AK 47 vs M16

4 min 28 sec

Your browser doesn't have Flash installed.

A comparative study about the features of the american M16 assault rifle and the russian AK 47. Very informative!


Are you a lame ass spammer that forces us to put this stupid thing up here to annoy all the humans?
7 + 0 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.

A topic that always ignites passions!
Many valid points are made on the comparison being like the proverbial apples vs. oranges.
One thing that struck me was how the AK shooter slaps the trigger rather than squeezing it. Hmmmmm.

A point I must make about ammo though. The military .223 (5.56 x 45 NATO) ammos, both ball and SS-109 were NOT designed to tumble when striking a target. *{It is against international policy, if not law.}* The Russian 5.45 x 39 mm ammo however WAS designed to tumble (when striking soft (as in human) targets) in order to increase its terminal ballistics to make up for the performance loss due to smaller size, mass and energy compared to 7.62 x 39mm round. This caused a minor furor when the round was first introduced. It accomplishes this by having an air space inside the copper jacket at the tip of the bullet, and the lead over the steel core extends a bit farther past the steel at the base of the bullet, making it tail-heavy. This way they retained both penetration of hard cover and good killing ability, despite being a varmint calibre.
Very resourceful those Russkies.
I do not know if they still use this design or if NATO or the Red Cross or somebody ixnayed it, but the round initially garnered quite a reputation for being deadly.
As for the .223, there is a reason that it is illegal for deer hunting in most states (and humans are deer-sized game). There have also been numerous complaints from the sand box about it taking a couple of shots to properly anchor a bad guy so he cannot pull pin on his grenade belt and kill the Marines in the room. If this were bullshit, the 6.8 SPC round would not have beeen developed and deployed to (some of) our special-forces guys. This development was purely in the name of terminal ballistics, not long-range accuracy, as the 6.5 Grendel is much better in this respect.
Also as for the M-16's reliability issues, yes chroming the barrel and chamber has helped cure the Viet-nam era jamomatic issues, but the direct gas impingement system is still a flawed desigh, allowing fouling and fouling-baking heat to enter the action. There is a reason this weapon is issued with succint cleaning reccommendations. If THIS were a non-issue too, there would not now be a plethora of AR-15/.223 -type guns with piston-driven actions appearing on the market in recent years from the likes of Lewis Machine & Tool (LMT), Ruger, DSA, Barrett and SIG.
Finally, Eugene Stoner's design flaws are being addressed and we will all benefit from more reliable, more effective weapons.
To be fair to those thoe AR people I just pissed offf, I admit the AK too is not perfect. The short sight radius sucks, the barrels are too thin and the safety is too noisy. It's loose tolerances do trade some accuracy for reliability, but at the time of its design it was meant to be peasant-proof. The better ones (like the Egyptian MAADI, built on Russian tooling) can still shoot close to 2 MOA though.
For anyone who disagrees with my aforementiond points, I can provide references for all of them.
Yes it's always a lively debate topic, and I whole-heartedly agree it's a great reason to own both weapons systems.
Personally, I'm an FAL guy though. If I (gasp) hadto own only one gun it would be an FAL. Thankfully, I don't have to! Gotta love (what's left of) the USA!
Join the NRA today, even if you dislike Republicans.

As an interesting point of military politics, when the US was searching for a replacement for the M-1 Garand after WWII, the British submitted a small-calibre weapon and the US Army rejected it, stating they they required a full-power cartridge instead, and went with the .308 (7.62x51mm) cal. M-14. (Rejecting the FAL due to national pride) Then what happens a dozen or so years later? They change to the .223! Go figure... And now they finally admit (through their actions) that the .223 isn't quite powerful enough... We'll see what happens with the 6.8 SPC, why they didn't go with the 6.5 Grendel we may not know until they switch to it 20 years from now..SIGH!
And even the .308 is bettered by the 6.5-284.

****Reproduction should be a privilege.*****

I thought it was a pretty decent comparison. I think the result of the accuracy test is a little off, as I from my experiance it's not that inacurate, although it's deffinatly not M-16 accuracy, and open up the distance, and it's even more apparent.

I've read some people claiming that the test wasn't fair because of the differances in barrel leangths. Although that may be true, the test was between the M-16 and AK-47, not the M4 and AK-47, and the M-16 has a longer barrel than the M4. Same thing goes for the rounds used, the comparison was between the 5.56 and 7.62x39, not the 5.56 and 5.45.

As far as rounds go, both are good in there own respect, but one is deffinatly not better than the other. A common misconception is that the 5.56 isn't a suitable battle caliber. Although penatration lacks with the round through barriers, on people, it does it's job effectively. The fact that the round goes in and then basicly fragments in the target means the target is absorbing all the engergy the bullet has to offer, instead of just passing through like the 7.62x39 will do, which is one of the reasons why they went with a 5.45 in the '74. While I think the 5.56 is a good round, there is room for improvement. The 6.5 grendal is looking like a good contender.

As far as reliablity goes, the AK is deffinatly more forgiving than the AR familiy of weapons, but two huge myths were born in Vietnam, that the AK is unstoppable, and the M-16 is a jammomatic. While the M-16s of the day were problematic, most of the issues have been resolved with the weapon especially with the advancement of machining work. While the AK is better at operating when fouled up and dirty, it's not the mythical creature that everyone makes it out to be. The AK is a machine, and if not properly cared for, it can, and will fail.

I have or have had a few iterations of both rifles, and love them both, and accept the ups and downs of both. If I had to choose just one rifle, it would be the AR series. Accurate, reliable, and I can carry a lot of ammo for it. I would never feel undergunned with either rifle though.

Your an idiot that is the old m16 from Vietnam! You obviosly know nothing about guns if you said that. Also the guy missing the target with the ak47 misses left and right not down so its pointless.

I love how they compare the latest M16 to the obsolete AK-47 instead of the modernized AK-74. To be even more fair, they could compare the AK-101, which fires the 5.56 NATO round just like the M16. When you compare what Izhmash really has to offer instead of the junky 3rd World knockoffs, it's damn close.

Anyone else notice that the guy firing the AK-47 had the slider all the way back at the 100m or Zero notch, nowhere near the 300m notch for bullet drop.

I own an ak-47 and if you want to shoot better get an Mojo's peep sight they are the best you can get for the ak-47 i get 3 MOA out of mine at 300 yards and i have a wasr 10

anybody who has ever used an AK will realise what a biased load of crap this is. There is a reason why the AK is still popular around the world, it goes bang when you pull the trigger and it uses a round that wasn't designed for shooting gophers.

(Comment From Ukraine)
From the very beginning comparing 7.62 with 5.56 is useless
compare PSG with any .50 cal )))
if they tried the ak 74 (5.45),the comparing woud be more useful
PS: ak-47(1947) - compare it with an USA analog for that time (AFAIK M16 was invented a bit later ) try comparing with AR-10

What complete bs. Any decent AK or M16 series rifle should get at least 3 MOA at 200 yards and most will do a lot better than that. A couple of worn out rifles form the Vietnam era are not a valid representation of the accuracy capabilities of the rifles in question.
the main trade off is between the two is do you want slightly more accuracy potential and lighter weight or sightly more reliability potential and more weight. People who claim that one of these rifles is clearly better than the other are just fan boys or simply don't know what they are talking about.

I love the fact that they use a ~20" M16 barrel and compare it to a ~14.5" barrel AK. I'm sure that an extra 50% barrel length doesn't help accuracy. I'll put my 20" AK up against that M16 guy any day.

"The reason the AK isn't accurate is that it was Designed for full auto first, then semi-auto. This can be seen in the selector switch."

Ok, how about this the way it works inside makes it so that it HAS to go Safe > Full > Semi. By rotating down, and using a simple mechanism, along with the Fire Control Group design, there can be no other order than Safe, full, Semi.

If you notice, the shooters are from the U.S. Arsenal. No way do they want to show that the AK-47 really DOMINATES the m-16.

Weak round, poor reliability, slightly more accurate, over-priced.

Powerful Round, Great reliability, cheap, Accurate enough.

Can an M-16 round kill someone? yes... Can it kill someone behind a solid oak door? I doubt it. Can an AK-47 shoot through a door? Obviously.

Moral of the story, in an OPEN FIELD with 300+ yards between you and nothing else, the M-16 might have the advantage, but the other 99.9% of the time where there is even minor woody cover, or at closer ranges, the more powerful AK round will dominate. And you can supply 5 men with AK's for the price of one M-16. Even at 800 yards on an open field, I'll take the 5 vs. the one any day (given that they are all equally skilled riflemen)

The reason AK's get a bad rap for inaccuracy, is not the gun, it's the untrained shooters in 3rd world countries who hold their guns sideways or over their heads or shoot from the hip. And they spray and pray even from hundreds of yards out...

anyway, /rant off.

We should all make our own comparisons. Just buy one of each.

My AK will do 6-8 inch groups at 200 yards, and I have the TERRIBLE Century Arms trigger group. I can't wait to see what happens when I replace that with a good trigger. This makes the AK look a bit worse than it is, and fails to highlight where it outshines the M16 - reliability.

I'll take a FN FAL any day.

China-made AK vs American-made M-16... That makes me laugh :)))
China-made AK, China-made toys, Chima-made... peace of s**t!
Maybe AK-shooter in this video gone blind?
Try to shoot with Russian-made AK, and look the results! :)

"this video was edited to make the M-16 look alot better than the AK-47."

You can see after they do their 200 yd shooting that the aks sight is on the lowest setting not the 200yd setting

I have never seen such a biased load of crap trying to pass itself off as be authoratative.

Wow... I didn't realize that so many people didn't know anything about ammo !
.223 rounds were NOT meant to tumble through the air.. if they did, you wouldn't be accurate !
And once ANY bullet hits something (anything) they all start to tumble, even the big 50 cal.
All military FMJ projectiles (bullets as you would call them)
copper covers the lead part of the bullet. Only certain rounds have steel cores (example; the U.S. SS109 for the .223 is one of them) The copper wash type ammo someone is talking about is not the projectile so much but the steel casing.
Most cases are made of brass and not steel. ( except the imported Russian and older Chinese ammo)
This copper washing adds to the ease of functioning.
Basic standard ammo is not meant to exploded period !
Please read up on how ammo works....it will save you embarrassment later.
What makes the .223 (or 5.56mm) so dangerous is the rate of speed it travels at 3200 fet per second.
But it still has it's draw back...not even bullet weight
The 7.62x51 (U.S. .308 and not the Russian AK round- 7.62x39)
has 150 grain bullet compared to the .223 (old weight 55 and new weight 62). By the way did you notice trhe second number after the x...that is the case sizing.
So NO the two rounds do not interchange like people think. Plus there are even more 7.62 rounds.
x25 Russian pistol or subgun, x33- M1 carbine, x54r- Russian MG or sniper (these days) x 63- the old 30-06 round.
Weapons are a matter of choice and each person has their favorite. But each weapon is made for a different purpose also. I carried and M14 in Afghanistan for distance shooting but carried something smaller for house to house.
And you guys are right, bad shooters in the video !
Recon Marine, 5 tours in Iraq and Afghanistan
Semper Fi

bad trigger discipline on the AK..
hes cranking that thing back and not following though, no wonder he could'nt hit shit

Very informative and yet very biased

The 5.56 is made to fragment and tumble through the target, causing horrific damage by the time it exits (if it exits.) The bullet was engineered to kill.

The Soviet 7.62 was literally a rifle bullet chopped in half, and as such, it flies straight and true, all the way through. It's meant to get range and accuracy, not to cause damage.

Assault Rifle's aren't sniper rifles, they are made for medium and close range engagements below 300 yards. The closer you get, the more you want your bullet to drop the fool in front of you, not to penetrate and fly another 100 yards and kill a civilian.

Notice how the guy fireing the AK doesnt squeeze the shots off, he hammers the trigger just about every time.
Even my mother knows to squeeze a trigger if you want to hit what your aiming at !!

The AK guy can shoot...when he tries. He can't hit the target, but then he hits the cinder block and the wood in the exact same place the m16 did.

Guy with the AK cannot shoot. I have shot square foot sized falling plates at 250 meters with the AK consistently. The AK never fails. Only stoppages in 22 years with the AK were due to poor quality ammo (failure to fire). You may not be able to carry as much ammo as with the M16 but what you carry kills. Noise never killed anyone in a gunfight!

No hearing protection???

They should have illustrated the user ergonomics of each too.

wow, I'm in the Marine Corps and thats a horrible grouping with the m-16. that guy needs to learn how to shoot.

this video was edited to make the M-16 look alot better than the AK-47. but in reality they are prettty well matched

They fail to mention that the M-16 bullet is copper-jacketed and is meant to fragment when it strikes a solid target, acting like a small explosive, while the AK-47 bullet is usually steel jacketed with a copper lubricating layer on the outside, which is made to penetrate. That's the trade-off - for a smaller round, you need something more than mere penetration to do as much damage as a larger bullet, so they're designed to fragment.