To say that the Ak is not accurate in the test shown is misleading. AKs have been know to take people out from a distance. Its all bout marksmanship, as well as properly zeroing your weapon. Ive shot both, and yes the AK is a beast, but thats what it was designed for. You can pour sand into the weapon, charge it a few times, and knock the sand out and it will fire without a problem. Try the same with an M-16 and you'll be cleaning your weapon for at least an hour before it will fire again.

Each weapon is meant for the country that made it. Crude production abilities and poorly trained men vs a solid industrial quality level and well trained men. Russia vs US. Chev vs Ford. McDonald's vs Wolfgang Puck.

>> ^arsenault185:
To say that the Ak is not accurate in the test shown is misleading.

also largely because that Ak, the 'standard model', isn't rigged for accuracy anyways, of course.

here's the 'version' that is, for anyone else that's interested:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SVD_%28rifle%29

Solders i think would prefer what is RELIABLE therefore the AK has it...
Never really been a question since they came out...

I've grown to dislike Discover channels weapons programs. They are about as fair and unbiased as Fox news.

In my "Twentieth Century small arms" book, and about everywhere else they say that the M16 got the nickname Mattel 16 (As in the toy corp). The M16 was disliked by the soldiers as it was very unreliable. Nowadays it's just outdated.

And yes the AK47 was built to be reliable and easy to manufacture, just any guerilla leader. The AK47 is an iconic weapon.

upvote for interesting discussion

Weapons should be graded on their effectiveness on the battlefield, not some pre set standardized tests. Looking at both the AK-47 and M-16 on a firing range, one could claim the M-16 is better but its far more reliable to cull from several conflicts where both weapons were used, to reach a conclusion, the most significant would be Vietnam.

As a precison, futuristic, tech reliant rifle the M-16 almost failed in Vietnam, early versions shipped with ammunition that fired dirty in the chamber leading to catastrophic dirt jams, initially they were shipped with no cleaning kits as well, its sensitive mecahnism could easily jam in harsh enviroments, early models also weighted so little that firing control and usage as a close combat blunt weapon was lost.

The AK-47 thrived, its firing power, reliablity, simple training methodology meant that troops spent little time training and cleaning with their weapons and more time shooting at an enemy. In close range a butt smack from an AK-47 can down a person. There is an entire handbook on just how to disassemble the M-16, you can teach a 6 year old how to clean, arm and fire the AK-47 in about 30 minutes.

The AK-47 is built for urban combat and close range engagement, while the M-16 is built as a long range high accuracy stand off weapon. You can run a guerilla war on the AK-47, while the M-16 is reliant on highly trained troops with the weapon system and supplies to keep the weapon functioning. There are still reports on newer M-16A2s failing to fire or jamming in the sandy dunes of Iraq.

The US Army Ordance is really skwed in my preception, there is high concentration on high tech bullshit (robots? network centric warfare?) while still using a weapon design from the late 50s, the M-16A2 and M4 are simple modifications on the M-16 frame, both are standard US infantry weapons and haven't really progressed to a more simpler and more reliable weapon platforms even though alternatives are field tested every goddamn year. The AK on the other hand is progressinng as a weapon design, currently I believe its ireation is the AK-74.

Basically if I had to fight tommorrow, I would go for the AK-47 over the M-16.

I can tell you from personal experience. The M16 is junk. It jams all the time, double feeds, and misfires like its going out of style. And its way more complex to take apart and clean than the AK. I used to be able to dissemble and reassemble the AK blind folded in about 45 second. If I tried that with the M16 I'd be there all day.

Farhad2000:
You want to talk about a weapon and it's inferiority because of it's age? The AK-47 was designed in 1947 - and it hasn't changed a bit. The AK-74 is a completely different weapon with an entirely different round (@ 5.45mm whereas the AK-47 has a 7.62mm round). Just because something is old does not make it outdated. Yes, there are better weapons being developed, like the new Heckler and Koch, but for now, we have the M16A4, which is a fine weapon.

Look at the Browning M2 .50 cal. Machine gun: It has been in service since 1921, and is a hell of a weapon, still going strong today.

Yes, the M16A1 might have done poorly in Vietnam, but our troops were still using the M14 then, so the introduction to a new weapon meant little time in training, and it might have jammed more than the M14 with equivalent cleaning, so that might have skewed reports of reliability.

Fiver2: Soldiers prefer a weapon that can actually hits the target, hence the M16. Don't tell me what soldiers want. So long as you maintain your weapon, the M16 is reliable. I know mine was.

Abducted: I'm not really sure where you were going with that.

Arsenault185: Take better care of it next time. Also, we used to have contests in the squadbays to see who could disassemble and reassemble an M16 the fastest - while blindfolded. It never really look longer than a minute and a half.

oh, come on - 200 yards and he missed the whole target? it's not the gun, buddy - you suck! In my experience AK-47 can be as accurate as any other gun, whether it's 7.62mm caliber or standard NATO 5.56mm.
I usualy got great groupings on targets up to 300m range (say in a 20cm circle) and my rifle was pretty much fucked up (old Yugoslavian army stock that they left lying around after the war). If you know your gun well, you can't possibly miss the whole target even at twice that range - that's single shot action of course, not automatic (AK's accuracy goes waaay down in automatic mode, like in the standard bullshit you see in any guerilla war footage on TV, a guy loosely stretching out his gun, some assholes even one handed, and bursting the whole clip...). Short controlled bursts of 3-4 shots is still useful in most combat situations (that usualy happen inside 300 yards range) if you know what you're doing (not like the guy in the video).
And as for durability and reliability - you can't compare it to any other gun in the world. The things i've done with my AK... M16 would probably rust in a week. Not to mention what a bitch it is to put it back together once you open it up - I haven't fired any guns since the army, but if you give me an AK now, I can disassemble it and put it back together in under 30 seconds (blindfolded if you like) That shit can save your life in combat. I never held M16 but i tested the Singapore replica of M16 called SAR-80. It almost identical. I didn't like it much. Plus we got just a couple of those SAR-80s just after the war (while still under arms embargo) and SAR-80 has aluminum clips casings meant for one-time use only. But since our army didn't have enough equipment at the time, we used same clips daily. Of course they got bent with use so when we were out in the field our clips would start falling out imagine something like that happening to you in a war zone

MGR the video talks about the AK-47 and the M-16, the M-16 is only there because during the cold war you couldn't be seen picking your enemies weapons. Comparing the M-16A4 and the AK-74 is a whole different matter, I would still pick the AK-74.

As far as I know the M16A4 is in use because army ordance replactments for rifles are not lucrative arms contracts for developers, because the Army needs to equip everyone it always goes to the lowest bidder, that means as an arms developer you would be actually losing money, because ain't no way the army will re-arm everyone with a new more reliable weapons system. However there have been cheaper more efficent systems that were trailed but everyone is so used to the M-16 no one wants to rock the boat. It's actually cheaper for the Army to mod up the M-16 rifles up to spec, then pick a new replacement system.

One I remember off the top of my head is the XM8 - There is a comparative analysis of it here http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA429392

Anyone who says you need an entire handbook to disassemble an M16, or that the M16 is too complicated and time consuming to clean, has never taken one apart... or at the very least has never been shown how to do it. My time in the Canadian Military was spent as a Vehicle Tech, and we qualified on the C7 (identical to the US M16) only once per year. Even with such limited experience with the weapon I can recall being timed in the 1.5 - 2 minute range.

I will say this though...the close up of the guy pulling the trigger on the AK showed exactly why he couldn't hit a target from 200m.

I will say this though...the close up of the guy pulling the trigger on the AK showed exactly why he couldn't hit a target from 200m.

My thoughts exactly. Don't jerk the trigger.

Agreed, the AK firer is jerking the trigger (bad form, will def worsen your accuracy). Possibly he was trying to make the AK look like a poor performer for the TV audience, since even amateur firers know not to do that.

We in the Canadian military use an M-16 variant called the C7 (as SofaKing mentioned above) and stoppages or jams are rare, even very rare, so long as dirt and sand are kept out of the weapon's insides. I haven't used the C7 in a "field" sandy environment for more than a day or two (I was in the Gulf for 6 mo. but on a base) so I don't know how much of a problem that would be. I do have 10 friends over in Afghanistan right now and none of them have mentioned that as an issue.

http://www.coltcanada.com/c7-page.htm

I used mine in Iraq and Kuwait, and so long as you provide provide proper maintenance, you shouldn't have much of a problem.

This is the new katana vs. broadsword or pirates vs. ninja debate! I love it! Fascinating stuff!

seems we all agree the guy in the video was a lousy shot
there's one more thing though - i imagine it's hard switching from 5.56 mm to 7.62 mm caliber weapon and still be as effective because of the totaly different balistic trajectory of the rounds. at this distance with an AK you'd have to aim quite low because the amplitude of the balistic trajectory is higher - the 7.62 bullet is heavier, bigger and goes in an arch, while the 5.56 slug from a M16 goes more in a straight line. that was also one of the reasons AK outperformed M16 in a jungle environment such as in vietnam - the lighter 5.56 bullet is more likely to be deflected from its intended path by dense vegetation while leaves and even small branches won't make the AK slug deviate so much as it has more kinetic energy

Wow. Four shots from 200 yards = 182.88 m and he didn't hit the target at all? What a n00b. I haven't tried an M16 but the AK can definitely be more accurate than that. And it is ridiculously easy and fast to disassemble and reassemble as well. I think the best times of dis- and reassembling the gun were well under 20 sec. in my platoon. Not blindfolded, heh!

The point about the AK losing basically all accuracy after the first shot while bursting is absolutely true though. But does it really matter because your first shot hits...?
Seriously, one should only use the burst mode in close combat. At distance it's just a waste of bullets.

I'm still curious, can you really shoot 3-shot bursts with the M16 and still be accurate over distance. What is the longest range a good shooter can reliably hit a target with an M16. With an AK you can't expect to hit too accurately after 300 meters...

An M16 can be used by the average Marine to effectively shoot a point target at 500 yards. When shooting at an area target (group of people) it can be used at up to 800 yards, though this is almost, if ever done.

As far as the three round burst, that is never use either. It effectively destroys all accuracy past the first round, and it can't be used while using proper close-combat techniques anyway (Two in the chest, one in the head).

I remember reading that US forces in Somalia underestimated the local militias believing them to be ill trained to really present resistance, but were surprised with accurate burst fire from AK weilding enemy forces. I fail to understand how the US army could underestimate them considering there has been ongoing war in that country for decades.

This must be the biggest load of crap ever on videosift. I've not tried the M16, but I know for a fact that from a distance of 170 yards it's easy to get a group smaller than your fist with the AK-47, without any goddamn sandbags. Can't believe it's that much more difficult from 200 yds.

"Even with such limited experience with the weapon I can recall being timed in the 1.5 - 2 minute range."

Anyone I ever saw in the Finnish Self-Defense Force could dis- and reassemble their RK-62 (an AK-47 variant made in Finland, main differences are the smaller manufacturing tolerances) in under 50 senconds the first day we got a hold of it, and most could do it in under 30 a month later. And that includes a 3 second mandatory pause. (Personal best 47s blindfolded, Something in the low 20s normally.)

Also (and I know I'm going to get flamed for this one) I remember when one of the majors in Tikkakoski told us about his trip to the US. He had been training American soldiers and couldn't believe how terrible shooters they were. Many of the ones chosen for sniper training were mediocre at best in his opinion.

Yeah, I don't know what "made in china" copy they took for the test, but it's absolute crap that AK would be that inaccurate. Having used the RK-62 myself when I was in the army, I can say that it's pretty easy to land a fist-sized or smaller group at 170 yards even with a quite old and worn one(I think mine had the barrel from the year 1970(I went to the army in 2001)), and hitting a man-sized target from 330 yards isn't very hard either.

And one really should be able to land a smaller group with m-16 from that distance, as far as I know it should be pretty accurate thing to shoot with.

BFG kicks both their asses.

Phasers pwn the BFG.

Now I know why so many people miss with the AK-47.
Spray and pray all the way!

Anyway, the G36 owns em both.

Bullcrap. The only way a phaser could pwn a BFG is if you set it to overload and that is not SOP and therefore doesn't count.

I hate fanbois.

I', just going to go ahead skip reading most comments. MGR, the M16 is a giant pile of shit. I had perhaps one of the cleanest weapons on the unit. I take DAMN good care of my shit. It goes back to the OOH RAH jar head speech about who's useless and what not.

SofaKing- I qualify expert twice a year, so I'm pretty sure I know what the hell I'm doing. I'm not trying to bash you guys or what you have to say, but face it. The M16 is a piece of shit. Last year the Army (for God knows what reason) canceled the XM-8 project, weapon out fired the m16 as far as durability, built in sights, (the M8 had a red dot sight- front sight pots are notorious for causing glare and messing your shot up) barrel life, as well as weight and rate of fire. There are MUCH better weapons out there. Yeah, it might have lasted since Vietnam, but then again most of the 5 tons I've had have been around since then as well. Doesn't mean they are in good shape, just means the budget is to fucked up to get better shit.

I was hoping I could upvote this video, but it's so skewed I just want to downvote it.

I love that guy with the room full of guns. I can't remember his name but he's on every History Channel show that has any small arms in it. What a great job.

BTW, you are all wrong. The M-16 and M-4 quite clearly beat out the AK in every videogame I've ever played...

oh. and i'd take a Steyr Aug over either of those, anyway.
<3

arsenault185

I never made any claim for the m16 other then that it is not as hard to field strip as some (yourself included) claimed. I never even said it was comparable to the field strip for the AK47.. the m16 has more parts and steps. I reiterate my point... If you think field stripping an m16 is too complex, you don't have the dexterity or intelligence to be firing one in the first place.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krBIAb48nyo

I'll refrain from posting the one of an 11 year old girl doing the same procedure in 53 seconds.

^Do it!

Adding this to *Lies channel would be approriate if you ask me.

Invocations (lies) cannot be called by sillma because sillma is not privileged - sorry.