Skip to comments.
The Way of the Gun
Weekly Standard ^
| 30 Nov 2001
| Bo Crader
Posted on 11/30/2001 9:27:12 AM PST by white trash redneck
The Way of the Gun
As terrorists and U.S. troops clash, find out which weapon is better--the M-16 or the AK-47.
by Bo Crader
11/30/2001 12:01:00 AM
|
Bo Crader, editorial assistant
|
|
SHROUDED IN MYSTIQUE, the AK-47 has played a central role in every insurgency and revolution of the past 40 years. It was the weapon of choice for Viet Cong and Somali warlords. During the Cold War it was a symbol of the Red Menace even as the Afghan mujahedeen used it to drive the Soviets out of the country.
The Washington Post's Stephen Hunter wrote a sort of love letter to the rifle earlier this week, describing the AK-47 as "a tough masterpiece . . . a tommy gun designed by Mr. Moto, after reading Dostoyevsky and a favorable history of Peter the Great." Its curved magazine, he writes, gives the rifle "an Orientalized sensibility," and the wooden stock alludes to the weapon's proletarian roots. Osama bin Laden, Hunter proposes, wields the weapon as a signifier of both revolution and nobility, a status symbol in the world of terrorism and political violence.
But what about its counterpart, the M-16 service rifle, the all-American Commie-slayer? Colt, the M-16's manufacturer, claims the M-16 "represents the world standard by which all other weapons of this class are judged." Yet, during Vietnam, American troops reportedly abandoned their M-16s in favor of pilfered enemy AK-47s. And, with nearly 50 million AK-47s currently in use, the AK-47 has an installed base, as it were, ten times larger than the M-16. Why, then, isn't the Marine Corps charging Kandahar with it?
A comparison of the weapons shows a number of similarities. Both weapons have a selector switch just above the trigger that allows a shooter to choose his rate of fire. M-16 users can fire a single shot (semi-automatic) or a three-round burst. The AK-47 offers semi- and full- automatic. The weapons deliver fire at similar rates, about 800 rounds per minute on automatic and 12-15 rounds per minute in sustained fire. Each handles 30-round magazines and can be fitted with a variety of scopes, night-vision devices, and grenade launchers.
The key difference lies in the size of the rounds and the relative muzzle velocities. The M-16 uses 5.56 mm rounds--which have become the standard for NATO forces--and has a muzzle velocity of 853 meters-per-second. The AK-47 uses larger 7.62 mm rounds and has a muzzle velocity of 710 meters-per-second.
What does this mean? A properly trained marksman can effectively engage an area target--a vehicle, for instance--with an M-16 at up to 800 meters. On a point target--say, someone's head--the weapon is accurate up to 550 meters. The AK-47's lower muzzle velocity and heavier ammunition limits its accurate range to about 300 meters.
The M-16 weighs under 8 pounds, about two pounds less than the AK-47 when fully loaded. The weapon's "lower weight and smaller round size allow troops to carry more ammunition," says Clayton, an 8-year Army veteran who now retails weapons at the Potomac Arms Corporation in Alexandria, Virginia (he asked that his last name not be used). "With ammo, body armor, and gear, the smaller rounds are much more workable and reduce overall workload."
Surprisingly, the small, high-velocity rounds of the M-16 pack a bigger punch than those of the AK-47. "The high velocity of the tiny M-16 round increases its mass relative to slower, larger caliber bullets," retired Air Force Major Charles F. Hawkins wrote in a 1993 letter to the Washington Post. "More important, high velocity produces hydrostatic shock as an M-16 round enters a body, and is profoundly more damaging than, say, the much slower AK-47 bullet." To put it bluntly, the speeding 5.56 millimeter round rips apart organs and tissue as it pierces and exits the body almost simultaneously, causing mass trauma and internal bleeding while inducing shock.
"The M-16 does things the AK-47 can only dream about," adds Clayton. "It has better workmanship, better ergonomics, better sights, and less recoil."
If the M-16 is so great, why are AK-47s so popular? Major Hawkins suggests four reasons: "(1) its availability, (2) relatively low cost, (3) simplicity of maintenance and operation, (4) overall reliability under extremes of weather and terrain, and not its inherent ability to kill."
Considering this, the AK-47 will always have a mass market. "The AK-47 can withstand dirt better," Clayton explains. "It's designed to be drug through the mud and still function. It's designed for poorly-educated, poorly-disciplined troops. It's idiot-proof."
In other words, it's the ideal weapon for Osama bin Laden. |
TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-71 next last
Interesting article comparing M16 to AK47. The M16 is more accurate to longer distances (if there are any highpower shooters out there, would any of you choose a semi-auto AK47 over an AR15?), but the AK47 is cheaper and more rugged.
To: white trash redneck
would any of you choose a semi-auto AK47 over an AR15?Yes, for a pickup gun. Other than that, never. I wouldn't want to throw my 15 behind the seat of the truck to rattle around all day.
/john
To: white trash redneck
SHROUDED IN MYSTIQUE, the AK-47 has played a central role in every insurgency and revolution of the past 40 years. It was the weapon of choice for Viet Cong and Somali warlords. Actually, the Viet Cong had more SKSs than AK-47s. Mikhail Kalashnikov designed them both.
To: kd5cts
I love my AR 15!!!!!!!!!!!!!
4
posted on
11/30/2001 9:39:33 AM PST
by
missanne
To: white trash redneck
The Major has mass and enegy confused.
5
posted on
11/30/2001 9:41:43 AM PST
by
eno_
To: white trash redneck
I have both...although in SKS and "Bushmaster" versions. I like the AK-47 and believe Mr. Kalishnikov a genius, but would rather have the M-16 in a firefight--provided it was non-muddy.
6
posted on
11/30/2001 9:42:10 AM PST
by
meandog
To: kd5cts
Sorry - my mind wandered in the middle of a sentence. I meant to ask whether any highpower shooter would select an AK variant over an AR variant for an over the course match?
To: white trash redneck
I think I heard that M-16 rounds were designed to tumble upon entering a human body (humanitarian groups wanted them banned, as I recall).
Combine this with the higher velocity, and it more than makes up for for the AK's heavier round.
8
posted on
11/30/2001 9:49:22 AM PST
by
ZOOKER
To: white trash redneck
Yet, during Vietnam, American troops reportedly abandoned their M-16s in favor of pilfered enemy AK-47s.After the military got a hold of Eugene Stoner's magnificent design, they started playing with cheaper powders. The original used a ball type powder balanced to the functioning of the weapon. The military went to an extruded powder NOT compatible. The rifles began to "gum up" from the ammo and jam. This was the cause of so many failures in Nam.
The M16A2 is an effective, accurate, versatile, and RELIABLE weapon for the soldier and has developed into a lethal weapon.
The AK-47 in it's many incarnations is still a durable, functional, reliable weapon. Cheaply made and virtually unbreakable, the AK is made for rugged use in many environments. It's accuracy is marginal, it's sights are fair and it's latest cartridge....5.45X39 compare essentially with the 5.56X45 NATO round.
I will still take my A2 HBAR Competition any day.
To: white trash redneck
The AK-47:
Cheap
Reliable
Not too accurate
The M-16:
Expensive
Will jam with just a little dirt or misuse
Pretty damn accurate
So it boils down to the troops using the weapon. If they are disciplined, well trained and well supplied, the M-16 is the weapon for them. If they are a bunch of poor militia who don't know a cleaning rod from a fishing pole, the AK-47 is the one for them
10
posted on
11/30/2001 9:50:23 AM PST
by
2banana
To: E. Pluribus Unum
Mikhail Kalashnikov designed them both. Not so. SKS was designed by Sergei Gavrilovich Simonov, and preceded AK-47 by 2 years. The original AK-47 uses the same 7.62X39mm round as the SKS; a 5.45X39mm version was introduced in 1974, IIRC.
AB
To: Pistolshot
Early models of the M16 also did not have a chromed receiver, despite many military men recommending just that feature. Once that was incorporated, the jamming largely stopped, as I understand.
To: Pistolshot
And I thought Kennedy's "wiz kids" decided that the chamber didn't need chrome plating.
To: white trash redneck
would any of you choose a semi-auto AK47 over an AR15 I would choose one of each for cache, but retrieve the AR first. The AR is a far better firearm than the AK. The only gripe that I have about the AR is in cleaning the AR's bolt carrier. It's a pain to clean out the deep recess of the cylinder without a special brush.
14
posted on
11/30/2001 10:19:02 AM PST
by
InfraRed
To: white trash redneck
I doubt if anyone would choose the AK for any kind of accuracy match, the AR is a much more accurate and flat-shooting platform. But if I had to be out in the field in uncertain conditions, with ranges not too long, I would pick the AK. I just like them. They are a masterpiece of simplicity. The massive long-travel bolt carrier and energetic cycling will extract and feed almost anything, under any conditions. I used to have an AR-15A2 and a Carbon-15, now I have only 3 AKs.
15
posted on
11/30/2001 10:28:47 AM PST
by
Sender
To: white trash redneck
The M16 is more accurate to longer distances (if there are any highpower shooters out there, would any of you choose a semi-auto AK47 over an AR15?)Would, and did. Both rifles are available in various calibers. I believe that both rifles have approximately the same sight radius, a better index of inherent accuracy in the real world. China and Romania both chamber AK variants in .223, Yugoslavia and Russia, in 7.62 NATO. Even the AR-15 began it's life as the AR-10, chambered in 7.62 NATO.
16
posted on
11/30/2001 10:28:48 AM PST
by
gundog
To: E. Pluribus Unum
Mikhail Kalashnikov designed them both.Quite incorrect. Whaddaya think SKS stands for?
17
posted on
11/30/2001 10:29:57 AM PST
by
gundog
To: white trash redneck
I just sold my Romanian AK-47. What a piece of crap that was.
To: Pistolshot
The AK-47 in it's many incarnations is still a durable, functional, reliable weapon. Cheaply made and virtually unbreakable, the AK is made for rugged use in many environments. It's accuracy is marginal, it's sights are fair and it's latest cartridge....5.45X39 compare essentially with the 5.56X45 NATO round. I think its the AKM or the AK-74 that uses the 5.45x39.
To: eno_
The Major has mass and enegy confused. Yes, the .223 while fast, does not travel at relativistic speeds where it would actually gain noticable mass.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-71 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson