Talk:Comparison of the AK-47 and M16/Archive 1

message: After reading this page I would like to change a section that stood out as being not up to snuff.  This is the section
(The design is inherently less reliable, due to the variety of springs and small parts in the M16 as well as the precision with which the parts are assembled within the rifle. The infamous reliability problems were due to production errors and an arbitrary decision by military brass to use a cartridge that the rifle had not been designed to fire (the M16 was originally designed to fire 7.62x51 mm NATO ammo as the AR 10; only after being redesigned for 5.56 NATO did problems surface). Chronic jamming problems with the talcum powder, poor penetration, even torso hits can't be reliably counted on to put the enemy down. In Vietnam, American soldiers threw away their M-16 rifles and used [Kalashnikov] AK-47s from dead Vietnamese soldiers, with bullets they captured. That was because the climate is different from the environment the M-16 was designed to work in.)
The term military brass is objectionable slang.  I don't understand the referrence to talcum power at all.  The cartridge was not the problem in the M-16 but the change from gunpowder types (flake vs. ball.)  The wounding/killing probability of the 5.56 mm round without verification of sources is opinion.  We are discussing a military grade rifle that has been in service over 40 years.  There have been dozens of studies in the effectiveness of the round by dozens of countries.  If we are going to dispute that fine but we'd better have sources capable of backing that up and not presented as fact.  The only point that has to be made is that the M-16 is a direct gas inpingment system that requires more cleaning.  Early problems resulted from a ball powder being used in a humid environment, lack of a chomed barrel/chamber, and no cleaning kits.
Tirronan 16:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

message: The AK-47 was not a completly Russian design and as such i have changed the article to reflect the true origins of the rifle.
:By same logic, you could claim that M16 is not completely American design, as it borrows heavily from earlier French and Swedish designs. --Mikoyan21 10:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AK origins 

message: This is the first time I've editted wikipedia, so I hope I've done it correctly.  I've fired both the NATO and Russian 7.62mm rounds as well as the 5.56mm, and I wanted to clarify the article about the rounds used in the M16 versus the AK-47.  Specifically, a lot of people think of 7.62mm Russian as similar to the 7.62mm NATO and therefore the comparison of AK-47 versus M16 is similar to the M14 versus M16.  But, in fact, the 7.62mm Russian cartridge is waaay smaller and less powerful than the 7.62mm NATO (.308) cartridge.  If you hold all three cartridges in your hand, it becomes clear right away that that 5.56mm NATO and 7.62mm Russian cartridges are quite similar in size while the 7.62mm NATO is huge.  And firing the rounds bares out this comparison.  The ammunition fired by the M16 and AK-47 is rather comparable.  While the 7.62mm NATO (fired by the M14 and Garand) is obviously much more powerful.
The moral of the story here is that bullet size is what the public pays more attention to, but powder weight is what really matters.  For another (more extreme) example of this, look at .22LR versus 5.56mm NATO.  Same sized bullet, but dramatically different powder charges.  The .22LR is a very weak cartridge.  And you can see it easily just comparing the cartridges side by side in your hand.  The size of the cartridge as a whole is quite telling, while the size of just the bullet itself is not.
Anyway... hope that helps. 209.128.67.234 
response: the Soviet 7.62x39 cartridge actually has much more penetration than the NATO 5.56 round.
If you have fired all of the above rounds, why are you confusing the .308 Winchester (7.62 NATO) with the .30-06 used in the M1 Garand? Granted, they are both similar, but at a glance, the .30-06 is longer and would certainly damage most firearms designed around the 7.62 NATO (if you could rechamber them to fit the longer cartridge in the first place). Also, the effectiveness of a cartridge is a combination of factors and it's intended mission (AP, JHP and FMJ variants for most common calibers support this), thus it's not as simple as the powder used or the bullet size. Third, the M14 was changed because it wasn't effective in its intended role, and that wasn't because of it's caliber since more effective rifles that use the 7.62 NATO round were made and are still in service in many countries (FN FAL for example). Finally, the M16 is more expensive than both the M14 and the AK47, in fact it's one of the most expensive assault rifles outside of HK rifles, so i find it illogical to cite costs as a possible reason to change weapons (as a sidenote, the army was initially skeptical about the AR15, not only for it's small caliber round, but because it was rather fragile and required frequent maintenance). Changed the article a bit. --Lyojah 08:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is correct. 5.56 penetrates hard material (such as steel) better. 7.62x39 penetrates soft and semi-hard materials better (such as wood, most structures, human tissue...) because it doesn't usually fragment and doesn't tumble as easily. Terminal ballistics (ie. effect on humans) is somewhat complicated and controversial issue, but most agree than usually, 5.56 performs better here. As for range and accuracy, it is certainly true that 5.56 has flatter trajectory, however it is NOT true as claimed in the text that it's useless beyond 100 yards. IIRC, the bullet drop at 300 metres for 7.62 is about 20cm more than for 5.56 - not insignifant difference, but certainly not an order of magnitude worse. --Mikoyan21 18:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About 7.62 versus 5.56 

message: Following the idea of being bold i did a major rewrite of the article. It's still not as good as it could be, but i trust it's better than it used to be and i hope it fills the criteria for articles better. Editing was done in several sessions due to stability problems in my computer. --Lyojah 10:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive edit 

message: Well I added some information concerning cost, you see cost is not only cost per unit but also plant setup cost. This is were using modern CNC machinery the AR-15/M-16 is much cheaper to produce then an AK. One should also consider that the Soviet Union and other communist states never were able to calculate the cost of anything. Nowadays it is simple to setup a small plant to make ARs, but you still need the same massive plant to make an AK because the machinery needed to do the stampings is huge. MeSwiss
Jaw2jab 18:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some more on COST 

message: While the AK series are reliable, they're not 100% reliable. Like all semi automatic rifles they do develop feeding problems after enough use and abuse. As to say that the M16A2s and M4s are "not reliable" my information tells me that the M4 and M16-A2s are doing better in most places then comparative western products. Even the much praised German G36 and Swiss made SIG 550 don't fare any better in Iraq or Afghanistan then the M4s... not to mention the British SA-80 which seems to be worse then the very earliest M16s by adding the famous SA-80 auto destruct feature. From my own experience, having played around plenty with the SIG 550 and an AR-15 (A2) the reliability is similar for both, provided that you oil or grease em properly, but then again there is no desert in Switzerland. Still I have my doubts that you need to clean an AR 3 times a day down there, unless of course one used some rather bad lube. MeSwiss
 
:: I cleaned my m16a2 twice daily in the desert, but we rarely if ever put lubrication on there (which would capture the sand particles and grind things to a halt).Swatjester 22:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliability 

message: I've been involved with firearms since I was 18 years old. I am now 56 years old. Just about every day of my life I've carried, lugged, worn, strapped on or slept with a gun of some sort on my body or very close to it. I've taught soldiers, civilians and police officers how to use and shoot them. When I was in Viet Nam, my last 7 months there I used an XM-21 sniper rifle while I was with the 1st Battalion of the 173d Airborne (Separate) Brigade, a very elite paratrooper unit. One of the things that I keep seeing is that most people, about 99% of them, do NOT understand that different guns are designed to meet very specific needs or to do a very specific kind of job. Glock pistols were NOT originally designed to be tackdrivers or super accurate. Glocks were designed to be robust, sturdy guns that would function when used in a combat (police or military conflict situation) role. Originally the Colt 1911 Government model pistol was designed just prior to World War One for cavalry troops (REAL horse soldiers) to use. The original Colts were meant to be used by a man holding the reins of a horse in one hand and his 1911 pistol in his other hand. For years I have observed that there are so called "experts" out there who want to compare the AK-47 rifle to the M-16 rifle. To me, that's like comparing oranges to pineapples. Because of all the contrasts, the comparison is just NOT right. Recently a noted "gun guru" said that a rifle was used in the offense and a pistol was a defensive tool. What this "guru" failed to understand is that any gun can be used for either an offensive OR a defensive purpose. What makes ANY gun offensive or defensive is the INTENT OF THE USER!! Bear with me as I explain the REAL differences between the AK-47 and the M-16 rifles.
The AK-47 was designed right at the end of World War Two. It was forged in the late 1940s and uses wood and metal for its structure. Based off of the needs of what the Soviet Army wanted, the AK-47 was designed to be a robust, dependable rifle. Russian Army research indicated that most of their soldiers never shot much, if at all, beyond 350 to 400 meters. The bullet used by the AK-47 is actually one that was designed to be used by the SKS carbine, a very short range shoulder-mounted firearm. The AK-47 basically replaced the SKS carbine, the PPSH submachinegun and the Mosin-Nagant bolt action rifle. This rifle shoots a medium diameter (.311) bullet that weighs about 122 grains. This rifle is actually designed to be used against enemy personnel and to stop a group of swarming enemy soldiers in the attack. The AK-47 is a good close-range rifle primarily used for defending a position. It is NOT meant to be a highly accurate sniper rifle.
The M-16 rifle was designed over 10 years AFTER the AK-47. The M-16 uses metal, aircraft aluminum and plastic in its construction. The M-16 is a more modern rifle than the AK-47 in its design and function goals. The M-16 shoots a small bore (varmint round) type bullet in .223 caliber. The bullets weigh about 55 grains and up. In other words, the M-16 shoots a bullet that is LESS THAN HALF THE WEIGHT of a bullet fired by an AK-47. The M-16 was originally meant to be used by lighter weight and smaller sized allied soldiers, not bigger American soliders. The first military service that started ordering the M-16 rifles was the U.S. Air Force. The USAF originally wanted their M-16 rifles to be used by rear echelon personnel and security police groups. So the original purposes of both rifles led to how they were initially developed. One was actually designed for combat infantrymen (AK-47) and the M-16 was designed for security work. What makes the M-16 effective as a combat rifle are the tactics that American soldiers have developed around it. The trouble is that it, the M-16, is STILL too small a rifle caliber shooting too light of a bullet for really effective infantry work. That is exactly why the military forces are looking to replace the .223 bullet with the 6.8 SPC variant of the M-16 (M-4) rifles. 
Advantages: AK-47 medium weight bullet useful at close range. M-16 small bore, high speed bullet that is very accurate at distances farther than the AK-47's. AK-47 is a robust, dependable rifle. The M-16 is a good rifle but it need to be maintained and kept clean. The AK-47 has a practical use range of about 300 to 350 meters. The M-16 rifles can be used with a practical distance of 450 to 500 yards. The M-16 rifle can be adapted to be a good sniper rifle with little or no problem.
Disadvantages: M-16 has tighter tolerances which make it more accurate BUT also proned to problems involving dirt or failure to keep it clean. The AK-47 does not have the range that the M-16 has nor the accuracy.
If I were going to be involved in close-range shooting where my life depended on putting a hostile enemy soldier down, I would want a good AK-47 rifle. If I were going to be doing long distance shooting and required extreme accuracy, I would want an M-16 rifle with a decent scope on it.
Keep in mind that almost ALL guns have their positive and negative sides to them. It is the shooter or user that must know what his particular gun can do for him and how he, the user, intends to use it.
FINALLY! SOMEONE WHO KNOWS WHAT HES TALKING ABOUT!
-(from a guy in tucson)
:My thoughts exactly. The AK-47 was never meant to be a sniper rifle. It was based on the philosophy of a bunch of soldiers laying down a wall of lead rapidly. The early M-16's were unreliable but that has been remedied and mostly it is from the fact it was incorrectly billed as "self-cleaning". The AK-47 is a good weapon for what it is designed for as the M-16 is as well. I hate when people compare the two, they are meant for different things. Though it is inevitable as they meet each other on the battlefield all the time in almost every war fought on this planet since the 60's. --Big Mac 01:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guns in general... 

message: The more logical comparison is AK-47/AKM vs. M-14 and AK-74 vs. M16.  The AK-47 and M-16 are a generation apart in small-arms design.  Even on the most basic level of caliber, AK-47s and M-14s are both .30 caliber weapons, and AK-74s and M-16s are both .22 caliber weapons.
I fail to see how the AK-47 is a generation apart from the m-16 in small arms design. And caliber has nothing to do with it, if you're going to argue that, the technically, the AK47 and m14 fire different rounds, and the AK-74 and m16 fire different rounds, so you can't use caliber as an equalizer. The m1 carbine also fires a .30 cal. round. that is widely considered to be underpowered. a .45 ACP, .45 long colt, and .45-70 are all technically .45 caliber rounds, but have vastly different muzzle velocities from their respective typical firearms. Caliber is not the only standard to judge by. Vietnam: ak47 vs m16. Persian Gulf: largely ak-47's vs m16s. OIF, largely still aK-47's vs m16s. Afghanistan, largely still Ak-47s vs m16s. the Ak-74 is still much less numerous in the ex-soviet satellites and arms-contractees than the venerable 47. (Forgive my grammar, but its late.) ⇒ SWATJester  Ready  Aim  Fire! 08:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is a poor comparison 

message: Added Kaliskonov comment on American GI's prefering his weapon. That goes to the heart of the article!!!--Will314159 16:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: Could somebody please cite any sources saying 5.56 ammo fragments in the body or fragments once fired? I have used US Air Force M-16s and have seen absolutely no proof of this. From the article:
"The original ammunition for the M16 was M193 ball, a 55 grain (3.6 g) projectile that exited the muzzle at 3,250 ft/s. It is often stated that this round "would tumble" upon striking a target. All bullets tumble. This is not the wounding mechanism. At ranges of up to 75 meters the lead cored round is traveling fast enough that the force of striking a body will cause the round to fragment along the cannelure (crimp where the bullet is clamped to the casing) into at least three pieces (front, back, and jacket). Three fragments are far more likely to strike something vital than one, hence the fearsome reputation of the M16 in close range jungle combat. The much slower and heavier AK-47 round even from the muzzle enters a target at a velocity below which it would fragment, unless it strikes a bone.
During the 1970s and 1980s the quest for greater accuracy, penetration and armor piercing capability from light machine guns led to the adoption of a heavier, slower, hardened steel cored round, the M855. The heavier 62 grain (4.0 g) SS109 projectile used in the later generation of 5.56x45 cartridges (M855) sacrificed some initial speed (muzzle velocity) but increased the ability of the projectile to penetrate solid targets-especially at longer range. However, as a result, a major grievance of American troops in Somalia in 1993 was that the M855 round would drill cleanly through a target without fragmenting."
The Hague Conventions makes fragmenting ammunition illegal. From the hollow point bullet article:
"The Hague Convention of 1899, Declaration III, prohibits the use in warfare of bullets which easily expand or flatten in the body. This is often incorrectly believed to be prohibited in the Geneva Conventions, but it significantly predates those conventions, and is in fact a continuance of The Declaration of St Petersburg in 1868, which banned exploding projectiles of less than 400 grams, and weapons designed to aggravate injured soldiers or make their death inevitable. Despite the ban on military use, hollow point bullets are one of the most common types of civilian and police ammunition, due largely to the reduced risk of bystanders being hit by over-penetrating or ricocheted bullets, and the increased speed of incapacitation. In many jurisdictions, it is illegal to hunt game with ammunition that does not expand, and some target ranges also forbid full metal jacket ammunition."
The statement that 5.56 ammo fragments is setting my BS detector in the red. --132.33.132.19 06:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fragmenting 5.56? 

message: This is a very long, poor-quality article that reads like the collected works of a group of high school students. "In the field the M16 proves superior to the AK-47, due to its similar weapons system based off the M1 Garand and the M14"? So many things are "considered by many" or "generally considered". I note that the AK-47's ballistics are yet again described as looping, something I mocked as far back as 2002.  The M16 is described as reliable in one sentence, and in the next sentence we are told that all soldiers everywhere must clean in three times a day, but that this is normal. The article states that "the Minute of angle of a standard issue AK-47 is 3-4 MOA"; what standard issue AK-47? Standard issue where, and when? The "Different Philosophies" section repeats the introduction. The article is bitty and staccato. It is full of pseudo-military terminology and does not seem like the work of an adult. I am wary of editing it for fear of being associated with something unpleasant. I have a vision of macho young men like myself of ten years ago, pretending to be grown up. -Ashley Pomeroy 01:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urgh 

message: The "Caliber" section, which is, in my opinion, heavily biased in favour of 7.62x39 (with lots of "however"s following the short, underplayed mentions of 5.56's advantages), compares 7.62x39 hollow point ammunition to 5.56x45 military ball ammo. This seems unfair at best and irrelevant at worst, as hollow-point ammunition is illegal in warfare, as per the Hague convention. We might as well compare civilian hollowpoint 7.62x39mm ammo to civilian match 5.56 ammo.
It also appears to lack any mention of the fact that 7.62x39 is nearly twice as heavy as 5.56, meaning you can only carry half the ammunition.75.157.147.39 (talk) 09:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caliber section problems 

message: In several places, Russia is mentioned where Soviet or USSR would be more appropriate. To the best of my knowledge, the AK-47 was superceded by the AK-74 long before the collapse of the USSR. 217.31.178.94 (talk) 16:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russia or Soviet 

message: this article repeats too much information from the M16 and AK-47 pages. It should focus on the comparison of the two weapons and not repeat the history, the decisions, etc. It should be simple to read this article and get a decent idea. If someone wants more in depth, they can read the other articles.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.107.130 (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  too much unnecessary info 

message: Article claims AK-47's weight without magazine is 4.3 kg. I have used G-3 during my military service, a battle rifle much heavier than the AK-47 (which is famous with lightness). But even the bulky G-3 is 4.25 kgs. There may be a mistake about this. I remember Kalashnikov's weight without magazine is 3.9 kg. But i am not sure, this may be weight of AKM. Still i think the 47 should be lighter than 4.3 kg.
(I just checked the article about AK47, there it says AK-47's weight is 3.8 Kg and AKM's weight is 3.68 kg)
:: manny AK type and weight . In Russia, AK model 1949 (AK-47) 4.3 kg, AKM (Moden 1959) 3.1 KG  , AK 107 3.4kg,  AK-74 3.07 kg, AK-74S 2.97 kg, AK-74M with grenade launcher 3.4kg. (with empty magazine). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.24.156.214 (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weight 

message: In the accuracy section of this article, it say "The M16 came from the factory shooting with an MOA of 3-4 MOA and under which allowed it to reliably hit targets up to 300 yards." What the heck's an MOA? The section takes for granted people's knowledge of military acronyms, and deserves to have some sort of explanation of what it means. Kevin 01:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  M16 move arrverage point 15" at 300 met, in wind 3 clock, 10 mph. (Globalsecurity). MOA 3-4 = 15".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.24.156.214 (talk) 02:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

text: "This smaller, higher-velocity NATO cartridge should not be confused with the full power 7.62x51 mm NATO round, which was used in other battle rifles of the 1960s and 1970s, and is still used in medium machine guns. In metric caliber designations, these numerals refer to cartridge dimensions. The initial set of numbers refer to the diameter of the actual projectile in millimeters, while the subsequent set of numbers refer to the cartridge case's length."
Anybody who doesn't already know this can look on an ammo page (I'm guessing it's explained somewhere...), & it isn't on point to the comparison.
Also, the remark "WW2 combat experience indicated" is inaccurate. German research after WW1 found most engagements were at under 500m, which is 1 reason the MKb 42 was introduced.
And I'd agree with the "staccato" assessment. I found the article repetitive & disjointed. It needs serious attention, but I'm to unfamiliar with the subject to tackle it.  Trekphiler 13:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Forgive me, but what is the MKb 42? Thanks, heqs 05:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check history of Sturmgewehr 44, 86.38.207.126 (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  MOA 

message: I deleted
:"This smaller, higher-velocity NATO cartridge should not be confused with the full power 7.62x51 mm NATO round, which was used in other battle rifles of the 1960s and 1970s, and is still used in medium machine guns. In metric caliber designations, these numerals refer to cartridge dimensions. The initial set of numbers refer to the diameter of the actual projectile in millimeters, while the subsequent set of numbers refer to the cartridge case's length."
Anybody who doesn't already know this can look on an ammo page (I'm guessing it's explained somewhere...), & it isn't on point to the comparison.
Also, the remark "WW2 combat experience indicated" is inaccurate. German research after WW1 found most engagements were at under 500m, which is 1 reason the MKb 42 was introduced.
And I'd agree with the "staccato" assessment. I found the article repetitive & disjointed. It needs serious attention, but I'm to unfamiliar with the subject to tackle it.  Trekphiler 13:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgive me, but what is the MKb 42? Thanks, heqs 05:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check history of Sturmgewehr 44, 86.38.207.126 (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Small caliber

message: Why does this article always seem to compare the ak to the m16a1,just wondering it seems that the only one ever compared (Esskater11 20:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  always comparing m16a1 

message: Aluminium is far stronger and lighter than Steel this article says otherwise.
:It's not. It's stronger for it's weight, but for two parts of equal size, it's much weaker and more prone to cracks and heat deformation. 217.31.178.94 (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aluminium 

message: The author seems to always mention the AK47 first in every section.  Although, I may just be paranoid
It is preferable for ease of reading to be consistent between sections as to the order in which items are presented. The AK-47 comes before the M16 both alphabetically and chronologically, therefore it does not seem unreasonable to select it as the first of the two items surveyed. I don't see this as a particularly major neutrality issue.
:Other things. Weight comparison evaluates rifles without ammo. Such evaluation favors AK-47, because it ignores round weight. Correct comparison should use AK-74, but author went with common (or well known) Soviet assault rifle vs common American/Western assault rifle. Comparison is populistic. I was trying to calculate weight differences and could not do it. 7.62x39mm, 5.45x39mm and 5.56x45mm NATO articles talk about bullet weight, but they all fail to mention how much standard bullet+cartridge+propellant round weights. Talk about conspiracy there. 78.63.27.227 (talk) 08:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  AK47 may be favored 

message: The AK-47 and the M-16 aren't the two most common rifle "families", they might be the most common riffles but they aren't "fammilies". Cody.raab 00:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening Paaragraph needs to be edited 

message: It says that Colt is the manufacturer of the weapon, but i thought offical production was moved to FN back in the 90's(ForeverDEAD 15:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colt firearms 

message: Given the number of facts and opinions that have not been substantiated by expert references, it is easy to see why there was a call for deletion.  The original writer obviously put a good deal and time and energy into the article and it would seem that writer could make the necessary adjustments. I would guess that over time those adjustments will be made, but it would also seem that Wikipedia will have to decide whether product comparisons are appropriate subject matter for a fact based publication. PeaceNow 08:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate to say it (I *REALLY* hate to say it... I own both... the AK is easily better :P ), but, there are just too few references. The last AfD was in 2005, and, this article is STILL mostly WP:OR, and, almost totally unreferenced. As Igor said "AK-47 and M16 and their many variants are arguably the 2 most popular guns used by many Military and Civilian organizations around the world.". You're 100% right, and, that's why we have M16 and AK-47. Both firearms are indeed notable. --SXT4\color{Red} \oplus 19:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact versus Opinion 

message: As it stands, almost nothing in this entry is source. This leaves it open to deletion or trimming on grounds of WP:V and WP:OR. I know many of the facts on this page to be true, and share most of its opinions so I will not take it as that would be disruptive, but I would ask users to find some sources for it. - perfectblue 17:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:V and WP:OR 

message: Actually, the M16 can only fire 800RPM, where as the AK-47 can fire 900. And I would like somebody to bring up durability, because the AK-47 is nigh impossible to break, it can be shot, kicked, stabbed, run over with a duce and a half, and still keep working, whearas the M16 will break if you set it down wrong, and you can forget trying to hit somebody with it, or trying to use a bayonett, because it will be completely destroyed. also, the AK is extremely reliable.
:What's your source? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unaddressed issues 

message: please, will someone stop messing with the data, the AK-47 fires 900RPM so stop putting 600RPM, and by the way, please compare penetration, the M16 won't go through a sheet of plexiglass, but the AK-47 will go through a brick wall.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avianmosquito (talk • contribs) 04:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The AK-47 page lists it at 600rpm. In order to have consistency among pages I would recommend bringing arguments over there. Whatever consensus is reached will be shown here. And also bring some sources for the 900RPM. Homersmyid 23:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Data 

message: Apparently, the current manufacturer for military M16A4 is FN Manufacturing. Colt makes M4A1 instead. But on the chart at the beginning of the article, it states that M16's are still made by Colt. But FN won the contract since 1980's. So what should be the real manufacturer stated in the article. Or can we put the manufacturer as "various?"24.6.160.190 (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Colt and FN both manufacture the full-length M16 rifle. Spartan198 (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  M16 Manufacturer 

message: The opening statement is "the Colt AR-15 (designated the M16 by the United States military)". This really isn't correct, the AR-15 and M16 are different weapons. Although the body is the same the M16 features burst or full auto selectors depending on the model, whereas the AR-15 is single shot semi auto.  Inseeisyou (talk) 02:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I agree. The term AR-15 now refers to those rifles that cannot be classified as M16s. It feels more natural to me to call it an M16, especially when discussing it in the context of the US military. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error 

message: An experet will be needed or citations given as the current format reads alot like personal opinion. please cite magizine articles or relevent firearms data compairing ar-15/m16 VS ak-47 accuracy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.180.189.229 (talk) 07:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy of ak-47 states lots of opinion 

message: if you want to compare 1st generation soviet and american assault rifles, you take AK, and M14 or with little push of faith, a AR-10. But anyways, it is obvious the soviet technology is supreme at this point as americans are using full lenght, full power rifles at this point, and if you want to compare something to a M16, then you take then current soviet generation of assault weapons, for M16, depending on era, it will be compared to AKM or to AK-74 and now later to the "century series" of AK's (including AK-74M, the 5.45 weapon of that series). But this whole article is retarded and basicly flawed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.154.204.152 (talk) 07:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: M16 is about 20 years ahead of the AK47, just on the basis of that, the entire comparison is moot. Even an M14 is younger than the AK47.... you could maybe compare the AK47 to some variants of the M1 (T20E2) or some later creations related to BAR, but not the M16.... It would be like comparing the first WWII aircraft dropped bomb to a nuke, 20 years of engineering makes a hell of a difference. That being said, the AK47 held the supreme advantage all up until the conception of the M16 (and some claim even afterward) after which it's role changed and the sniper role was added to each operating squad to cover the intermediate distances out of the range of the AK74. The AK47 rifle itself evolved newer and more superior variants which match the effective range of the M16 while beating it in reliability 99.236.220.155 (talk) 16:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that this article is spawned because of the conflict that occurred 'twixt capitalist and communist forces in Vietnam in the 1960s. Why don't we have articles on other comparisons, such as those between the M1 Thompson and the MP40? To me this article doesn't have any relevance other than being a hot topic with Vietnam veterans and people who like to wank over firearms. --86.176.245.226 (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Faulty comparison 

message: Is this "Google Fight" thing in the external links really relevant? All it is is a flash application of two stick figures fighting for about a second and a half. It has nothing to with firearms at all. Spartan198 (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevant external link? 

message: The AK was very carefully designed for mass production and has gradually been refined for this purpose. If I recall correctly it is something like 1/5th the cost to produce and has been produced in almost ten times the quantities as the M16, leading to much greater availability. Given the financial limitations of a large number of militaries, production considerations, cost and availability would logically deserver its own section. This is also a very important factor in the proliferation of small arms (with significant consequences for global stability and casualty rates in 3rd world conflicts). --Hrimpurstala (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major comparison almost missing 

message: /from the article:/
early Russian attempts to build a lighter, automatic rifle based on the Japanese 6.5 mm Arisaka round, such as the AVS-36 Simonov and early 1916 Avtomat by Fedorov
- AVS actually used 7.62x54R "full power" rifle catridges. It proved to be ineffective during the Winter war with Finland, and was eventually replaced with a self-loading (semi-automatic) Tokarev SVT rifle. Later on, this line of developments led to Simonov's self-loading carbine, the SKS, which was eventually discontinued in early 1950s because the Army desided it was less effective and more difficult to produce then the AK (actually it was somewhat not, but it poorly fitted the Soviet military doctrine of the period which praised high rate of fire, even at cost of accuracy, what based on extencieve use of fast-firing sub-machine guns during WWII). 95.79.15.33 (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the info - do you have any sources we can use the substaniate the information. We're trying to improve the article by moving to a model where we only put in info that can be backed up. Thanks. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 22:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Most of that info can be found on Max Popenker's site (world.guns.ru) in corresponding sectiones. Is that an appropriate source ?  Also there is a Wiki article about AVS-36 and I believe it has sources in it, it also states the AVS used 7.62x54 Rimmed cartridges, not 6.5 mm Arisaka (that's quite obvious, I can say). There was also a very rare Soviet Army user's manual ("Nastavleniye") printed in 1955 (AFAIR) in which the 1953 model AK with milled reciever is called "Lighted AK" (the only document to mention this designation), contrary to 1949 model which had stamped steel reciever and was designated just AK, but it is not avalable anywhere on the Internet, I have only acticles in Russian which reference it. And about rifle / carbine, that's ovious, I believe, just anyone can calculate barell lengths in calibres an compare... 95.79.6.194 (talk) 11:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrections needed 

message: I've removed the following VDM Publishing reference: 
 --Playmobilonhishorse  (talk) 04:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Fences and windows/Unreliable sources#Wikipedia mirrors|Unreliable source]] 

message: one of the largest problems here is the fact that this article compares the 7.62x39 AK-47 to the 5.56x45 M-16A*.  a fair comparison would be 5.45x39 AK-74 to the 5.56x45 M-16A* and the 7.62x39 AK-47 to the 7.62x51 M14, otherwise its just apples to oranges and can't be done. User: 24.26.74.143 18:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree. This would favor the M16. The article should compere rifles from the same time period - so AKM should be compared with M16A1, and AK-74 should be compared with M16A2. If you want, you can compare original AK from early 50s with modern M16A4 - but what would be the point? --Corran.pl (talk) 20:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Comparison