Poll - Favorite Assault Rifle

[CDAT]

Originally Posted by Raellus

It's well documented that the early M-16, relatively advanced compared to its contemporaries, was not ready for the battlefield (much like the Panther tank in WW2). By the 1980s, most of the kinks were ironed out. That's not to say that the later versions of the M-16/AR-15 are perfect, but there's a reason (besides marketing) that AR-15 "black rifles" are the most popular "assault weapons" on the US civilian market, and that military versions are used by armed forces around the world.

There are entire books and websites devoted to the Great AK-47 v. M-16 debate.

The arguments can be boiled down to:

Recoil/Accuracy: M16 (this is why the AK74 was created)
Reliability: AK (this is why newer assault rifles don't use Stoner's direct impingement gas system and instead use a variation of the AK's piston-driven system)
Weight (of weapon & ammo): M16 (also why the AK74 was created)
Ease of Maintenance: AK
Range: M16
Stopping Power: AK
Ergonomics: M16 (this is why the HK416 and SIG 716 & MCX pretty much copy everything about the M4 other than its operation)
Durability: AK

So it's pretty much a push, and the "winner" depends on what factors the individual shooter values more.

Recoil/Accuracy: M16 (this is why the AK74 was created)
This may be why it (the AK74) was created, and it is much more accurate than the AK47, if you go off of the information out there it could be argued that it is more accurate than the M16, but that is a misnomer if you ask me. The reason for this is how they determine accuracy. They use Circular error probable, and we use MOA (Minutes of angle). If you try to convert the information given about the AK74 you end up with about 3.9 MOA (compared to the 5.9 MOA for the AK47), where the M16A2 has an average of 4.2 MOA. But this is misleading as for the AK74 (AK47 as well) half the rounds will be outside this circle, but every round from the M16 will be inside, with most rifles being between 1 to 3 MOA.

Reliability: AK (this is why newer assault rifles don't use Stoner's direct impingement gas system and instead use a variation of the AK's piston-driven system)
I am not going to get into this this except to say that there is some out there who come down on both sides of how reliable the direct impingement system is or is not. Also in my first hand experience the M16 (not saying it is the direct impingement) was much more reliable in combat than the AK47, but others have different experiences.

Weight (of weapon & ammo): M16 (also why the AK74 was created)
Weights are with out magazine, M16 6.37lbs (2.89kg), AK47 7.7lbs (3.47kg), AK74 6.8lbs (3.07kg). Magazine weights for a fully loaded 30rd magazine are .99lb (.45kg) for M16, between 1.6 to 2lbs (.74 to .92kg) for AK47, and 1.215lb (.551kg) for AK74.

Ease of Maintenance: AK
For this I do not know what the expected level of operator maintenance is for the AK, but will say that it is easier to field strip, not that the M16 is difficult, the biggest issue I see for the M16 is it does have some small parts that could be lost in the dark or what not.

Range: M16
I think that this has a lot to do with accuracy, as it is difficult to hit a target if the bullet is off by more then the size of the target at that range.

Stopping Power: AK
At the barrel, The AK47 has 1502ft/lb (2036 J), the AK74 has 979ft/lb (1328 J), and the M16 1302ft/lb (1764 J). So the AK47 is the winner here, but the AK74 is in last place, so I would not say AK, as you are bouncing between AK47 and AK74. The AK47 also has the best penetration.

Ergonomics: M16 (this is why the HK416 and SIG 716 & MCX pretty much copy everything about the M4 other than its operation)
This is one more thing that I am not going to get into, as I have never carried the AK for extended periods of time. I have used it for training and teaching others, for this is was fine, but I have thousands of hours on the M16 so not sure it is better ergonomics or just more familiarity.

Durability: AK
This is the same as the reliability.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by CDAT

Ease of Maintenance: AK
For this I do not know what the expected level of operator maintenance is for the AK, but will say that it is easier to field strip, not that the M16 is difficult, the biggest issue I see for the M16 is it does have some small parts that could be lost in the dark or what not.

I based this off of much anecdotal evidence. I once saw a video of a rusted AKM found in a hole in the ground in Mozambique. It was covered in rust. The finder poured some motor oil over it and was able to fire it. I've never seen or heard of a similar feat with an M16.

Also, the AK is reputed to require less frequent cleaning. This, I think, makes maintaining it easier.

I don't like field stripping my AR-15. As you pointed out, too many little parts. The AK-47/AKM has fewer parts. This make maintenance easier too.

Originally Posted by CDAT

Stopping Power: AK
At the barrel, The AK47 has 1502ft/lb (2036 J), the AK74 has 979ft/lb (1328 J), and the M16 1302ft/lb (1764 J). So the AK47 is the winner here, but the AK74 is in last place, so I would not say AK, as you are bouncing between AK47 and AK74. The AK47 also has the best penetration.

I only mentioned the development of the AK74. It wasn't really included in the comparison, but thanks for including it in your assessment.

Originally Posted by CDAT

Ergonomics: M16 (this is why the HK416 and SIG 716 & MCX pretty much copy everything about the M4 other than its operation)
This is one more thing that I am not going to get into, as I have never carried the AK for extended periods of time. I have used it for training and teaching others, for this is was fine, but I have thousands of hours on the M16 so not sure it is better ergonomics or just more familiarity.

One of the biggest knocks on the ergonomics of the AK series is the safety/selector switch mounted on the right side of the receiver. It can't be operated without removing one hand- usually the right hand (for most, the dominant/shooting hand)- from the weapon. This is a major design flaw.

It's also reputedly quite loud. I've read numerous accounts of LRRPs and SOG recon teams in Vietnam being tipped off to an impending ambush by the loud CLACK of AKs being taken off safe.

Originally Posted by CDAT

Durability: AK
This is the same as the reliability.

To an extent, but not really. I was thinking more of what would happen if one tried to butt-stroke an enemy. The M16's plastic stock is a lot less sturdy than most models of AK-47/AKM, many of which have a metal buttplate in addition to a wood butt. The M16's foregrip is less sturdy as well.

[pmulcahy11b]

On the direct impingement system: An author for Small Arms Review said it well: they are the only weapons that throw up in their own mouths when they fire.

[kcdusk]

All the Assault Rifles have the same stats. So it doesn't matter which one you choose.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by kcdusk

All the Assault Rifles have the same stats. So it doesn't matter which one you choose.

In terms of game mechanics, you're right, more or less. But T2k is also theater of the mind, and, for some players, at least, it matters what weapon they imagine their PC wielding. If I'm going to daydream about using an assault rifle, I want it to look cool.

It's not in the poll, but I like the looks of the Swedish AK-5.

-

[cawest]

i went with AR. its all about ammo and spare parts for me. it is very hard to reload russian war ammo. not saying that it cann't be done only that it is harder.

[CDAT]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I based this off of much anecdotal evidence. I once saw a video of a rusted AKM found in a hole in the ground in Mozambique. It was covered in rust. The finder poured some motor oil over it and was able to fire it. I've never seen or heard of a similar feat with an M16.

Also, the AK is reputed to require less frequent cleaning. This, I think, makes maintaining it easier.

I don't like field stripping my AR-15. As you pointed out, too many little parts. The AK-47/AKM has fewer parts. This make maintenance easier too.

I have also seen videos of things like this, but my real world experience with AK's is very different. Yes they may require less frequent cleaning but the AR is not one that needs near as much cleaning as many say. I spent on average about 5 minutes when we came back from a patrol cleaning my rifle, over the almost two year deployment never once had any malfunctions of any kind. On my second and third deployments where I was working with the locals they had there AK's and at least when we were around they did maintenance, they had all sorts of issues from failure to fire up to the bolts seized up so much that could not even get them open with a hammer.

...

Originally Posted by Raellus

To an extent, but not really. I was thinking more of what would happen if one tried to butt-stroke an enemy. The M16's plastic stock is a lot less sturdy than most models of AK-47/AKM, many of which have a metal buttplate in addition to a wood butt. The M16's foregrip is less sturdy as well.

If you butt-stroke an enemy with an AR nothing happens to the rifle, as they are not plastic. They are not as weak as people make them out to be. The fore-grip are also very sturdy, now yes there are after market ones that are very weak and my guess is that is where the misinformation about service weapons comes from. We used ours to beat down doors, and all sorts of other stuff with none breaking from that. We did have one rifle break, but that was when the soldier who's rifle it was leaned it against the truck tire, walked off to do something and the truck moved driving over it, this would have also broken a wooden stocked rifle (it was also the barrel that was bent, not the "plastic' that broke). Now how does it compare to the AK's wooden butt stock I can not say for sure as I have never used an AK to butt stroke someone, I do know that wood stocks have issues with accuracy based on the humidity. Last thought on the strength issue is if it was a issue why would the US Army be switching its M14/21's to synthetic stocks (the EBR)?

[Raellus]

I respect your personal experiences, CDAT, and my intent is not to dismiss it or question your integrity but, excepting your anecdotes, everything I've seen, heard, or read on the topic has been pretty adamant that the AK-47/AKM is a sturdier weapon (i.e. can handle more wear and tear and hard use, and less routine maintenance) than the M16. Of course, even if that's true, that doesn't necessarily mean that the AK is a better overall weapon than the M16.

Originally Posted by CDAT

If you butt-stroke an enemy with an AR nothing happens to the rifle, as they are not plastic.

What material are M16A1/A2 buttstocks made out of?

Originally Posted by CDAT

Last thought on the strength issue is if it was a issue why would the US Army be switching its M14/21's to synthetic stocks (the EBR)?

I assume weight is a big factor in that decision, and also the age and wear of the original wooden furniture. I also assume that synthetic materials are sturdier now than they were in the mid-1960s.

-

[micromachine]

I have thought about this one for quite a while and I think I would use the assault rifle with the best chance of "battlefield pickup" for my area of operations. I know the battlefield is in flux and there is a good chance that even friendlies are armed with opfor weapons and the opfor having familiar weapons.
So, in a behind enemy lines campaign, I would opt for the opfor assault rifle, so I can get spares easily and pickup ammo and magazines off the dead and prisoners. The added plus is that I would make a scout come closer to positively identify me as an enemy.
I would keep my issue weapon and magazines as well, so long as i can leave it in a safe place suitabily disabled so prying eyes and hands don't make a "five finger discount" purchase at my expense. If my party has a vehicle, this is a no brainer. This will keep my options open for its use should a supply of ammunition be located.

[CDAT]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I respect your personal experiences, CDAT, and my intent is not to dismiss it or question your integrity but, excepting your anecdotes, everything I've seen, heard, or read on the topic has been pretty adamant that the AK-47/AKM is a sturdier weapon (i.e. can handle more wear and tear and hard use, and less routine maintenance) than the M16. Of course, even if that's true, that doesn't necessarily mean that the AK is a better overall weapon than the M16.

I agree that the stories out there are about how the AK can be totally abused and still work, and the AR if any dust gets in it, it will jam. However I think that the AK and the AR are much more in the middle. I think it was a forgotten weapon video (or maybe the link was from it, do not remember) where they took both a AR and AK did the same dirt and mud test on them on video. The AR was the one that worked better. (just looked it up it is inrangeTV the AR test https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAneTFiz5WU and the AK test https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX73uXs3xGU) There is also the video by Brandon Herrera (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htkYVB4LaDM) who is about the biggest AK fan that I know of. Based on those videos, and what I have seen in real life both from others using them and using them myself I think that the reliability of the AK is vastly overblown, same as the AR being a jam o'matic, having said that the biggest advantage I see for the AK over the AR is if something needs fixed in a third world good luck for the AR, but the AK I can see you making parts in a back yard garage. Heck I saw quite a few AK, and Mosien who had broken stocks that were just nailed back together, not something that you can do with an AR.

Originally Posted by Raellus

What material are M16A1/A2 buttstocks made out of?

I do not know the exact thing that they are made out of, some fiber reinforced polymer. Also this is for GI ones, not the after market (some are good I am sure, but other are just cheap plastic) I was in a LEO AR armorers class and the Colt instructor noticed one of the guys in the class had after market parts, so he asked if he could use one of the forgrips (told him that they would likely be destroyed) and was able to bend them with his arms snapping it in half, he then let the class try to do the same with the GI issue ones, no one was able to even bend them. My understanding is that the for grips and the butt stock are made out of the same, with the butt stock also being filled (where not intended to be empty for the cleaning kit).

Originally Posted by Raellus

I assume weight is a big factor in that decision, and also the age and wear of the original wooden furniture. I also assume that synthetic materials are sturdier now than they were in the mid-1960s.

-

My understanding is that it is because of the stiffness and that they do not swell with the moisture in the air, weight was not noticeable (we had some of both wood and synthetic) we did the same things with both.

Now I am not anti-AK, I think that the AK is just a fine weapon, I am pro AR on the other hand and feel that it is a better overall firearm. Having said that both are tools, both were out, the AK will be easier to rebuild in a TW2k type world, I think that the AR will last longer before it is needed, but this could be my bias so take it for what it it worth.

[Sith]

This doesn’t really fit here… but doesn’t warrant its own thread either.



Ok… Which one of you is building an M16EZ?

https://www.reddit.com/r/RetroAR/com...upper_is_done/

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Sith

This doesn’t really fit here… but doesn’t warrant its own thread either.



Ok… Which one of you is building an M16EZ?

https://www.reddit.com/r/RetroAR/com...upper_is_done/

I hope that's not one of those "Ghost Guns..."

Are any of these guys being legal and registering their short-barreled rifles?