Ok, I have watched this debate from the time this forum began (the old board long before GB ever made it Bright White) to the time the last newbie shows up and asked the question.

And I have seen legions of people answer it from the enlightened and knowledgable to the people who just saw that episode of "Tales of the Gun" and can quote it verbatim.

But there is some very basic information that is often overlooked, that without, no meaningful comparrison could ever be made.

The most important of which is there isn't a single AR-15 variant or a single AK-47 variant for direct comparisson. Also there are military and civilian versions of each which aren't exactly identical except for the select fire capacity. Also among civilian semi auto versions all manufacturers are not equal.

For the purpose of this post I won't be addressing the more poorly manufactured variants (Hesse, ASA, Norinco, etc.) and I won't go into super short models like the Commando or Krinkov as those present entirely different ballistic issues.

Among M-16s (and the related AR-15 models) there are a few basic variants: The M-16,  M-16A1, A2, Car-15A1, A2 and the M-4. There are also about 20 minor variations of the military rifle. These differ in barrel length, twist rate and type of ammunition intended for use. Other factors include barrel thickness, select fire options and features such as sight configuration and forward assist. A few models have unique features like chrome bolt carriers.

Obviously differences in barrel length, twist rate and type of ammunition used (55 or 62 gr.) will all produce a rifle with a variation in performance with respect to terminal ballistics and therefore only a direct comparisson of specific models is in any way meaningful.

Among AK-47s (and related civlian semi autos) there are also many variants each with it's own performance characteristics. Among military Kalashnikov rifles you have a milled receiver (true AK-47), stamped AKM versions (although a prototype seems to have preceeded the milled version) and both versions can be found in 7.62x39 or 5.45x39 (as well as .223 NATO for civilian versions). There are also various fixed stock and folding stock versions and all have their own unique performance characteristics.

So again, unless a comparrison is very specific, it is generally meaningless beyond the "I like this one best" argument.

But there are some things that are common to most models, or most of them, that allow us to compare those specific issues for the strenghts and weaknesses. Obviously the first one is ammunition.

For the sake of simplicity there are two basic categories for the Kalashnikov: 7.62x39 and 5.45x39 and two basic categories for the AR-15: 5.56 in 55 and 62 gr.

Generally the .30 caliber (7.62x39) has a greater capacity for penetration than 5.45 or 5.56 rounds, but the latter rounds are accepted as more accurate. You can also carry more of the 5.56 ammo than you can of the 7.62 ammo. So basically the choice is do you want to carry more powerful ammunition or a greater quantity of ammunition. For many reasons we switched from a .30 cal round (7.62x51) to the 5.56 round, these included the ability to carry more ammo and the fact that the lower recoil makes it easier to train soldiers. Some agree with the decison and some do not, and by 1974 the Soviets had made a similar decision with the AK-74 which was chambered in a similar 5.45x39 round. And for those who saw that episode of "Tales of the Gun" they know Mr. Kalashnikov did not agree with the decision.

Our evolution of ammunition was basically from a 55 gr. round to a 62 gr. round and the related barrel twists, from 1-12 to 1-7 (sometimes 1-9). This was done because it was believed that the heavier round (requiring a faster twist) wouuld be more effective against the WARSAW pact soldiers we expected to engage against who would probably be wearing light body armour.

You can also make comparrisons of features that are generally common to all variants of both rifles, but one must remember that there are going to be many other factors which will not remain constant and they need to be considered before and meaningful comparisson is made.

Generally, it can be said that the AR-15 is more accurate than the AK-47, but an older 1-12 twist 55 gr. AR-15 may not run circles around some of the modern AKMs chambered in 5.45x39. And generally, it can be said that the AK-47 is more reliable than the AR-15, but an older AK-74 (5.45x39) may not out run a modern M-4.

Among both variants older milled receiver will be more durable but more prone to overheating and later lightweight versions may be more prone to damage. The various types of furniture from bakelite, polymer or wood have theri respective strengths and weaknesses.

Among the M-16 variants the chamber and bolt specifications (tolerances to Campybob) are tighter resulting in greater accuracy but more prone to fouling and stoppages,and there is a difference between a1 and a2 models regarding sights. Among the Kalashnikov variants the short sight radius and looser chamber and bolt specifications generally result in poorer accuracy but greater reliablility. Both have options, depending upon the various configurations, for optics and other accessories.

And finally, one must realize that it is the application (and not the rifle) which will dictate which one is superior in a given situation.

For a dense jungle environment where visibility is limited to 50m and the opportunity the maintian a weapon will be restricted the best choice would obviously be a Kalashnikov variant.

For open terrain in a moderate climate where the enemy will be engaged at 200-400m the M-16/AR-15 wouild clearly be the best tool for the job.

And you would choose the specific variant of the rifle based upon additional factors like ammo weights, time before resupply and how much other gear must be carried.

And that is what most people need to consider. These are just "tools" and saying one is better than the other is like saying a hammer is a more useful tool than a screwdriver. It would depend on intended usage.

So to answer the age old debate as to which is better, the correct answer is "it depends."

And it depends on many factors, the most important being intended need. Answer that and you will then be able to choose the best tool for the job. Otherwise you may bring a hammer when you could really use a screwdriver.

I heard that the Japanese designed the AK47's chamber to be super strong so that a soldier in the field could pick up any old loose enemy cartridge and shoot it (even if it wouldn't fit in the clip).

Around the time Mattel sold Colt the rights to make the M16, most of the bullets that could be shot out of the AK were made illegal by the Geneva Convention - hence the M16's rise in popularity.

Gimme my Colt AR-15!

a pleasant post to read, thanks

Oh god another pissing contest with no relevant conclusions.  Don't you are guys have barrels to swab so they don't pit or 20lbs of new accessories to bolt on to your 7lb gun?

Quoted: For a dense jungle environment where visibility is limited to 50m and the opportunity the maintian a weapon will be restricted the best choice would obviously be a Kalashnikov variant. For open terrain in a moderate climate where the enemy will be engaged at 200-400m the M-16/AR-15 wouild clearly be the best tool for the job.

Oh hell, just get both.

Quoted: I heard that the Japanese designed the AK47's chamber to be super strong so that a soldier in the field could pick up any old loose enemy cartridge and shoot it (even if it wouldn't fit in the clip). Around the time Mattel sold Colt the rights to make the M16, most of the bullets that could be shot out of the AK were made illegal by the Geneva Convention - hence the gun's rise in popularity.

Dolomite's an expert on this.  A "professional", you might say.

Don't try this at home.

Quoted: I heard that the Japanese designed the AK47's chamber to be super strong so that a soldier in the field could pick up any old loose enemy cartridge and shoot it (even if it wouldn't fit in the clip). Around the time Mattel sold Colt the rights to make the M16, most of the bullets that could be shot out of the AK were made illegal by the Geneva Convention - hence the M16's rise in popularity.

Quoted: Quoted: For a dense jungle environment where visibility is limited to 50m and the opportunity the maintian a weapon will be restricted the best choice would obviously be a Kalashnikov variant. For open terrain in a moderate climate where the enemy will be engaged at 200-400m the M-16/AR-15 wouild clearly be the best tool for the job. Oh hell, just get both.

DONE!



I even got me an AK which fires 5.56 ammo!

"Otherwise you may bring a hammer when you could really use a screwdriver."

Should read, "otherwise you may bring a hammer to a screwdriver fight."  Otherwise, very informative.

bd

Quoted: ...For many reasons we switched from a .30 cal round (7.62x39) to the 5.56 round...

You did mean to type 51 there, didn't you?

M855 ammo was never meant to be fired through shorter barrels...its primary design was lengthening the effective range of the A2 variant and interoperability with the M249.

No, M855 doesn't poke pinholes in the enemy.  See Dr. Martin Fackler's excellent work, substantiated with the Ammo Oracle's testing.

The reason for 1:7" twist was M856 tracer ammo.  To enable a dim trace to 200 meters with a bright trace to 800, a longer bullet was needed.  M855 will stabilize in 1:9"

And to repeat the Ammo Oracle, you cannot spin a bullet fast enough to enable staility when the bullet is traveling through a combatant.  The twist rate necessary is about 8 turns per inch, an impossible rate.  That is about 56 times faster than the A2's 1:7"

Quoted: M855 ammo was never meant to be fired through shorter barrels...its primary design was lengthening the effective range of the A2 variant and interoperability with the M249. No, M855 doesn't poke pinholes in the enemy.  See Dr. Martin Fackler's excellent work, substantiated with the Ammo Oracle's testing. The reason for 1:7" twist was M856 tracer ammo.  To enable a dim trace to 200 meters with a bright trace to 800, a longer bullet was needed.  M855 will stabilize in 1:9" And to repeat the Ammo Oracle, you cannot spin a bullet fast enough to enable staility when the bullet is traveling through a combatant.  The twist rate necessary is about 8 turns per inch, an impossible rate.  That is about 56 times faster than the A2's 1:7"

shhhh don't tell anyone the truth, your going to get the post locked

Quoted: M855 ammo was never meant to be fired through shorter barrels...its primary design was lengthening the effective range of the A2 variant and interoperability with the M249. No, M855 doesn't poke pinholes in the enemy.  See Dr. Martin Fackler's excellent work, substantiated with the Ammo Oracle's testing. The reason for 1:7" twist was M856 tracer ammo.  To enable a dim trace to 200 meters with a bright trace to 800, a longer bullet was needed.  M855 will stabilize in 1:9" And to repeat the Ammo Oracle, you cannot spin a bullet fast enough to enable staility when the bullet is traveling through a combatant.  The twist rate necessary is about 8 turns per inch, an impossible rate.  That is about 56 times faster than the A2's 1:7"

Hard to believe a member who has been around this long still hasn't read the oracle isn't it?

Quoted: Quoted: For a dense jungle environment where visibility is limited to 50m and the opportunity the maintian a weapon will be restricted the best choice would obviously be a Kalashnikov variant. For open terrain in a moderate climate where the enemy will be engaged at 200-400m the M-16/AR-15 wouild clearly be the best tool for the job. Oh hell, just get both.

No....don't get both.

Call in artillery.

Also, the AK was made for a different army with a different tactics/strategy than the US.

Would that be fair to say?

Quoted: Also, the AK was made for a different army with a different tactics/strategy than the US. Would that be fair to say?

No, that is very unfair. You are clearly racist against gooks. And I resent your racism.

Quoted: Oh god another pissing contest with no relevant conclusions.  Don't you are guys have barrels to swab so they don't pit or 20lbs of new accessories to bolt on to your 7lb gun?

Funny, nobody was pissing in this thread until you posted.

Well written post SteyrAUG.

One was made to be spray-fired from the hip while the other has more thrusts per squeeze!

Quoted: Quoted: Also, the AK was made for a different army with a different tactics/strategy than the US. Would that be fair to say? No, that is very unfair. You are clearly racist against gooks. And I resent your racism.

I was not expecting that at all!!!
I was thinking more of the Roosshin strategy

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Also, the AK was made for a different army with a different tactics/strategy than the US. Would that be fair to say? No, that is very unfair. You are clearly racist against gooks. And I resent your racism. I was not expecting that at all!!! I was thinking more of the Roosshin strategy

Ohhhh.....in that case I agree completely. Damm Rooskies!!!

Quoted: Generally the .30 caliber (7.62x39) is accepted as more potentially lethal than either the 5.45 or 5.56 rounds, but the latter rounds are accepted as more accurate. You can also carry more of the 5.56 ammo than you can of the 7.62 ammo. So basically the choice is do you want to carry more powerful ammunition or a greater quantity of ammunition. For many reasons we switched from a .30 cal round (7.62x39) to the 5.56 round, these included the ability to carry more ammo and the fact that the lower recoil makes it easier to train soldiers. Some agree with the decison and some do not, and by 1974 the Soviets had made a similar decision with the AK-74 which was chambered in a similar 5.45x39 round. And for those who saw that episode of "Tales of the Gun" they know Mr. Kalashnikov did not agree with the decision.

Only thing is that WE did not switch from the 7.62x39, mr. smarty pants.

Quoted: This had it's disadvantages when we engaged what were basically near naked Africans in Somalia. While the rounds eventually killed th Somali the new 62 gr. round was known to leave a clean pin hole in them which allowed them to keep shooting in many cases. This is probably a situation where the older 55 gr. round would have been more effective.

I thought this was a result of using green tips designed for armor penetration rather than simply bullet weight.  I was under the impression that because the bullet did not deform on impact this is why the exit would were small on clean, the bullet was the same shape when it went in as it was when it went out.   I could be completely wrong.  

Quoted: Quoted: ...For many reasons we switched from a .30 cal round (7.62x39) to the 5.56 round... You did mean to type 51 there, didn't you?

That is what I meant, corrected and thanks.

Quoted: Quoted: M855 ammo was never meant to be fired through shorter barrels...its primary design was lengthening the effective range of the A2 variant and interoperability with the M249. No, M855 doesn't poke pinholes in the enemy.  See Dr. Martin Fackler's excellent work, substantiated with the Ammo Oracle's testing. The reason for 1:7" twist was M856 tracer ammo.  To enable a dim trace to 200 meters with a bright trace to 800, a longer bullet was needed.  M855 will stabilize in 1:9" And to repeat the Ammo Oracle, you cannot spin a bullet fast enough to enable staility when the bullet is traveling through a combatant.  The twist rate necessary is about 8 turns per inch, an impossible rate.  That is about 56 times faster than the A2's 1:7" Hard to believe a member who has been around this long still hasn't read the oracle isn't it?

The information was based on reports from Somalia.

Quoted: Quoted: This had it's disadvantages when we engaged what were basically near naked Africans in Somalia. While the rounds eventually killed th Somali the new 62 gr. round was known to leave a clean pin hole in them which allowed them to keep shooting in many cases. This is probably a situation where the older 55 gr. round would have been more effective. I thought this was a result of using green tips designed for armor penetration rather than simply bullet weight.  I was under the impression that because the bullet did not deform on impact this is why the exit would were small on clean, the bullet was the same shape when it went in as it was when it went out.   I could be completely wrong.

Isn't all SS192 green tipped AP?

Yea, if the enemy is obese (like half of America) it may tumble around, but against skinny, half-starved arabs and somalians, the M855 is highly ineffective.

- rem

Quoted: No, M855 doesn't poke pinholes in the enemy.  See Dr. Martin Fackler's excellent work, substantiated with the Ammo Oracle's testing.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: M855 ammo was never meant to be fired through shorter barrels...its primary design was lengthening the effective range of the A2 variant and interoperability with the M249. No, M855 doesn't poke pinholes in the enemy.  See Dr. Martin Fackler's excellent work, substantiated with the Ammo Oracle's testing. The reason for 1:7" twist was M856 tracer ammo.  To enable a dim trace to 200 meters with a bright trace to 800, a longer bullet was needed.  M855 will stabilize in 1:9" And to repeat the Ammo Oracle, you cannot spin a bullet fast enough to enable staility when the bullet is traveling through a combatant.  The twist rate necessary is about 8 turns per inch, an impossible rate.  That is about 56 times faster than the A2's 1:7" Hard to believe a member who has been around this long still hasn't read the oracle isn't it? The information was based on reports from Somalia.

Ah, what you read in a book. And of course they did in depth analysis on the bodies? Oh yeah, they didn't. So we really don't know where the shot placement was nor the effect of drugs on the BGs systems.

Read the oracle, it chronicles the problems with M855 very well.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This had it's disadvantages when we engaged what were basically near naked Africans in Somalia. While the rounds eventually killed th Somali the new 62 gr. round was known to leave a clean pin hole in them which allowed them to keep shooting in many cases. This is probably a situation where the older 55 gr. round would have been more effective. I thought this was a result of using green tips designed for armor penetration rather than simply bullet weight.  I was under the impression that because the bullet did not deform on impact this is why the exit would were small on clean, the bullet was the same shape when it went in as it was when it went out.   I could be completely wrong.   Isn't all SS192 green tipped AP?

Define AP. The military doesn't consider Green Tip to be AP. We mark AP with black tips. M855 and its SS192 projectile is considered a penetrator, but not AP.

Your basic idea that there is no 1 to 1 conparison is false.

Here is the new Polish Beryl, it is a 100% nato-ized (word?) AK.

556 cal, fixed upper rail, rails on the front hand guard, forward pistol grip, flash hider, folding fixed emergency sights and telescopeing/ side folding stock. The old AK safety only goes from safe to fire. The smaller THUMB SAFETY you see on the left side selects semi, burst and auto.

The only point that the AR is superior is the mag well, however it pays for it with one of the worlds most un-reliable/crappy mags. Take your pick. I choose this.

Quoted: Quoted: For a dense jungle environment where visibility is limited to 50m and the opportunity the maintian a weapon will be restricted the best choice would obviously be a Kalashnikov variant. For open terrain in a moderate climate where the enemy will be engaged at 200-400m the M-16/AR-15 wouild clearly be the best tool for the job. Oh hell, just get both.

I am working on a Photoshop version- AK/AR side x side. Patent pending. This will effectively end this debate. Next up, 9mm vs .45ACP.

Quoted: Yea, if the enemy is obese (like half of America) it may tumble around, but against skinny, half-starved arabs and somalians, the M855 is highly ineffective. - rem Quoted: No, M855 doesn't poke pinholes in the enemy.  See Dr. Martin Fackler's excellent work, substantiated with the Ammo Oracle's testing.

Actually, it has more to do with the complex construction of the SS192 penetrator and velocity needed to get the round to yaw and fragment more than the target itself.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: M855 ammo was never meant to be fired through shorter barrels...its primary design was lengthening the effective range of the A2 variant and interoperability with the M249. No, M855 doesn't poke pinholes in the enemy.  See Dr. Martin Fackler's excellent work, substantiated with the Ammo Oracle's testing. The reason for 1:7" twist was M856 tracer ammo.  To enable a dim trace to 200 meters with a bright trace to 800, a longer bullet was needed.  M855 will stabilize in 1:9" And to repeat the Ammo Oracle, you cannot spin a bullet fast enough to enable staility when the bullet is traveling through a combatant.  The twist rate necessary is about 8 turns per inch, an impossible rate.  That is about 56 times faster than the A2's 1:7" Hard to believe a member who has been around this long still hasn't read the oracle isn't it? The information was based on reports from Somalia.

The problems were when using 10.5-11.5" barrels to engage targets far outside of fragmention range

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: M855 ammo was never meant to be fired through shorter barrels...its primary design was lengthening the effective range of the A2 variant and interoperability with the M249. No, M855 doesn't poke pinholes in the enemy.  See Dr. Martin Fackler's excellent work, substantiated with the Ammo Oracle's testing. The reason for 1:7" twist was M856 tracer ammo.  To enable a dim trace to 200 meters with a bright trace to 800, a longer bullet was needed.  M855 will stabilize in 1:9" And to repeat the Ammo Oracle, you cannot spin a bullet fast enough to enable staility when the bullet is traveling through a combatant.  The twist rate necessary is about 8 turns per inch, an impossible rate.  That is about 56 times faster than the A2's 1:7" Hard to believe a member who has been around this long still hasn't read the oracle isn't it? The information was based on reports from Somalia. Ah, what you read in a book. And of course they did in depth analysis on the bodies? Oh yeah, they didn't. So we really don't know where the shot placement was nor the effect of drugs on the BGs systems. Read the oracle, it chronicles the problems with M855 very well.

I wasn't providing a definitive analysis. I was merely discussing the many variables of a comparisson.

Quoted: Your basic idea that there is no 1 to 1 conparison is false. Here is the new Polish Beryl, it is a 100% nato-ized (word?) AK. 556 cal, fixed upper rail, rails on the front hand guard, forward pistol grip, flash hider, folding fixed emergency sights and telescopeing/ side folding stock. The old AK safety only goes from safe to fire. The smaller THUMB SAFETY you see on the left side selects semi, burst and auto. The only point that the AR is superior is the mag well, however it pays for it with one of the worlds most un-reliable/crappy mags. Take your pick. I choose this. www.gun-world.net/old/polish/beryl/04_beryl_05.jpg

My basic idea was NOT that no 1:1 comparisson exists.

My entire point was there are all kinds of AR15s and AKs, as your post demontrates.

So if you are gonna make a comparisson, one must be very specific.

Quoted: Quoted: Your basic idea that there is no 1 to 1 conparison is false. Here is the new Polish Beryl, it is a 100% nato-ized (word?) AK. 556 cal, fixed upper rail, rails on the front hand guard, forward pistol grip, flash hider, folding fixed emergency sights and telescopeing/ side folding stock. The old AK safety only goes from safe to fire. The smaller THUMB SAFETY you see on the left side selects semi, burst and auto. The only point that the AR is superior is the mag well, however it pays for it with one of the worlds most un-reliable/crappy mags. Take your pick. I choose this. www.gun-world.net/old/polish/beryl/04_beryl_05.jpg My basic idea was NOT that no 1:1 comparisson exists. My entire point was there are all kinds of AR15s and AKs, as your post demontrates. So if you are gonna make a comparisson, one must be very specific.

...and the M4 is crap, specificly, compared to the Beryl IMNSHO.

Quoted: My basic idea was NOT that no 1:1 comparisson exists.

Agreed 100% on that point.

But it's no fun unless you argue the minor details.

Can you get that from Tapco, too?

Quoted: Both of those obselete designs have been superseded by the latest engineering triumphs in weapons technology.  Only elite operators like NAVY SEALS (tm) get access to the newest generation of super weapons, like THIS: www.tapco.com/item_pics/lg/STK660166_lg.jpg

A polymer pistol grip makes anything look cool.

Quoted: Can you get that from Tapco, too? www.gun-world.net/old/polish/beryl/04_beryl_05.jpg

No, worse. You have to join the Polish Army
The kit has never been imported and it will be a while before it is.

What sort of accuracy could we see from the Beryl?

Quoted: The information was based on reports from Somalia.

Which reports would those be?

Quoted: Yea, if the enemy is obese (like half of America) it may tumble around, but against skinny, half-starved arabs and somalians, the M855 is highly ineffective. - rem Quoted: No, M855 doesn't poke pinholes in the enemy.  See Dr. Martin Fackler's excellent work, substantiated with the Ammo Oracle's testing.

Bull.  Unless they are 3" thick...but even so, it seems to work just fine on coyotes IMHO.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This had it's disadvantages when we engaged what were basically near naked Africans in Somalia. While the rounds eventually killed th Somali the new 62 gr. round was known to leave a clean pin hole in them which allowed them to keep shooting in many cases. This is probably a situation where the older 55 gr. round would have been more effective. I thought this was a result of using green tips designed for armor penetration rather than simply bullet weight.  I was under the impression that because the bullet did not deform on impact this is why the exit would were small on clean, the bullet was the same shape when it went in as it was when it went out.   I could be completely wrong.   Isn't all SS192 green tipped AP?

No.  M193 was NEVER NATO type specified and at the time of introduction of M855, M193 was still in service.  To distinguish the two, M855 was given a green paint identifier.  Other NATO countries who never had M193 use SS109 bulleted with plain projectiles.  M855 is NOT AP by any means.  The "penetrator" is mild steel.

Oops meant to say SS109 not SS192. Damn 5.7 rounds have infected my brain.

The one to one comparison is a problem. However, how about one company that makes both...anyone have a Norinco AR to test against their Norinco AK? lol...

tag

This is supposed to be a AR vs AK thread.
I say straight up that the Beryl is better than the M4.
Where are all the worshippers in the M4 cult? Swabbing their range toys with Q-Tips?

Quoted: Generally the .30 caliber (7.62x39) is accepted as more potentially lethal than either the 5.45 or 5.56 rounds, but the latter rounds are accepted as more accurate.

By who?