Almost everybody on here has fallen prey to the myth that M16/AR-15s jam.
If the M16 series is treated correctly, then it will never, ever jam. Unless your in a very poor enviroment (Iraq, for example), and don't clean your gun as often as you should (about once/twice a week), then your gun WILL jam.
Here is my comprehensive review of the Guns IN REAL LIFE.
Caliber: M16: 5.56mm A smaller round, and is shaped similar to a needle. This gives it the advantage of being able to fly further, faster, and with more accuracy. However, being a smaller round, it has less propellant to project it, meaning it has less stopping power. Its pretty common to hit a guy a few times before he stays down. (From my Uncle, Marine) AK-47: 7.62mm A larger round, meaning it has more stopping power. Its nose is rounded more, so its a slower, less accurate bullet. Packs more of a puch, if you can hit the target. But if it hits you, you aint getting up.
Mechanisms: M16: Relatively complex. A lot of parts, which means thats a lot of parts that can get broken. However, if properly maintained, then you shouldn't experience any problems. If anything, most cases of 'Jams' in Iraq/Afghanistan have actually resulted from the barrel partially melting, then hardening, and interrupting the ejection of brass. AK-47: A simple design, though considering its WWII tech, what do you expect? Works to the AK's advantage, though. Cleanup is a breeze. Litteraly soaking it in water for a few minutes is all you really have to do, besides oiling the parts occasionally. You can put the gun through hell, and it'll come back in one peace.
Accuracy/Recoil: M16: The gun easily surpasses the AK in all aspects. It fires a round that slices in the air, and coupled with the fact that the M16 is capable of Single Shot/3 Round Burst/Full Auto, its versatile as well. And because nothing scares the crap out of you better than Amerians screaming 'BOOM! HEADSHOT!' AK-47: Though it looses out to the M16, it still is respectable. The round it fires is larger, though more sluggish, and at longer ranges has the tendency to 'wobble' in the air. The gun basically sacrifices accuracy for power.
Fear Factor: M16: About average. As I said before, the gun is really accurate. And theres something freaky about all your friends' heads kersploding at 400 yards. The gun doesn't look that intimidating, and it sounds almost friendly, if it weren't for the hot lead coming out the business end. AK47: This gun is scary. It looks scary, it sounds scary, and most people admire it from the ground with a hole in their chest. A considerable amount of this fear, though, comes from the Coldwar: Hordes of Commies with this iconic gun rampaging across Europe.
***Most of this information comes from several sources:
-Family: Several members of my family have been in the armed forces and have used the M16, or own the AR series or the AK series.
-Personal: I've shot both guns, and researched both, and have manuals on how to build the guns, so if that doesn't make me somewhat qualified, well...
-Books, etc: TV shows on the Military Channel, and books by soilders who have used the guns. Pretty good reading/watching
With the M16 and the Ak series, it comes down between accuracy and power. The M16 has more accuracy, and a greater effective range than the AK-47. On the other hand, the AK-47 fires a larger round, and therefore has more stopping power, but less accuracy, than the M16.
IMHO, I prefer the M16 over the AK-47. I'd much rather take out the baddies before their guns get in range than wait longer and risk getting shot because I can't place accurate shots at long ranges. Heads kersploding at 400 yards beats slicing bodies in half with your rounds at 300 yards.
Though really, its not a very fair comparison. You have to look at the tactics that governed government's strategies. The Soviets believed in overwhelming your opponent with sheer numbers, so they needed simple guns that they could mass produce on fantastically large scales. THe US, on the other hand, believes in hunkering down behind cover and placing well placed shots into the enemy. So both guns are perfect for the roles they were designed for.
I subscribe the the US' philosophy, so the M16 is my prefered gun.
In real life, the M16 wins in accuracy, but overall the AK47 is a killing machine. I heard somewhere that a tank could roll over an AK and it would still work. My uncle has one (not full auto like in video games; civillians and retired soldiers, like him, can't have those in America) and he says it's fun to go to the range with, but not very accurate.
In my opinion, there's always trade offs. With the M-16 firing the smaller 5.56x45mm NATO round (also used in the AK-101) and is the standard round for NATO countries, it sacrifices power and penetration for accuracy and less recoil.
With the AK-47 firing the deadly 7.62x39mm round (mostly seen with any Russian gun, AK-103, AK-104, etc), it packs a bigger punch than the M-16 for the cost of less accuracy and more recoil.
In a place with a lot of dirt, mud, sand and other things that can jam a gun, I'd go with the AK-47 for its legendary reliability.
I see the M-16 as being the better urban weapon. Less things to jam a gun in an urban area, it fires a smaller bullet so less penetrating power to fly through buildings and strike civilians on the other side.
Which one is better? Depends on the environment and situation. If enemies are advancing 400 yards down a highway, I want the M-16, if we're in a jungle, toss me an AK-47.
Either way, I wouldn't want to be looking down the barrel at either of them.
In my opinion, there's always trade offs. With the M-16 firing the smaller 5.56x45mm NATO round (also used in the AK-101) and is the standard round for NATO countries, it sacrifices power and penetration for accuracy and less recoil.
With the AK-47 firing the deadly 7.62x39mm round (mostly seen with any Russian gun, AK-103, AK-104, etc), it packs a bigger punch than the M-16 for the cost of less accuracy and more recoil.
In a place with a lot of dirt, mud, sand and other things that can jam a gun, I'd go with the AK-47 for its legendary reliability.
I see the M-16 as being the better urban weapon. Less things to jam a gun in an urban area, it fires a smaller bullet so less penetrating power to fly through buildings and strike civilians on the other side.
Which one is better? Depends on the environment and situation. If enemies are advancing 400 yards down a highway, I want the M-16, if we're in a jungle, toss me an AK-47.
Either way, I wouldn't want to be looking down the barrel at either of them.
As
Lolz what do you mean internet. but it is true and i agree. But i think the AK is cooler.
both of them are pretty **** outdated but if i had to choose i'd have to go with m16. it's just the accuracy. as long as you keep a sturdy distance, m16 will almost always win.
No, wrong the M4A1 is a machine gun and the M16 is three round burst M16 is from black ops and M4A1 is from modern warfare 2
No, wrong too. The M4 is simply a variant of the M16, and the M16 is not exclusively three-round burst. The M4 is not technically a machine gun, it is an assault rifle. Don't believe what the games tell you, the developers of them are retarded.
koolkylekool thank you kind sir for backing me up agian. once again i told every on i'm joining the marines SO I KNOW WHAT IM TALKING ABOUT FOR ALL THOSE IDIOT COD PLAYERS WHO THINK EVERYTHING ON THAT GAME IS REAL!
