WA7MM

I had a discussion last night with a few hunting buddies about which of the two were better, and the discussion broke into two main themes:

1.- Overall assault rifle function and reliability (manufacturing quality etc.)

2.- Caliber

Once this is explained, I would like to read your thoughts on the matter, by the way, none of us is or ever has been in the armed forces, so we do not have experience with any of the mentioned rifles.

Thanks.

Paul L Mohr

I have owned both and was in the military so this is my take on it.

The AK variants are very rugged and designed to function no matter what. Doesn't matter what the conditions are or how dirty they get, chances are they will fire a round when you pull the trigger.

The down side is they are mass produced very cheaply out of the cheapest materials and to sloppy tolerances. They function well, but are not very accurate or consistant from rifle to rifle. The fit and finish is very poor and the triggers are nasty.

Also because of the caliber they use they are a medium range weapon, the poor accuracy doesn't help much either. They are simular in ballistics to a 30-30, with the 30-30 being a bit better because it can be had in heavier bullets. However some of the newer rifles are being offered in the 5 mm nato round.

The M-16 got a bad rap when it first came out, it had functioning problems. This was mostly due to the military not using the ammo that the manufacturer suggested. They were using a different powder from what I understand and it was gumming up the action. I doubt field care was all that great at the time either. Most likely very little training when they were issued.

Now a days they are a very reliable weapon when properly maintained, which really isn't that hard. The military now has pretty intensive training on the use and care of the m-16. Will it function is reliably as an Ak, maybe not, but it works plenty well from what I have seen.

The M-16 is a finely crafted weapon made from machined metal of good quality and to pretty tight tolerances. They tend to be more accurate weapons and shoot flatter because of the lighter faster loads. If you campared it to a regular rifle it would be like a hopped up .223 I believe. It does have less downrange energy than a 7.62x39 round (AK), but plenty enough for shooting people in combat. The goal is not really to drop a combatant on the spot like hunting big game. But rather to injure them and remove them from the field.

When you see the two side by side and hold them in your hands and fire them a few things become evident. The Ak looks like something that was made in someones home workshop out of cheap wood, stamped metal and crudely machined metal. The M-16 or AR-15 is a well crafted weapon made from quality machined metal to better tolerances with a much better fit and finish. It has a much better trigger, sights and easier to operate controls. The only upside to an AK is the excellent functioning ability. However I have seen Ak's break and missfire, they are not perfect.

If I were going to pick a budget military firearm for the 7.62x39 I would look at a good SKS before the AK's. Much better weapon in my opinion.

Again, these are just my opinions, I am not a gunsmith or weapons expert.

Paul

jimmy the foot

i would pick an M-16 over an AK mainly because there are now soooo many ar formats shooting different rounds.
examples:
DPMS makes a 300 SAUM
...nice. they also make it to fire...
.204 Ruger
6.8 rem
.243 win
.260 rem
.308 win.
Olympic arms makes a couple nice models also
.223, .243, .25 in WSSM, i've heard the .25 are nice
Rock River Arms has a model in .458....nice yeeeeeess

now i'm sure now a days you can get an AK in different caliburs but IMO you will never get the most out of the round in that type of gun. with the AR you know you are gonna get a accurate gun that can have hundreds of different mods to it.

go AR baby

Briman

If you are into maintaining and cleaning your equipment, the AR will reward you with very good accuracy and almost unlimited versatility.

If you don't like cleaning rifles and can settle for hitting man sized targets, the AK will do just fine, nothing more, nothing less

IMHO, the AR is far superior to the AK in every way possible. Sure the AK will fire if its choked full of sand or mud, but can you honestly say that you will ever buy a rifle to leave out in the rain, bury it in mud, never clean it and your very life counts on whether or not it fires? Most rifles in America spend 99.99999% of their lives sitting in safes, closets, under beds, or behind the seat of a truck and are maybe fired 50-100 times per year if that. We don't live in a 3rd world country where rifles are thrown in the back of rice cart pulled by a Yak.

bigmatty65

If i ever had to bet my life on a rifle in combat it would be and M-14/grand but thats a different story ... I would choose the Kalasknakov over the M-16 because its going to go bang almost everytime no matter what. I like the idea of a rifle being built with reliability foremost in mind

biggunz.45-70

I've owned both and I used them for different purposes. The AR was a varmint rifle and the AK was a plinker/home defense weapon. The AR-15 is a much more versatile weapon.

triggerhappy

This is real simple.

AK47 is operationally more rugged and cheaper to produce.

M16 is a lot more accurate platform, modular capabilities are far greater.

Baleful Scout

FN FAL or M14 all the way

To quote a family member who has served the last 21 years in the US Army and 3 tours in Iraq..."I would take the M4 any day but I always made sure to try to have a soldier with a Springfield(M14) close by, a 7.62 is a must have for vehicle situations."

Aught Six

I have to echo the general opinions posted here. I own an AK-47 clone and an M4 clone, and I see strengths and weaknesses in both. The AK is easy to maintain and simply does not fail. I'd probably feel better havingthe 7.62x39 within 200 yards (and in urban terrain), but past that distance, I'd go with the more accurate AR platform, and perhaps some optics. It might take an extra shot or two with the 5.56x45 to make sure a target stays down (3-rd. burst, anyone?), but accuracy is paramount IMHO when it comes to rifles. That's what sets them apart from other small arms.

The AR types are modular and more easily modified,upgraded, and "tricked out", but some companies today, like TAPCO, are selling really good gear and accesories for the com-bloc weapons. You can get adjustable stocks, optics platforms, lights, and othernecessary gear for both platforms.

If, God forbid, some Katrina-like event ever made it necessary for me to arm myself to that degree while going about my daily business, I'd probably grab the AK and giveMrs. Six the M4 since she can handle and fire the lighterAR types better than the alternative. Having said that, though, I'd take an M14/M1A over either of the other two if it came down to life or death. Or even the M1 if I had all my clips loaded up.

Davy Jones

Get both and you are set.