M16 V's AK47

Last Updated on Friday, 24 July 2009 16:40 Friday, 22 May 2009 13:01

When the world economy finally implodes leaving us all facing a "nasty, brutish, and short" life as political philosopher Thomas Hobbes described it, it's good to be prepared with some knowledge of basic weaponry to defend your ever dwindling food supplies from the rampaging hordes. To this end, the age old debate still rages on - AK47 Versus the M16 rifle. Which (as a newly recruited militia member) do you choose?

Both the AK-47 and the M-16 have been the mainstays of various armies and movements around the world for decades now, undergoing various upgrades, modernisations and modifications to improve them from their original release versions. What originally begun as the AK-47 is now being replaced by the AK-74 while the M-16 original has morphed into the current M16A4. Although both current models are different to their original forebears, many still label them by their original designations, so common were they around the world. Although no conclusive agreement can be reached on which is undoubtedly the better weapon, it helps to understand the pros and cons of each which can be utilised depending on the situation.

First of all, we can perhaps characterise the AK as the poor man's weapon, a rugged, virtually indestructible rifle which is highly valued because of its simplicity and extremely tough versatility. It operates just as well in the windswept sands of the desert to the monsoon downpours of the jungle. Coupled with this, it is cheap to produce, an important factor in cash starved revolutionary movements and third world countries - in parts of Africa, the AK can be bought for as little as $30-125 US dollars.. It fires a 7.62mm bullet at 710 metres a second, stored in its instantly recognisable 'curved' magazine.

The M16 on the other hand, is the rich man's rifle, composed of steel, alloys and composites. It is not as durable as the AK47 and it requires regular maintenance to keep it in tip top condition. Yet the M16 is more infantry friendly because of it’s lighter weight, a result of the composite materials used in its manufacture. Another consideration is that it uses a smaller bullet (5.56mm) than the AK, something which allows the infantryman to carry greater loads of ammunition and thus resultant firepower.

Both weapons have their advantages and disadvantages and the debate rages around some common themes - reliability, accuracy and impact.

There is no doubting the AK wins hands down on reliability. It’s toughness is legendary, from the green fields of Europe, to Sahara deserts, to Artic ice and tropical jungle - it survives impeccably in all conditions. It can be dumped in some plastic sheeting in a hole in the ground or literally dragged behind you as you march and it still emerges relatively unscathed from its ordeal. An M16 on the other hand, is a particularly demanding lover, requiring constant care and attention and a certain finesse is required to keep it in working condition.

Whereas the AK47 wins on its ruggedness however, the M16 beats it on accuracy. The difference is due to a number of factors. At a basic explanation, the AK allows for greater space around its internal components meaning dirt does not as easily clog the firing mechanisms as in the M-16, but this is something which impinges on its accuracy. It also fires a larger projectile meaning a greater recoil every time it is fired. Firing the AK in automatic mode and achieving any sort of accuracy over distance was notoriously difficult in earlier versions. The M16 however, responds as a looked after lover does, smoothly dispensing it’s rounds towards its target, something the smaller projectile helps to achieve.

Lastly, we come to impact, or more accurately, the damage a round has on an opponent. Both weapons have advantages. At short distances, both will undoubtedly fell an opponent but the AK is generally recognised as having the greater stopping power because of its larger calibre bullet. This helps the AK penetrate soft skinned vehicles or even punch through block walls while the M16’s bullet may simply lodge in the plasterwork. The M16 is not to be dismissed however. It’s bullets are fired at a higher velocity (speed) than the AK’s, something which helps it achieve greater impact upon a target. Because of the lighter bullet and it’s speed, it may also fragment upon impact causing even more harm. In comparison, the heavier AK bullet and slower velocity may leave the projectile intact upon contact, causing less harm to its intended target.

Therefore, each rifle has its own peculiar advantages and disadvantages. Yet it is on the battlefield where each comes into its own and as any good military tactician will tell you, the environmental considerations of a battlefield will often dictate which weapons you utilise.

Putting to one side alliances between East and West for the supply of weaponry, the choice between the two rifles will depend on personal circumstances. For a guerrilla or 'terrorist' outfit, the AK47 provides an ideal choice. Not only can it survive the harsh conditions a guerrilla campaign may dictate but for terrorism purposes, it can be dumped in supply depots for long periods with relatively little maintenance required. On the other hand, a well supplied regular army with secure bases can derive greater benefits from using the M16 while its range and accuracy can be used to target opponents at a comfortable distance.

For hit and run attacks by guerrilla outfits, the AK47’s firepower at close quarters is often a welcome addition to their capabilities against conventional forces. It also makes it useful in urban combat scenarios where it’s assault capabilities exhibit themselves in the role it was originally designed for. On the other hand, the longer range of the M16 allows the user put down suppressing fire whilst achieving reasonable levels of accuracy, something the AK can sometimes struggle to do. This is especially useful in open field traditional combat where the effective range for an AK was given as 365m while the M16 was 550m, just shy of a 200m advantage for the M16 therefore. Part of the reasoning for this discrepancy between the two was the AK’s initial intended use - as an assault rifle which was meant to be used in close quarters where reliability and firepower were uppermost in the design criteria.

Yet whilst we can debate endlessly about the advantages and disadvantages of each weapon, by far the most important aspect between the two is YOU, the user. Both are deadly weapons in the hands of a trained infantryman and both are valued for their respective capabilities. With a trained soldier, the limits of a weapon can be often overcome with the applied use of battlefield tactics and training. We doubt very much whether an elite Spetznaz or Green Beret would be floundering at a loss if they were furnished with their opponent’s weapon in a combat situation.

Therefore, when the world economy finally implodes and you join a militia for survival, think carefully about the weapon you choose. Urban warfare may dictate the heavier power of the AK to fire through adjoining walls. Rural open field combat may make the M16 advantageous. As an underground movement do you favour the reliability and ruggedness of the AK or decide that the lighter weight of the M16 and its ammunition means that your forces can sustain themselves for longer without supply? The choice, as they say, is yours.