounce back from the breech– the bolt first rotates into “lock”, but because it (and the bolt-carrier) have so much kinetic energy left over (from its motion not being properly restrained by a too-wide gap between bolt-carrier and receiver), the bolt bounces out of “lock” and the bolt and bolt-carrier then fall back from the breech. At least, that was what my father told me. His opinion of the M-16 was unprintable, and he told me this story (I was studying mechanical engineering at the time) as a lesson in how NOT to design something. No doubt Uncle Sam has fixed this particular problem. But from my father’s point of view, the whole weapon was a disaster waiting to happen. War is an insane, lethal, and wasteful business, and you CANNOT afford to rely on a weapon that is so finicky as to require disassembly (with lots of fiddly little parts that can get lost, especially if you’re in a rice paddy!) on a regular basis or after only firing a few rounds, or needs depot-level repair after only a few hundred rounds fired.
Comment by Hale Adams — 12/27/2005 @ 10:58 pm
Can We Do Better Than The M16? Iraq, Summer, 2005: Prosser shot the man at least four times with his M4 rifle. But the American M4 rifles are weak - after Prosser landed three nearly point blank shots in the man’s abdomen, splattering a testicle with a…
Trackback by The Bernoulli Effect — 12/28/2005 @ 9:37 am
I believe there are two different issues here. First there is the cartridge. I think most people agree that the 7.62 NATO round is somewhat overpowered for a military assault rifle. (For civilian rifles where full auto fire and ammunition weight aren’t concerns I think it’s about right.) Some people think the 5.56 round is powerful enough but I don’t hear anyone saying that we could make do with an even less powerful cartridge. Since we seem to be moving away from spray and pray shooting in the military it makes sense that we should have a more capable round than the 5.56 NATO. I think we need a clean sheet of paper cartridge that’s about 6.5-7mm with good velocity and sectional density. The second issue is the rifle. The dang AK-47 series might be reliable but that’s about all it has going for it. The M-16 is a great rifle design if you can keep it clean and in good repair. But it tends to fail when it’s forced to deal with the conditions found on the battlefield. So again, we need a new clean sheet of paper rifle design to fire the new cartridge. The controls should be laid out about like the M-16 series (which has perfect ergonomics). It should be a more or less conventional design. It should not have a direct gas system. It should have a field adjustable stock. It should have a built in scope mount on the receiver and quality adjustable sights. It needs a built in folding bipod, or at least the option to quickly attach one.
Comment by Joe — 12/29/2005 @ 5:55 pm
Sorry Improbulus Maximus, but you’ve got it wrong. The AK (aside from the general profile) was NOT based on the StG-44 any more than the M16 is based on the StG-44. Granted, they are somewhat similar but the solutions to making a successful assault rifle is going to have similar solutions, i.e. the magazine. I think you are basing on its external looks, with the long curved magazine, over barrel gas tube, similarly shaped front site base etc. The M16 is more similar in respect to actual design, with the recoil spring in the buttstock, two part receiver, and the M16 even copied the ejection port cover. However, like the M60 (which copied some features of the MG-42 and FG-42), they did a piss poor job of aping the design. They seem to have copied good aspects of the German designs, and then added their own crappy ideas to make a second rate weapon. They did the same thing with the 1903 Springfield. Copy some good points of the Mauser, add some Krag ideas in there and you have an over coplicated second rate Mauser. The tipping block bolt of the StG-44 is similar to the SKS, which itself was based on the earlier PTRS-41 anti-tank rifle and the SVT-38/40. So, actually you could say that the Germans aped the Russians tipping block bolt. Also, the Soviets were working on reduced power ammunition before WWII started, you could even argue that they put the first assault rifle in the field with the AVF-16. The action and general makeup of the StG-44 and AK-47 have almost nothing in common aside from superficial similarities dictated by the common aim-to make an automatic weapon that has more range than a submachinegun while was less powerful than the then-current rifles to make ammo lighter, save on wear and tear of the guns, and to make them able to control in full automatic fire.
Comment by ComradeAndrei — 12/30/2005 @ 1:13 pm
Well here is a better improved model of the M4/M16 made by H&K
Comment by Hunter — 1/1/2006 @ 1:59 pm
Here is a better improved model of the M4/M16 made by H&K http://www.hkdefense.us/corporate/media/pdf/416revised4-5-05.pdf
Comment by Hunter — 1/1/2006 @ 2:00 pm
I need help with my M16s/AR15s. For 22 years I’ve been carrying and shooting them in mud and sand and I’m not having enough malfunctions! Earlier this year I put 1500 rounds rapid through an AR without cleaning it. No malfunctions! I was once buried in sand for an exercise ambush. I came out and the weapon functioned perfectly. I spent a half our rinsing sand out of the receiver later…after I’d fired another 200 rounds. Guess what? No malfunctions! I’ve served as an armorer, too. I keep having other people bring me weapons that aren’t having enough malfunctions. And at 500 yards, it only has as much ballistic energy as a .45 does at the muzzle. That’s barely 3X the power of a .22 magnum, and that’s at 500 yards! Up close it’s barely more energetic that a .44 magnum. Can’t we get a REAL manstopper? Anyway, any help would be appreciated. How do I get this thing to malfunction at an appropriate rate? I’ve tried Colt, H&R, PAW, Olympic, Bushmaster, Armalite, Cav Arms, sand, mud, water, muck, snow, and I can’t seem to get a decent number of malfunctions.
Comment by Mike — 1/2/2006 @ 9:50 pm
Bottom line, AR 15’s are superior over the AK, SKS what ever you want to say about the loose fitting pieces, this is why any AK or SKS is $250 in a pawn shop. I have shot both extensively and in accuracy nothing will compare. Yes the 7.62 will go through another 2×4 then the .223. The .223 will still penetrate Kevlar just as easy. It is a mass produced weapon, let’s not make it out to be anything but that. You shoot your AK, until you can afford an AR. I did, you can put cheap ammo through them for days. They are fun but come on. I go to the range and don’t sleep under water with my AR, I don’t get buried alive with it and come out blasting, dirt would foul up a gun that is as tight fitting and precise as an AR. There I said it, let it rain.
Comment by Ben — 2/1/2006 @ 4:49 pm
Bottom line AR 15’s are superior over the AK, SKS what ever you want to say about the loose fitting pieces, this is why any AK or SKS is $250 in a pawn shop. I have shot both extensively and in accuracy nothing will compare. Yes the 7.62 will go through another 2×4 then the .223. The .223 will still penetrate Kevlar just as easy. It is a mass produced weapon, let’s not make it out to be anything but that. You shoot your AK, until you can afford an AR. I did, you can put cheap ammo through them for days. They are fun but come on. I go to the range and don’t sleep under water with my AR, I don’t get buried alive with it and come out blasting, dirt would foul up a gun that is as tight fitting and precise as an AR. There I said it, let it rain.
Comment by Ben — 2/1/2006 @ 4:53 pm
i have too agree with mike on that. i too have tried to get my ar’s to produce a problem and can’t seem to find the awnser i actually did with some russian ammo, but that dosn’t mean it was the rifle. i have 2 colts,3 bushy’s and one oly. again i for some reason expected problems from the olympiic,but have had none.sorry guys i can’t help out with the AR bashing,but i can say some experiences that iv’e had with the 2 HK 91 clones iv’e had and they were clones.i found metal shavings in the receiver on one of them and the other had a peice of sheet metal bent backwards in the cocking tub
Comment by sibak — 2/20/2006 @ 3:18 pm
I was trained in the Romanian army with AKM (tha real name of the weapon, AK 47 was only a first variant) but i never used a M14-16.Ayway,Romania now beeing a NATO member, i have noticed that even with high political presure, the military are very reluctant to drop the 7.62×39 in favor of the 5.56×45.They don’t like both the cartrige and the gun.A compromise would be (and it’s been done by the russians for export)-the AKM system with the NATO cartrige At least this solves the problem of jaming but not the problem of stoping power.
Comment by RADU — 3/1/2006 @ 9:35 am
I think this bears some mention as I respect Mr. Kalashnikovs work as a gun designer and I think he would be a little peeved to see the comment that was stated at the top, quoted here. Quote from top: “The AK is a direct descendant of the German Sturmgewehr 44″ This statement is historicaly inaccurate as Mr. Kalashnikov had never even seen a Sturmgewehr 44 when he was designing the prototypes for the AK47 during the second world war in if I remember correctly a bombed out railyard warehouse.
Comment by Jason Kelley — 4/2/2006 @ 5:17 am
Hmmm… I am from Russia myself. I shot AK74 and AK47 rifles when I was in school (In the former USSR all schoolchildren were to have Initial/Basic Military Training from the 8th to the 10th grade). Later, in college, I had some training with AKs, Makarovs, RPGs, RPKs, etc… as part of the ROTC (in Russia it’s 2 years of training in some non-combatant speciality) training. For the past 10 years I have lived in US and owned both of the weapons in question. My experience has been very limited as you can see. However, here are my 2 cents based on my experience and leaving cheap patriotism aside… For fun walk in the woods, shooting cans, I would use AR-15, but for any serious social engagement I would definitely switch to AK. My Bushmaster AR15 would jam A LOT, even in the best of conditions. This is definitely a side effect of the direct gas system. Keeping it clean is a challenge. I like the ergonomics and the looks and the light weight of this rifle, but I, personally, would not trust it to defend my life in a difficult moment. It is funny how HK (with its HK416) and DSA (with its GTS system) are trying to modify AR15 direct gas system by introducing gas piston systems, proven by close to a centuty of use, and passing it as something innovative… But I guess the fact that they try to improve AR15 bu the use of the gas piston system speaks for itself…. Now, to the AK… It is neither pretty nor does it posess good ergonomics exactly. But I never had it jammed on me, neither in semi-auto nor in full-auto (when I was trained back in Russia). It is accurate enough to engage targets at 500 meters range, - exactly what it was designed for. By the way, conscripts in Russia receive 6 months of basic military training, and only then are being assigned to the active duty (another 1.5 years). During basic training they spend a lot of time on a shooting range. So, all this nonsense about human wave attack “spray and pray” tactics, no marksmanship training , etc, etc. is nothing more than old wives tales. Besides, every infantry squad has at least one man with an SVD if I remember correctly. In any case, I, personally, not being financially constrained going for a DSA FN FAL. IMHO, its a perfect weapon for home defense. Take care you all.
Comment by patriot-Idiot — 6/4/2006 @ 10:12 pm
as a disabled civilian, with only the ability to seethe war from cnn, I would expect through deduction that wars are won first through superior strategies and technology and then the use of heavy artillary and mortar fire. the sqaud rifle seems to be more of a clean up weaponafter most of the work is done. On another note, I own both an sks and an a bushy m4 and they both work non stop for me. but then again I’m s stickler for a clean and well oiled gun.
Comment by mike in Utah — 12/10/2006 @ 9:37 pm
The AK-series versus M-16 series a long debate, but what appears clear is that the dandy boys prefer the M-16 mostly out of its ‘creature comforts’ that a hunter or shooter would prefer, not a solidier. The AK-series by contrast are solidieer-proof weapons, where the M-16 series is little more than a militaristic hunting rifle, & the overwhelming reliability of the AK-series overshaddows any advantages (theortical or otherwise) of the M-16.
Comment by Bahjat Tabbara — 7/15/2007 @ 6:50 am
Well, everyone seems to be at the it has to be an M-16 or an AK with no compromise or suggestion of another assult rifle. I would reccomend the next generation galil (which by the way is a weapon from Israel, it is a fusion between the Ak-74 and M-16), the M-Tar which is accurate enough to hit a man at 900 meters, and reliable enough to be dunked in sand and water and still fire perfect. It is also shorter than the M4.
Comment by B. Fries — 9/23/2007 @ 10:26 pm
i reccemend the mp7. its new. its light weight. and it has very good accuracy at long range. And works in almost all condtions.
Comment by corey — 12/10/2009 @ 8:24 pm
As clarification , as mr Kalashnikov himself has stressed the AK47 was NOT based on the design of the STG44. the two designs may share similarities, but the layout bolt and blowback mechanisms of the two assault rifles are quite dissimilar
Comment by Clay — 12/31/2009 @ 3:57 am
In the debate of the m16 and ak47, the m16 loses out. However this is not, as most people who don’t really know anything would tell you, because of any inherent flaws in it’s basic design. The problem is in fact the m16 being hastily modified to fire the NATO 556 cartridge. Stoners original design was based upon his own 5.56 cartridge. when the NATO 556 was given as the only option, the m16 had to be sloppily modified, and the result is an assault rifle which is half as good as it should have been. if stoner had been given the right to do the m16 as he wanted it would have put the ak47 and subsequent updates such as the AKM to shame. As for reliability, the m16 is perfectly reliable if it is cleaned. US soldiers are not hard pressed to keep them working. The fact is then that that part of the argument is irrelevant.
Comment by Clay — 12/31/2009 @ 4:12 am
People like bahjat seem to think their aks are the best weapons invented by man. True aks are reliable even if you don’t clean them. But that doesn’t matter in less you are a terrorist who can’t figure out how to properly maintain a firearm.
Comment by Clay — 12/31/2009 @ 4:20 am