The answer is simple.
AK can break through concrete, M16 can't.
Run over AK with Humvee, it still works, M16 will break to pieces.
Bury an AK in dirt, still works fine. Bury an M16, doesn't work.
Submerge an AK in water, works just great. Submerge an M16 in water, jams.
The M16 is more accurate that the AK47. It has a higher muzzle velocity. It has a much higher rate of fire. The weight of a soldier's supply of rounds is much less with the M16.
The AK has substantial impact at 300 - 600 meters. The M16 has very little impact at that range. This is because the AK uses 30 calibre (7.56 mm) bullets and the M16 uses 22 calibre (5.56 mm) bullets. The small diameter causes the bullet to slow from air resistance quite rapidly.
The M16 has a problem (as do all rapid-firing ultralight assault rifles) of overheating when firing long bursts. One method that some American instructors taught their soldiers to destroy weapons that had to be left behind was to fire a full 20 round clip and then push the barrel against the ground. The barrel will warp. The AK is much more resilient.
Ak47 is the best only reason (More ammo) :)
UMP45 because its automatic and overpowered. The only benefit with the the M16 is that it has barely any recoil. I would go with the UMP45. It's really a comparison of apples and oranges. The UMP is a submachinegun, whereas the M16 is an assault rifle. The UMP fires a pistol cartridge, thus, you're looking at an effective range of 50 to 100 metres, vs. the M16, which has an effective range of 550 metres at a point target.
NVA T54 medium gun tanks (100mm main guns) vs USA M48 Patton medium gun tanks (90mm main guns). NVA PT76 light tanks (76mm guns) vs USA M551 Sheridan light tanks (152mm guns). NVA AK47 vs USA M16 rifles NVA RPD machinegun vs USA M60 machinegun NVAF MiG17, MiG19, MiG21 jets vs USAF F100 Super Sabre, F101 Voodoo, F102 Delta Dagger, F104 Starfighter, F105 Thunderchief, B57 Canberra bomber, B52 Bomber, SR71 Blackbird, U2 Spyplane. NVAF Mig17, MiG19, MiG21 jets vs USN A1 Skyraider, A4 Skyhawk, A6 Intruder, A7 Corsair, F4 Phantom, F8 Crusader.
It fires a much more powerful cartridge (7.62x51 vs. 5.56x45), and uses a more reliable short stroke gas piston system vs. the direct impingement system of the M16. The one possible drawback would be apparent if the magazines were poorly made... I doubt the magazines designed by FN would be, but knowing how US government contracting works, an aftermarket manufacturer producing inferior quality magazines would likely be selected (as what happened with the M9 pistol).
The M16 is an AR-15. "M16" is simply a military nomenclature. As far as military rifles vs. civilian variants, the military rifles are manufactured under much more strict conditions than rifles manufactured for civilian sales. Actually, the above is incorrect. The manufacturing process for an AR-15 is the exact same as for an M16; the sole difference is a very minor mechanical one - the M16 is designed for selective fire (the option to fire in an automatic mode), while the AR-15 is semi-automatic only. Now, there are a variety of clones of the AR-15 design, and the quality on those varies, but actual AR-15s are produced by the same people as the M16, using the same equipment. Roughly 90% of the AR-15 parts are identical to those used in the M16. Objectively, the M16 is better than the AR-15 for only one reason: it also offers the option to shoot in a 3-round bursts, in addition to semi-automatic mode. That's the only difference.
On paper, the FAMAS has the advantage of using a gas piston system, vs. the direct impingement system of the M16. However, I'm not aware of any direct comparisons which have been conducted between the two, and it should be noted that there are select units of the French military which use the M16 and M4, rather than their standard issue FAMAS. It's also worthy of mention that the French have resorted to using steel cased ammo, as the extraction from the FAMAS is very violent and has shown a tendency to tear apart brass cases in the chamber.
yes the reasons are: *options on rate of fire (semi auto-auto vs just auto) *more readily available ammo (5.56 cal) *more accurate *easier magazine release *easier to open and clean, fix, maintain
The M16 / AR15 family of weapons (newest designation - M-4) have been the choice of every branch of the US military since the mid '60s. What more can you say? Yes, they are very good weapons. They're more refined, modern, and accurate than their (Chi-Com, Russian, Middle-East, North African, South American, etc) counterpart, the AK47 (more recently the AK74). But a lot of people (on Earth) feel the AK is slightly more reliable and fool-proof. It's a classic "Chevy vs Ford" argument. Nobody will everwin the argument, and very few will ever change their minds. :/ IceRail
rhino
1. WWII, first war in history in which every US fighting man was armed with a semi-automatic rifle, the M1 Garand. WWII created the AIRBORNE divisions (paratroopers). 2. Vietnam, first war in history in which every US fighting man was armed with a fully-automatic rifle, the M16 Jungle Rifle (assault rifle). Vietnam War created the AIRMOBILE divisions (helicopters). Note: Secretary of Defense McNamara "clarified the M16" for jungle warfare only.
LevelMatchPasswords16All vs BermudaN/A15All vs NetherlandsCRICKET14All vs CanadaFOOTBALL13All vs ScotlandSPEEDWAY12All vs KenyaBASEBALL11All vs IrelandDAGGY10All vs ZimbabveDINGO9All vs BangladeshCARTMAN8All vs West IndiesCLASSIC7All vs Sri LankaMICKEY6All vs PakistanMCBEAR5All vs New ZealandROCKET4All vs EnglandBGARK3All vs AustraliaMONKEY2All vs IndiaBEEFY1All vs South AfricaTUGGA
Whitebeard