Origins of Myth: M-16 VS AK

No, I meant the entire post in general...
Could we please get back on topic now??
Thanks. :smil:
 
Redleg said:
Who said anything about me not believing that??
Click to expand...

Do you want me to break down the different verisons of the M 16, and explain after research the commonly shared mechanical problems the M 16 has comapared to the Kalashinova series?

No matter what is said here on this site, it would not do any thing, all M 16 models without proper cleaning, and rifle care, are a heck of alot more prone to jamming ,and other mechanical problems, however, over the the Kalashinova series, it has better accuracy and weight. Heck, the Soviets even liked the Idea and used some of the M16's charastics on the Ak 74.

You dont think that 5.45x39mm was just their idea did you?

Note:I had a full report on the M 16, all written to spec, took me about a half hour to get all typed, but in my last minute insertion of my sources, feeling good about myself I stupidly hit the back button on the top of the screen, and, lost it all, :(
 
Have you even read, in entirity the reports I linked to this thread? If you have and you feel you have a different opinion to the reports then the way to proceed is to...

1. quote the sections you disagree with,

2. state YOUR opinion and then

3. provide a link to the source of information that has led you to your opinion.
 
This is getting out of hand, I am residing from this thread, dont want to ruin it for the rest of you.
 
Sukio said:
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...
Click to expand...
What do you really know about the first M16s used in Vietnam? The first one I was issued was an M16 E1. Look that up in your sources (and quote them please). And oh BTW, it never jammed on me. The next one had a chrome plated reciever, it also never jammed. I also carried an M14 from time to time. It was never used as a fully automatic weapon (I just used it in single shot mode). It took a while to get used to the 16 but like anything else, you adjusted to whatever you were issued. FWIW, I liked the 16. I am surprised at how long the design has lasted though.
 
I, obviously, wasn't in Vietnam. I've talked to quite a few gentlemen who where there (Army) in the late 60's and early 70's, though. Some of them qualify as official "Old Guys" so I'm happy to learn at their feet.

Strangely enough, most of the gripes I hear about the M-16 in Vietnam come not from the soldiers I've talked to or others like DTop who have been there (thank you), but from those who have never even been on the same side of the world as Vietnam.

Here are two complaints I've gotten from my sources:

1) An NVA soldier was firing from behind a tree roughly six inches in diameter. My friend (who usually carried an M-60) fired back with an M-16. The M-60 would have cut right through the tree and the enemy. The M-16 succeeded only in knocking the bark of the tree and pointing the enemy out to the rest of the squad. This isn't really the fault of the rifle. It wasn't built to penetrate like that.

2) A VC scout was observed running away up a trail. The GI's were, at the time preparing to dig in for the night. One (who I talked to) slapped a magazine in his M-16 and attempted to hose the fleeing enemy down instead of actually aiming. The round he'd left in the chamber went off. Unfortunately, he hadn't seated the magazine so nothing else happened. Once again, this isn't a flaw with the rifle. In fact, this is a case of the soldier doing a few things incorrectly.

A few mentioned that their weapons had jammed on one or two occasions but nothing like the epidemic that has become popular lore.
 
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.
Click to expand...

The "recoil effects" of automatic fire make any assault rifle innacurate. The first round will be on target.... the rest wont.
 
Very true AussieNick. Any rifleman worth his boots will have been taught not to spray and pray(but then again, under pressure you tend to hold that trigger down). It only wastes ammunition.
I'm no expert on the entire AK family but the AK 47 is closer to a light MG than the 16 and for that purpose we had the M60 that fired essentially the same caliber round as the AK. Even still, we all wished the M16 had a greater magazine capacity. Of course, the banana clip eventually came on the scene. The magazines would sometimes malfunction because the springs left much to be desired but that too was eventually improved. We would always load the 20 round mags with no more than 18 rounds per and would tape two of them together to give us 36 rounds that we could get to quickly. Proper maintenance would prevent many of the evils. I will grant that the 16 required more maintenance than the 14. We all knew that and gave our 16s all the TLC we could and kept them as clean and properly lubricated as possible, considering the environment we were in.
 
DTop said:
Very true AussieNick. Any rifleman worth his boots will have been taught not to spray and pray(but then again, under pressure you tend to hold that trigger down). It only wastes ammunition.
I'm no expert on the entire AK family but the AK 47 is closer to a light MG than the 16 and for that purpose we had the M60 that fired essentially the same caliber round as the AK. Even still, we all wished the M16 had a greater magazine capacity. Of course, the banana clip eventually came on the scene. The magazines would sometimes malfunction because the springs left much to be desired but that too was eventually improved. We would always load the 20 round mags with no more than 18 rounds per and would tape two of them together to give us 36 rounds that we could get to quickly. Proper maintenance would prevent many of the evils. I will grant that the 16 required more maintenance than the 14. We all knew that and gave our 16s all the TLC we could and kept them as clean and properly lubricated as possible, considering the environment we were in.
Click to expand...

TLC and keep the weapon clean. Good advice to any young digger/GI, because it all goes to s**t real quick if you don't.

I think a big problem with comparing the two weapons is looking at how they are intended to be used. As you say, the AK is almost an LMG, and if you look at the RPK-47 and RPK-74, they are literally just a heavier barrel and a longer mag on the age old AK. They just needed the extra capacity and the heavier barrel to sustain fire.

The M-16, and as far as I'm concerned most other "respectable" assault rifles, were never intended to be used in that role. 3 examples are the M-16 series, the Steyr AUG, and the SLR/FN FAL. All very capable weapons.... but not "spray and prey" weapons as such.

In my opinion we are looking at two different types of weapon system. The AK was designed with heavy volumes of automatic fire in mind. It was designed during the height of Soviet atrition warfare. It was intendend for large numbers of poorly trained conscripts to fire from the hip as they ran across the snowy steppe towards the Nazis as they yelled "Urah!".

The M-16 was designed with a more educated, capable rifleman in mind. It was intended to be used as a semi-automatic rifle... with the capability to fire auto.... not as a primary function.

I think, therefore that there really is no comparing the two.... and no point bad mouthing either. Each does their job. The M-16 is much maligned by those who wern't there and those that don't know, but it's easy being an arm chair general isn't it.
 
I've heard it summed up in just a few words - the M-16 and the AK-47 were both intended to combine the best qualities of a LMG and a rifle. The M-16 does "rifle" better, the AK does LMG better.
 
i dont thing the AK is close to the LMG role. If anything its close to the SMG role, espcially in the folding stock versions. It is fairely accurate in semi auto mode and feels great when shooting...like its a real weapon...The m16, well ive said it before, is very accurate and confartable, but i dislike it. it has a reputation for jamming, which 5.56 and I argued about before, and which he claimes to be more of a cleaning issue...perhaps....but the AK hasent got a cleaning issue....:)
I was reassined to be a tank crewman a month ago and got a short m16. this is the first m16 ive had in the IDF which feels right to me, for some reason. i guss this one is less worn down than the ones ive had. still though, it weighs only 1.9 kg, which is great for your back but makes it feel toyish to me...:) Probably the fact that my first shooting rang experiences were with the M1 carabine made me a wood and iron sort of a shooter:)
 
It doesn't really fit the SMG role, either. Lower rate of fire, greater penetration, and greater range sort of suggest something other than an SMG. Generalizations to be sure, but look at it next to weapons such as the MP-5, Uzi, etc.

As for the M-16's "reputation for jamming," did you read the article this thread is in reference to?
 
I know the m16 has improved over the years and that even original versions were not likely to jam with proper care and maitanance. the point i made here and have maid before is:
A) My m16s were usually older versions bought dirt cheap by IDF
B)I still think a weapon should, if possible, need very low maitanance
 
In a perfect world we use smokeless caseless rounds that went where we wished them to go and would clean itself and if we asked nicely would give us a nice massage and read a bedtime story to us on FTX. :)
 
Percival said:
I have a scar from the front sight post of an M16 burnt into the top of my hand =\
Click to expand...

Well are you going to tell us the story or leave us to our imaginations? Right now I'm imagining a sheep, some knee pads and some velcro gloves, no idea who you managed to burn your hand though. :P
 
Combat Marksmanship, we popped off almost 200 round in under 30 minutes. My rifle was smoking, and the hand guards were rather hot.

My SSGT told me to remove my sling and give it to another Marine who had lost his, I forgot that my rifle was still smoking and that meant it was really hot.

Needless to say I burnt myself, and me and my rifle become one.... Some of my skin adheard to the front sight post =\
 
200 rounds in 30 mins dose that? I fired probably close to 100 rounds in somthing less than 2 minutes and my rifle dident smoke(targets fell apart though :))
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top