Hi is our M16 really effective against the insurgents' AK47 in the middle East?

Question

i heard that the AK 47 has a massive fire power and is very destructive although our M16 is more accurate.

beside M16 are we using other type of long range weapons

Answer 1

yes and no.  The M4/M16 caliber is small and takes a few shots to effectivly eliminate your target.  However the 5.56 is light and you can carry alot more of them.  The AK fires a significantly larger bullet at 7.62 (millimeters) and is much more powerful however, the AK is less accurate due mostly to the parts being pressed and not machined.  This means there are small gaps in the firing mechanism where dirt can get into making it possible to fire while dirty, but still unpredictable.  As for the massive fire power, there are several types of ammuntion available for the AK which can be very devastating but they are very rare over here.  overall I would say the M4/M16 is supperior in accuracy and range ( <20 in at 300m) while the AK has stopping power.  There are several long range rifles employed by both sides but i would look into the M14 (US) and the Tabuk (IQ) if you want to learn more.  

Answer 2

my friend who is a iraq war vet says the m4 is better then m16

Answer 3

GO TO THIS WEBSITE,IT WILL TELL YOU EVERYTHING ABOUT THE TWO WEAPONS,COMPARING THE M-16 AND AK-47

http://www.ak-47.us/AK-47vsM-16.php

AND USE THIS WEBSITE TO SEE THE LIST ALONG WITH PICTURE AND DESCRIPTION OF ALL THE US ARMY WEAPONS WE USE IN COMBAT

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/armyweapo...

HOPE MY ANSWER HELPED

Answer 4

The AK has pretty much the same fire power as the M16, but it can be fired dirty.

As long as you keep your rifle clean, it will perform well.

Answer 5

well the M16 shot 5.56mm bullets and the AK shoot 7.62. So its a little more powerful but its all about who its trained with their weapon and who shoots first.

Answer 6

I consider the 5-mm a piece of c**p if you ask me, but it does have more accuracy, it has farther range.  But automatic rifles have p**s-poor long range accuracy.  I can stand at 300-meters and be targeted by someone with an AK47, it will be about 30 to 45-percent chance of hitting me.  But at 500-meters with an M16A2, you are dead!  One shot, one kill!  However the Kalashnikov rifle fires a deadly 7.62-mm round that can knock chunks off brick and concrete walls whereas the 5.56-mm won't.  I consider the 5.56-mms c**p!  They ain't like the M14 nor the M1 Garand.  But you have that 1/16 barrel twist that will launch that 45-mm cartridge-sized ball round into your forehead at very far distances with a high-speed velocity that isn't deterred by wind as much as the heavier and slower ball of the 7.62-mm.  But I would hate to be sitting in a humvee in a urbanized city and have a insurgent walk by spraying bullets through the door with his AK-again, deadly!  The M16 will not be as effective.

There is the M40, that is a precision rifle, with enough inertia to create some pink mist!  Ooorah!  But nothing beats the M82 Barrett .50 cal!  That is some more awesome pink mist!  But if you want a 5-mile range with a bullet that can reach that distance in one second, I would highly consider the Gauss.  It is fired by electric-magnetic rails.  If you have the right ballistics, it just may penetrate through 20-feet of steel and still not be deflected.  But this is 'future weapons' type stuff.

The AK is pretty much the most deadly rifle in market, regardless anyone says, I agree with "Jim C" for he is right!  I get a thumbs down for some unknown reason!  I was in Force Recon where we studied 'Threat Weapons' effectively!  We learned how it operated and it's Pros/Cons...We had to know what our adversaries were capable of!  Anyone that disagrees, certainly has no personal experience with the Ak-47...I spent my time at the Precision Weapons Section at Quantico and beg to differ!

Answer 7

I think it comes down to the marksman's ability. Yes, the Kalashnikov is very rugged and reliable. However, the .223 round is designed as a high velocity tumbler, meaning it ricochets or "tumbles" through a person, creating a lot of damage. This helps our warriors by effectively causing 2-3 casualties, since the people that have to help a casualty hit by an M4 round are taken out of the fight, unable to return fire while they are assisting casualties. There is a great book about the AK47 that also explores why the US selected the calibers it has in the 20-21st Centuries. It's entitled "Kalashnikov: The Rifle That Changed The World."

Answer 8

Yes what you heard is correct. and Yes we are using other long range weapons.  That's all I'm going to say.  Why do you need to know?

Answer 9

The modern M-16 is improved over its original form, which was prone to jamming and generally fragile. The kalashnikov rifles are heavier, sturdier, less prone to jamming and easier to maintain. AK-47's use a 7.62mm round which is less accurate but hits harder, while M-16s use a 5.56mm NATO round that is a little lighter but more accurate. Frankly, you wouldn't want to be shot by either one. The M-16 is good enough as a rifle, and usually has plenty of attachments like grenade launchers and scopes and so forth, that improve a soldier's lethality.

I don't think that US soldiers are too miffed about being stuck with an M-16 over a Kalashnikov. Besides, US soldiers are very well trained and well supported by aircraft, helicopters, and artillery. Those things count for far more on a modern battlefield than the slight differences between models of rifle.

Answer 10

the AK does have more "umph" to it, but the M-16 is more accurate, and also since we have a smaller bullet that is going at a higher velocity, they tend to bounce around more inside of people, causing more internal damage by shredding up the insides.  

we have many other weapons including heavy and light machine guns, automatic grenade launchers, anti-tank weapons and the good ol 9mm pistol.  

Answer 11

No comparison.  They do two different jobs.  An M16 is the best weapon by a long way, if you want to sit a couple of feet back from a window in a tower block and pick someone off.  It's not much use hiding behind a brick wall to get away from one either.  For jumping through somebodys doorway and shooting up the people in a room, an AK47 is a good choice,  but for a close quarter fire fight you might like a pump action shotgun.

Answer 12

Since they don't know how to do crucial things like aim, a freakin' old school M1 would be effective against them.

Answer 13

The AK shoots a 7.62 round which has more penetration making it more destructible, the M-16 only shoots a 5.56 round but if you keep your weapon clean, the M-16 is more accurate and more reliable.  Another type of long range weapon we're using is the .50 cal. sniper rifle, only a single shot but that single shot will do the job.

Answer 14

The M16 is a piece of junk all the way compared to the AK-47. Just ask any Vietnam Vet and they'll tell you how reliable it is.  

Answer 15

The AK47 will fire dirty, underwater, and also has a larger caliber round (bullet) than the M16...however, the M16 is far more accurate.

The M4 is another weapon we use, and then there's the big guns like the MK-19, the M-2, the SAW, and some others.  

Answer 16

In an urban environment, the M16 would be less effective than the AK47 because of the low firepower and less penetration, preventing the bullet from passing through a thick concrete wall smoothly. And firefights in and urban environment are usually fought at close range, so the long range accuracy capability of the M16 is useless. Whereas the AK47, it's 7.62mm round inflicts massive damage on concrete walls, allowing the round to enter and exit a thick concrete wall to kill the enemy. The AK47 is also known to be more reliable and has greater endurance to damage and dirt, I've heard that terrorist in Afganistan hide their AKs in sand for weeks or months and then take them out when there is an emergency. As for the M16, frequent maintainance is required to get it into tip top condition for successful firing.

The only time when an M16 would be more effective against an AK would be in long distance firefights at more than 400m, but by then people would be using snipers and RPGs.

So overall, the AK is still the weapon of choice. The only reason why the Americans don't use it is because they're too arrogant and don't want to use a firearm made by the Russians, and instead choose the use a less effective weapon made by themselves.

Answer 17

You be the judge. The AK 47 round cannot penetrate a kevlar helmet from 25 meters, but an M-16 A2's 5.56 most certainly can. There are major advantages to hyper velocity, not the least of which is infinitely more accurate and a larger combat load.

The AK 47 is a piece of junk and the only reason it can fire under the conditions it does is because it is so poorly made.