Reply #22: Ak vs M-16 debate, which is better? [View All]

The problem when comparing these two weapons is to remember both use a rotating bolt head (different design but same concept). The Bolt head is each is one of the best every designed (Both were invented about the same time period, WWII, but by two different designers, Kalisnakov and Stoner. The dispute between the two is that Eugene Stoner wanted his AR series of Weapons (which became the M -16) to be the lightest weapon possible, while Kalisnakov wanted his AK series to be the most reliable automatic rifle possible.

Given Kalisnakov's obsession with reliability, he added weight for a heavier (and more reliable) bolt than Stoner (whose M-16's bolt is much lighter and needs the buffer spring in the stock to operate properly, something the AK does not need).

Kalisnakov also used a very reliable mechanical linkage system to operate his gas operating system as opposed to the direct gas drive of the M -16. Stoner liked the direct gas drive for its lighter weight.

The triggers of the two weapons are also different, Kalisnakov used the Trigger mechanism of the American M -1 and M -14 rifles, while Stoner developed his own trigger that was integrated into the bottom half of the receiver. This permitted more savings of weight. The AK has more room inside its mechanism than the M -16. With the AK's heavier bolt this permits dirt that does get into the Mechanism to to be pushed out of it rather than jamming the Weapon. Another indication of Kalisnakov's obession with reliability.

One last comment the best safety on ANY rifle is the AK's. Very strong, very heavy, very reliable and very nosily.

Which is Better? If you want reliability in ANY field condition, go with the AK series. If you want light weight and reasonable reliability go with the M -16. Please note I am ignoring the caliber the weapon is in. Both the AK and M -16 Mechanism have been produced in any caliber you want. The four most popular at the present time is the American 5.56x45 mm, the 7.62x51 mm NATO, and the 7.62mm x 39 and 5.45x 39mm Russian Rounds (and you can get EITHER weapon in any of these Calibers).

Of these the 7.62x51 NATO round (and the Russian 7.62x54R Round) is generally not used in today’s assault Rifles, to powerful. To have any adequate accurate fire rate, even in semi-automatic mode, you have to use something less powerful than the 7.62x51 NATO Round. Thus the 5.56, 5.45 and 7.62x39 Rounds.

The 7.62x39 round is the oldest, developed in 1939 (parallel to the German Developed of its 7.92 Kurz Round. Both seem to come out of the Joint German-Soviet Co-operations in the mid-1920s). The 7.62x39 Round was simply the reducing in the weight of the Bullet and powder to make an easier to shoot round. The 5.56 round came out of the 1950s when after experiments it was found to be as effective as something like the 7.62x 39 Round with even fatter trajectory (thus easier to train new troop in its use). The 5.45x 39 round was the Russian’s answer to the 5.56 Round. The Russian’s plan around combat ranges of 300 meters or less, while American’s plan on Combat Ranges of 400 Meters or less. If you plan for 300 meters instead of 400 meters you can use less powder and thus smaller round.

One last comment, the AK series is as accurate as the M -16 series, both can be tack drivers. The problem with most people's perception of AK as less accurate is the Ammunition for the AK. The Former Soviet Union (and today's Russia) both have a problem with "quality" in almost everything and Ammunition is no exception. The AK was design to use ammunition that would jam a M -16 (and this is the ammunition most people have fired in the AK they have operated).

A good view of how these two weapons are valued is to look at the Israeli Defense Forces. In the early 1970s the Israelis were looking to replace their old AN FAL Rifles (in 7.62x51mm NATO). They had one of their Special forces groups test out various 5.56mm Weapons AND the AK. They came back that they liked the AK better do to its reliability in the desert conditions. The Israelis than come out with their Galil Assault Rifles which is a Copy of the AK except machined (Most AK’s are stamped out using high pressure stamping machine just like a automobile body parts) and uses American M -16 magazines.

Since that time the US has provided M -16 Rifles to the Israelis and thus the Israeli Infantry and Special Forces have the option of the Galil or the M -16. Almost all of the Infantry and Special Forces have adopted the M -16 do to its lighter weight. On the other hand the Tank and Artillery units still use the Galil for its greater tolerance to dust (the Tanks and Self Propelled Artillery toss up a lot of dirt, and thus these two types of units like the Galil).

My big question has been why has the Israeli Infantry opts for the M -16 over the Galil? The biggest reason seems to be that the Israeli Infantry is NOT planning on any long term fighting in dusty terrain i.e. No actual wars with its neighbors but just internal security disputes i.e. the West Bank. In such urban combat the advantages of the AK is minimized while the light weight of the M -16 becomes a huge advantage (In Beruit in during the Lebanon Civil War the M -16 was perferred over the AK for this reason).

On the other hand Israeli Armor is still planning to fight in desert conditions thus its preference for the Galil (Israel’s AK clone). Also the Israeli Infantry is planning to fight any conventional War from inside either M -113 Armored Personal Carriers (APC) or M -2 Bradley Mechanized Infantry Combat Vehicles (MICV). Both are completely enclosed (Or more accurately can be enclosed when I rode a M -106, a M -113 designed to haul a 4.2 Inch Mortar, in the National Guard we almost always traveled with the top open, but it seems more modern uses of both the APC and MICV has been to keep them fully enclosed).

If the Israeli Defence Force plan to fight any Conventional War in closed in vehicles, such Infantry is also closed off from most dirt and dust (unlike their fathers in the 1960s and early 1970s who fought in open top American M -2 Half-Tracks from WWII).

Israeli Special forces also are reported to like the light weight of the M -16 over the AK. The Special Forces also have a lot of weight to carry around and thus the lighter the weapon the better. Special Forces prepare to fight but most special forces operations is to locate the enemy NOT to destroy the Enemy (that will be done by the Infantry, Artillery, Air Force etc). Thus Special Forces do not need to plan for extended use of their weapons in combat (Where the AK advantages lay) but only for emergency use and than for just the time needed to get out of any trouble. The M -16's light weight is thus an advantage to Special Forces also.

Now another factor is the Israeli’s use of the M -16 over its own Galil, might be a quin pro quo with the US. The US provides them with M -16s while the Galil is sold to various Latin American countries where its reliability in jungle conditions (remember the Galil is an AK clone) is well liked. Not only is the Galil the preferred Weapon of the Columbian and other Latin American Countries, it is the preferred weapon of the Guerillas fighting in those countries. Preferred over both the AK and the M -16 (the reason seems to be a preference for the 5.56mm American M -16 round over the AK’s 7.62mm Round. The Russian 5.45mm Round seems also to be popular in Asia but has not traveled to Latin America. Russia did not start to export weapons in that caliber till the 1990s, in the 1980s their were being reserved for the Soviet Army. Thus in Latin America it is easier to get either 5.56 or 6.62x39mm Rounds than any other combat round).

These seem to be the main differences between these two weapons, either one most soldiers would prefer over any other rifle in the world today.