| Which would you rather see the United States | | | | The AK today is for all intents and |
| Army using, the AK-47 or the M16? Most people | | | | practicality, the same weapon it was in 1947. |
| prefer the M-16 without a doubt. The M-16/M4 | | | | The Communist Bloc does not have the same |
| has superior accuracy, ergonomics, and is | | | | doctrine when it comes to small arms that the |
| just as reliable as the AK with proper | | | | west does. |
| cleaning and lubrication. The available | | | | |
| accessories such as rail systems, optical | | | | I am a certified armorer for the M-16/M4 |
| sights, suppressors, etc. far outweigh the | | | | system by a current Government contractor, |
| available accessories for the AK system. | | | | and I have also had several thousand rounds |
| | | | of experience with the AK system as well. |
| The AK is a fine rifle for untrained | | | | |
| peasants, and conscripts, but for a modern | | | | Due to all of that experience I can tell you |
| Army there are far better choices. | | | | that, the M-16 is not as unreliable as some |
| | | | claim, and that the legendary reliability of |
| First off the M-14 fires the 7.62 X 51mm | | | | the AK is somewhat overstated. |
| round, also known as the .308 Winchester. | | | | |
| The AK-47 fires the 7.62 X 39mm. These are | | | | The AK is a good weapon, but it is no where |
| two vastly different rounds. In military | | | | refined as the M-16 series or any other |
| loads the 7.62 NATO drives a 150-168 grain | | | | assault rifle system in use today, such as |
| bullet at 2550-2700fps. The 7.62 x 39mm | | | | the Galil, (which is a refined AK variant) |
| drives a 124gr bullet at around 2100-2200fps. | | | | AR-70, Sig 550, Steyr Aug, and some others. |
| As you can see the 7.62 x 39mm is no where | | | | The M-16 is the most widely used 5.56mm |
| near as powerful as the 7.62 NATO. The 7.62 | | | | weapon in the world today. It has been the |
| NATO is a full powered round, as the 7.62 x | | | | longest used standard issue rifle in US |
| 39 is an intermediate powered round. | | | | history for a reason. It works. |
| | | | |
| The 7.62 NATO is basically a shortened 30/06, | | | | As far as the M-14, it is a fine rifle. All |
| while the 7.62 X 39mm is derived from the | | | | things being equal, I would choose a 7.62mm |
| German MP-44 Sturmgewer 7.92 Kurtz. | | | | rifle as well, if I were going into harms |
| | | | way. But my choice would be the FN/FAL. The |
| In the M-16 series, the prefix XM denotes | | | | M-14 and the FAL were in the trial together |
| experimental. These weapons were never put | | | | back in the 1950 for adoption by the US |
| into service for the most part, as they were | | | | military. The M-14 won the tests and was |
| prototypes. The basic receiver layout is the | | | | adopted by the US. The FAL was adopted by 93 |
| same, the different A2, A3, etc, denote | | | | other nations, andstill serves today in parts |
| different FCG parts and optic and sighting | | | | of the world. Both are a good choice, but it |
| systems. | | | | does come down to that whole personal |
| | | | preference thing. |