Edison Siew actouly the AK-47 isn't the best in the world I would prefer the C7 but I still respect your opinion I'm not trying to be rude though and sorry for my crapy spelling
To all the guys who keep saying this video is propaganda that favors the M16...please watch the whole thing before you say something foolish. The entire 2nd half of the video does nothing but praise the AK47 on the battlefield. 8:59 the In close quarters battle the M16’s accuracy could not gaurantee victory. 9:05 The AK47 had the advantage of easy to maintain construction. 9:15 The AK47 has the advantage of remarkable simplicity. 9:30 The AK47 had the advantage if combat deteriorated into hand to hand combat because of its steel and wood construction were the M16 would break. 10:15 The M16 was jamming in combat due to dirty gun powder and no cleaning gear. Soldiers were told it was self cleaning and it wasn’t. 11:00 A gun that needs cleaning in combat could cost soldiers their lives. 12:10 Clean or not the AK47 will always fire. 12:50 No matter what the US soldiers did it was easier to make an M16 jam than an AK47. 13:35 Sand was no hazard to the AK47. 14:05 The M16 could not match the stunning reliability of the AK47. 15:05 The M16 bullet fails to penetrate 2 blocks of pine wood while the AK47 succeeds. 17:30 The AK47 continues to show its effectiveness in battles around the world.
"The M16 is a surgical tool" glorification through high specialisation methaphore that says : M16 is like a doctor that tries to save lives. "AK is blunt stick" Methaphore that says clearly that the weapon is primitive and used by less developed countries. Clearly propaganda material. You are right it says a lot that is true about the AK, but it creates an unfriendly setting towards the AK, repeating all the time that the US rifle is "High-tech" or that AK is simplistic and not accurate. It will be less accurate than M16, but at 200m my grandfather was able to hit the standard military target 5 times out of 5 on the range when he was in the army. So... yeah. Both are weapons made to kill other people, and that doesn't make one more sophisticated than the other. Also, Soviets have changed to AK74 way in 1970, to counter the NATO 5,56mm round with 5,45mm. It would be a closer match.
SoltyII I think its pretty accurate. Not propaganda in my opinion but hey thats what opinions are for right? Everyone has a right to one. The AK is from an older school of thought and manufacturing (except for the milled versions of course) but the stamped steel and rivets is or was popular with less developed countries. Thats not an insult, its just a fact. I wouldn't take that as an insult. I would be proud of that fact because look at the performance of stamped steel and rivets has shown when put up against CNC machined modern style weapons. Its still kicking ass to this day. Thats should be a source of pride. Nothing to be ashamed of. They are simplistic. They are primitive weapons...but that in itself appeals to warriors. Knives, swords, spears, and now AK's....they are timeless primitive weapons in some peoples opinion. To an engineer they my look down on an AK but to a warrior...simple is often looked up to. Its a matter of perspective. I am an American who was trained on the M16...and I have nothing but respect for the old AK. I think any true firearms enthusiast should be wise enough to appreciate both weapons for their strengths & weaknesses.
mixflip the M16 is more accurate than the AK but the AK does more damage than the M16 but the M16 AV the C7 I would pick the C7 because it's more accurate then the M16 and it shoot farther and it doesn't have the forward assist button. If you press the forward assist button it will make sure the bullet is pushed forward in the chamber so it doesn't jam.
Paul de la Haye When it comes to close encounters ( which many are ) the ak47 is accurate enough and more deadly. In Iraq and Afghan in close encounters in the city many US Marines have taken Ak-47's from dead assailants because in close quarters combat you don't need MOA accuracy.. at that close of range it doesn't really matter that your bullet is 1/2 an inch off where you intended because the AK round will hit with much greater force, knockdown power, and make a bigger hole - it is more likely to induce shock - which is stopping power in itself. Lets nor forget also that the M16 being used by 'most' US forces shoots a 3 round burst at best - unless its in single shot mode. Meaning ....If you're alone and getting attacked by multiple assailants you'll fight them off better with a AK with 7.62x39 at close range then a 5.56.. you can spray an AK and make a wall of lead taking down more enemies at once then possible ( at close range ) then with an M16.. Of course if you have a SAW thats a different story Now if Im in a jungle or shooting at a range over 150 yards I'd likely choose the 5.56 round.. but I'd rather have a .good 308 with a Leupold HAMR over the 5.56 in those situations where you need both power and great accuracy...
***** Yeah , I threw away my M16A3 for an AKM. . . AND NEVER LOOKED BACK ! I owe my life to Kalashnikov ! Thank GOD for that man's design. Mayor Fuglycool
Benson Enterprises LLC ak are not that inaccurate, thats just fucking propaganda by Americans who wanna be really patriotic. ( im american too btw, but im not biased) If the ak was so bad at accuracy why does the whole world still use it today. If it were bad it would of been replaced but it doesn't it keeps being produced because it WORKS, you can treat the weapon like a bitch and its still reliable. Apart from that the bullets are actually cheaper and a 7.62 bullet is much more lethal than a .223 or 5.56. Let me remind you what happened in vietnam, some fucking poor vietnamese soldiers were making the most powerful military in the world struggle. Remind me what weapon were the vietnamese using and remind which weapon was failing? The ak is the ultimate survival weapon, it doesnt matter if its rusty, you can fill it with twinkies and still shoots. If i were in combat i wouldnt want a weapon that could possibly end up jamming and having me killed. Ak is also cheaper to produce.
+Feteasca Alba self employed haha you got mad because i don't agree with you. Just because you wanna defend the gun your country made doesn't mean it was better maybe its more accurate but if you watched the video you would of realized that our own troops were shitting on the m16 and would even pick up ak47s. the m16 was better when they compared accuracy but when it was time for real combat the ak was taking a dump on the u.s army and those poor vietnamese showed us haha. Stop trying to act like you know better because you're an older fart because anyone reading your comments can see that you only defend it because you think you're a patriot. Whats the use of an m16 being so accurate at really long distances if most wars are fought at closer ranges, which. the u.s army admitted to by now deploying the shorter barrel m4.
I personally would still take an AR platform. Mainly because you can use 223 and 556 if you have the right set up. It allows you to carry much more ammo. That, and the reputation that AR platforms have for unreliability when 30 is a relic of the Vietnam era. My M4 got daily use and Afghanistan, and I didn't clean it nearly as much as some people would think.( I always felt she fired better with a little carbon built up.) I can also deal with firing an M4 without earpro for a while. It makes everything sounds like it's in a tin can, but the AK felt like it was going to blow my eardrums out. After a couple of Decades of shooting, I would also take the weapon that I can still fire accurately at over 600 yards.
The reason for the Vietnamese soldiers to get close to the American was not just because of the gun but also to minimize the advantage of artillery and air support. The American soldiers were too dependent on those kinds of support so they used them every time. When this advantage gone, there were nothing they could do but retreat.
American soldiers were superior to the VC in gun fights. Yes reliance on air support was strong, but training was also superior. Had the Vietnamese war gone on any longer, Vietnam would have surrendered. They were being absolutely destroyed by the US infantry and air support.
***** The tet offensive had been crushed, we were killing 10 of their men for every one of ours that died, the North Vietnamese army was preparing to surrender, and the vietcong resistance was in shambles
علي abid Not many, especially in situations in this video like vietnam, the AK is a natural born vietnam weapon, not born in vietnam but took a toll on america in vietnam cause it is more of a war rifle than an M16
M16 reliability issues are based on Vietnam era weapons that were rushed into combat by a ordnance dept that didn't want them, didn't properly R&D them and weren't above sabotaging the fielding of them. Once they figured out what the issues were (which would have been discovered during a normal R&D process), the m16 performed just fine. Like Mixflip said, it is a myth that an M16 is unreliable, and it is the weapon of choice by many elite units that can literally pick the weapon they want to use.
I was in the military from 1987 to 1990. Got to handle an AK47 for the first time in BCT. Liked it so much I bought one when I got out. My AK has a chrome lined target barrel and aftermarket sights. Accuracy is fine considering. You should seek out an anger management provider.
m16 was used in the Vietnam war, soldiers regularly changed their weapon fore the AK because the m16 was jamming dew to humidity. the AK had no trouble firing in any weather condition.
+Benson Enterprises LLC Shutup idiot. They're not lies, Aks are better in every single situation exept long range, but in vietnam long range ingagements were not common. The videos were all taken with newly deployed units.
***** Shutup kiddo. I'm not a teenager, I just play airsoft as a military simulation. I hunt, fish, and hike multiple times every year. The m16 is an absolutely shit gun compared the any Ak. It jams like hell, it has barley any penetration, and it simply a terrible gun. I've had miserable experinces using it, even my grandpa (who was a green beret medic in vietnam) said the gun jammed alot and that they were at a dissadvantage in terms of weapons.
Wanna compare them? Look at the world wide body counts done by each rifle. The AK47 wins that in strides. Which means it has proven it self time and time again.
+Nunya Bidness That's more due to the fact that the AK is mass produced and is constantly used in so many fights. For the most part the militaries in the middle east exclusively use AKs.
+Nunya Bidness that are still cheap shit that dumbasses use, why is it that most allied country's use it over the AK? it's better... why would we use a worse gun, you have Probley never picked up an AK, I own a WASR 10 which is an AK and its a crap gun
+Nicholas Geil There are so many problems with the M16 at a fundamental value that it's not even funny. When I say modern weapons from the AK series, I don't mean the WASR I mean the AK101, AK74, AK-12, AK102, AK103 etc. Those guns take the fundamental designs that made the AK47 a good weapon and improved upon it. Such as using a smaller round. Even the AK47 it self is a great gun. Otherwise it would not be used world wide. Sure it's cheap. But its also a good gun. The M16 is too finicky of a gun to be used in most environments.
About the accuracy test on 200 yards in this video im just wondering about what kind of AK-47 he used. I am 57 yeras old and got my very very first gun 7 months ago, August, 2018 (M&P9 M2.0) and got my very first rifle which was Romanian AK-47 with Red Russian stock from Atlantic Firearms ($800+) the following month. Never fired firearms prior to purchasing my guns but when i tried my AK-47 in a 200 yard target outdoor how come i can hit the bull's eye 4 of 5 and the other one slightly out of bull's eye....using just the iron sight.
I hate saying this but the AK is a better gun, cheaper, reliable and simple. the m16 lost in every war. if your taking about an m4a1 then then the m4 obviously won
the m16 design is more accurate and is nearly as reliable. also the ak has been adopting many of the attributes of the m16 over the years because it is a better philosophy. more ammo less recoil better accuracy equals more hits and is why ak74 came into existence.
2:00 no actually it flexes because the barrel is pinned into the front trunion which is attached to the reciever and the standard thickness of a reciever is 1mm but if you shoot a milled reciever ak platform in slow motion the barrel will not flex
Reliability is the most admired in people on the battlefield .... if m-16 comes in contact with water, mud, sand etc. it can be used only as a club until you clean
1) AK is more powerful....by about 5%....and it's bullet doesn't do as much damage to human tissue as an M16 bullet will. 2) the standard capacity for either the AK or M16 is 30 rounds. HOWEVER, M16 ammo is lighter so you can carry more 5.56 for the same weight as 7.62 (one reason why the Soviets switched to 5.45mm). And weight IS extremely important. If you'd ever been a soldier you'd know that. 3) The AK round is not inherently more accurate than an M16 round. In fact, it has horrible ballistic coefficient, is slow for a rifle round and has a lobbing ballistic trajectory, all of which makes it inherently less accurate.
armynurseboy AK however is different for it's rounds. The AK goes up when you fire, it doesn't burst the ammo around it. Why do you think they switched to M16A2? Because the weapon was constantly jamming.
AlphaLeader772 they switched to the M16 A2 because they wanted better long range accuracy. The6 fixed the jamming issue witj the A1 during Vietnam. And you really have no idea what you are talking about. Burst the ammo around it....?????? WTF does that mean?
armynurseboy during the recoil some weapons start shooting around, while the accurate weapons go up. When you are shooting at target the weapon goes up, while some weapons go around the target. They switched to A2 because of the weapon constantly jamming because of the auto fire. You people barely know anything about the AK. My dad who was amateur learned to shoot with that gun and said it was the most accurate. Imagine amateur saying a weapon is accurate.
Uhm no. They switched to burst on A2s because the powers that be felt that full auto for regular troops was a waste of ammo. It was a mechanical solution to a training issue. And no, an AK has waaaaay more muzzle climb than an M16, especially on full auto AND THAT IS A BAD THNIG. That is not an indicator of how accurate a weapon is. That is a indicator of poor controllability. Measure of accuracy is how tight you can make bullet groupings on target. That is usually expressed by Minute of Angle (MOA), which is 1" at 100m. AKs, at best shoot, 4MOA (4 inch groups at 100m). An M16 can shoot under 1MOA, but generally shoot around 2. That's why the Soviets switched to 5.45mm, to help eliminate the recoil and muzzle climb the 7.62mm round has which has a negative affect on accuracy. M16s barely have any recoil. If you've ever shot either one you'd know that.
Linus Magnus Because no country will sell them to your country. US refuses to export them to anyone except militaryin counttries that are part of NATO, and other organizations.
Actually the reason why so many Americans use it is because its cheaper than most modern AR type rifles, especially ammo. And almost ALL AKs have to be modified when coming into the country, much of the parts are swapped out for american parts, including the barrel, and some other major parts. In all actuality there is not true AK in America.
Its the cheapest and one of the most easy to disable and reassemble and it still is a good weapon but no where near one of the best assault rifles no way weapons experts know this thats why only 3rd world nations and rebels use it trained killers use more sophisticated weapons destroying shit when they go into combat.
Thanks for the laughs, gentlemen. It is painfully obvious who has never even fired an AK 47 or M16, much less had to rely on it in a combat situation. The age of the weapon has nothing to do with its effectiveness. The weapon's caliber, rate of fire, ability to handle bad weather conditions, accuracy and weight all do. In jungle warfare or heavy vegetation, impact or where range is important, the M16 falls short of the AK47. The quality and training of the soldier carrying the M16 can bridge some of that gap.
the main issue at the time was all the people being drafted weren't actually fully trained either. It's all about the man behind the rifle. My father owns both rifles and can be equally accurate with both. I wish the same could be said for me, but he was trained since he was 17. Like I said it comes down to the man behind the machine.
the main issue at the time was all the people being drafted weren't actually fully trained either. It's all about the man behind the rifle. My father owns both rifles and can be equally accurate with both. I wish the same could be said for me, but he was trained since he was 17. Like I said it comes down to the man behind the machine.
***** :D I live in a 'ak-47 country' we had civil wars and shit with ak-47 and they are very easy hold, and everyone says it's the best... they all used it and know how it is, every single one says good words about it....
Foch Yoo Only a tiny fraction of those Vietnamese deaths were at the hands of small arms. In major wars like that, the biggest killers are artillery, aircraft, mines, and IEDs. If you include all other conflicts the AK is pretty competitive for body count.
***** ive heard some marines using AK in some situations, ditching theyr M16 for ak ? Fuck no. First of all, US doesnt have 7.62x39 at all in anyway so they wouldnt be able to get ammo for AK. 2nd, M16 and AK both have very different sound, in vietnam it was mostly jungle and often you didnt even see the opponent so you were just shooting at where the gun sound came or where u saw the muzzle flash. If the marines would have used AK in widescale that would have lead to higher friendly fire casualties. Yes, M16 was prone to jam which mostly was because of wrong gunpowder used in ammunition and the lack of knowledge of treating the gun. Sure, there are no debate that in any named circumstances the AK is more reliable than any of M16 / M4 thats simply because AK's tolerances are far far far larger than M16 / M4. How ever both guns have the pros and cons over each other and in competent hands both guns are very deadly.
I liked following you. I thought you were doing a great job of showing us different overlanding rigs. This post makes me question my loyalty. While this is interesting as a history of guns, it gives me insight into what your interests are, which are not the same as mine. thanks for work you had done.
It's simple, you want more accuracy you choose M16 and it's series, you want more power you go with AK47. But then again, AK has normal accuracy when it's not fully automatic and I think switching rifle to fully auto isn't a good idea unless you're a "bad guy" from Hollywood movies.
The muzzle energy of a 5.56x45 (M16) round and a 7.62x39 (AK47) round are quite similar 1854 joules VS 2045 joules or approximately 10% different. Contrary to what most people think, you do not need an "armor piercing round" to penetrate armor. Velocity is the key. And, since the M16 round carries it's energy more in the form of velocity and less in the form of mass, theoretically it should penetrate armor better than the AK round. Of course, both rounds have so much energy that the point is moot. Either round will walk through a 1/2 inch think steel plate at 100 yards (and I'm talking plain old lead core, not "armor piercing"), so Kevlar is just a joke. As far as Hollywood movies, don't take ANYTHING they say or show as "gun fact". Most movies and actors violate every safety rule in the book, and how their firearms are portrayed is 99% fantasy (such as the 10,000 round magazine that never runs out or the gun that never ejects shell casings or the big boob bimbo that carries her pistols with her fingers dangerously on the triggers while doing flips and cartwheels). It's sad actually that so many actors are rabidly anti-gun, yet they have guns and violence in every one of their movies. The ultimate in hypocrisy.
Jack Ripper "The muzzle energy of a 5.56x45 (M16) round and a 7.62x39 (AK47) round are quite similar 1854 joules VS 2045 joules or approximately 10% different" maybe...but the 5.56 round will loose its energy pretty fast since its a light bullet. this vid and any vid frankly...shows the ak round as the best armor piercing of the two. none of the two will penetrate half an inch steel though haha. a car door is just fraction of that..
Petter sæthre Don't know why you would say "none will penetrate 1/2 inch steel plate". Maybe not in video games, but in real life I've punched holes through 1/2 inch thick mild steel (not armor) plate at 50 yards with both 7.62x39 FMJ rounds (Golden Tiger out of an AKM) and 5.56x45 (55 grain FMJ Federal military surplus XM-193). A car door is thin steel sheet - a .22LR will go through a car door. Makes me laugh when anti-gun whiners flip out over when an ordinary pistol or rifle round goes through a car door and start calling for "bans on armor piercing ammo". Idiots.
16:22 that's bullshit. on the ak full auto is in the center so when a panicking soldier flipped down the safety hard it would be in semi so he would not spend al the ammo.
Aknamaf Kalashnikov model of 1947 also known as AK-47 Kalashnikov is it weapon that All fighters love to use it doesn't break Jam or overheats it can fire wether it is covered in sand filled with mud it's so it is a use that even a nine-year-old can use it because of the tolerances and it doesn't matter who has manufactured or what machinery this is why it is a superior weapon to all other rifles
If you go all around and look at the whole picture, the AK platform is a better gun, for the average person who's given a gun, told to fight wherever they are in the world and doesn't have the cleaning kit or lubrication the AR would need. the AK will get it done
The AK-47's selector switch is built to encourage SEMI while under stress. It's all the way down so that when you're panicking you won't overflip it to full and not hit anything
This is a very biased comparison. The first thing they talk about is the list of materials the weapons are made of, and they cover the advantages of the M16 ... but they don't really cover the disadvantages or the effect of the difference. How much lighter is one than the other? How much less durable is the M16 compared to the AK? Then they get into accuracy, and they specifically talk about accuracy in full auto. No one is going for marksmanship in full auto. Full auto is for suppressive fire, not for actually hitting anyone. If you're aiming to actually hit, you shoot one bullet at a time. The degree to which the M16 is more accurate is negligible in practical application as an anti personnel weapon. In the accuracy test, they must have had a junk gun, or a terrible marksman shooting, or both. The MOA on a decent M16 or AR equivalent is 1 - 2. The MOA on a decent AK is 2 -3. That's 2 - 3 inches from point of aim at 100 yards, which becomes 4 - 6 at 200 yards. A decent shot with a decent gun should have put all of those rounds within a hand sized circle on that paper. Excellent builds of each are about 1 MOA less, so an excellent AK should have a 1 - 2 MOA, and an excellent M16 should have a 1 MOA. Regarding the weight of the bullet, while it's true a faster bullet is more accurate, a heavier bullet is more accurate in wind because it can't be blown around so easily. Additionally the heavy bullet is also anti-material ... which means you can shoot people through walls, trees, vehicles, etc... Additionally, this video seems to be completely ignoring the fact that Kalashnikov came out with another model to compete with the M16. The AK-74 fires a bullet that's very similar in size and ballistics to the 556 of the M15, so this whole argument is a moot point. In the end, the M16 has a marginal advantage in weight, but we're only talking about a pound, and a negligible advantage in accuracy. The AK has the M16 beat in durability, utility, reliability, and penetration, and all those by a long shot. A more honest analysis puts the AK far ahead of the M16.
I think your opinion is also slightly biased toward the AK. I would hardly call the difference of 1 MOA "negligible". It doesn't matter if your bullet is less affected by wind if it's also inherently less accurate. Unless you have god on your side, a shot off target will *remain* off target, wind or no wind. In the actual rifle, yes, the weight of one M16 compared to one AK-47 will not be much of a big deal. If you mean actual use, IE, "I have to carry 200+ rounds of ammunition for this thing for 10 hours a day", that bigger bullet actually results in a LOT more weight. I also think you're drinking the Vietnam vet kool-aid with the "reliability/durability". I've seen vets swear the m14 is years more reliable than the m16, yet you can watch videos of an M1a jamming up after 1-2 rounds in stress testing with mud/sand, and watch an AR-15 mag dump in the same conditions. They *used* to be unreliable, but they worked the kinks out over time. And utility definitely does *not* go to the AK. You can have an 10.5 inch SBR with a red dot sight and change it into a 20 inch SPR with a high powered optic just by removing some pins and switching the upper. Utility is one of the platforms strong points if anything.
Full auto isn't for hitting people? Yeah, 15 bullets flying down range every second and none of them are supposed to hit the enemy. That's bullshit. Automatic has plenty of uses at close and medium range other than just suppressive fire.
I have a lot of experience with both weapon families. Not an expert, though. With good ammunition and a well made rifle, the military M4A1 carbine with issues m855 is capable of about 2 MOA. I have shot civilian AR carbines that fire .75 MOA with match grade 69 grainers. I fired everything from Mahdis, Tabuks, Saigas, Norincos, and Arsenals. With standard M47 steel cased rounds, they are usually 3-4 MOA guns. With match grade brass 122 grainers and an arsenal, I've seen 1.5 MOA achieved. I think a lot of the capability of these guns come down to the quality of the build and the quality of the ammo. With mass produced service ammo, the AR is much more accurate, but at the ranges most gunfights happen that is not as much of an advantage as is supposed. At 100 meters, what does it matter if my groups with an ak are 2" wider? Combat accuracy is just not that demanding. I fired thousands of rounds in Iraq and Afghanistan and never had a jam, but that's because I never shot it full auto. On full auto, both guns can't handle much. m4s jam up after just a few minutes of high rate fire, and AKs have been known to light their hand guards on fire or rip cases in half. No free lunch. I say they're both awesome and I wouldn't be mad whichever I had to fight with. Same with the FAL, M14, AUG or M110.
@@Straya09 The AK-74 was introduced in the mid 70s and was the main Soviet battle rifle around the time they did this comparison. Comparing the AK47 and the M16 is apples and oranges. The AK74 and M16 are a much closer comparison. IMHO.
I thought Russia used the AK-12 & AK-15. They also use the AK-100 series. The AK-101 can fire 5.56mm ammo so that would be a good comparison with the same ammo.
you know you're going to have a bad day when your weapon stops working if touch it before washing hands and then you have to spend an hour cleaning it in surgical environment while using a comic book as your guide.
lol your full of bs, an m16 is like any other tool. you have to clean it. a man with an ak can be dropped by a marine at a few hundred yards with a headshot.
I think the ak 47 kicks ass, its an unfair comparison 1947 old weapon compared to a modern weapon...should be compred to the modern aks now available to be fair...
@@johnbob914 thebwar was lost in Washington DC not on the battlefield. Everybody knows that. The hippie culture and the anti war movement became mainstream so it became impossible to destroy our enemy with all our military might like we did in WW2. Politicians lost Vietnam.....not the military. That's common knowledge.
It's a pointless debate. Where one fails the other succeeds. They both have pro's and cons. What is often not discussed is the doctrine behind the design of both rifles, which is very different.
Having fired both the AK and M16, they are approximately equal weapons. They are very good at different things, so declaring that one is better than the other doesn't actually make sense. The M16 and M4 are highly precise, in following with the American tradition of rifle precision. I can list off details of the M16 system that make it a very good rifle. However, in dusty and muddy environment (which seem to be the only places wars are fought in), the close fit between parts makes it highly susceptible to jamming. I cleaned my rifle at least once a week in Afghanistan whether I fired it or not. Every week, there was always more dust to clear out of the action that would otherwise have caused a malfunction. The AK family of rifles (AK-47, AKM, AK-74, and so on) are much more focused on simply hitting the target. In the late 1940's, the Soviet military didn't care about precise fire. They were working with a very large conscript army, there was simply no feasibly way to train every one of their soldiers to the same level of marksmanship that American soldiers were trained to. Their philosophy at the time was "just hit the guy". Like the video says, the AK is also much more forgiving of dirty environments. It doesn't mind sand or dirt or mud nearly as much as the M16. You still have to clean it, but it's also a far simpler process. Yes, the AK is a good bit heavier than an M16. It is far simpler to field-strip and clean, and requires less intensive maintenance when you do clean it. This is a trait common to Russian infantry rifles across the 20th century. I can run 200 rounds through my SKS, snake out the bore, wipe off the bolt, and put it back together without worry that it will function the next time I have to clean it. I could just not clean it, and that rifle will work. I can kill a human out to 300 meters with an M16, no question. I also spent a great deal of time on a range, practicing the skills that go into marksmanship (I was in the Army for seven years). With an AK, it's not about making a clean shot to center-mass like the M16. If I am standing on a battlefield three hundred meters in depth, facing someone else of equal skill, whoever is armed with an M16 will most likely win if it is only a question of precision. Make the two of us live in the mud for a month, the guy with the AK may well have a better-functioning rifle at the end of it. If my M16 jams and his AK doesn't, I am done. The AK versus M16 argument is just silly. You're both right and both wrong.
Oh, and it has been said on good authority that the three-position safety on the AK was designed that way because a frightened infantryman wouldn't really be able to switch from "safe" to "automatic". When stressed, the human body loses a lot of fine motor skills. When that scared 18 year old kid reaches up and flips the safety level downward, he will almost always jump past the automatic setting to semi-automatic. Moving that safety one position at a time takes a bit too long when you're being shot at.
Well Said Brother. Most on this post have packed no gear. Let alone faced Combat Opinions Vary. I believe the Man is the weapon. The weapon is the tool. Superior training and Morale wins. Even with that pathetic M16.) Semper Fi
Nice piece on firearm history. No mention of the Sturmgewehr 44, the first modern, "assault rifle" (at leas in this segment). Kalashnikov denied ever admitting it influenced his design, but the similarities are unmistakable.
Soo, basically, the AK47 is beaten in accuracy by the M16 because of more modern materials. So if I get an AK12 or any modern AK made with modern materials, it will be the same, if not better, than the M16? And lighter ammo is always better? I'm sorry, but I would rather put heavier bullets into a precision rifle than lighter bullets, due to the lighter bullets being tossed around by wind more.
Guns&Games well if we are gonna talk about modern am let's also talk about the modern m16 trust me shit doesn't break with a butt stroke being a marine myself I prefer the lighter rounds and my rounds hitting their targets what good is a bit of extra power of it fails at about 200-300ish meters I can hit targets at 600 with no problems firing an Sk granted (not the most modern one but still modern type) shit was fucking stupid my m4 still much more accurate people seem to think a 5.56 can't kill cus what 7.62 round hits harder well no shit it hits harder but guess what a 5.56 will still fuck you up
rudy gutierrez I was not questioning the lethality of a 5.56, and I do prefer the lighter weight, low recoil and more accuracy of the 556, neither am I questioning the useability or functionality of either weapon, but what I've come to realise is that we are fucking morons, because we are literally comparing a Formula 1 race car to a Ford Focus RS modded to the max for offroad, both are good cars, but the F1 car beats the Ford Focus by a longshot on a circuit on road, but you will rather take the Ford Focus for a rally over the F1 car. Both are good, but they were meant to race on different race tracks, one can't take a single pebble in the middle of the road and it will spin out, but the other one can have a fucking boulder in the middle of the road and it will be fine, it's the exact same for our guns here. The M4 beats the AK in urban combat, but the AK's durability is unbeatable, and I would rather take a gun into the muddiest and sandiest places that will actually function and shoot, rather than one that performs better "on range" and will not work when I actually need it.
***** Funny how you still consider AK shit when Russians are in general more advanced at warfare compared to Americans and they hide their inventions instead of showing and selling like Americans do.Silly ass
Feteasca Alba self employed i watch a video of it firing a thousand rounds to point its hand guard is burning. If an Ak failed it's the ammo fault not the gun.
They are comparing 2 rifles that fought against each other in Vietnam...regardless of their caliber difference. The US had the M16 and the Vietcong had the AK47. The AK74 is closer to the 5.56mm but thats only because Russia developed it "after" seeing the M16 perform in Vietnam. Granted the M16 had a rough start, but in general the M16 did do well after the first year which a lot of haters fail to mention.
mixflip Primarily because they learned they had to baby the rifle a lot more than the older M14s. However doing better than what it had been is not much of an accomplishment seeing as how unreliable it was when it first entered service. Even now M16/M4 pattern rifles require a lot more effort to maintain than other weapons. Something the fan boys fail to mention.
AK-47 straight up is better. i don't need to watch this video, the AK-47 can be thrown in a muddy puddle then thrown in the ocean and it will still fire with deadly accuracy, plus its not made from cheap plastic.
oh, you're talking about a real m16? I was talking about this. www.walmart.com/ip/Tippmann-U.S.-Army-Alpha-Black-Elite-Paintball-Marker-with-E-Grip-Black/27878418
I know a Ranger, Vietnam vet who got his hands on a like new AK-47 with several magazines,,, made that “blunt stick” work. Even in recon/sniper situations. I’ve tried them all. I prefer the Ruger Mini-14 for a semi-automatic weapon. ....AR-15 & AK-47, I consider equals with varied characteristics, and not less desirable than the Mini-14 as a weapon either. I choose the Mini 14 because of the gas system, and Ruger builds a hella gun.
Neither weapon is better, there's a trade off with either weapon. With a AK-47 you're carrying the most reliable weapon known to man, that can tear apart someone within seconds BUT its terribly inaccurate and very hard to hold in combat due to weight. The M16 on the other hand, is lighter the M16 is very accurate, however it lacks reliability as shown in Vietnam. However if you want a AK variant that can hold its own against the M16? AK-74 and AN-94, both are accurate, and much lighter while still maintaining the simplicity of an AK. The M16A1 and A2 would have a major run for its money. The main reason for this? The AK-74 and AN-94 both used the 5.45 x 39 rather than the 7.62 x 39 thus the recoil is MUCH lighter and more controllable and quite accurate.
This was and still is such a biased video. There are several current videos of shooters hitting the same size steel targets at 400+ meter range consistently with Wolf ammo out of low to mid level AK 47s. But there are parts of this video that make for good info.
I picked up an AK in Iraq (Desert Storm) and kept it next to the driver's seat in my deuce and a half. My M-16A1stayed wrapped in plastic. I never really cleaned the AK, but when we got ready to come home, it ripped out six full mags without a hitch, but the M-16 could barely get out half a mag without jamming. I would never carry any AR variant in a life or death situation.
Ok so first unless any of you youtubers are multi-millionaires or a product demonstrator you more than likely won't be getting your hands on any automatic weapons.. so the "automatic capabilities" really doesn't apply to us regular ppls.. 2nd, after the 200 yard shootout you can clearly see that the AK demonstrator didn't have his sight dialed in whatsoever.. on those rpk style sights you can set your yardage and anyone who's ever fired one of these things know you have to set it at nearly 300 yards to hit 200 yards accurately, this was not done.. 3rd, this film was made by discovery, an American company... 4th.. I think the wars where the US has had the most problems (Vietnam and Afghanistan) prove ultimately that the AK gives the M16 a run for its money.. not to mention, you need to take care of an m16...some AKs have NEVER been serviced in 50 years in the deserts and theyre still operating... clearly biased film making.
This is a great documentary covering many perspectives of the 2 firearms comparisons. I've had a Daniel Defense DDM4V4 and now a Century Arms RAS47. For modern combat, I'd take an M4. But for jungle warfare or everyday fun... the AK is SOO much more fun :)
Just because your poor Muslim country uses it doesn't mean it's better. The American Military uses M16's for a reason.They don't use cheaply made Ak47's
+Moey 2moey are you outta your mind.....wars aren't won by just rifles. politics back home is what made the US pull out of Vietnam. if war is simply about defeating your enemy....we had all the weapons we needed to win physically. politicians lost the war.
mixflip The soldiers didn't stand a chance with their shitty M4's, even if politics did result in loss of the war, the US guns didn't stand a chance, and no they couldn't just drop bombs because that would kill many innocent civilians.
Cheaper if you want a garbage AK..to really have a good AK you’ve gotta spend $900.00 or more.. you go any cheaper and you are just buying from some shit company who cuts corners. Not to mention you can just about get an ar15 for $375.00.. but that’s about as bad as buying a $600.00 AK.. For an AR15 To be decent you’ve gotta spend around $700.00 or more. But if I had to go cheap I’d take a cheap AR15 over a cheap AK47.. Cheap AK’s are the worst... ak MUST be quality.
nowadays kalash platforms like the AK74M are just as accurate, if not more accurate than modern AR platforms and still retain simplicity and dependability. and lighter too.
Yeah. Recently militaries want to engage at longer ranges. A large round prevents that. Although I am following you. It doesn't posses the same stopping power. Still a higher stopping power than 5.56 because of speed.
+Harrison Fournier Basically. AK-47 and AKM's are great but they are notorious for being inaccurate at anything over 250-300 meters. The thing is that the smaller bullet changes a lot. The damage difference between a 7.62 and a 5.56Nato or 5.45 from the AK 74 is huge.
Riley Powell If you are talking about an AK which fires a 7.62X39 round then yes,it is quite hard to accurize it like an m16. But the AK's built in the Izhmash factory and chambered in 5.45X39 are lighter then their 7.62 counterparts and have an effective range of about 500m (50m less than the newer M16A4) but it still retains higher bullet Velocity and is a lighter round, thus allowing troops to carry more. It also retains its simplicity and ruggedness as an AKM (AK47).
Oh my god I love how biased this is. These guys just want to make the M-16 look better, the damn thing was a rushed firearm, the Kalashnikov was an idea the creator had in bed while he was sick, and it became more widely accepted than the M-16, which was military funded from the beginning. I'm buying an AK-47. The only reason anyone with one of these M-16 series guns can win against an AK is if the AK user is horrendous at shooting.
You do realize the AK had more initial problems than the M16 had? If they had of followed the original specs the M16 never would have had those initial problems that it did have. The M16 is much easier & quicker to get on target no matter who is shooting it. A good shooter with an AK will be faster & more accurate with an AR platform. No way around that. There is a reason the kill ratio in small arms engagements is so lopsided towards the M16 in every conflict where the two went up against each other.
Foch Yoo lol Can't argue that. The AK is fine for closer ranges & it is great fun to shoot but it's crude. The AR is quicker to get on target, easier to keep on target & has a longer range.
shananagans5 And that right there sir, is bullshit. Very first M16 variations lacked the prober dust / sand blocks which was quite common in vietnam. M16 has so small tolerances that even the clustered gunpowder smoke jammed the gun. AK doesnt have such problem as it has huge tolerances. And wrong again. Sure the american peep sights are more accurated than the old "grain" sights, but the grain sights are far more faster and easier to use on moving target. The grain sights are also fairly easy to use compared to US peep sights and barely requires any training to use. M16 have more kills on combat ? Umm based on what ? Do you actually have some documents that states the amount of deads caused by M16 ?
Idiots, compareing a old soviet weapon, disigned right after WW2, still better than the M16, but nowadays DON T COMPARE IT TO THE NEWEST M4's and etc, if you do that, u ll compare 1947-nowadays, so compare the latest US weapons to the latest Russian Federation, not the latest CCCP weapons, ok?
The design of the AK12 is not that much a departure. It just has the charging handle where it should be and some other ergonomic fixes. 5.45x39 mm is a nasty bullet. Better than 5.56, but as you said, it was designed after the 5.56 to be less stable and create bigger wound cavities. That said, the AK series still has the same basic action and the same receiver. It isn't a radical departure from the AKM. The AR because of it's gas impingement design, forged receiver, gas impingement action and higher velocity round with a flatter trajectory is still going to be more accurate. There are fewer heavy moving parts and the receiver doesn't flex as much. The 5.45 hits harder than the 5.56 as the 7.62x38 once did. Not much has changed. The ergonomics on the AK12 is improved. I like both platforms and own each.
I don't know who that guy with the AK is at the shooting range video inserts but I can say for sure he has no training to shoot that weapon. He does not hold the trigger propely etc. And that AK fire selector statement is crap. The AK selector goes much easier to semi position than full.
I enjoyed that little documentary. As a retired Soldier, obviously I know the m16 and it's variants intimately and as a civilian, I enjoy my AR. As I start to become more of a gun hobbyist, I'm looking at getting an AK of some sort. I like that the ammo is somewhat reasonably priced, though as a reloaded I'll need to check out advantages of reloading brass vs. cheap Russian steel ammo. I obviously am not buying an AK for precision. I am considering the wasr10 or the n-pap from century arms, don't want to spend too much money as it's purely a fun gun. Take care y'all.
It's an even. The two guns are opposites. M16: Accurate,lighter but it's not a realiable. AK-47: Not an accurate assault rifle at distances but it's very realiable.
Adam Not really. In urban environment maybe, but in the jungle it can jam easly. Most of the American soldiers in the vietnam war died because their M16's got jammed and they tried to clean it.
John Maverick That was probably because when they issued the M16, they changed over the original powder in the ammunition to an overly corrosive one, the bore and chamber weren't chrome-lined, they didn't issue a cleaning kit with the rifle, and the COs told the troops that it was self-cleaning rifle. And that is false that the majority of the American soldiers died because their rifles jammed and they were cleaning it. There were indeed troops that were killed while they had their rifles disassembled, but it is false to say that the majority of deaths were due to this.
+John Maverick AK accuracy is fine. I can get mine with irons to work better than most AR owners I know who use optics. People just blame the gun for the problems of the operator. Also, though I will admit that the sight system is "simple" as put in the video, the rear sight does have a distance adjustment option specific to range, which the AR system lacks, requiring more shot-by-shot compensation, which results in decreased accuracy and consistency. The AR does have less kick, but with proper technique, AK recoil and muzzle rise are just as manageable without fancy toys on your rifle. ARs just let people get lazy with their form. Most AR users I know don't use proper aggressive forward lean or shoulder posture, which negatively affects cheek weld, shoulder strain, and recoil management. AKs weigh more across the board, which is a definite downside, though the increased weight does help to lower the punch of the 7.62x39's recoil, especially with rifles with reinforced trunions or thickened and/or milled receiver such as the Zastava M70B O-PAP (trunions and receiver) or many Arsenal rifles (milled). The power of the 7.62x39 cartridge is wonderful. I don't think the 5.56 round even comes close to competing, though the wound profile of a 7.62 round isn't that impressive because of its penetration, a fact which the Soviets attempted to address with the 5.45 round used in the AK-74. However, it's a trade off. ARs allow you to give quicker follow up shots, but AKs allow you to shoot through obstacles such as light cover or even most kinds of body armor. Ak reliability is phenomenal, not going to lie. I don't usually clean mine. I don't have to. In fact, not doing a partial clean can actually gum up the action worse than just leaving the thing alone. The biggest benefit of the AR system is that the modern rail systems allow for easy attachment of improved optics or other equipment, which is difficult on AKs. For modern ARs, you can just remove the carry handle and add a red dot or a scope, while AKs require a special mount because the dust cover on the receiver does not allow for attachments. I think of the argument the same way as the ultralight backpacking argument. It isn't about who is right. It just depends on how you prefer your system. Overall, the two can perform at the exact same level on almost all accounts with proper training and familiarity with the system.
Ryan Reese "the rear sight does have a distance adjustment option specific to range, which the AR system lacks" That's wrong. There are many sights that have quick-range adjustments, like the MATECH rear sight.
The AK47 has more recoil because it also a bigger round. It is chambered in 7.62 while M16 is 5.56. The bigger round has more muzzle velocity and the rifle will kick more due to this.
How? 7.62 is a much larger round than 5.56, and also has more powder to burn in the bullet itself. Also, mass=velocity, so since the 7.62 bullet is larger, it has more mass. This means that it is moving much faster than the 5.56 round.
5.56 bullets (the projectile itself, not the cartridge) are much lighter than 7.62x39 bullets so less propellant is required for greater velocities. The most common weight for 5.56 bullets is 55 grains which travels at around 3,000 fps vs 122-125 grains for the 7.62x39 which travels at around 2,400 fps. Weight alone doesn't determine velocity.
@@jazzochannel as per your request, I put together some facts to attest to the quality of the M16A1, as both a machine gun and military grade weapon. I emphasized on the 1st point because it addresses all the issues related to jamming of the gun and the causes. 1. The M16 was designed with a sealed type system so as to prevent mud/ dirt from getting inside the chamber and so mud would not jam the gun when firing contrary to what most ak fanboys say. The only reason the m16 jammed was because it was issued with the wrong ammunition compared to what it was chambered for. The M16 was initially tested and chambered for the Dupont IMR8208M round however as they could not produce the round in the required amount, the government being the ever typical bureaucrats they were, instead switched to the Olin Matheison WC846 'ball' round as an abrupt measure. This ammunition despite achieving the desired muzzle velocity, produced a lot of fouling, causing the bore of the gun's chamber to corrode. Also they didn't issue proper cleaning kits for the m16 and soldiers had reputedly switched to makeshift compounds such as mixtures of insecticides, water and helicopter fuel to clean the gun, which added to the corrosion. However after many soldiers were found dead next to their M16s, a congressional survey conducted found out all the problems with the gun that were later fully corrected. The M16, which now in 1965, was still called the xm16e1, was officially designated the M16A1 and was issued to troops with proper cleaning kits, chambers with chromed bores and barrel linings, forward assists and the birdcage flash suppressor which however came a bit later. Also now the gun had protuberances around the magazine catch which prevented accidental magazine ejections. By 1969, the M16A1 officially replaced the m14 as the standard weapon of the US army. 2. The M16A1 had a loaded weight of 7.5lbs, while the ak weighed 8.65lbs 3. The M16A1 had a effective firing range of 875yds(800m), while the ak had a effective firing range of 380yds(350m). 4. The M16A1 was issued with the 5.56mm NATO round that has a muzzle velocity of (m855A1 round)960m/s, while the ak is chambered in 7.62mm round that has a muzzle velocity of 715m/s. 5. The M16A1 has a forward assist that ensures the bolt moves fully forward feeding a round and also has a trapdoor in the buttstock with place for a cleaning kit, and so, is more egrinomic than an ak. 6. The M16A1 has a rate of fire of 750-900rpm, while the ak has a rate of fire of 600rpm 7. The M16A1 has little recoil compared to an ak so, is more accurate Here are some facts for you to go through, i hope you understand now that the M16A1 is better than the AK-47, contrary to how most sites and videos portray them. Also you may notice how i have specifically mentioned the M16A1, this is because that was the gun that was used in Vietnam.
@@nemindagamage9186 ok. I'm a fan of the AK-47, but it seems indeed that the M16A1 is a superior or more sophisticated design. I'm not a soldier, so for me this is a question of taste. I will most probably never own or even shoot either of the rifles. For me, the simplicity of the AK-47 and the huge cartridges and bullets have a certain appeal, but if I had to drag those things around, I would probably change my opinion after a week or so. Thank for the post.
@@jazzochannel well firstly, i admire your understanding and secondly, yes to us enthusiasts its actually a matter of taste, unless we actually weilded both in a battle. Quite frankly bro, im not trying to enforce interest in the M16 on you, cause there are variants of the kalashnikov that are frankly quite, good too. With that said cheers mate, i hope you expand your knowledge on guns and other weaponry.
Modern AR-15s are very reliable - even more so than AKs. You get 2 types of AR these days: piston & GI. I personally prefer GI but piston is also very reliable and readily available. For AK, I must confess that it is very reliable as well, but i can only carry about 5~6 magazines at the most, where as I can carry over 12 mags with 556 (with full gears) .
+xxmobstrxx 853 no they are all technically akms from the 50s but aks are worse in mud and the hk416 with the a different gas system still an ar 15 is much more reliable than m4s and ar 15s are much easier and faster to reload
Duru no ever heard of the ar24 look it up its based off of the ar15 platform I said the hk416 is better than the m4 and it is because of the different gas system its been shown to be more reliable
When i was in the army,we had round targets 100 m away on the practice.With my AK-47 i managed to get 4 out of 5 shots in the center (black dot,about 7-8 cm in diameter).I have never even seen M-16 in real life,but i can say that AK is one highly accurate assault rifle.
pusti amere glupe nemaju pojma vidis da su uzeli zadnju seriju m16 a prvu kalasnjikovog... prva serija kalasnjikovog je imala klin umesto nisana, da su uzeli zadnju koja je izasla kad i zadnja m16 videli bi sami sve
AK47 is the best in the world!!!!
согласен.калаш калаш калааааааааш!
Yea AK-47's are the best
Prefiero el galil que el AK 47
Prefiero el galil que el AK 47
Edison Siew actouly the AK-47 isn't the best in the world I would prefer the C7 but I still respect your opinion I'm not trying to be rude though and sorry for my crapy spelling
To all the guys who keep saying this video is propaganda that favors the M16...please watch the whole thing before you say something foolish.
The entire 2nd half of the video does nothing but praise the AK47 on the battlefield.
8:59 the In close quarters battle the M16’s accuracy could not gaurantee victory.
9:05 The AK47 had the advantage of easy to maintain construction.
9:15 The AK47 has the advantage of remarkable simplicity.
9:30 The AK47 had the advantage if combat deteriorated into hand to hand combat because of its steel and wood construction were the M16 would break.
10:15 The M16 was jamming in combat due to dirty gun powder and no cleaning gear. Soldiers were told it was self cleaning and it wasn’t.
11:00 A gun that needs cleaning in combat could cost soldiers their lives.
12:10 Clean or not the AK47 will always fire.
12:50 No matter what the US soldiers did it was easier to make an M16 jam than an AK47.
13:35 Sand was no hazard to the AK47.
14:05 The M16 could not match the stunning reliability of the AK47.
15:05 The M16 bullet fails to penetrate 2 blocks of pine wood while the AK47 succeeds.
17:30 The AK47 continues to show its effectiveness in battles around the world.
"The M16 is a surgical tool" glorification through high specialisation methaphore that says : M16 is like a doctor that tries to save lives. "AK is blunt stick" Methaphore that says clearly that the weapon is primitive and used by less developed countries. Clearly propaganda material. You are right it says a lot that is true about the AK, but it creates an unfriendly setting towards the AK, repeating all the time that the US rifle is "High-tech" or that AK is simplistic and not accurate. It will be less accurate than M16, but at 200m my grandfather was able to hit the standard military target 5 times out of 5 on the range when he was in the army. So... yeah.
Both are weapons made to kill other people, and that doesn't make one more sophisticated than the other. Also, Soviets have changed to AK74 way in 1970, to counter the NATO 5,56mm round with 5,45mm. It would be a closer match.
SoltyII I think its pretty accurate. Not propaganda in my opinion but hey thats what opinions are for right? Everyone has a right to one.
The AK is from an older school of thought and manufacturing (except for the milled versions of course) but the stamped steel and rivets is or was popular with less developed countries. Thats not an insult, its just a fact.
I wouldn't take that as an insult. I would be proud of that fact because look at the performance of stamped steel and rivets has shown when put up against CNC machined modern style weapons. Its still kicking ass to this day. Thats should be a source of pride.
Nothing to be ashamed of. They are simplistic. They are primitive weapons...but that in itself appeals to warriors. Knives, swords, spears, and now AK's....they are timeless primitive weapons in some peoples opinion. To an engineer they my look down on an AK but to a warrior...simple is often looked up to. Its a matter of perspective.
I am an American who was trained on the M16...and I have nothing but respect for the old AK. I think any true firearms enthusiast should be wise enough to appreciate both weapons for their strengths & weaknesses.
mixflip the M16 is more accurate than the AK but the AK does more damage than the M16 but the M16 AV the C7 I would pick the C7 because it's more accurate then the M16 and it shoot farther and it doesn't have the forward assist button. If you press the forward assist button it will make sure the bullet is pushed forward in the chamber so it doesn't jam.
Paul de la Haye lol I ment VS not AV sorry for that crapy spelling
Paul de la Haye
When it comes to close encounters ( which many are ) the ak47 is accurate enough and more deadly. In Iraq and Afghan in close encounters in the city many US Marines have taken Ak-47's from dead assailants because in close quarters combat you don't need MOA accuracy.. at that close of range it doesn't really matter that your bullet is 1/2 an inch off where you intended because the AK round will hit with much greater force, knockdown power, and make a bigger hole - it is more likely to induce shock - which is stopping power in itself. Lets nor forget also that the M16 being used by 'most' US forces shoots a 3 round burst at best - unless its in single shot mode. Meaning ....If you're alone and getting attacked by multiple assailants you'll fight them off better with a AK with 7.62x39 at close range then a 5.56.. you can spray an AK and make a wall of lead taking down more enemies at once then possible ( at close range ) then with an M16.. Of course if you have a SAW thats a different story
Now if Im in a jungle or shooting at a range over 150 yards I'd likely choose the 5.56 round.. but I'd rather have a .good 308 with a Leupold HAMR over the 5.56 in those situations where you need both power and great accuracy...
I would prefer Kalashnikov. It's more reliable, more dust proof, more target destructive, less jamming machine.
***** You say: " Its the rifleman that counts not the rifle ".
So do you want to say you're not able to use AK 47 ?
i would use a g36
***** yeah or that
*****
Yeah , I threw away my M16A3 for an AKM. . . AND NEVER LOOKED BACK !
I owe my life to Kalashnikov ! Thank GOD for that man's design.
Mayor Fuglycool
*****
What does that mean ? That weak men cannot fire it ?
AKM saved my life ! M16A3 jammed on me like a copy machine at kinkos !
Mayor Fuglycool
I have to admit if i were stuck in a survival situation id choose the ak47 even though i love to shoot the ar platform
Benson Enterprises LLC ak are not that inaccurate, thats just fucking propaganda by Americans who wanna be really patriotic. ( im american too btw, but im not biased) If the ak was so bad at accuracy why does the whole world still use it today. If it were bad it would of been replaced but it doesn't it keeps being produced because it WORKS, you can treat the weapon like a bitch and its still reliable. Apart from that the bullets are actually cheaper and a 7.62 bullet is much more lethal than a .223 or 5.56. Let me remind you what happened in vietnam, some fucking poor vietnamese soldiers were making the most powerful military in the world struggle. Remind me what weapon were the vietnamese using and remind which weapon was failing? The ak is the ultimate survival weapon, it doesnt matter if its rusty, you can fill it with twinkies and still shoots. If i were in combat i wouldnt want a weapon that could possibly end up jamming and having me killed. Ak is also cheaper to produce.
+Feteasca Alba self employed haha you got mad because i don't agree with you. Just because you wanna defend the gun your country made doesn't mean it was better maybe its more accurate but if you watched the video you would of realized that our own troops were shitting on the m16 and would even pick up ak47s. the m16 was better when they compared accuracy but when it was time for real combat the ak was taking a dump on the u.s army and those poor vietnamese showed us haha. Stop trying to act like you know better because you're an older fart because anyone reading your comments can see that you only defend it because you think you're a patriot. Whats the use of an m16 being so accurate at really long distances if most wars are fought at closer ranges, which. the u.s army admitted to by now deploying the shorter barrel m4.
@Rara Neagra i will use action bolt AK to be more accurate during hunting games.
M16A1 all the way. M16 & AK-47 fall short when being compared to the M16A1.
I personally would still take an AR platform. Mainly because you can use 223 and 556 if you have the right set up. It allows you to carry much more ammo. That, and the reputation that AR platforms have for unreliability when 30 is a relic of the Vietnam era. My M4 got daily use and Afghanistan, and I didn't clean it nearly as much as some people would think.( I always felt she fired better with a little carbon built up.)
I can also deal with firing an M4 without earpro for a while. It makes everything sounds like it's in a tin can, but the AK felt like it was going to blow my eardrums out. After a couple of Decades of shooting, I would also take the weapon that I can still fire accurately at over 600 yards.
The reason for the Vietnamese soldiers to get close to the American was not just because of the gun but also to minimize the advantage of artillery and air support. The American soldiers were too dependent on those kinds of support so they used them every time. When this advantage gone, there were nothing they could do but retreat.
You are 200% correct.
American soldiers were superior to the VC in gun fights. Yes reliance on air support was strong, but training was also superior.
Had the Vietnamese war gone on any longer, Vietnam would have surrendered. They were being absolutely destroyed by the US infantry and air support.
+Loogielicker69 True.
***** The tet offensive had been crushed, we were killing 10 of their men for every one of ours that died, the North Vietnamese army was preparing to surrender, and the vietcong resistance was in shambles
This tactic is called "Hugging"
Ak47 is the best in the world!
I agree.
I agree too, I love my AK
me too
.
علي abid Not many, especially in situations in this video like vietnam, the AK is a natural born vietnam weapon, not born in vietnam but took a toll on america in vietnam cause it is more of a war rifle than an M16
yeah but the ak has a 1 shot headshot at any range on the map.... wait..
Michael A joke for Counter-Strike players.
Real life is when you get shot and the only time you don't die is if something vital isn't hit, which is impossible
MooseTheSyrupMan _"A joke for Counter-Strike players."_
I am quite aware as to what happens if you get shot in real life.
I know that.
Straight God Hater
Far easier to make an AK accurate than it is to make an M16 reliable. Love my AK.
it's a myth that the AK is inaccurate and the AR is unreliable.
M16 reliability issues are based on Vietnam era weapons that were rushed into combat by a ordnance dept that didn't want them, didn't properly R&D them and weren't above sabotaging the fielding of them. Once they figured out what the issues were (which would have been discovered during a normal R&D process), the m16 performed just fine. Like Mixflip said, it is a myth that an M16 is unreliable, and it is the weapon of choice by many elite units that can literally pick the weapon they want to use.
I was in the military from 1987 to 1990. Got to handle an AK47 for the first time in BCT. Liked it so much I bought one when I got out. My AK has a chrome lined target barrel and aftermarket sights. Accuracy is fine considering. You should seek out an anger management provider.
I would entertain that.
Ron Armstrong
m16 was used in the Vietnam war, soldiers regularly changed their weapon fore the AK because the m16 was jamming dew to humidity. the AK had no trouble firing in any weather condition.
+Benson Enterprises LLC Shutup idiot. They're not lies, Aks are better in every single situation exept long range, but in vietnam long range ingagements were not common.
The videos were all taken with newly deployed units.
***** What? I shoot Ak's and m4 platforms all the time.
***** A 13 year old wouldn't even be in highschool.
I play airsoft and I hunt/shoot real guns kiddo.
***** Shutup kiddo. I'm not a teenager, I just play airsoft as a military simulation.
I hunt, fish, and hike multiple times every year.
The m16 is an absolutely shit gun compared the any Ak. It jams like hell, it has barley any penetration, and it simply a terrible gun. I've had miserable experinces using it, even my grandpa (who was a green beret medic in vietnam) said the gun jammed alot and that they were at a dissadvantage in terms of weapons.
***** Kiddo, I own a Ar15 with an EOtech and a Beretta Px4 Storm. I used to own an Akm and an AK74u
RIP Mihkal Klashnikov.... We remember your for the stereotypical badguy gun
Top kek.
Gryazev-Shipunov Thanks
+Jorge Martinez I don't think you understand the joke.
Terrorists tainted the Kalashnikov's name, as well as the peaceful name of Islam.
there's not such thing as badguy gun or whatever u dumbass.., both are meant to kill ppl
Why the fuck are we fighting between 2 assault rifles
MLGblazeIt420MAX gotta love the internet right?
THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE.
m8 stop spraying with the ak and get those 1 taps
It also doesn't need perks to make it better
in REAL batlle i will choose AK-47, won a lot of war...just my opinion, my personal choice.
first off - that's the M16A1 not the original M16 - second, that is _not_ an AK-47 or AK-M, that's a Chinese Type 56 as you can tell from the muzzle.
Wanna compare them? Look at the world wide body counts done by each rifle.
The AK47 wins that in strides. Which means it has proven it self time and time again.
+Nunya Bidness That's more due to the fact that the AK is mass produced and is constantly used in so many fights. For the most part the militaries in the middle east exclusively use AKs.
the reason its used is because its cheap, and reliable if you put forward a few hundred more you can get a good M16, M4, or AR15
+Nicholas Geil Or with a few hundred more you can buy the more modern weapons from the AK series.
+Nunya Bidness that are still cheap shit that dumbasses use, why is it that most allied country's use it over the AK? it's better... why would we use a worse gun, you have Probley never picked up an AK, I own a WASR 10 which is an AK and its a crap gun
+Nicholas Geil There are so many problems with the M16 at a fundamental value that it's not even funny.
When I say modern weapons from the AK series, I don't mean the WASR I mean the AK101, AK74, AK-12, AK102, AK103 etc. Those guns take the fundamental designs that made the AK47 a good weapon and improved upon it. Such as using a smaller round.
Even the AK47 it self is a great gun. Otherwise it would not be used world wide.
Sure it's cheap. But its also a good gun. The M16 is too finicky of a gun to be used in most environments.
About the accuracy test on 200 yards in this video im just wondering about what kind of AK-47 he used. I am 57 yeras old and got my very very first gun 7 months ago, August, 2018 (M&P9 M2.0) and got my very first rifle which was Romanian AK-47 with Red Russian stock from Atlantic Firearms ($800+) the following month. Never fired firearms prior to purchasing my guns but when i tried my AK-47 in a 200 yard target outdoor how come i can hit the bull's eye 4 of 5 and the other one slightly out of bull's eye....using just the iron sight.
Facts :
Ak47 is more accurate than you may think.
M16 is more reliable than you may think.
Ak becomes better easy like valmet ak where they just places sight in back of gun instead of middle
Ak-47 Is best.
+pixelboss 88 i think that ak 74 m is much better
so true, thank you for telling them this!
xenomorphelv426
I hate saying this but the AK is a better gun, cheaper, reliable and simple. the m16 lost in every war. if your taking about an m4a1 then then the m4 obviously won
rifles dont lose wars. Politics lose wars.
so true, but the new AK 47 is better than m4 in every way
the m16 design is more accurate and is nearly as reliable. also the ak has been adopting many of the attributes of the m16 over the years because it is a better philosophy. more ammo less recoil better accuracy equals more hits and is why ak74 came into existence.
Just give me an AK and stay out of my way.
Soo.... LMAO. Opinions Vary. Ever been in Combat?
AR is beast.
@@Tikii_9 No
47 is a stray dog can survive at outside, 16 is your sweet pet always need your attention
2:00 no actually it flexes because the barrel is pinned into the front trunion which is attached to the reciever and the standard thickness of a reciever is 1mm but if you shoot a milled reciever ak platform in slow motion the barrel will not flex
M16 lost 3 wars , AK-47 did oposite...
How can a rifle lose a war?
Ur dumb
Stefan Krstic You're*
aplause....
Go fuck your self im not english it matters that you get the point....
Reliability is the most admired in people on the battlefield .... if m-16 comes in contact with water, mud, sand etc. it can be used only as a club until you clean
Leo73srb no it can't, it would brake apart
AK is more powerful, higher capacity, accurate for it's bullets. I do love American weapons, but in here AK wins.
1) AK is more powerful....by about 5%....and it's bullet doesn't do as much damage to human tissue as an M16 bullet will.
2) the standard capacity for either the AK or M16 is 30 rounds. HOWEVER, M16 ammo is lighter so you can carry more 5.56 for the same weight as 7.62 (one reason why the Soviets switched to 5.45mm). And weight IS extremely important. If you'd ever been a soldier you'd know that.
3) The AK round is not inherently more accurate than an M16 round. In fact, it has horrible ballistic coefficient, is slow for a rifle round and has a lobbing ballistic trajectory, all of which makes it inherently less accurate.
armynurseboy
AK however is different for it's rounds. The AK goes up when you fire, it doesn't burst the ammo around it. Why do you think they switched to M16A2? Because the weapon was constantly jamming.
AlphaLeader772 they switched to the M16 A2 because they wanted better long range accuracy. The6 fixed the jamming issue witj the A1 during Vietnam. And you really have no idea what you are talking about. Burst the ammo around it....?????? WTF does that mean?
armynurseboy during the recoil some weapons start shooting around, while the accurate weapons go up. When you are shooting at target the weapon goes up, while some weapons go around the target. They switched to A2 because of the weapon constantly jamming because of the auto fire. You people barely know anything about the AK. My dad who was amateur learned to shoot with that gun and said it was the most accurate. Imagine amateur saying a weapon is accurate.
Uhm no. They switched to burst on A2s because the powers that be felt that full auto for regular troops was a waste of ammo. It was a mechanical solution to a training issue.
And no, an AK has waaaaay more muzzle climb than an M16, especially on full auto AND THAT IS A BAD THNIG. That is not an indicator of how accurate a weapon is. That is a indicator of poor controllability. Measure of accuracy is how tight you can make bullet groupings on target. That is usually expressed by Minute of Angle (MOA), which is 1" at 100m. AKs, at best shoot, 4MOA (4 inch groups at 100m). An M16 can shoot under 1MOA, but generally shoot around 2. That's why the Soviets switched to 5.45mm, to help eliminate the recoil and muzzle climb the 7.62mm round has which has a negative affect on accuracy. M16s barely have any recoil. If you've ever shot either one you'd know that.
If the AK is so bad then why are so many American patriots using the weapon? Its not a bad rifle, in fact its one of the best.
Same could be said about the M16/AR15. Many American patriots are using it also.
mixflip
But none outside US! In my country NO ONE is using M16/AR15! But everyone is using AKs!
Linus Magnus Because no country will sell them to your country. US refuses to export them to anyone except militaryin counttries that are part of NATO, and other organizations.
Actually the reason why so many Americans use it is because its cheaper than most modern AR type rifles, especially ammo. And almost ALL AKs have to be modified when coming into the country, much of the parts are swapped out for american parts, including the barrel, and some other major parts. In all actuality there is not true AK in America.
Its the cheapest and one of the most easy to disable and reassemble and it still is a good weapon but no where near one of the best assault rifles no way weapons experts know this thats why only 3rd world nations and rebels use it trained killers use more sophisticated weapons destroying shit when they go into combat.
AK-47 can work after snow, sand, dirt. Shit, it can work under water. What a hell are you talking about???
***** Looks like the ignorant here is you. By many years there being million of tests, and its proven AK is much better than a shity m-16
Good lord. Saw the title of this video, clicked it, scrolled down and sure enough, the comments section is just as dumb as I thought it would be.
Its a sight to behold isn't it LOL
mixflip Damn right! It would be one thing if half these people had ever even owned a gun, but all this is just something else.
Bill Melater You're idiots aren't you?
Xeron 27 I can't even understand what you tried to ask there.
Bill Melater Really?
3:47
left guy:"awww you're so cute"
Lol
100 million rebels can't be wrong.
+beatonthedonis47 Because there is 100 million AK-47s doesn't mean there is or was 100 million rebels.
That AK couldn't hit at 200 yards! There was definitely something wrong with that particular gun.
+WeSRT4 Something wrong with an AK? Impossible!
There was definitely something wrong with the shooter :)
Or that particular shooter
But we have to admit, the AK47 is much more iconic.
Thanks for the laughs, gentlemen. It is painfully obvious who has never even fired an AK 47 or M16, much less had to rely on it in a combat situation. The age of the weapon has nothing to do with its effectiveness. The weapon's caliber, rate of fire, ability to handle bad weather conditions, accuracy and weight all do. In jungle warfare or heavy vegetation, impact or where range is important, the M16 falls short of the AK47. The quality and training of the soldier carrying the M16 can bridge some of that gap.
the main issue at the time was all the people being drafted weren't actually fully trained either. It's all about the man behind the rifle. My father owns both rifles and can be equally accurate with both. I wish the same could be said for me, but he was trained since he was 17. Like I said it comes down to the man behind the machine.
the main issue at the time was all the people being drafted weren't actually fully trained either. It's all about the man behind the rifle. My father owns both rifles and can be equally accurate with both. I wish the same could be said for me, but he was trained since he was 17. Like I said it comes down to the man behind the machine.
The AK is not nearly as inaccurate as this piece is implying. I smell bias.
ak 47 is way better, in war ak-47 is the most effective assault rifle
***** :D I live in a 'ak-47 country' we had civil wars and shit with ak-47 and they are very easy hold, and everyone says it's the best... they all used it and know how it is, every single one says good words about it....
Foch Yoo ***** It's not vietnam guys, it's albania firstly, secondly foch yoo is a total dumbass. thanks for your attention.
Foch Yoo Only a tiny fraction of those Vietnamese deaths were at the hands of small arms. In major wars like that, the biggest killers are artillery, aircraft, mines, and IEDs.
If you include all other conflicts the AK is pretty competitive for body count.
Foch Yoo get your facts straight
*****
ive heard some marines using AK in some situations, ditching theyr M16 for ak ? Fuck no.
First of all, US doesnt have 7.62x39 at all in anyway so they wouldnt be able to get ammo for AK.
2nd, M16 and AK both have very different sound, in vietnam it was mostly jungle and often you didnt even see the opponent so you were just shooting at where the gun sound came or where u saw the muzzle flash.
If the marines would have used AK in widescale that would have lead to higher friendly fire casualties.
Yes, M16 was prone to jam which mostly was because of wrong gunpowder used in ammunition and the lack of knowledge of treating the gun.
Sure, there are no debate that in any named circumstances the AK is more reliable than any of M16 / M4 thats simply because AK's tolerances are far far far larger than M16 / M4.
How ever both guns have the pros and cons over each other and in competent hands both guns are very deadly.
I’ve used the M16 while I was in the military and have a couple of AR’s but the AK is my go to rifle and favorite amongst the two!
I liked following you. I thought you were doing a great job of showing us different overlanding rigs. This post makes me question my loyalty. While this is interesting as a history of guns, it gives me insight into what your interests are, which are not the same as mine. thanks for work you had done.
It's simple, you want more accuracy you choose M16 and it's series, you want more power you go with AK47. But then again, AK has normal accuracy when it's not fully automatic and I think switching rifle to fully auto isn't a good idea unless you're a "bad guy" from Hollywood movies.
The muzzle energy of a 5.56x45 (M16) round and a 7.62x39 (AK47) round are quite similar 1854 joules VS 2045 joules or approximately 10% different.
Contrary to what most people think, you do not need an "armor piercing round" to penetrate armor. Velocity is the key.
And, since the M16 round carries it's energy more in the form of velocity and less in the form of mass, theoretically it should penetrate armor better than the AK round.
Of course, both rounds have so much energy that the point is moot. Either round will walk through a 1/2 inch think steel plate at 100 yards (and I'm talking plain old lead core, not "armor piercing"), so Kevlar is just a joke.
As far as Hollywood movies, don't take ANYTHING they say or show as "gun fact". Most movies and actors violate every safety rule in the book, and how their firearms are portrayed is 99% fantasy (such as the 10,000 round magazine that never runs out or the gun that never ejects shell casings or the big boob bimbo that carries her pistols with her fingers dangerously on the triggers while doing flips and cartwheels).
It's sad actually that so many actors are rabidly anti-gun, yet they have guns and violence in every one of their movies. The ultimate in hypocrisy.
Jack Ripper
"The muzzle energy of a 5.56x45 (M16) round and a 7.62x39 (AK47) round are quite similar 1854 joules VS 2045 joules or approximately 10% different"
maybe...but the 5.56 round will loose its energy pretty fast since its a light bullet. this vid and any vid frankly...shows the ak round as the best armor piercing of the two. none of the two will penetrate half an inch steel though haha. a car door is just fraction of that..
Petter sæthre
Don't know why you would say "none will penetrate 1/2 inch steel plate". Maybe not in video games, but in real life I've punched holes through 1/2 inch thick mild steel (not armor) plate at 50 yards with both 7.62x39 FMJ rounds (Golden Tiger out of an AKM) and 5.56x45 (55 grain FMJ Federal military surplus XM-193).
A car door is thin steel sheet - a .22LR will go through a car door.
Makes me laugh when anti-gun whiners flip out over when an ordinary pistol or rifle round goes through a car door and start calling for "bans on armor piercing ammo". Idiots.
16:22 that's bullshit. on the ak full auto is in the center so when a panicking soldier flipped down the safety hard it would be in semi so he would not spend al the ammo.
Aknamaf Kalashnikov model of 1947 also known as AK-47 Kalashnikov is it weapon that All fighters love to use it doesn't break Jam or overheats it can fire wether it is covered in sand filled with mud it's so it is a use that even a nine-year-old can use it because of the tolerances and it doesn't matter who has manufactured or what machinery this is why it is a superior weapon to all other rifles
If you go all around and look at the whole picture, the AK platform is a better gun, for the average person who's given a gun, told to fight wherever they are in the world and doesn't have the cleaning kit or lubrication the AR would need. the AK will get it done
The AK-47's selector switch is built to encourage SEMI while under stress. It's all the way down so that when you're panicking you won't overflip it to full and not hit anything
This is a very biased comparison. The first thing they talk about is the list of materials the weapons are made of, and they cover the advantages of the M16 ... but they don't really cover the disadvantages or the effect of the difference. How much lighter is one than the other? How much less durable is the M16 compared to the AK?
Then they get into accuracy, and they specifically talk about accuracy in full auto. No one is going for marksmanship in full auto. Full auto is for suppressive fire, not for actually hitting anyone. If you're aiming to actually hit, you shoot one bullet at a time. The degree to which the M16 is more accurate is negligible in practical application as an anti personnel weapon.
In the accuracy test, they must have had a junk gun, or a terrible marksman shooting, or both. The MOA on a decent M16 or AR equivalent is 1 - 2. The MOA on a decent AK is 2 -3. That's 2 - 3 inches from point of aim at 100 yards, which becomes 4 - 6 at 200 yards. A decent shot with a decent gun should have put all of those rounds within a hand sized circle on that paper. Excellent builds of each are about 1 MOA less, so an excellent AK should have a 1 - 2 MOA, and an excellent M16 should have a 1 MOA.
Regarding the weight of the bullet, while it's true a faster bullet is more accurate, a heavier bullet is more accurate in wind because it can't be blown around so easily. Additionally the heavy bullet is also anti-material ... which means you can shoot people through walls, trees, vehicles, etc...
Additionally, this video seems to be completely ignoring the fact that Kalashnikov came out with another model to compete with the M16. The AK-74 fires a bullet that's very similar in size and ballistics to the 556 of the M15, so this whole argument is a moot point.
In the end, the M16 has a marginal advantage in weight, but we're only talking about a pound, and a negligible advantage in accuracy. The AK has the M16 beat in durability, utility, reliability, and penetration, and all those by a long shot. A more honest analysis puts the AK far ahead of the M16.
I think your opinion is also slightly biased toward the AK. I would hardly call the difference of 1 MOA "negligible". It doesn't matter if your bullet is less affected by wind if it's also inherently less accurate. Unless you have god on your side, a shot off target will *remain* off target, wind or no wind.
In the actual rifle, yes, the weight of one M16 compared to one AK-47 will not be much of a big deal. If you mean actual use, IE, "I have to carry 200+ rounds of ammunition for this thing for 10 hours a day", that bigger bullet actually results in a LOT more weight.
I also think you're drinking the Vietnam vet kool-aid with the "reliability/durability". I've seen vets swear the m14 is years more reliable than the m16, yet you can watch videos of an M1a jamming up after 1-2 rounds in stress testing with mud/sand, and watch an AR-15 mag dump in the same conditions. They *used* to be unreliable, but they worked the kinks out over time.
And utility definitely does *not* go to the AK. You can have an 10.5 inch SBR with a red dot sight and change it into a 20 inch SPR with a high powered optic just by removing some pins and switching the upper. Utility is one of the platforms strong points if anything.
ZombieTex well your right sir.
ZombieTex Love this Comment! :D
Full auto isn't for hitting people? Yeah, 15 bullets flying down range every second and none of them are supposed to hit the enemy. That's bullshit. Automatic has plenty of uses at close and medium range other than just suppressive fire.
I have a lot of experience with both weapon families. Not an expert, though.
With good ammunition and a well made rifle, the military M4A1 carbine with issues m855 is capable of about 2 MOA. I have shot civilian AR carbines that fire .75 MOA with match grade 69 grainers.
I fired everything from Mahdis, Tabuks, Saigas, Norincos, and Arsenals. With standard M47 steel cased rounds, they are usually 3-4 MOA guns. With match grade brass 122 grainers and an arsenal, I've seen 1.5 MOA achieved.
I think a lot of the capability of these guns come down to the quality of the build and the quality of the ammo. With mass produced service ammo, the AR is much more accurate, but at the ranges most gunfights happen that is not as much of an advantage as is supposed. At 100 meters, what does it matter if my groups with an ak are 2" wider? Combat accuracy is just not that demanding.
I fired thousands of rounds in Iraq and Afghanistan and never had a jam, but that's because I never shot it full auto. On full auto, both guns can't handle much. m4s jam up after just a few minutes of high rate fire, and AKs have been known to light their hand guards on fire or rip cases in half. No free lunch.
I say they're both awesome and I wouldn't be mad whichever I had to fight with. Same with the FAL, M14, AUG or M110.
They should be comparing the AK-74 with M4, the current main battle rifles.
@@Straya09 The AK-74 was introduced in the mid 70s and was the main Soviet battle rifle around the time they did this comparison. Comparing the AK47 and the M16 is apples and oranges. The AK74 and M16 are a much closer comparison. IMHO.
I thought Russia used the AK-12 & AK-15. They also use the AK-100 series. The AK-101 can fire 5.56mm ammo so that would be a good comparison with the same ammo.
Never had a M16 actually work when I needed it to work.
We all know the ak47 STRONK
you know you're going to have a bad day when your weapon stops working if touch it before washing hands and then you have to spend an hour cleaning it in surgical environment while using a comic book as your guide.
That's really ignorant of you to say.
lol your full of bs, an m16 is like any other tool. you have to clean it. a man with an ak can be dropped by a marine at a few hundred yards with a headshot.
I think the ak 47 kicks ass, its an unfair comparison 1947 old weapon compared to a modern weapon...should be compred to the modern aks now available to be fair...
they should compare with AK74
yea or the newer ones .....
Big Bick
AK74 is from 1974. AK101 would be a more modern comparison as it was developed in 1994. But maybe you are right as this M16 is very old.
Big Bick or AK 12
U can't compare a rifle built in 1940s to a rifle built in 1970s. It's like comparing windows 95 with windows 10.
Sure you can....its called....the Vietnam war. They went head to head in combat.
@@mixflip who lost that war?
@@johnbob914 thebwar was lost in Washington DC not on the battlefield. Everybody knows that. The hippie culture and the anti war movement became mainstream so it became impossible to destroy our enemy with all our military might like we did in WW2. Politicians lost Vietnam.....not the military.
That's common knowledge.
@@mixflip exactly, it wasnt a pure comparison of the weapons
Windows 10 sucks
It's a pointless debate. Where one fails the other succeeds. They both have pro's and cons. What is often not discussed is the doctrine behind the design of both rifles, which is very different.
I'll pick up an AK anytime, any situation...
Well not ANY situation...
And get smoked going up against a M16.
Having fired both the AK and M16, they are approximately equal weapons. They are very good at different things, so declaring that one is better than the other doesn't actually make sense.
The M16 and M4 are highly precise, in following with the American tradition of rifle precision. I can list off details of the M16 system that make it a very good rifle. However, in dusty and muddy environment (which seem to be the only places wars are fought in), the close fit between parts makes it highly susceptible to jamming. I cleaned my rifle at least once a week in Afghanistan whether I fired it or not. Every week, there was always more dust to clear out of the action that would otherwise have caused a malfunction.
The AK family of rifles (AK-47, AKM, AK-74, and so on) are much more focused on simply hitting the target. In the late 1940's, the Soviet military didn't care about precise fire. They were working with a very large conscript army, there was simply no feasibly way to train every one of their soldiers to the same level of marksmanship that American soldiers were trained to. Their philosophy at the time was "just hit the guy". Like the video says, the AK is also much more forgiving of dirty environments. It doesn't mind sand or dirt or mud nearly as much as the M16. You still have to clean it, but it's also a far simpler process. Yes, the AK is a good bit heavier than an M16. It is far simpler to field-strip and clean, and requires less intensive maintenance when you do clean it. This is a trait common to Russian infantry rifles across the 20th century. I can run 200 rounds through my SKS, snake out the bore, wipe off the bolt, and put it back together without worry that it will function the next time I have to clean it. I could just not clean it, and that rifle will work.
I can kill a human out to 300 meters with an M16, no question. I also spent a great deal of time on a range, practicing the skills that go into marksmanship (I was in the Army for seven years). With an AK, it's not about making a clean shot to center-mass like the M16. If I am standing on a battlefield three hundred meters in depth, facing someone else of equal skill, whoever is armed with an M16 will most likely win if it is only a question of precision. Make the two of us live in the mud for a month, the guy with the AK may well have a better-functioning rifle at the end of it. If my M16 jams and his AK doesn't, I am done.
The AK versus M16 argument is just silly. You're both right and both wrong.
Oh, and it has been said on good authority that the three-position safety on the AK was designed that way because a frightened infantryman wouldn't really be able to switch from "safe" to "automatic". When stressed, the human body loses a lot of fine motor skills. When that scared 18 year old kid reaches up and flips the safety level downward, he will almost always jump past the automatic setting to semi-automatic. Moving that safety one position at a time takes a bit too long when you're being shot at.
Well Said Brother. Most on this post have packed no gear. Let alone faced Combat Opinions Vary. I believe the Man is the weapon. The weapon is the tool. Superior training and Morale wins. Even with that pathetic M16.) Semper Fi
M16 the best in the world!!!!
lol
you're crazy ....
m4 carbine is smaller
fuckn yank
Much better at accuracy, ergonomics, modularity and light weight? I dont think so.
Propaganda at it's FINEST
Fucking AK is war ready..coming from a owner of both rifles
What's better, a screw driver or a wrench?
If it is a matter of life and death I would pick the wrench.
Ayush Raj wrench=AK47
3:47 the ak47 guy he's holding it like a baby 👶😂
It's like he loves his baby.
Nice piece on firearm history. No mention of the Sturmgewehr 44, the first modern, "assault rifle" (at leas in this segment). Kalashnikov denied ever admitting it influenced his design, but the similarities are unmistakable.
Soo, basically, the AK47 is beaten in accuracy by the M16 because of more modern materials. So if I get an AK12 or any modern AK made with modern materials, it will be the same, if not better, than the M16? And lighter ammo is always better? I'm sorry, but I would rather put heavier bullets into a precision rifle than lighter bullets, due to the lighter bullets being tossed around by wind more.
Aswell as if I get an AK that was precisely machined, it would also make it superior to an M16?
Guns&Games well if we are gonna talk about modern am let's also talk about the modern m16 trust me shit doesn't break with a butt stroke being a marine myself I prefer the lighter rounds and my rounds hitting their targets what good is a bit of extra power of it fails at about 200-300ish meters I can hit targets at 600 with no problems firing an Sk granted (not the most modern one but still modern type) shit was fucking stupid my m4 still much more accurate people seem to think a 5.56 can't kill cus what 7.62 round hits harder well no shit it hits harder but guess what a 5.56 will still fuck you up
rudy gutierrez I was not questioning the lethality of a 5.56, and I do prefer the lighter weight, low recoil and more accuracy of the 556, neither am I questioning the useability or functionality of either weapon, but what I've come to realise is that we are fucking morons, because we are literally comparing a Formula 1 race car to a Ford Focus RS modded to the max for offroad, both are good cars, but the F1 car beats the Ford Focus by a longshot on a circuit on road, but you will rather take the Ford Focus for a rally over the F1 car. Both are good, but they were meant to race on different race tracks, one can't take a single pebble in the middle of the road and it will spin out, but the other one can have a fucking boulder in the middle of the road and it will be fine, it's the exact same for our guns here. The M4 beats the AK in urban combat, but the AK's durability is unbeatable, and I would rather take a gun into the muddiest and sandiest places that will actually function and shoot, rather than one that performs better "on range" and will not work when I actually need it.
***** Funny how you still consider AK shit when Russians are in general more advanced at warfare compared to Americans and they hide their inventions instead of showing and selling like Americans do.Silly ass
***** You fuck off right now because you're the one being a fucking bitch so shut up
Guys, they're both good weapons. So can we please not cause a fight over this?
I agree
I'll take an AK over an m16 in most situations. If an m16 fails, you'd better have a sidearm. If an ak fails.. Well it won't.
ThatGuyonUA-cam when it does (and it can) what do you do now?
Feteasca Alba self employed i watch a video of it firing a thousand rounds to point its hand guard is burning. If an Ak failed it's the ammo fault not the gun.
Good video. And the winner is situation-dependent.
The AR-15/M16 is prettier, but if I have to trust my life to a rifle that I KNOW will go bang, every time, it's Kalashnikov for me.
They are comparing 2 rifles that fought against each other in Vietnam...regardless of their caliber difference. The US had the M16 and the Vietcong had the AK47. The AK74 is closer to the 5.56mm but thats only because Russia developed it "after" seeing the M16 perform in Vietnam. Granted the M16 had a rough start, but in general the M16 did do well after the first year which a lot of haters fail to mention.
mixflip Primarily because they learned they had to baby the rifle a lot more than the older M14s.
However doing better than what it had been is not much of an accomplishment seeing as how unreliable it was when it first entered service. Even now M16/M4 pattern rifles require a lot more effort to maintain than other weapons. Something the fan boys fail to mention.
AK-47 is the battlefield King
@Dumisani Nkosi still more reliable than m16 but I am hk416 guy
@@saman-iw9tx HK416 is sexy
@@mixflip I watch ur vids, shot show, cars, trucks, cool shows, much love from Saudi Arabia 🇸🇦❤
AK-47 straight up is better. i don't need to watch this video, the AK-47 can be thrown in a muddy puddle then thrown in the ocean and it will still fire with deadly accuracy, plus its not made from cheap plastic.
Andrew Laughlin true fact the m16 is shit
pick up an m16 at your local walmart for only 36 small payments of $19.99
***** or you could get it for free for "borrowing" from your neighbor ;)
oh, you're talking about a real m16?
I was talking about this.
www.walmart.com/ip/Tippmann-U.S.-Army-Alpha-Black-Elite-Paintball-Marker-with-E-Grip-Black/27878418
The Suicidal Noob, a paintball rifle, I used one of those before when I went to tennesee
I know a Ranger, Vietnam vet who got his hands on a like new AK-47 with several magazines,,, made that “blunt stick” work. Even in recon/sniper situations. I’ve tried them all. I prefer the Ruger Mini-14 for a semi-automatic weapon. ....AR-15 & AK-47, I consider equals with varied characteristics, and not less desirable than the Mini-14 as a weapon either. I choose the Mini 14 because of the gas system, and Ruger builds a hella gun.
AK 47 is the Best
I like the MK12 and M4A1
Thats the funniest thing i heard m16 is waaaay better
American propaganda
Neither weapon is better, there's a trade off with either weapon. With a AK-47 you're carrying the most reliable weapon known to man, that can tear apart someone within seconds BUT its terribly inaccurate and very hard to hold in combat due to weight. The M16 on the other hand, is lighter the M16 is very accurate, however it lacks reliability as shown in Vietnam.
However if you want a AK variant that can hold its own against the M16? AK-74 and AN-94, both are accurate, and much lighter while still maintaining the simplicity of an AK. The M16A1 and A2 would have a major run for its money. The main reason for this? The AK-74 and AN-94 both used the 5.45 x 39 rather than the 7.62 x 39 thus the recoil is MUCH lighter and more controllable and quite accurate.
***** An AK-47 is inaccurate a AK-74 is not.
This was and still is such a biased video. There are several current videos of shooters hitting the same size steel targets at 400+ meter range consistently with Wolf ammo out of low to mid level AK 47s. But there are parts of this video that make for good info.
M16 is way better than the ak47 🔫🔫🔫
I picked up an AK in Iraq (Desert Storm) and kept it next to the driver's seat in my deuce and a half. My M-16A1stayed wrapped in plastic. I never really cleaned the AK, but when we got ready to come home, it ripped out six full mags without a hitch, but the M-16 could barely get out half a mag without jamming. I would never carry any AR variant in a life or death situation.
Idiots saying the M16 is easier to control in fully automatic... no shit its 7.62 vs 5.56 what do you expect 😂😂😂
Ok so first unless any of you youtubers are multi-millionaires or a product demonstrator you more than likely won't be getting your hands on any automatic weapons.. so the "automatic capabilities" really doesn't apply to us regular ppls.. 2nd, after the 200 yard shootout you can clearly see that the AK demonstrator didn't have his sight dialed in whatsoever.. on those rpk style sights you can set your yardage and anyone who's ever fired one of these things know you have to set it at nearly 300 yards to hit 200 yards accurately, this was not done.. 3rd, this film was made by discovery, an American company... 4th.. I think the wars where the US has had the most problems (Vietnam and Afghanistan) prove ultimately that the AK gives the M16 a run for its money.. not to mention, you need to take care of an m16...some AKs have NEVER been serviced in 50 years in the deserts and theyre still operating... clearly biased film making.
If you compare the original M16 whit the Ak 47, the AK 47 wins by miles. the american army hated that gun plus the AK 47 is 20 years older.
This is a great documentary covering many perspectives of the 2 firearms comparisons. I've had a Daniel Defense DDM4V4 and now a Century Arms RAS47. For modern combat, I'd take an M4. But for jungle warfare or everyday fun... the AK is SOO much more fun :)
If we are in war, I'll rather use a ak47 for close combat and during long range combat m16.
Actually heavier bullets are more accurate than lighter bullets, thats a fact.
AK is still better btw
Just because your poor Muslim country uses it doesn't mean it's better. The American Military uses M16's for a reason.They don't use cheaply made Ak47's
+Moey 2moey are you outta your mind.....wars aren't won by just rifles. politics back home is what made the US pull out of Vietnam. if war is simply about defeating your enemy....we had all the weapons we needed to win physically. politicians lost the war.
mixflip The soldiers didn't stand a chance with their shitty M4's, even if politics did result in loss of the war, the US guns didn't stand a chance, and no they couldn't just drop bombs because that would kill many innocent civilians.
+Cheydan Mahz lol... you have your thoughts and I have mine.
R.I.P. Mikhail Kalashnikov!
I thought the ak was far superior as far as round count but some melt downs online have proven to me that the ar platform is pretty impressive
Ak47 is much cheaper, all guns are deadly and powerful, I think much cheaper gun is a practical choice.
Cheaper if you want a garbage AK..to really have a good AK you’ve gotta spend $900.00 or more.. you go any cheaper and you are just buying from some shit company who cuts corners. Not to mention you can just about get an ar15 for $375.00.. but that’s about as bad as buying a $600.00 AK.. For an AR15 To be decent you’ve gotta spend around $700.00 or more. But if I had to go cheap I’d take a cheap AR15 over a cheap AK47.. Cheap AK’s are the worst... ak MUST be quality.
the AK , is all handmade and... is born for surviving situations . love ak 😍
Hey thanks man :D the Kalashnikov is for sure the best
nowadays kalash platforms like the AK74M are just as accurate, if not more accurate than modern AR platforms and still retain simplicity and dependability. and lighter too.
That may be true but they also now use a much smaller round than the ak-47.
Yeah. Recently militaries want to engage at longer ranges. A large round prevents that. Although I am following you. It doesn't posses the same stopping power. Still a higher stopping power than 5.56 because of speed.
+Harrison Fournier Basically. AK-47 and AKM's are great but they are notorious for being inaccurate at anything over 250-300 meters. The thing is that the smaller bullet changes a lot. The damage difference between a 7.62 and a 5.56Nato or 5.45 from the AK 74 is huge.
AK 47 IS the best,no overheat,and even in cold winter night.
Riley Powell If you are talking about an AK which fires a 7.62X39 round then yes,it is quite hard to accurize it like an m16. But the AK's built in the Izhmash factory and chambered in 5.45X39 are lighter then their 7.62 counterparts and have an effective range of about 500m (50m less than the newer M16A4) but it still retains higher bullet Velocity and is a lighter round, thus allowing troops to carry more. It also retains its simplicity and ruggedness as an AKM (AK47).
The selector switch thing is a myth on the AK. When you slide it down with force it will always go into Simi auto.
Both weapons are very nice.
AK-47s are much better
Yea
Oh my god I love how biased this is.
These guys just want to make the M-16 look better, the damn thing was a rushed firearm, the Kalashnikov was an idea the creator had in bed while he was sick, and it became more widely accepted than the M-16, which was military funded from the beginning.
I'm buying an AK-47. The only reason anyone with one of these M-16 series guns can win against an AK is if the AK user is horrendous at shooting.
You do realize the AK had more initial problems than the M16 had? If they had of followed the original specs the M16 never would have had those initial problems that it did have. The M16 is much easier & quicker to get on target no matter who is shooting it. A good shooter with an AK will be faster & more accurate with an AR platform. No way around that. There is a reason the kill ratio in small arms engagements is so lopsided towards the M16 in every conflict where the two went up against each other.
shananagans5 I've always been better with an AK type rifle, and my buddies as well, the AR types just don't feel right.
Foch Yoo lol Can't argue that. The AK is fine for closer ranges & it is great fun to shoot but it's crude. The AR is quicker to get on target, easier to keep on target & has a longer range.
Foch Yoo Nah, I can afford an AR, and I've broken one down and cleaned it a few times. The AK just feels better, and at least to me, looks better.
shananagans5
And that right there sir, is bullshit. Very first M16 variations lacked the prober dust / sand blocks which was quite common in vietnam.
M16 has so small tolerances that even the clustered gunpowder smoke jammed the gun.
AK doesnt have such problem as it has huge tolerances.
And wrong again. Sure the american peep sights are more accurated than the old "grain" sights, but the grain sights are far more faster and easier to use on moving target. The grain sights are also fairly easy to use compared to US peep sights and barely requires any training to use.
M16 have more kills on combat ? Umm based on what ? Do you actually have some documents that states the amount of deads caused by M16 ?
8:19 That’s the whitest, blondest NVA solider I’ve ever seen.
Lol
Russian
funny thing is, I was a mechanic in the army from 2008-2013, and I can tell you the still make a PMCS comic book
Idiots, compareing a old soviet weapon, disigned right after WW2, still better than the M16, but nowadays DON T COMPARE IT TO THE NEWEST M4's and etc, if you do that, u ll compare 1947-nowadays, so compare the latest US weapons to the latest Russian Federation, not the latest CCCP weapons, ok?
True...
The design of the AK12 is not that much a departure. It just has the charging handle where it should be and some other ergonomic fixes. 5.45x39 mm is a nasty bullet. Better than 5.56, but as you said, it was designed after the 5.56 to be less stable and create bigger wound cavities. That said, the AK series still has the same basic action and the same receiver. It isn't a radical departure from the AKM. The AR because of it's gas impingement design, forged receiver, gas impingement action and higher velocity round with a flatter trajectory is still going to be more accurate. There are fewer heavy moving parts and the receiver doesn't flex as much. The 5.45 hits harder than the 5.56 as the 7.62x38 once did. Not much has changed. The ergonomics on the AK12 is improved. I like both platforms and own each.
C. Welch all the new AK variants are cool, still all of them are based on the 47 platform, and still can t decide 5.45 or 7.62
LawlessNate insult oor ?
Ianislav Georgiev Yes, but not directed towards you.
Vietnam AK-47 vs USA M16. WHO WON?
as we saw 50 years ago vietnam wins with their ak 47. i think the official ak 47 is much much better and more powerful than the official colt m16a1.
IceCreamGaming ► Gameplays on PC in HD Better is a subjective word. Better at what? Head shots at 400 meters? I doubt it.
Vietnam War Deaths. (Estimated Values)
U.S: 60000
N.V & Viet Cong: 500000
Who got the hell out. And US was killing civilians
Those numbers excluding civilians. Why U.S lost the war is a different question that deserves a different answer.
I don't know who that guy with the AK is at the shooting range video inserts but I can say for sure he has no training to shoot that weapon. He does not hold the trigger propely etc. And that AK fire selector statement is crap. The AK selector goes much easier to semi position than full.
I enjoyed that little documentary. As a retired Soldier, obviously I know the m16 and it's variants intimately and as a civilian, I enjoy my AR. As I start to become more of a gun hobbyist, I'm looking at getting an AK of some sort. I like that the ammo is somewhat reasonably priced, though as a reloaded I'll need to check out advantages of reloading brass vs. cheap Russian steel ammo. I obviously am not buying an AK for precision. I am considering the wasr10 or the n-pap from century arms, don't want to spend too much money as it's purely a fun gun. Take care y'all.
AK is for strong men, M16 is for average one
+Julian Garcia An ak47 fires a larger bullet which would likely generate more recoil.
A weak man can handle the ak
taylor barton It's about how much ammo you can carry not the rifle itself.
+dream459 true but your original comment was dumb but u kno that
+dream459 I personally have carried over 1600 that's 2 cans 1680 rounds in stripper clips badoleers
It's an even. The two guns are opposites.
M16: Accurate,lighter but it's not a realiable.
AK-47: Not an accurate assault rifle at distances but it's very realiable.
+John Maverick M16 is very reliable.
Adam Not really. In urban environment maybe, but in the jungle it can jam easly. Most of the American soldiers in the vietnam war died because their M16's got jammed and they tried to clean it.
John Maverick That was probably because when they issued the M16, they changed over the original powder in the ammunition to an overly corrosive one, the bore and chamber weren't chrome-lined, they didn't issue a cleaning kit with the rifle, and the COs told the troops that it was self-cleaning rifle.
And that is false that the majority of the American soldiers died because their rifles jammed and they were cleaning it. There were indeed troops that were killed while they had their rifles disassembled, but it is false to say that the majority of deaths were due to this.
+John Maverick AK accuracy is fine. I can get mine with irons to work better than most AR owners I know who use optics. People just blame the gun for the problems of the operator. Also, though I will admit that the sight system is "simple" as put in the video, the rear sight does have a distance adjustment option specific to range, which the AR system lacks, requiring more shot-by-shot compensation, which results in decreased accuracy and consistency.
The AR does have less kick, but with proper technique, AK recoil and muzzle rise are just as manageable without fancy toys on your rifle. ARs just let people get lazy with their form. Most AR users I know don't use proper aggressive forward lean or shoulder posture, which negatively affects cheek weld, shoulder strain, and recoil management.
AKs weigh more across the board, which is a definite downside, though the increased weight does help to lower the punch of the 7.62x39's recoil, especially with rifles with reinforced trunions or thickened and/or milled receiver such as the Zastava M70B O-PAP (trunions and receiver) or many Arsenal rifles (milled).
The power of the 7.62x39 cartridge is wonderful. I don't think the 5.56 round even comes close to competing, though the wound profile of a 7.62 round isn't that impressive because of its penetration, a fact which the Soviets attempted to address with the 5.45 round used in the AK-74. However, it's a trade off. ARs allow you to give quicker follow up shots, but AKs allow you to shoot through obstacles such as light cover or even most kinds of body armor.
Ak reliability is phenomenal, not going to lie. I don't usually clean mine. I don't have to. In fact, not doing a partial clean can actually gum up the action worse than just leaving the thing alone.
The biggest benefit of the AR system is that the modern rail systems allow for easy attachment of improved optics or other equipment, which is difficult on AKs. For modern ARs, you can just remove the carry handle and add a red dot or a scope, while AKs require a special mount because the dust cover on the receiver does not allow for attachments.
I think of the argument the same way as the ultralight backpacking argument. It isn't about who is right. It just depends on how you prefer your system. Overall, the two can perform at the exact same level on almost all accounts with proper training and familiarity with the system.
Ryan Reese "the rear sight does have a distance adjustment option specific to range, which the AR system lacks"
That's wrong. There are many sights that have quick-range adjustments, like the MATECH rear sight.
The AK47 has more recoil because it also a bigger round. It is chambered in 7.62 while M16 is 5.56. The bigger round has more muzzle velocity and the rifle will kick more due to this.
Evan Ogburn 5.56 NATO has a higher muzzle velocity than 7.62X39
How? 7.62 is a much larger round than 5.56, and also has more powder to burn in the bullet itself. Also, mass=velocity, so since the 7.62 bullet is larger, it has more mass. This means that it is moving much faster than the 5.56 round.
5.56 bullets (the projectile itself, not the cartridge) are much lighter than 7.62x39 bullets so less propellant is required for greater velocities. The most common weight for 5.56 bullets is 55 grains which travels at around 3,000 fps vs 122-125 grains for the 7.62x39 which travels at around 2,400 fps. Weight alone doesn't determine velocity.
Ah, ok.
Evan Ogburn WOAH u both are sooooo smart WOAH.plz share.
I love the AK. And I especially love the mentioned durability.
I will always love older guns made from steel and wood.
A jammed gun can never be better than a working gun 😅
If the jamming you're referring to, is that of the m16, then you clearly dont know about weapons
@@nemindagamage9186 why don't you enlighten us?
@@jazzochannel as per your request, I put together some facts to attest to the quality of the M16A1, as both a machine gun and military grade weapon. I emphasized on the 1st point because it addresses all the issues related to jamming of the gun and the causes.
1. The M16 was designed with a sealed type system so as to prevent mud/ dirt from getting inside the chamber and so mud would not jam the gun when firing contrary to what most ak fanboys say. The only reason the m16 jammed was because it was issued with the wrong ammunition compared to what it was chambered for. The M16 was initially tested and chambered for the Dupont IMR8208M round however as they could not produce the round in the required amount, the government being the ever typical bureaucrats they were, instead switched to the Olin Matheison WC846 'ball' round as an abrupt measure. This ammunition despite achieving the desired muzzle velocity, produced a lot of fouling, causing the bore of the gun's chamber to corrode. Also they didn't issue proper cleaning kits for the m16 and soldiers had reputedly switched to makeshift compounds such as mixtures of insecticides, water and helicopter fuel to clean the gun, which added to the corrosion. However after many soldiers were found dead next to their M16s, a congressional survey conducted found out all the problems with the gun that were later fully corrected. The M16, which now in 1965, was still called the xm16e1, was officially designated the M16A1 and was issued to troops with proper cleaning kits, chambers with chromed bores and barrel linings, forward assists and the birdcage flash suppressor which however came a bit later. Also now the gun had protuberances around the magazine catch which prevented accidental magazine ejections. By 1969, the M16A1 officially replaced the m14 as the standard weapon of the US army.
2. The M16A1 had a loaded weight of 7.5lbs, while the ak weighed 8.65lbs
3. The M16A1 had a effective firing range of 875yds(800m), while the ak had a effective firing range of 380yds(350m).
4. The M16A1 was issued with the 5.56mm NATO round that has a muzzle velocity of (m855A1 round)960m/s, while the ak is chambered in 7.62mm round that has a muzzle velocity of 715m/s.
5. The M16A1 has a forward assist that ensures the bolt moves fully forward feeding a round and also has a trapdoor in the buttstock with place for a cleaning kit, and so, is more egrinomic than an ak.
6. The M16A1 has a rate of fire of 750-900rpm, while the ak has a rate of fire of 600rpm
7. The M16A1 has little recoil compared to an ak so, is more accurate
Here are some facts for you to go through, i hope you understand now that the M16A1 is better than the AK-47, contrary to how most sites and videos portray them. Also you may notice how i have specifically mentioned the M16A1, this is because that was the gun that was used in Vietnam.
@@nemindagamage9186 ok. I'm a fan of the AK-47, but it seems indeed that the M16A1 is a superior or more sophisticated design. I'm not a soldier, so for me this is a question of taste. I will most probably never own or even shoot either of the rifles. For me, the simplicity of the AK-47 and the huge cartridges and bullets have a certain appeal, but if I had to drag those things around, I would probably change my opinion after a week or so. Thank for the post.
@@jazzochannel well firstly, i admire your understanding and secondly, yes to us enthusiasts its actually a matter of taste, unless we actually weilded both in a battle. Quite frankly bro, im not trying to enforce interest in the M16 on you, cause there are variants of the kalashnikov that are frankly quite, good too. With that said cheers mate, i hope you expand your knowledge on guns and other weaponry.
I think a rematch needs to be done with ak74
OkieDokie
But first
Let me switch uppers to my 6.5 Grendel setup,,,,,,,Okay, I'm ready.
Easy win for AK
Give me a m16 anyday, I can reach out and touch some one.
No StatTrak™
AK-47 is 1337
Stattrak*
+Ian Andersson its StatTrak
I still have a Elite Build. I need at least a Blue Laminate...
Modern AR-15s are very reliable - even more so than AKs. You get 2 types of AR these days: piston & GI. I personally prefer GI but piston is also very reliable and readily available. For AK, I must confess that it is very reliable as well, but i can only carry about 5~6 magazines at the most, where as I can carry over 12 mags with 556 (with full gears) .
modern AKs are just as reliable as the ar-15 people just test ak47s wich is from 1947 with modern day weapons from 2016
+xxmobstrxx 853 no they are all technically akms from the 50s but aks are worse in mud and the hk416 with the a different gas system still an ar 15 is much more reliable than m4s and ar 15s are much easier and faster to reload
+sAy wHAAt? Fucking stupid, an AR15 is a semi automatic M4.
Duru no ever heard of the ar24 look it up its based off of the ar15 platform I said the hk416 is better than the m4 and it is because of the different gas system its been shown to be more reliable
+sAy wHAAt? Your comment says ar15s are better than M4a after the HK416 part. Also, an HK416 is an upgraded AR platform, not an upgraded M4.
AK-47 besstttt
When i was in the army,we had round targets 100 m away on the practice.With my AK-47 i managed to get 4 out of 5 shots in the center (black dot,about 7-8 cm in diameter).I have never even seen M-16 in real life,but i can say that AK is one highly accurate assault rifle.
pusti amere glupe nemaju pojma vidis da su uzeli zadnju seriju m16 a prvu kalasnjikovog... prva serija kalasnjikovog je imala klin umesto nisana, da su uzeli zadnju koja je izasla kad i zadnja m16 videli bi sami sve
Pa brate nemoguce sa te udaljenosti da nemoze da pogodi coveka.Ili nezna da gadja ili je corav.
kalas 1300 metara dobar strelac gadja...