How would a AK 74 compare with a M4 in terms of accuracy, range, CQB effective, and any other aspect you might think up?

Less accurate, shorter ranged, the ergs suck for CQB and the sights suck ass. The mags take forever to change and you can't hardly manipulate the safety with your hand on the grip.

Quoted: How would a AK 74 compare with a M4 in terms of accuracy, range, CQB effective, and any other aspect you might think up?

The M4 is going to be more accurate, hands down. Better sights, and an inherently more accurate design (inline recoil system, no piston).

Effectiveness will be similar, although I'd tend to give the AK the edge when using lighter bullets, due to the longer AK barrel (16" vs 14.5). Since they don't make 'heavy OTM' loads for the 5.45x39, the M4 firing 77gr will obviously be more effective than the AK. Also, 'effectiveness' referrs to what happens when your bullets hit your target, so it is a 'limited' advantage.

The M4 is of course, also alot more modular, and thus more versitile...

The legendary 'reliability' issue is irrelevant, as both weapons are relaiable enough (99% or so) when employed by trained & disciplined professionals.

the other hand, the M4 *SHOULD* be all of these things, as it costs several times as much as an AK. We are comparing a $850-$1,200 rifle to a $300 rifle, and while the prices may not be that high elsewhere, the price DIFFERENCE remains

Basically, the AK was designed for a different kind of tactics than the AR-platform, and it is well suited to what the Soviets intended it for. Similarly, the M4 is designed for US military tactics, which is what it's designed for...

Basically, the Russians would rather field 10,000 men with simple, functional rifles, the US way is 3,000 men with expensive, high-tech 'weapons systems'... Our way works for us, their way worked for them (except in Afganhistan)...

Dave A thanks for the info

If you are still torn between getting one of the two I have some advice.

In true ARFCOM tradition, GET BOTH!!

Hmmmm.....

If I were limited to an M-4 (Military issue) w M855 (Green Tip) vs. a stock 74 and 7N6(?) ammo (I believe that is the designation) for cqb it would be difficult: here are my points of contention. BTW the AK was designed for close combat (which was/is the Russians stock and trade)

M4
Good:
Very easy to manipluate controls for the most part.
Magazine changes are a little faster than the AK74 (If you learn to to mag changes the correct way w/an Ak they are pretty quick)
Bullets terminal effectiveness if it does fragment
Collapsable stock makes fitting into body armour easier.
Ability to mount lights and other nonsuch

Bad:
Poor stopping power if the bullet does not fragment (which happens quite a bit)
Poor malfunction clearance controls (try to do SPORTS under stress and it also takes both hands and a break from stock weld to do it properly).
Not reliable enough for my taste.
Magazines more susceptable to damage than those of the AK
Capability for severe damage to the carbine if used for buttstrokes and anything other than a bayonet style jab.

AK 74
Good:
Easy to point
5.45mm bullets generally quick yaw cycle
Makes a great club if necessary
Easy to perform remedial action
Less recoil and muzzle rise than a M-4 (in my experience) an possibly less muzzle flash.

Bad:
Slow  and somewhat unweildy safety.
Bullets' inability to fragment.
Lacks refinements like lighting systems etc.
Stock is one length but it is not too bad when wearing body armor but cannot be made to fit like the standard 4 position of the M4

As for iron sights the M-4 has some great accuracy potential but I have found it is very difficult for me to trak a moving target w/a peep sight vs the open sight of the AK.

If I had to choose between either stock weapon I'd have to favor the AK. If you have the ability to modify both to individual taste: definatly the AK then. But also neither round is a solid performer in CQB from either weapon from what I've heard. I'd probably do what some Russian special units in Chechniya did: and get an older AK in 7.62x39 then I'd modify it to my taste

More squeezes per thrust.

Very informative KMFDM, im only looking to buy 1 rifle.
Just trying to get educated on the subject. Again thanks for all the info and keep it coming

Quoted: Basically, the AK was designed for a different kind of tactics than the AR-platform, and it is well suited to what the Soviets intended it for. Similarly, the M4 is designed for US military tactics, which is what it's designed for...

The design of the AK had far more to do with the manufacturing capabilies of the Soviet Union than anything else. Most nations (including the US) were rethinking battle tactics and all were pretty much the same at that time, remember that one of the *problems* with the early AR designs was that it was "too accurate" -- The US was looking for a "shotgun" with 300 yard lethality, lots of lead down range.

There was even attempts at muzzle devices that would destabilize the muzzle to open the group up more... very high rate of fire shooting minute of pie made the "spray and pray" about as close to the hypothetical 300 yard shotgun idea as one can get.

Granted, during the next few decades, the US would rethink tactics and things would change a lot, but the AR has managed the changes pretty well... today the biggest problem we see with the current platform is the diminutive cartridge left over form the "wall of lead" doctrine and the poor reliabilility issues of the M4, which are not attributed to the parent rifle per se... rather unique issues developed as the system has become what it is.

As to the original question... I have always had a soft spot for the AK (for simply how simple it is) but my "main" little rifle is an AR based gun (not in 5.56, blah)... taken care of it, ticks like a clock.

Quoted: Quoted: Basically, the AK was designed for a different kind of tactics than the AR-platform, and it is well suited to what the Soviets intended it for. Similarly, the M4 is designed for US military tactics, which is what it's designed for... The design of the AK had far more to do with the manufacturing capabilies of the Soviet Union than anything else. Most nations (including the US) were rethinking battle tactics and all were pretty much the same at that time, remember that one of the *problems* with the early AR designs was that it was "too accurate" -- The US was looking for a "shotgun" with 300 yard lethality, lots of lead down range. There was even attempts at muzzle devices that would destabilize the muzzle to open the group up more... very high rate of fire shooting minute of pie made the "spray and pray" about as close to the hypothetical 300 yard shotgun idea as one can get. Granted, during the next few decades, the US would rethink tactics and things would change a lot, but the AR has managed the changes pretty well... today the biggest problem we see with the current platform is the diminutive cartridge left over form the "wall of lead" doctrine and the poor reliabilility issues of the M4, which are not attributed to the parent rifle per se... rather unique issues developed as the system has become what it is. As to the original question... I have always had a soft spot for the AK (for simply how simple it is) but my "main" little rifle is an AR based gun (not in 5.56, blah)... taken care of it, ticks like a clock.

1) The AK was designed to be mass produced, not just because of the Soviet manufacturing abilities, but because the Soviets fielded a military doctrine 100% reliant on pure numerical superiority. AKs could be cheaply turned out a whole lot faster than more complex weapons, which meant more troops on the line

2) The cartridge debate will go on, but in the end .223 62gr is perfectly adequate from a 20" barrel, and smaller cartridges are still better if they can be made to provide sufficient penetration. The problem is that the gun was modified without modifying the ammo to match the smaller gun, which is now being rectified with the use of 77gr ammo.

As of now, every country has abandoned large caliber bullets, except those 3rd-world countries using leftover AKs & FALs... The Chinese are switching to 5.8, the Russians began moving to 5.45 in '74, and we've had 5.56 since the 60s...

Quoted: I would rather have the Ak-74.  If my target gets more than 100 yards away from me.  I would like to have a weapon that will be effective.

Which would be the M4, as the AK is not designed for longer range accuracy...

Quoted: hm, no i have not tried them. i thick i saw 3 verions of the hydraulic buffers and tuned mass systems at knob creek this weekend. what the m4 needs is an efficient brake, imo.

You should check out the new Quiet Control Brake from MSTN.

I own both, love both rifles, and they both have their +s and -s. My AK has a kobra mounted on the siderail, my M FAUX has an Aimpoint mounted on a flat top.
The m4 has a chip mccormick match trigger, and my AK74 has an RSA adjustable.
The M4 wins in the mag change race, but we are talking 1-2 seconds.
The -74 wins in the recoil/ follow up shot column.
as far as effectiveness of ammo fired from a 14.5 M4 vs 16 -74, it depends on the ammo.
with available barnaul FMJ vs XM193, the xm193 wins, but i wouldnt want to be on the receiving end of either.
in the reliability, able to take abuse, Id have to say the -74 but ive not tested this myself to the degree it should be tested.
My kobra mounted on my -74 returns to zero after being taken off much better than my two AR15s, one is equiped with an aimpoint, and my 20" AR has an eotech, and my Kobra is better than both in holding zero to the rifle after being banged around or taken off and remounted.
my  prefered weapon, is my AK-74.
I like the follow up shot capability, and just shoot better with my AK74. Plus the chicks dig it.

What is the effective range of both rifles? because ive read 360meters for the M4 and 500 meters for the AK74, are these true numbers?

the other hand, the M4 *SHOULD* be all of these things, as it costs several times as much as an AK. We are comparing a $850-$1,200 rifle to a $300 rifle, and while the prices may not be that high elsewhere, the price DIFFERENCE remains ..

I believe the cost to Uncle sam for the m4 is somewhere 'round $500 and change...

Quoted: How would a AK 74 compare with a M4 in terms of accuracy, range, CQB effective, and any other aspect you might think up?

I have been kinda testing this by using an Arsenal .223 at "practical rifle" matches this year. I only used iron sights, no fancy red dots or scopes yet. I wanted to see for myself what I could do with an AK.

I usually am in the center of mass in this group of shooters when the scores are posted and no change occurred when I switched from an iron sighted AR to the AK.  Here are some of my thoughts:

It is harder to hit small round targets at 100-200 yards with an AK. On torsos like targets it made no difference.

At very close range, across the room distances, my AK was spanking many of the AR operators for super fast shooting. It didn’t matter if they were using open sights, red dots or scopes. Only the AR users who did a lot of close range fast shooting practice out did it, and they were mostly using red dots. I haven’t done much of this super speed type shooting myself, so I was at a disadvantage yet still did well with the AK. I think being able to shoot over the top of an AK is a speed advantage only matched on ARs with red dots and well trained operators. I still need to do some shooting like this with an AR to figure out what is going on with the AR.

At the same close range with fast, but not super fast shooting scenarios, the AK and AR are tied. I like the AR sights better for this though.

Firing out of a moving vehicle, the AKs iron sights are better than the ARs peep sights. I am very limited in this experience so take it with a grain of salt.

The AK rear sight blocks out to much of the AO. It needs a diet. I use an adjustable rear and it is a bit wider than most.

My AK long range shooting skills went way down if I was not practicing much before the shoots. With the AR it didn’t matter much, I would still shoot good.

Magazine changes were no slower than with an AR, although I guess it could be argued it took a second or two more. I use real Army issue type “protective” magazine pouches, not the crappy speed sleeves the IPSC types use, so that could be why. Crawl around in the mud a bit and you’ll see why the Army pouch is the only one good enough for combat.

Last match I did not bring my AK. They have started using so many little round reactive targets that open sights are a big disadvantage. I guess they are trying to simulate shooting at a head. When it is 150-200 yards away, a scope is welcomed if not downright required. Many of the people with red dots are having problems them too and take multiple shots to get a hit. Scopes with a precise reticle are getting one shot kills.

I am forgetting a lot here, but those were some of the basics of what I learned about AKs and ARs this year. I’m not sure what I will be using next month. It depends on what rifle has a scope sighted-in on match weekend. I can’t see myself using iron sights with all the little targets they are using now.  It's like being overwhelmed by prone tangos.

In summary, in super fast shooting at close range you can kick ass with an AK and only an AR with a good optic AND a well trained operator can outdo you. Only an AR expert well above your skill level will kick your ass at close range with iron sights in super fast shooting. If the shooting is just moderate to fast, it’s a draw at close range if the ARs have irons or optics. At moderate ranges, 100-200 yards, the AK iron sights are at a big disadvantage if the target is head sized.

I am still curious about the AK using optics. Since you can put the same optics on both, I think it would be a draw with the AR at typical combat ranges if a quality AK in a similar caliber rifle is used.

The above are just some of  my personal observations from this years matches. YMMV.

Get both and make your own decision. Both are classic designs and you can't go wrong with either. Unless you're a perfect example of self control you'll wind up with both anyway!

 C.E Harris once rported on an Army test he was involved with.  The M-16, M-16A2, AK-47 and AK-74 were shot for intrinsic accuracy and operational effectiveness.  The M-16A2 shot better off the bags but when the troops moved on to the assault course, firing at "E" silhouette targets the difference in accuracy vanished and all rifles performed essentially the same.  Except for that part of the course fired full auto where the shooter with the AK-74 did a bit better.

Quoted: Quoted: What is the effective range of both rifles? because ive read 360meters for the M4 and 500 meters for the AK74, are these true numbers? The Ak-74, about 800 meters.  Practical, about 300-400. The M-4, About 95-110 meters depending on ammo.  You can hit farther out, but you might as well be using a .22 Long rifle.

Actually you can dramatically increase the effective range of an M4 if you use more appropriate ammo.  

On a side note I can't wait until I get my 74 up and running.  I plan on doing some side-by-side comparisons to come to my own conclusions.

what would be a more appropriate grain of ammo for an M4 in either 1/9 or 1/7 twist?

I shot some of the green tip 62 grain SS109 in my 1:8 twist RRA and did really well.

00_Buckshot,

My experience certainly differs from yours.  

M-16A2

Its a well-known fact that the M-16A2's (20" barrel) effective range is 500m.  Marines are required to consistently hit a man-sized shilouette at that distance beginning in Boot-Camp.  I've always believed our Army has short-changed our soldiers relative to the effective range of their service rifle.  While the M-183 55gr Ball Ammunition will not  penetrate a Kevlar helmet at that range, the SS-109 62 gr w/11gr penetrator will.  From that perspective alone, its striking power is certainly greater than a .22 long rifle.

M-4

I agree that due to its shorter barrel, a measurable and possible critical amount of energy is lost with what was originally designed as a high-velocity cartridge.  However, I would argue that a M-183/SS-109  round fired by a rifleman would hit and seriously injure an adversary at 300m.  

While the M-4 is considered "sexy" it should only be issued to vehicle crewmen, MPs and the like.  SPECOPs folks can also use it from my perspective but only because they have other armament available depending on the mission.  It is a grave mistake from a combat standpoit to equip everyone withit.  The M-4 is not a replacement for the M-16A2 from a Marines or rifleman's viewpoint.  You lose far more than you gain with the shortened barrel.  

For civilian use, action shooting schools and a home defense perspective the M-4 look alike is fine.   Basically because:  1)  No one is shooting back at any distance, and you generally don't need to "dig deep" with the round like a Grunt may have too.

The AR series beats the AK "hands down" relative to its modular configuration, conversion adaptability, and ability to place equipment on it which will increase fire-power by increasing the hit potential.  Because of that fact the AR is a far superior "battle rifle".

Having said that, the 7.62x39mm round is a better man-stopper under varying conditions when measured against the 5.56mm.  

I don't have real-world experience against  the 5.45mm Soviet round but would estimate that what drove the Soviets to it after closely analyzing captured US ammunition is more along the lines of enabling their soldiers to carry more ammunition for a philosophy which actively advocated a "spray and spray some more" philosophy.  I was going to say "spray and pray" until I recalled the atheistic view of Communism.

I don't believe that a "pray and spray" philosophy applies to us as "civilians".  I view the 5.56 & 5.45 more along the lines of fun and certainly lethal at modest ranges.  I hope we are able to incorporate what has been learned from the 6.5mm Grendel and the 6.8mm Remington in equipping our forces against this war on terrorism.  There is certainly nothing wrong with picking up and using the AK as the situation permits and requires.

We'll see...

"Semper Fi"

Quoted: If money is no object and you are 1/7 twist, the new 77 grain OTM rounds.  They are supposed to be devistating.

+1

I really think that if you reload them it won't really cost you that much.  I was doing some pricing for this very load and was coming up with roughly $0.20 per round.  Not that much more than factory loaded M193.  Of course this doesn't take into account your time spent loading but if you enjoy doing it then it doesn't really matter.   Also, I wasn't counting the once fired brass I would be using for it.

Quoted: 00_Buckshot, My experience certainly differs from yours.   M-16A2)   Its a well-known fact that the M-16A2's (20" barrel) effective range is 500m.  Marines are required to consistently hit a man-sized shilouette at that distance beginning in Boot-Camp.  I've always believed our Army has short-changed their soldiers relative to the effective range of their service rifle.  While the M-183 55gr Ball Ammunition will not  penetrate a Kevlar helmet at that range, the SS-109 62 gr w/11gr penetrator will.  From that perspective alone, its striking power is certainly greater than a .22 long rifle. M-4   I agree that due to its shorter barrel, a measurable and possible critical amount of energy is lost.  However, I would argue that a M-183/SS-109  round fired by a rifleman would hit and seriously injure an adversary at 300m.  While the M-4 is considered "sexy" it should only be issued to vehicle crewmen, MPs and the like.  SPECOPs folks can also use it from my perspective but only because they have other armament available depending on the mission.  It is a grave mistake from a combat standpoit to equip everyone withit.  The M-4 is not a replacement for the M-16A2 from a Marines or rifleman's viewpoint.  You lose far more than you gain with the shortened barrel.  For civilian use, action shooting schools and a home defense perspective the M-4 look alike is fine.   Basically because:  1)  No one is shooting back at any distance, and you generally don't need to "dig deep" with the round like a Grunt may have too.   The AR series beats the AK "hands down" relative to its modular configuration and ability to place equipment on it which will increase fire-power by increasing the hit potential. Having said that, the 7.62x39mm round is a better man-stopper under varying conditions when measured against the 5.56mm.   I don't have real-world experience with the 5.45mm Soviet round but would estimate that what drove the Soviets to it after closely analyzing captured US ammunition is more along the lines of enabling their soldiers to carry more ammunition for a philosophy which actively advocated a "spray and spray some more" philosophy.  I was going to say "spray and pray" until I recalled the atheistic view of Communism. I don't believe that a "pray and spray" philosophy applies to us as "civilians".  I view the 5.56 & 5.45 more along the lines of fun and lethal at modest ranges.  I hope we are able to incorporate what has been learned from the 6.5mm Grendel and the 6.8mm Remington. We'll see...

Are you sure you were responding to something I said?  What I meant in my post is the fragmentation range can be extended farther than M193.  I believe in the hands of a well trained marksman you can be plenty lethal outside of the frag range of M193.

Quoted: The AR series beats the AK "hands down" relative to its modular configuration and ability to place equipment on it which will increase fire-power by increasing the hit potential.  Because of that fact the AR is a far superior "battle rifle".

Hmmm. Just what special equipment are you referring too? Last I checked there is nothing on an AR that cannot be placed on an AK. In fact some things are easier to change out on an AK.  Overall it's a tie.

The AR15 series and most AKs are not "Battle Rifles." Please purge that thought. It has to be in the same class as an AR10 or M14 to receive that esteemed title.

Quoted: If money is no object and you are 1/7 twist, the new 77 grain OTM rounds.  They are supposed to be devistating.

Who makes a quality 77 grain load? how does it compare in accuracy with 55 or 62 grain?

I'm just deciding between the 2, for a rilfe that is effective 300 yds and within, im only lookin to add a red dot type optic, no lights or none of that, just a functional somewhat lightweight rifle.

Quoted: I'm just deciding between the 2, for a rilfe that is effective 300 yds and within, im only lookin to add a red dot type optic, no lights or none of that, just a functional somewhat lightweight rifle.

For 200-300 yards I would pick the AR.

For 100-200 yards I would pick the AR.  

For 0-100 yards it does not matter.

I think a red dot could be a problem past 150 yards. How small is the target you want to hit?

I see theres some good info here.  I personally hate with a passion, peep sights.  I wont use them no matter how many high speed low drag operators tell me that they are 94.8245% faster than open sights.  Ive grown up with open sights and I can hit a running racoon with open sights while hanging out of the passenger window of a moving truck in a field chasing him.  This is preference.  I've taken a handful of tactics classes and brought my trusty AK.  I didnt rank first place in any of them but I dont fault my rifle.  After knowing what to expect and the layout I'd have a good chance after going back.  

I see the 74 as a very worthy combat arm.  EVERYTHING I've shot with the little 5.45 has died and 90% of the stuff I've shot with it has died in its tracks.  I cant say the same for 5.56.  Its not a function of 5.56 not performing as it should, its a function of the 5.45 creating a larger wound channel in most things made of meat I've shot.  Now I'm sure theres someone that will come along and tell me thats not true but I'm not citing fackler or brouhaha here either.  Shot placement is everything and if all things remain equal both should do similar.   In recovered rabbits a buddies 10.5 inch puts ice pick style channels with nary a yaw in them.  It should yaw but it appears it doesnt.  Compare that to another friends bolt action .223 with a 24 inch barrel that poped a head off a ground hog at 110 yards.  In fox to deer sized game the 5.45 really shines.  It takes a little more meat to get started but it leaves a large permanent cavity and gets a good pinball effect going between bones. Lots of damage, lots of long arc'd wound channels.  One very large fox I got from pretty much head on dropped in his tracks.  After bouncing around the rib cage and turning his vitals into pretty much soup it traveled all the way down to his ass and followed his tail just under the skin before exiting 3/4 of the way down.  All the bones in the tail were damaged where it touched them.  I've never shot or been around when a similar sized animal was shot with a longer barrel .223 rifle but my friend with the 24" bolt action speaks of either very careful shot placement or a follow up shot.  He cannot get a first shot kill on a moving animal.  Theres less room for slop.  Not sure if the 5.45 would do him better but its never failed me yet.

Everyone states the modularity of the AR series.  I love this as an owner but as an operator this has little use.  Field repairs should be kept to a minimum, and no one carries extra uppers around.  I guess if you had 2 broken rifles you could swap a working upper onto a working lower but how many times do you think that really happens?  Despite what you hear from the armchair commandos, spec ops teams dont carry 9mm upper and water cooled upper equiped weapons.  If its not an M16 or M4 its something other than an AR all together.  Lights, rails and vert grips are easy to put on each.  The AR is a better optics platform but thats not to say that the AK doesnt have a very large array of very capable optics.

Now barrels sizes are where it gets tricky.  The 5.45 works the same out of a 24" as it does out of a 14".  The 16" equipped 74 series points very well along with all that other cool stuff the CQB guys like to talk about.  The 5.56 I cant say the same for.  If it doesnt fragment, it seems to not do a good job of killing small game.  A buddy got a fox at about 55 yards with a 10.5 inch AR shooting 193.  He said he was aiming just behind the shoulder when he fired.  We found a lot of blood and the bullet was recovered from a stump just behind where the fox was hit.  It was a little scratched up and had bite marks from the rifling but other than that was intact.  We looked for the fox for a good bit of time with no luck.  I realize that shot placement is the key, I realize that if it were a head shot it would have been lights out but that can be said for just about any centerfire and some rimfire cartridges with game that sized. This is just a single example I have.  It is known that 5.56 is velocity dependant.  I dont feel that it is effective enough as a cartridge if it doesnt fragment.  Even when it yaws a complete 180* it doesnt have the length of the 5.45.    What I'm saying here is that 5.56 needs to fragment to deposit disabling energy into its target.  5.45 wont fragment to any degree of usefulness, but it does yaw quite well and since it was designed to do that and inflict as much damage as possible.  5.45 does what its supposed to at just about any range, the same cannot be said for M4 profiles.

Well said LHD. If only I could find 5 round 5.45 mags .

Well given the info read, i would think the AK74 has a advantage in the ways of cleaning, because in a SHTF scenario. You need to clean your rifle yes, but u cant carry tons of cleaning supplies either. Most have said that the M4 needs more care n maintance.

Was there ever any comparsions of the M4 and AK-74 in magazines or online?

Robert, I appreciate your reply but I must politely disagree based on the following:

Because of the modular structure of the Armalite series of rifles, they are  far easier to modify/convert from a military perspective (e.g., day/night/sighting and target designation modules not available to the general public ).  Please tell the Marines I commanded that they were not equipped with a "battle rifle" .  They were armed with M16A2s .  

The designation that a "battle rifle" must be 7.62mm NATO or larger, may be suitable here among us but it is irrelevant when refering to our Armed Forces, albeit it 75th Ranger Regiment, 82nd ABN, 10th Mountain or 3dBn/4th Marines.  

I agree from a traditional rifleman's standpoint, the the M-1 Garand, M-14, etc. are better rifles.  But I'll tell the plain fact, that it is easier to teach the generation's inductees how to hit an adversary when using the 5.56mm instead of a 7.62mm chambered firearm.  As a Lieutenant, I regretted turning in the M-14.  However, my perspective has changged somewhat.
Afterall, the he ultimate purpose of the rifle, from a military perspective is to hit the enemy.  

I believe, we all can agree that a hit with a 5.56mm is far better then a "near miss" with a 7.62mm.

I hope we can continue to share info with one another and if we disagree, we disagree as gentlemen.

"Semper Fi"

I still don't see how the AR is easier to convert/modify than the AK.  You can easily replace an upper in the matter of seconds which is a big advantage if thats what you are talking about. But the options that you listed (day/night/sighting and target designation modules not available to the general public) can all be put onto an AK.

Quoted: Because of the modular structure of the Armalite series of rifles, they are  far easier to modify/convert from a military perspective (e.g., day/night/sighting and target designation modules not available to the general public ).   Please tell the Marines I commanded that they were not equipped with a "battle rifle" .  They were armed with M16A2s .

Here is an example of why the AK is at no disadvantage. It can take rails just like an M4:



The M16 is not a battle rifle. A Marine named LTC Cooper told me.