AK47 versus M16
-
Hey just saw a program on the discovery channel about the vietnam war.. apparently the US soldiers suffered staggering casualties due to rifle comparison:
The M16 has longer range and greater accuracy than the AK47 BUT skirmishes were normally conducted in the jungles where one will kana ambush by the other....
When that happens, the M16's range and accuracy no longer matters since fighting would be done at mid to close range...
US soldiers hiding behind trees were still being killed.. why? because the AK47 uses the 7.62 rounds which could penetrate tree trunks, the M16 5.56 sometimes cannot..
Vietnam is a tropical country, rains frequently.... The AK47 is so durable that if you store it underwater for a few months, they could still be used...
The M16 is famous for jamming, I am sure a lot of you are used to rifle jamming during BMT right?
In short.. the AK47 is superior la imo.. some more its cheap... some more should war happens, a lot will be conducted in rural areas..
Comments anyone?? -
use M4 or Colt dunno what all lor
-
The rifle that the M16 was based on, the AR15, designed by Eugene Stoner, was a SUPERB weapon. In field tests, its performance was near perfect. United that were supplied with it didn't want to go back to the their M14s. In the early years of the VN War, a AR15 could fetch up to 500 bucks on the blackmarket (it was sold in the US for only $100). Such was its quality and performance.
The problem is the AR15 was designed and manufactured by a civilian contractor, whereas the M14, the US military's standard rifle, was designed by the army. Naturally, the army didn't like having its rifled replaced by one that wasn't designed by them. In an era where politics was less than transparent, certain quarters of the US military establishment sought to sabotage any effort to replace the M14. And when they failed, they made certain changes to the M16 to ensure that it would offer sub-par performance.
The 2 big problems were with the rifling of the barrel, and the type of propellant used in the ammunition.
The brass believed that the M14's replacement should have its range. Being of smaller calibre, the AR15 naturally could not fire a round as far as the M14. The solution to that was to 1. increase the rifling of the barrel so that the bullet would spin more, be more stable in flight, thus travel a further distance. 2. use a propellant in the ammo that expanded more rapidly These 2 design features were thus added to the AR15, among others, and the M16 came into being.
Not necessarily a bad thing, increasing the rifling of the M16's had a detrimental effect on lethality. The 5.56mm round was very light, but scientists had long discovered that the lighter a bullet was, the more devastating a wound would be. Bigger calibre bullets often passed thru the flesh because of the sheer momentum and mass. A 5.56mm round would tumble as it passed thru the flesh, causing a lot more tissue damage. By increasing the rifling, thus spin, the 5.56mm bullet would continue thru the body like a bullet of larger calibre, negating the inherent lethality it had.
The AR15 was designed to be used with bullets that were propelled by IRT (I think). It was with such rounds that the AR15 performed perfectly, and was most impressive. The US military, however, had strong ties with companies producing rounds which used ball powder as a propellant. The M14 used such rounds, and various political and military forces worked to ensure that existing ammo suppliers would not lose their contracts.
The problem with ball powder is that it burnt much faster, and was dirtier. The increased speed of combustion was good, because it gave the bullet a greater range, but ball powder rapidly fouled the M16's internal mechanisms, components that were designed for use with the cleaner IRT. That was the crux of why the M16 kept jamming - the wrong ammo was being used.
I wouldn't say the AK47 is a superior weapon. Had the M16 been a wholesale copy of the AR15, it would have undoubtedly kicked the AK47's ass. Early field trials already suggested this. Unfortunatley, the GIs in Vietnam were saboed by a stubborn bureaucracy. The M16 was no AR15 although they looked similar.
Most of the design problems were quite rapidly resolved, mostly because there was an immense amount of pressure on the govt from GIs, parents of GIs to do something about the unrealiability of the M16. Apparnetly, many GIs had written to their parents complaining about their M16s jamming. The pressure was enough for a House investigation committee to be convened to find out wtf went wrong. I believe the product of that was some heads rolled, and a 700 page report. Oh, and a better M16, of course. You can find it online if you search hard enough. -
ah...the great AK47 vs M16 debate or 7.62mm vs 5.56mm debate huh...
AK47 is a solid durable weapon but try carry it, its much heavier and cumbersome than M16.
7.62mm has great penetration power, true about it able to go through trees but how many rounds can a trooper carry before overloaded? 5.56mm is great for certain jobs also.
I believe it is a matter of compromise.
-
I agree completely with what you've said about "compromise". Although "ultimax100" put in a lot of true facts about the early problems with the M-16 concerning bad ammo etc.Originally posted by Bejean:ah...the great AK47 vs M16 debate or 7.62mm vs 5.56mm debate huh...
AK47 is a solid durable weapon but try carry it, its much heavier and cumbersome than M16.
7.62mm has great penetration power, true about it able to go through trees but how many rounds can a trooper carry before overloaded? 5.56mm is great for certain jobs also.
I believe it is a matter of compromise.
But I have heard this "if only the M-16 had better ammo initially" story many times. So many times that I begin to accept it. But then think about this: do you think the communists had "good" ammo? AK ammo propellent, even the best brand new stuff, is corrosive. And imagine the long ardous trek it took for communist ammo to reach the South carried by porters via the Ho CHi Minh trail through jungles andd streams.
They must be in pretty nasty condition by the time they reach the troops. Still, the AK-47 functioned reliably. The communists never had to say "if only we got better ammo". They're thankful they got any ammo at all and the AK just fired every round fed to it.
Simply said, compared to the AK for toughness and reliability, the delicate M-16 or AR-15 sucks.
However, I still like the M-16 for accuracy and lightness. True, a bigger bullet is always better as a 5.56 bullet cannot punch through a tree trunk and can be deflected by foliage even. But when accuracy is required - it's there. With the AK-47, so what if the bigger bullet can pass through a tree. It's rather inaccurate mostly plus you carry less ammo because of the weight.
But neither system is perfect.
Even today, there isn't a perfect system. The M-16 has proven that small calibre is the way to go - which is why the new AK-74 is now in 5.45mm. But the AK-74 kept the tapered cartridge case design like the AK-47. While this is more reliable as it aids feeding, it is supposed to contribute to inaccuracies of the AK design. Goes to show you can't have the cake and eat it. -
IMO, the quality of ammo is a separate issue which is irrelevant to this particular discussion on ammo. The M16/AR15 was designed to be used with rounds that used a very specific type of propellant. The propellant that was actually used in M16 ammo had very different chemical properties which resulted in failure. The M16's design was fundamentally compromised by the ammmo that was supplied for use with it. In some ways, it's like using the wrong type of oil in a motorcar. Or playing tennis with leather shoes on. You use the wrong gear, and there will be cock ups. Regardless if you wear a pair of made-in-china cheapos or a pair of hand-made Italian shoes, you're still gonna get blisters.Originally posted by tvdog:But I have heard this "if only the M-16 had better ammo initially" story many times. So many times that I begin to accept it. But then think about this: do you think the communists had "good" ammo? AK ammo propellent, even the best brand new stuff, is corrosive. And imagine the long ardous trek it took for communist ammo to reach the South carried by porters via the Ho CHi Minh trail through jungles andd streams.
They must be in pretty nasty condition by the time they reach the troops. Still, the AK-47 functioned reliably. The communists never had to say "if only we got better ammo". They're thankful they got any ammo at all and the AK just fired every round fed to it.
I guess you could argue that this inability to use all types of 5.56mm ammo was one of the M16's flaws. But you can't call it a bad weapon if you base your judgement on its performance with the wrong type of ammo. That'd be unfair. -
Actually, I think this generalisation is somewhat off the mark. The AR15 wasn't as delicate as we may think it to be. Maybe it's the association that plastic = not durable, but based on army field-tests of the AR15, it was a surprisingly hardy weapon which surpassed all existing standards for reliablity.Originally posted by tvdog:Simply said, compared to the AK for toughness and reliability, the delicate M-16 or AR-15 sucks.
Its the poorly conceived additional design features that were incorporated into the M16 that gave the weapon such a bad name. -
Well...to be honest if you are comparing the AK-47 and M16 of the Vietnam War era...its basically the same as comparing a horse with a donkey.To be frank,one has to understand this very simple factor.If you realise,American or European weapons tend to be built for precision and accuracy with a higher 1st hit probability compared with the Russian Bloc weaponry like the Ak47 which is built to be reliable,long lasting and most importantly able to work in all types of climates and environmental conditions.
And although you may argue that the VietCong or NVA never complain about their ammunition simply because of this,they are fighting their war...They are fighting for their land.And that they are thankful that they are not sent into the battlefield with just a wooden pole and shorts.American troops complain as they are not used to the fighting conditions and its a different system.To them its imperfect that a weapon quits operating.
Lastly we must also realise this,the early m16 was proclaimed as a maintenace free weapon,thus cleaning kits were only issued one set to four soldiers.As with any line combat trooper,maintaining all fighting gear is as important as the training itself to ensure that everything will work when its employed.So the lack of weapon cleaning and oiling with the use of ball powder caused fouling,cartridge jams etc...Thus hindering the m16s performance in combat.
In the world today,2-3yrs back it was reported that the m16 has superseded the AK47 as the world's most common assault rifle...So this shows how much improvements the M16 has made over the years compared with the Ak47 -
Undeniably true, the M-16 was not designed to fire the then US Army "black powder" propellent. But it is not that the ammo could not be fired, it just fouls up the mechanism too quickly. Youc an say this is the fault of the ammo.Originally posted by ultimax100:Actually, I think this generalisation is somewhat off the mark. The AR15 wasn't as delicate as we may think it to be. Maybe it's the association that plastic = not durable, but based on army field-tests of the AR15, it was a surprisingly hardy weapon which surpassed all existing standards for reliablity.
Its the poorly conceived additional design features that were incorporated into the M16 that gave the weapon such a bad name.
But most now admit that it is a major design flaw of the M-16. This is because of its gas system where the gas is bled back into the bolt carrier to cause the bolt to go backwards. The problem with this is that there are a lot of moving parts in the bolt carrier. A slight buil-up of fouling immediately causes the mechanism to be sluggish and eventually IA.
The AK uses a different system of blowback where such fouling from propellent waste does not affect performance.
The US Army has learnt - after 30 years with the M-16. The XM-8 I think works with a piston where the gas is bled into the piston which then pushes the bolt. This increases performance like 100% as the piston is a simple tube and rod where fouling does not pose much of a problem.
When I say delicate I was talking about the mechanism, not the plastic furniture. -
The SAR uses the same direct blowback as well, and it's a lot easier to clean, plus it takes a lot longer to foul from my experience in FIBUA where I blasted hundreds of rounds in a day without a failure... Seems like a good mating of both the AK's reliability and the M-16 fineness...