The M-16 has an extremely high rate of fire on full auto (able to empty a full clip in 1/2 second). That's why later variants have a three round limiter. Thinking being that a squad of soldiers firing in concert can lay down much withering fire, that opposing forces have to go through (and for a longer distance), than with other weapons. There is a certain psychological issue at play here too, the enemy knowing that they have to withstand accurate fire from 200 yds out (they will pay dearly for any assualt).
Moreover, the M-16 is a high-velocity round. The instructor told us that when you fire the gun by the time you hear the report, the bullet is already 100 yds down-range. Kinetic energy has a square in the equation. You'll never find a spent M-16 bullet because of this reason. An M-16 round that impacts anything substantial is going to shatter. So an opponent may get hit in the shoulder, but fragments could be exiting anywhere (knee for example). A few M-16 rounds are most certainly lethal. One well place round shattering and making sausage inside the rib-cage is going to be lethal also.
I also liked the virtually no recoil thing the M-16 has going for it.
The AK-47 on the other hand is a much heavier round. Furthermore, it has a tendancy to tumble in flight so its accuracy will not be as high as the M-16. However, a tumling bullet does have a tendancy to make a rather nasty wound.
All the foregoing being said, the M-16 is not really intended to be lethal. If lethality was the intent, the Army would be using WWII era .308's Its a logistical issue, the M-16's prime task is to overwhelm the enemies war machine with wounded casualties. A wounded soldier does three things, it can make them outright non-combatants, or diminish their fighting capablility, and they will drain resources that could otherwise be expended on the war effort. No army can afford not taking care of their wounded, not so much from a humanitarian perspective but one from a morale perspective. Soldiers that realize their forces aren't going to take care of them if they get hurt, may choose not to fight. Again, if the intent was to kill, the U.S. military would be still using the .308.
At least that's what was taught to us troops in Reagan's military. I'm sure that the war that was being planned for then is different than what's going on now.
Actually, the notion that small caliber rounds and weapons were intended to wound, not kill, is basically jsut a urban legend. The small caliber concept was invented for the Vietnam War, to give our ARVN allies (and of course us as well) a selective fire personal weapon that was fairly lightweight, easy to carry around rugged terrain, and carry plenty of ammo for it too.
Oh, please, pull the other one.
A fragment of a .22 bullet is going to travel through about five feet of bone and muscle? LOL!
The AK-47 on the other hand is a much heavier round. Furthermore, it has a tendancy to tumble in flight
More twaddle. The only way it'll "tumble in flight" is if the barrel is so shot-out as to be a loose smmothbore.
The Yugoslavian X39 bullet is designed to tumble, though -- but only after it impacts the target.
Don't go making stuff up, or repeating nonsense you read somewhere, that has zero basis in fact.