AK-47s vs M-16s-how many? (1 Viewer)

Ageless debate- quantity over quality- The AK is rated as the #1 assault weapon on the military channel- hard to disagree. The 16 stopping power is getting less and less effective.

I heard it costs less than $10 to produce an AK though those figures could be dated.
 
There is a new book about the AK 47. I think it's gotten generally favorable reviews. Here is the review that appeared in the New York Times a few weeks ago.
 
I know this is not the question. Sorry. But I've shot both. I would take the AK any day!!!
 
Apologies for digressing somewhat, but I am always amazed at the change in musketry instruction these days. Obviously it is due to a change in fighting circumstances but we were trained in accuracy at 6-800 yards with the old no 4 Lee Enfield. If you were good enough you got a chance to shoot at Bisley on ranges up to one mile. Personally I always preferred the no 1 SMLE with the V and bead sight as opposed to the no 4 which had ring sights. In today's circumstances the Lee wouldn't be of much use except as a sniper weapon, certainly not in the close ensounter style warfare happening today. A pity as it is a great old weapon.
 
Currahee Chris said:
Ageless debate- quantity over quality- The AK is rated as the #1 assault weapon on the military channel- hard to disagree. The 16 stopping power is getting less and less effective.

I heard it costs less than $10 to produce an AK though those figures could be dated.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's so much that the M16 is less effective than when it was adopted. It's more to do with the widespread use of the M4 Carbine with it's 14.5" barrel (compared to the 20" barrel of the M16) combined with the transition from the M193 5.56 mm round with its 55gr bullet to the M855 5.56 mm round with its 62gr bullet.

The lethality of the 5.56 mm round relies heavily on fragmentation of the bullet. Testing by combat surgeon Col. Martin L. Fackler, MD (USA Medical Corps, retired), determined that M193 and M855 bullets need to strike flesh at 2,700 feet per second in order to reliably fragment. Between 2,500 fps and 2,700 fps, the bullet may or may not fragment and below 2,500 fps, no significant fragmentation is likely to occur. If there isn't enough velocity to cause fragmentation, the result is a deep, 22 caliber hole, except an area where the yawing occurred, where the diameter of the hole grows briefly to the length of the bullet.

Assuming true M193 or M855 ammo, velocity is the key. Velocity is dependent on barrel length and environmental conditions.

As barrel length increases, the bullet is propelled faster by the expanding gasses in the barrel, imparting more velocity on the bullet, resulting in a longer range before a fired bullet drops below 2700 fps. A shorter barrel imparts less velocity, and therefore the bullet has less range.

Temperature, altitude and humidity are other factors. As temperature or altitude increases, air becomes less dense and bullets travel faster. Contrary to common conceptions, as humidity increases air also becomes less dense and helps bullets retain velocity.

It is important, then, to keep in mind that any statistics given can only be approximate and can be affected by a wide range of factors. But as a baseline, these numbers are what you could expect for 75° F, 25% humidity, at sea level, from various barrel lengths:

Distance to 2700 fps........20" Barrel.........14.5" Barrel
M193............................190-200m..........95-100m
M855............................140-150m..........45-50m

As you can see an M4 with its 14.5' barrel firing M855 ammo results in reliable fragmentation only up to ~50m. In desert environments with their longer engagement ranges this all combines to give the impression that the "M16" is becoming less effective.
 
Frank and Trooper-

excellent posts the both of you. After having fired the M16 in almost all types of weather and altitudes, I can tell you, it just feels like a BB Gun. Several of my friends have told me stories of shooting enemy combatants with the 16 only to have them get back up. The few Special Ops guys I ever worked with/ knew really didn't sing it's praises too highly either- BlackHawk Down- the book- gives a pretty scathing account of the 16. The Delta operators really liked the stopping power of the bolt action rifles- so Trooper- your thoughts might not be so out of touch :)

I have never fired the AK- believe it or not. However, everything I know about it might very well make it one of the most perfect weapons in the history of human warfare.
 
The M16 is certainly a plinker compared to the AK. I have shot both in alsorts of conditions as well and dont really care for the M-16. There is now a shift afoot in the shooting world and just before I departed Ft Lewis I was at the range using up old ammo I couldnt ship and there was a fellow there shooting an M16 M4 whatever you want to call it, that was just booming loud. So I stopped what I was doing and watched him for 3 or 4 mags. He was the field testor for a local company that is making upgraded M16s in much larger calibers. the one he was shooting was block buster in 300 WSM I believe it was pretty impressive! He said they were messing around with a lot of calibers and hoped to compete the next time the Military decides to get a new weapon. I think that with all the shortened magnums out there and with the amazing alloys they are mixing to get better sectional density and shock power at range we will soon see a shift to a much bigger caliber with a slightly longer barrel and other tricks of the trade the weapon will be impressive and unless the guy you hit is superman or strung out on crystal meth he wont be getting back up.

Now for my money I would much prefer scoped rifle in a caliber like the .257 Weatherby for distance and stopping power its a real killer. Its my go to gun if I have mixed ranges and game that may pop up. Let me tell you the round from Barnes performs like an olympic champion.

So lets hope we see the M16 5.56/223 fade away and join some of its cousins in the museums.

Dave
 
Was never a fan of the three round burst feature with the 16A3- Never got comfortable with it.
 
It is interesting that from a hunting perspective the 223 (5.56 x 45 mm) is classed as a varmint cartridge, suitable for small game.

It is also interesting that the Soviet Union followed the United States in the adoption of a small calibre intermediate cartridge in the 5.45 x 39 mm which first appeared with the AK74 assault rifle. This seems to indicate that they found the 7.62 x 39 mm cartridge of the AK47 wanting.

By definition an "assault rifle" (from the German "Sturmgewehr") must be selective fire, must use a large capacity detachable magazine and must use an intermediate cartridge.

The intermediate cartridge is a compromise between the power and range of a traditional rifle cartridge and the controllability (during full automatic fire) of a pistol cartridge.

The Germans developed the Sturmgewehr during WWII because it was found that the range and power of the traditional 7.92 x 57 mm cartrdige was not as useful as the medium to short range firepower afforded a squad of soldiers armed with assault rifles firing an intermediate cartridge (in this case 7.92 x 33 mm). Fortunately Hitler's interference along with production capacity problems for the ammunition limited the adoption of this revolutionary weapon.

The Soviets certainly took notice of the new German weapon (they also had more exposure to it) and shortly after the war the AK47 appeared. The United States was resistant to the intermediate cartridge concept so NATO ended up adopting the 7.62 x 51 mm cartridge as standard. In the west all the classic main battle rifles (FAL(L1A1, C1), G3, AR10, M14 etc) appeared. The majority of these rifles were selective fire. Firing a full power cartridge fully automatic in a 10 pound rifle results in largely uncontrolled bursts. It seems the lessons learned by the Germans during WWII were at odds with traditional thinking by certain members of the NATO alliance.

Flash forward a few years to the Vietnam war and the Americans arrived with the selective fire M14 which proved unsatisfactory in numerous ways. Around this time a smaller version of the AR10 appeared which fired an intermediate cartridge. The AR15 was adopted as the M16 and has been in service ever since.

It's ironic that the M14 is experiencing somewhat of a renaissance with its superior long range punch proving to be an asset these days. It goes to show that there is no perfect universal weapon.

Personally I think the 7.62 x 51 mm NATO round (308 Winchester) is one of the best cartridges ever developed. Using modern propellents it comes close to the performance of its predecessor, the 30-06, in a shorter package which is more suitable for automatic weapons. It is also capable of exceptional accuracy.

From left to right:
7.62 x 51 mm
5.56 x 45 mm
5.45 x 39 mm
7.62 x 39 mm
 

Attachments

  • PICT0005(1).jpg
    PICT0005(1).jpg
    40.7 KB · Views: 5,950
In What Ways Was the M 14 Unsatisfactory ?
The Weight Is the Only Item I Know.
 
Frank-

your knowledge knows no bounds- Five stars my friend!! :)

Those 7.62 rounds always look so mean:eek:
 
Currahee Chris said:
Frank-

your knowledge knows no bounds- Five stars my friend!! :)

Those 7.62 rounds always look so mean:eek:
Click to expand...
During 1968-1969, you could not bring back an AK-47 but you could ship home an SKS rifle which fired the same round as the AK. The prize was an East German mfg SKS with knife bayonet rather than the foldout toad sticker type usually mfg in China.
 
I have not seen an AK 47 injury in over 10 years but they were quite common back in the day.They were dreadful wounds to treat. The M 16 was not imported into Southern Africa. So cannot comment. The opponent to the Ak 47 here was the FN which was manufactured under licence and called the R1`. This morphed over the years and became the R4 which was actually based on the AK and the parts were interchangeable. So it would seem that the AK was by far the better weapon.
 
damian said:
I have not seen an AK 47 injury in over 10 years but they were quite common back in the day.They were dreadful wounds to treat. The M 16 was not imported into Southern Africa. So cannot comment. The opponent to the Ak 47 here was the FN which was manufactured under licence and called the R1`. This morphed over the years and became the R4 which was actually based on the AK and the parts were interchangeable. So it would seem that the AK was by far the better weapon.
Click to expand...

Interesting- got to imagine you have seen all sorts of nasty injuries over the years my friend. I gotta imagine an m16 wound would require some gauze and a couple aspirin and you'd be ok :D:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2024 XenForo Ltd.
Back
Top