Interesting read.  Probably a some propaganda, but interesting none-the-less.

www.isayeret.com/weapons/assault/m16vsak47.htm

Actually, it's a pretty straightforward piece;  even owning up to the fact that in acquiring equipment, the IDF sometimes gets hamstrung by local politicians (don't guess that happens here in the US,huh ).

As one who owns both ARs and a Galil (and sveral AK varients),  I pretty much agree with what it says.  If I had to head for the hills, without any knowledge of when or if I'd ever get back to civilization, I'd take the Galil.  For any other contingency, AR15/M16 all the way.

Anyone ever use a full auto Galil?  I saw one out there for sale for $7,600.

Another interesting tidbit on this issue can be viewed at : www.rjsmith.com/war_myth.html
Hope I posted that correctly. Scroll down and click on: The AK-47 was superior to the M16

In other words, they are both pretty good, but when ya gotta carry the thing, weight really does matter.

I do note however that their elite units considered the AK-47 to be superior to both the FAL and Galil.  I also note that all of the above are still in inventory.

Good links guys.

I love to read these kinds of articles.

Got anymore?

Thank you. I've been debating the AR/AK question for a few weeks now. There's a gunshow tomorrow and I had pretty much decided on the AK until tonight.

Tonight, I had been doing some reading over at the AK board and was reading things like "very accurate at 25, 50, and 75 yards," and "I kept all my shots inside a 5 inch circle at 100 yards."  

The AK is a great weapon, no question....but I think I'll get the AR........

Jack:

The only reasonable solution is to get one of each.  Currently an SAR-1 and a Bushy 20" HBAR.  I love each for what they are.  Expensive toys.

$200 for an M4?!
I'm gonna be sick.

I have this page bookmarked.  It is good to have the opinion of the Israeli Special Forces,  who are respected by all.

This is not propaganda, Dorsai, it is fact.

"The truth is that the M16 is BY FAR the more SUPERIOR weapon.  It is lighter (FACT-my note), more accurate (FACT), more versatile (FACT), and with proper maintenance is very reliable (FACT)."

Learn from the experts who have extensive experience with BOTH weapons platforms.

Get at least 3 of each, different configurations for different purposes. Thats what I've done and very happy about it.

Get the (flattopp) AR15.  Besides the advantages listed here, you have better parts avalability, better accessories, and better optics options, and, if you ever had to use it for real, you can carry more ammo.

In terms of buying both, I say forget it unless you are a serious collector or just live for guns.  For those of us putting a couple away "just in case," you are better off commonizing on one weapon - one ammunition, one set of parts, and one weapon to train the family on.

Quoted: $200 for an M4?! I'm gonna be sick.

yup, it is sad isn't it?

If Ar's were $200 bucks, all Ak lovers would finally admit the AR is a better weapon.

Of course, if the AR was $200, the A Kwould be worth, I don't know, $50 bucks?

Quoted: Thank you. I've been debating the AR/AK question for a few weeks now. There's a gunshow tomorrow and I had pretty much decided on the AK until tonight. Tonight, I had been doing some reading over at the AK board and was reading things like "very accurate at 25, 50, and 75 yards," and "I kept all my shots inside a 5 inch circle at 100 yards."   The AK is a great weapon, no question....but I think I'll get the AR........

Jack there shoud be no question here, if you can afford an AR, buy one!

Pretty cool

Thanks for the advice guys. I bought a Bushmaster "AK Shorty" this afternoon. I had planned on a budget AR and was looking for a Rock River M4orgery, the dealer had one, for $900!! I asked how much for the Bushmaster...$750, go figure.

Quoted: I do note however that their elite units considered the AK-47 to be superior to both the FAL and Galil.  I also note that all of the above are still in inventory.

One thing I noticed is that the IDF doesn't seem to care for the FAL at all. In some of the history I read, it was claimed that the continued use of the FAL was a political footbal in Israel after the 1973 war. It was hinted that some of their battfield failures may have been in part due to the FAL. I have heard other Israeli comments on the FAL since then, and all have been negative. This is kinda funny, since many here in the US consider the FAL to be the greatest battle rifle ever, better than our own M-14 or any version of the M-16.

Yeah, I noticed their disdain for the FAL as well.  I'm not sure why either, but I know it has never been one of my favorites.

Personally, I could give a hoot about what the IDF says. All it comes down to is personnel preference. Both weapons have proven themselves over the years. The Ak is simple, rugged and reliable. It has enough combat accuracy where I wouldn't feel comfortable standing in the open from 400m away. Seems to me, people just like to knock anything that's Russian. Yeah, I guess they can't play hockey either ( BTW, I don't own an AK. I have a Bushmaster.)

Mach1:

I don't think this was a knock on the AK at all.  It was simply a matter of given the availability without significant cost diff of all the available system they chose the AR platform.  The AK is a fine weapon and as noted they certainly preferred it over other systems.  I do value the opinion of the IDF simply because they have so much real world experience under harsh conditions and really do face the reality of daily combat.

Reference why the IDF doesn't like the FN FAL, basically, the guys who had to use it thought it was too heavy, to clumsy, and didn't like the way it performed in the desert conditions they often had to operate in.  Even years after it's adoption, some guys were still hanging on to the 98k Mausers that Israel had bought from the Czechs in the late '40s.  Remember, Israel had adopted one of the earliest versions of the FAL, as it was one of the only semi autos available on the market at the time.  The few other types that were out there on the market were even worse  (does Swedish Lyungman ring a bell?).  After they captured a bunch of SKS's and AK's from the Egyptians, they got a taste of rifles that could funtion reliably in sand, and y'all know the rest.  The guys on the line in the desert even preferred SKS's to the FN's.

Don't get me wrong, the FN is a good rifle in nondesert areas.  It just doesn't work well in the sand. Look at all the Brits had to do to get even halfway decent desert performance out of theirs.  Special sand grooves, removing the bolt holdopen so sand wouldn't blow in while the action was open, etc,etc.