Origins of Myth: M-16 VS AK

bulldogg

bulldogg

Milforum's Bouncer
The M-16 controversy was not over, however. Although Congress cited the change in powder as the reason for jamming, not everyone was satisfied. Some ballistics experts contended that the jamming was due to barrel corrosion from humid jungle conditions. This may well have been true, and would have indicted the Ordnance Department even more, because they understood the detrimental affects of barrel corrosion on M-1 rifles from fighting in the Pacific during World War II. They knew that the cure was to chrome plate the barrel, standard procedure for the AK.

Another contributing factor to jamming was that the Army did not issue gun-cleaning kits to troops, which gave the impression that the weapon never needed cleaning. Why the kits were not issued also was never made clear. Only speculation exists. One explanation was that McNamara’s Whiz Kids wanted to save money; another is that the Ordnance Department wanted the M-16 to fail; other speculation hinged on an overconfidence in the weapon itself.

Perhaps all three reasons played a role, but the reputation of the M-16 was irrevocably sullied. Even after these issues were addressed, and the M-16 proved itself a formidable weapon, it was too late. It’s main rival the AK was perceived by many as the world’s best infantry weapon, and the one that could beat the West’s best offering. It was low tech Soviet style vs. high tech US style, and the Communists won the war of perception especially among third world nations whose leaders were carefully watching the conflict.

Vietnam fell to North Vietnamese troops in 1975 as the last Americans evacuated the country. Stunning television shots of desperate people clinging to helicopters taking off from Saigon building roofs only served to raise the stock of Communist fighters and their AKs.

To this day, one of the most contentious arguments in military circles is: ‘which is the better weapon, the M-16 or AK?’ The argument will never be resolved, and it is moot. The AK’s reputation as the underdog’s weapon was born in the rice paddies of Vietnam, given a boost by an unwitting US military.
Click to expand...
http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Unlisted.db&command=viewone&id=67
http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Unlisted.db&command=viewone&id=62
http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Unlisted.db&command=viewone&id=63

The above is just a snippet but if you're interested in the facts its a damn good read.
 
They're different weapons with different characteristics, there are situations where I'd rather have either one depending on the environment and what was going down.
 
The M-16 is only effective in the hands of a professional, the AK is for the amateurs.

There you have it, a dumbed down explanation of their differences.
 
AK-47 - Designed for an Army of mass conscripted peasants. Soviet Steam Roller Tactics.

AR-15/M16 - Designed for an Army of Riflemen. Accuracy over quantity.
 
awesome post bulldog i was just going to search for some info on those two guns! thanks heaps :D
 
No worries. The myth that a lot of people had was that the AK was more reliable in less than pristine conditions. What these sources have proven is that it wasn't the gun but the powder and round used. Its still a prevalent myth that the M-16 is inherently less reliable in sandy dirty muddy conditions... when in fact its about the quality of the ammo not the armament.
 
There are many types of M 16s, each with a different mission to be accomplished.

And I dont know about you, but there are dozens of different types of "AKs"

The myth most likely started out when some Army planners got the First M 16 A1 off the line , and test fired the first horrible test version and fired it in front of the top brass.

I dont know about you, but, the M 16 Has changed big time since then, so has the family of Kalashinova weaponry.

The "AK" is a family of weapons, witch the M 16, is a more specific weapon, in witch many weapons have been spawned off of, such as the CAR 15, M 4, and the A3 , A4, as well as the most common 3 round burst A2 model.

Its hard to compare a whole weapon range, such as the "Ak" family, is hard to compare to a very smaller weapon range, such as the M 16 and M 16 varients.

I dont know, but by today's standards, thats a hard to read myth. But then it was most likely applied to the release of the 3 generation of the Ak 47 , the most common "Ak" of all. And I bet Vietnam had something to do with it, and the horrid orginal M 16 A1s service record.

Both groups are fearsom weapons, and it really comes down to how well you are comfortable to kill, and how well you clean your rifle. Both are weapons, with the capacity to kill. So theres one similarity.
 
Personally I think that this “which one is better” war is stupid.
The truth is that in professional soldier hands both weapons are deadly toys.
 
Sukio said:
The myth most likely started out when some Army planners got the First M 16 A1 off the line , and test fired the first horrible test version and fired it in front of the top brass.
Click to expand...

If you took the time to read you could actually stop making assumptions and be informed... but that would be less fun I guess than making completely ignorant suppositions which could not be more wrong.
:shoothea:
 
I'd still take a G36 or an AUG over either any day. :)

But for close quarters, the only AR-15 variant I'd ever take over an AKS-74U is the Compak-16 made by Arms Tech. Same length as the AKS, same accuracy as the M4 with 5 times the barrel life and a gas trap to avoid the AR-15's characteristic fouling.
 
The MK-18 with the 10.5 inch barrel is the CQB weapon I'd opt for but then this is going far afield from the topic.
 
03A-Shrike-006.jpg

03A-Shrike-200.jpg

03A-SPW-vs-Ares16.jpg
 
Nice clip! Love the belt clip design for the M4 carbine series to!

But, the Ak 47 stole that idea for belts being used on a assualt weapon first.

But any way, on the quote Bulldog used,

he is right, I was wrong, but, at first many troops in the U.S. Armed forces didnt favor the new rifle over the older M 14, witch was also fully automatic, but , with dagorous recoil effects, that knocked accuracy on full auto out of the question for that rifle.

As far as I know, the M 16 wasnt made JUST specificly for countering the AK series the Russains were introducing. As far as reliablility terms, the M 16 then, was very unreliable, very, the very first A 1 models experianced dramatic problems, and soliders in Vietnam furhtur disliked that aspect of the first M 16s, but some really apealled to the fact that the weapon could fire 500 rounds per minute, and that the 5.56 rounds were small, and light, and that meant that they could carry lots of em.

But, the M 16 today is far different, although the originals were short , but with a devastating fire rate, remeber, 500 rpm may not seem like much, but think, do the math, thats 3 bullets in the barrel at one time, thats makes for a devastating stream of bullets can kill any enemy short of
armor.

But still, you can not, even though the M 16 is far different and improved today,think that it just come to Armed Forces commanders to just improve the weapon, that came from trial and error. In its early field days, it had horrible mechanical problems, that led some to their deaths.And thats no exageration...
 
Last edited:
Sukio, stop making claims like this without backing it up with reliable sources.
Your age indicates that this isn't something you could have experienced yourself....
 
When you said Sukio had nothing to back up his post I thought you meant the part where he said "In its early field days, it had horrible mechanical problems, that led some to their deaths.And thats no exageration..."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top