kellyII

I watched a show not too long ago, in it was a comparision of the ak and the m4, it was a show to decide which weapon OVERALL was the best.

They had accuracy, most reliable, longest effective range and so forth, needless to say the M4 won, dont get me wrong, the ak is a fine weapon.

But for todays fighting, a weapon needs to do more than just shuck rounds out. Therefor, without a doubt I would choose my handy dandy M4

__________________
"History does not entrust the care of Freedom to the weak and Timid:
General Dwight Eisenhouser

keboostman

I have used both in combat (Vietnam) and can tell you that, at that time (67-68) and at that place, there was no contest. The AK was by far the better weapon. Although I had qualified as expert with the M-16 in the States and really liked it, once in combat I learned to hate it because it would jam at the slightest provocation. Sometimes it was a little dirt. Sometimes a little powder residue. And sometimes no apparent reason. Certainly it was accurate, but in that environment the accuracy was useless. Too, most of our troops abilities were far more limiting that the rifle's accuracy. I thought then and think now that the early M-16s paid a reliability price for their accuracy and that the price was way too high.

I am certain that today's M4 is much better than the first generation M-16, but I think that if I was in an environment where accuracy was paramount I would be looking at a bolt action .308 or similar. Meanwhile the AK is simple to use, never jams and puts out the bullets albeit not to pinpoint accuracy. It has my vote for #1.

cwblanco

I had the exact identical experience from stateside to Vietnam during the same time frame. The first round fired by me from the M-16 in Vietnam was a jammer. Damn! Talk about a confidence killer. I have been told that the problems were two-fold -- wrong powder charge and lack of a chrome receiver. Whatever the cause, I have never had a failure on my civilian AR-15.

P.S. I suppose that my Vietnam jamming experience has soured my enthusiasm for any pistol that has any history of jamming whatsoever. Hence, I stay away from 1911's, except for collector purposes (regardless of brand) because there jamming experience, however slight. Not so on my Sig, Ruger, XD, and Glock which have never jammed.

__________________
Live every day so that you can, with a clear conscience, look all men in their eyes and tell them to go to hell.

Defensive Arms

AK's can jam, and do.

Yes, AK's were noticeably more reliable than the early M16's.

However, due to substantial improvements, later models like the M4 have closed the gap in regard to reliability. There's little difference if any between the two today.

An M16 and bolt action .308 are apples and oranges. The M16 is designed for combat, whereas a bolt action .308 is geared for sniper duty.

__________________

SatCong

__________________
NRA PATRON LIFE

SuRpLuS

Personally I find fair enough accuracy with the AK-47 up to 150 yards quick fire and up to 200 yards with the right elevation/windage adjustment...

But if I want to bump that distance up the AK-74 is more ideal. it shoots near the same accuracy as an AR-15 and has the reliability upgraded from an AK-47! Less kick than one too!!

SuRpLuS

I've put 2,000 rounds through my AK-47(didn't clean for about 750 rounds) and 450 through my 74. Not a jam yet, even though ones a WASR-10!!! How could this be???

The reasoning on reliability is due to the crammed in parts on the AR-15.

The AK rifles you take apart and see how simple and open the system is.

The AK thus is less prone to jams due to most grunge/dirt also a scratch or 2 in the internals won't cause much harm or problems unlike a AR-15...

So I have little confidence in the thought that the AR has bridged the gap...

gunfan

The Kalashnakov is a reliable battle piece; of this there is no doubt. The main problem that beset the early M-16 rifles was a batch of W-W 760 ball propellant. This particular run left a great deal of residue in the forend of the rifle's gas tube, thus garnering the piece's "jam-a-matic" reputation. Once that batch had been exposed (and expended) the M-16 became more reliable. while there were other problems, the M-16 is generally a sound design.

Once there was a meeting of Kalashnikov and Stoner. They exchanged custom-made weapons and were friendly toward one another. I would have liked to have been a "fly on the wall" during their conversation!

Scott

tiwee

Forty years ago, I am pretty sure that we would have all traded our M-16s for M-14s due to our location in the flat land river delta. The M-14 was more reliable and accurate. So it really depends on your area of operations and the mission and the era being discussed.

__________________
Amendment 2 advocate - Trying to explain the obvious to the oblivious.

SuRpLuS

I would have loved to be a fly too, my only issue is that in the field with dust and dirt it can effect the AR alot faster than the AK... Personally the AK-74 bridged the gap for me... I shot along side an AR (accuracy test) and was only losing at the last 15 yards (of 200) on by 1 inch.. Not a big enough difference to count to me...