AK-47 or M16

[.35 remington]

this is one of the most contraversial topics ever. (I think). I would pick the AK-47-

it is reliable.
shoots a bigger round
simple design
carries more rounds

[300 RUM]

I would say it depends on what you are doing.

Long range or short range.
Combat, self defense or just shooting.
It is definately an opinion question with a huge list of pros and cons for both guns.
I have had both and lliked them both still have the AK but have regreted selling the Bushmaster everyday since it left.( I needed some $$ and it was the first to sell)

[Gil Martin]

It depends. The M16 is vastly more accurate that an AK-47. We shoot the National Match Course at my local gun club and at 100 yards the AR15s sweep the field. One chap tried using an AK-47 and had trouble hitting the bulls on SR-1. SR-21 and MR-31 targets at that range.

I agree that the AK shoots a heavier 123 gr. bullet, penetrates better and bucks the wind better than a 55 gr. .223 bullet.

The better comparison might be an M14 or AK-47. In that case, the M14 or M1A will shoot rings around the AK, has a heavier 150 gr. bullet and penetrates much better. So you see, it depends. All the best...
Gil

[skeet]

Depends on what youare using it for. If you want a close range spray and pray reliable rifle get an AK...If you want a more precision shooter that is still pretty reliable get an AR. Shoots farther and much more accurately. I have both and can tell ya that the Colt is a much better rifle. Carry more ammo too if you are into going thru the bush by foot. Neither are a great hunting round for anything larger than coyotes although both WILL kill deer

[Adam Helmer]

.35 remington,

I see this is only your 4th post, welcome to the Forum. We like input from newer posters and you are on the right site. Keep posting!

In 1965, as a GI, I qualified on the Matel 16 and did not like it then. I would take the AK-47 any day over the M16. Gil says the M16 is more accurate than the AK, but recall how much effort went into "tweeking" that M16 to get it on target: they changed the rifling twist rate, the powder and the projectile to get on target. If as much effort had been placed on "accurizing" the AK, just imagine what the results would be today. The AK users knew they had a great battle rifle when it came off the assembly line and now 50 million copies later, it is still the #1 combat arm in use, in my humble opinion.

Adam

[Steve Franks]

Either are great rifles. When I was in VN '68-69 as a Marine grunt on the DMZ. I could choose either and I chose the M-16. Load up 40 magazines and go hump the hills. Accuracy the M-16 wins hands down, if the trigger puller has the skill. Dependability, a toss up. I have never seen either malfunction, but then, the shooters knew how to maintain a weapon. My choice, M-16 or better yet an AR-15. (I don't like full auto unless it has a belt attached)

[Monkeyman]

Just because I'm argumentative I'll throw in a third option:

The AK47 is the better design and fires a more effective cartridge. Its accuracy shortcomings are due to manufacturing tolerances of ammo and weapons and poor sights. A Finnish Valmet "AK47" firing commercially loaded ammo is the best of both worlds with the reliability/effectiveness of an AK and the accuracy of a GI M16 (or better). Just like the rebuilt Mosin Nagants that became top-notch Finnish M39 battle rifles.

I own a 1953 Type-1 AK with milled receiver which is well-built but the sights are still crap. A Valmet with peep sights is a whole 'nuther world.