AK-47 vs M-16

[Slamz]

Very nice video on the tradeoffs between the M-16 and the AK-47.

Summary:
M-16 = rifle with high accuracy but low penetration
AK-47 = machine gun with high penetration but low accuracy

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6BpI3xD6h0">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6BpI3xD6h0</a><!-- m -->

[Thudz]

Keep in mind that penetration is a characteristic of the cartridge and not the platform.
How the cartridge is jacketed affects it's ability to penetrate the target.

Armor Piercing>Full Metal Jacket/Lead>Hollow Point>Ball

The 5.56x45mm (M-16, AR-15) in a full metal jacket will out pentrate 7.62x39mm (AK-47, SKS) ball ammo. The 7.62x39mm has more than 2x the Joules (Energy) of the 5.56x45mm and all other things being equal will out pentrate the 5.56x45mm.

We can go into the difference between an Armor Piercing round and a Lead round w/Full Metal Jacket if you like.

ETA : I wouldn't refer to the AK-47 as a machine gun. Although it may technically fit in the definition it does not require a support system to fire which is what the military usually uses to classify fully automatic weapons as "machine guns".

[Diggles]

for self defense I would think accuracy would trump shear penetration value. If you cant aim it and cant hit your target, doesnt matter if it'll kill'em with 1 shot.

[Hoofhurr]

That's relative to your skill level. A practiced hand might prefer the firepower as the accuracy becomes negligible.

[Slamz]

I would think it's more of a question of the range you're fighting at. I'm sure both of those guys were good shots, but the AK apparently just isn't as accurate by design.

Whenever I hear about these big firefights in Iraq/Afghanistan I wonder how much of an edge we're getting with our rifles. Granted training is also a big thing but if their marksman is only half as accurate as your marksman because of the physical characteristics of the gun, they're going to suffer a lot more in open terrain.

[Breand]

I would think resilience is a big issue too. One of the big reasons why AK's are so popular is they take a beating and keep on ticking. They are a great weapon for guerilla style combat.

[Vllad]

I have used both on military qualification courses and for me personally the M-16 is a much better weapon. Yes it is very sensative and not as sturdy as the Ak-47 but I couldn't miss with the M-16.

I would shoot 38's and 39's on a 40 shot Army course with an M-16 and I would only do 35 to 36's with the AK.

My personal favorite thing with the weopon is it is lighter and easier to move. The recoil was very easy to deal with and I could put more accurate rounds on target faster. To me that is all the matters. Hitting a single target in the same place is not the test of a good weopon. It is how fast you can move between targets in different locations that matter most.

I never fired either in combat. I was using an M-60 in combat so I never actually got a chance to use them when it counted.


Vllad

[Thudz]

I have used both on military qualification courses and for me personally the M-16 is a much better weapon. Yes it is very sensative and not as sturdy as the Ak-47 but I couldn't miss with the M-16.

I would shoot 38's and 39's on a 40 shot Army course with an M-16 and I would only do 35 to 36's with the AK.

My personal favorite thing with the weopon is it is lighter and easier to move. The recoil was very easy to deal with and I could put more accurate rounds on target faster. To me that is all the matters. Hitting a single target in the same place is not the test of a good weopon. It is how fast you can move between targets in different locations that matter most.

I never fired either in combat. I was using an M-60 in combat so I never actually got a chance to use them when it counted.


Vllad

Given the choice I would hands down prefer the M-16. Mobility and accuracy are king.