Talk:Comparison of the AK-47 and M16/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This article is bad because it compares two different weapons from different times and has poor supporting details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isimon123 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The two weapons are contemporaries, and have been the basis of many comparisons in reliable sources, and have faced in other in combat by opposite sides and on the same side. 76.66.194.212 (talk) 06:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I would expect the biggest online encyclopedia in the world to have editors who have basic knowledge of the Russian language if they're going to edit articles with references to it. It's Avtomat - the original name, in Russian, is Автомат Калашникова модел 1947. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sturm31 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

A literal transliteration (letter for letter) of the Russian acronyn CCCP is SSSR but most sources translate it as USSR. The transliteration is "avtomat" but the translation most common used is "automat". Naaman Brown (talk) 12:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The official names of AK and AKS are «7,62-мм автомат Калашникова» and «7,62-мм автомат Калашникова со складным прикладом» rather then AK-47. And "model" must be translated as "модель" instead of "модел". And it was adopted in 1948. See^[1] (byMaxim Popenker).Ive 217.118.79.28 (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

one of the largest problems here is the fact that this article compares the 7.62x39 AK-47 to the 5.56x45 M-16A*. a fair comparison would be 5.45x39 AK-74 to the 5.56x45 M-16A* and the 7.62x39 AK-47 to the 7.62x51 M14, otherwise its just apples to oranges and can't be done. User: 24.26.74.143 18:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I see your point but respectfully disagree with you. The chambers you are talking about are much less common and would make no real sense to someone who wants to compare the AK-47 and the M16.Igor at work 18:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The AK-74/AKS-74 is a standard-issue weapon of the Russian military, and has been for almost 40 years. It should be taken into account no matter what. OK the AK/AKM may be widespread in many variants and conditions, and be used extensively in conflicts; but in comparison with M16 family (that is mainly fielded by US and NATO countries) the original is what matters - i.e. the Russian-made AKMs and AK-74s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.73.23.219 (talk) 12:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

the 5.45x39 is flooding this country right now and has been in use for over 30 years now, its quite common.

i could give you links to several dozen sites selling 74 kits right now.

Russia designed the 5.45x39 because America went to the 5.56x45, only reason the round even exists. User: 24.26.74.143 18:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

problem #2 is the fact that most comparisons are done with Lake city mil-surp, commercial or hand loaded 5.56x45 vs mil-surp or Wolf 7.62x39. a high quality commercial round or a hand load would preform much better. User: 24.26.74.143 18:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The article is comparing the guns, not the ammo. The 7.62x39 AKM is by far the most commonly seen version of the AK47 in actual wars today. The M16A2 is probably the most commonly seen M16, though M4 and M16A4 are also common. Thus, I would suggest that the article should compare the AKM to the M16A2.--Dwane E Anderson (talk) 02:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. This would favor the M16. The article should compere rifles from the same time period - so AKM should be compared with M16A1, and AK-74 should be compared with M16A2. If you want, you can compare original AK from early 50s with modern M16A4 - but what would be the point? --Corran.pl (talk) 20:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Even when comparing the guns though, the article aggressively and critically compares the M16 to the AK-47; in the conceptual differences section alone, the M16 is compared to the AK-47 in a negative way in excess of five times, while the AK-47 is not compared to the M16 at all. The AK-47 is also considered in all variants (including modern versions; it cites "modern" versions as having a side rail as standard, whereas on the AK-74 article itself, only the poorly-understood N series is equipped as such), while the M16 is limited solely to its Colt-based ones (the recent H&K 416/417 receiver is not considered, nor is the REC7). And the M16 reliability section also does not address any M16-series rifle other than Vietnam-era ones (as it cuts off at the Congressional investigation, which is undated and unreferenced) with yet more AK-47 preference bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.118.123.93 (talk) 04:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC) The AK-47 does not have an official Manufacturer which is one of the biggest reason alongside cost that it is in such great quantity. NO OFFICIAL weapons manufacturer deals with Ak-47s other than the plentiful civilian market because no military wants to be sold AK-47s overseas when they can be built close to home; while Venezuela recently purchased over 10,000 AK-101s (i dont have a source but look it up on AK-101 wiki page) that should say something 12:46, 27 August 2010 97.77.37.1 (talk) annonomous

Comparisons of the M16 and AK47 began in the 1960s when forces armed with these rifles faced each other in combat in VietNam. That is the source of the historical notability of this comparison: the fact that these two arms systems symbolized the opposing forces in the VietNam war. For that reason, the comparison does seem "stuck in the sixties" rather than comparing the modern variants of the two systems. Naaman Brown (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

This article is bad because it compares two different weapons from different times and has poor supporting details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isimon123 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The two weapons are contemporaries, and have been the basis of many comparisons in reliable sources, and have faced in other in combat by opposite sides and on the same side. 76.66.194.212 (talk) 06:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a lot of flip-flop on what people want out of this article.

Some people say arguments about things like the m16's reliability is irrelevant, because they fixed the problems, or that both weapons were designed in different time periods, but others argue that this is a comparison about the original configuration of the weapons, and that they have met each other in combat. THEN facts such as the 6.8spc. and the AK-74 appear. Either stay with the original configuration AK-47 and M16, or don't argue it at all. An HK416, or AK-103 is NOT the original configuration.

• Realize that the AK-47 and AKM are different weapons. Kalashnikov worked for years perfecting the stamped receiver, and the sights, barrel installation, stock tangs, as well as the bayonet were also redesigned, thusly:
• The AKM is not the AK-47, the AK-47 bayonet CANNOT be used as a wire cutter, the AKM can. An AK-47 does not have a bayonet lug, and cannot fit an AKM's bayonet and vice versa. The M9 bayonet for the M16 can be used as a wire cutter too, but that would fall under it anachronism if the timeline argument is used.
• Opening a bottle with an AK-47 magazine is irrelevant to this comparison and has no value, a Walther PPK and Makarov can do the same with their frame/barrel, but no one is writing facts about those.
• Where is the citation that the AK has a poorly insulated stock? Wood is one of the best insulating materials for firearms foregrips. Sure people might point to the youtube video of the AK on fire, but realize how many rounds were sent through it before it did catch fire, and there is a video of the m16 doing the same.

The riot control launcher is completely random, and irrelevant to the comparison.

Those were just some of the issues. If people really want this article, they have to draw fewer facts from sites such as youtube and read/state the original political documents and opinions of the time period, cited in books such as AK-47: The Grim Reaper, The Black Rifle: M16 retrospective, or The Gun — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.112.92 (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

"They have faced each other in countless conflicts both large and small, and have spawned comparisons and controversy"

• Rifles facing each other, is not encyclopedic: (The rifles were used by forces opposing each other)

• "countless conflicts": the notable conflicts can be counted.
• "spawned comparisons": the only notable comparison that I am aware of, is one TV show (series). --Chadburrey (talk) 11:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The first two are unencyclopedic language, the last (the apparent raison d'etre) of the article is what cuts to the chase. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE…User:Chadburrey has been identified as one of at least 66 sock puppet aliases for user User:Sju hav and said user accounts have been permanently blocked.

Several users are attempting to gain a consensus to delete the “Comparison of the AK-47 and M16” on the following page

) 07:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history is frequented by many experienced editors - a backroom cabal doesn't strike me as likely. An article stands or falls by the quality of its referencing and adherence to the policies of wikipedia. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

You just made my point...Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history is frequented by many "experienced editors". An article should stand or fall by the quality of its referencing and adherence to the policies of wikipedia... Therefore, all users should have the opportunity express their opinions and put forth their arguments. Not just "experienced editors", some of which appear to have started a deletion effort after their edits to this page were soundly rejected. By starting a deletion effort elsewhere, this shows bias and is an admission of the weakness of their arguments.

I also find it interesting that a "new users" first edit was to create that

) 18:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE…User:Chadburrey has been identified as one of at least 66 sock puppet aliases for user User:Sju hav and said user accounts have been permanently blocked. Current back room deletion efforts have suspended. However, there is still a danger that User:Sju hav may resume deletion effort under a new user name.

The Federov Automat is not an assault rifle, because it does not fire an intermediate powered cartridge. It fires the standard powered 6.5mm Arisaka rifle cartridge. See following comparison chart to show that it is in the same power range as many of the other standard rifle cartridges of the day…

Cartridge	Bullet	Velocity	Energy
6.5mm Arisaka	139 gr	2500 fps	1928 f/lbs
6.5mm Carcano	123 gr	2450 fps	1639 f/lbs
6.5mm Greek	160 gr	2225 fps	1758 f/lbs
6.5mm Mannlicher	162 gr	2400 fps	2071 f/lbs
6.5mm Mauser	139 gr	2600 fps	2085 f/lbs
6.5mm Verguero	155 gr	2000 fps	1376 f/lbs
7mm Mauser	173 gr	2300 fps	2031 f/lbs
7.35mm Italian	130 gr	2480 fps	1774 f/lbs
7.65mm Mauser	215 gr	2035 fps	1976 f/lbs
8mm Krag	237 gr	1985 fps	2073 f/lbs

Therefore, the Federov Automat is best described as an early squad automatic rifle in the same class as the Browning BAR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.156.40 (talk) 02:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Original research? By no means. The development of a modern assault rifle was a way of milestones. Fyodorov's assault rifle was the most important early step. But comparing muzzle energies to determine whether it was an assault rifle or not is of little value. There was no comprehensive philosophy about infantry weapons in the late XIX - early XXth cts. (military science did not go in pace with technical progress) and we see a large variation in muzzle energies and ballistics of rifle cartridges. The Avtomat must be placed in the context of contemporary Russian weaponry above all.

Fyodorov's vision of an individual infantry weapon had: a) a cartridge of decreased energy and caliber (he designed a special cartridge for the Avtomat (meaning the same changes in production had to be made as with a switch to an intermediate cartridge) b) was capable of selective fire c) had light weight - 4.4 + 0.8 kg. As far as the value of the idea goes - it was an assault rifle. The Avtomat was not a squad automatic weapon because the primary variant lacked a bipod essential for a light support weapon (also consider its light weight).

Note: Because Fyodorov Avtomat was a little-known subject in the West, the priority must be given to Russian-language sources - the original research is the claim that the Avtomat wasn't an assault rifle.

So the Germans were not the first to "pioneer the assault rifle concept" - they were the first to prove it in combat [reworded the article as such]. Their cartridge was not a true intermediate cartridge by today's standards either - the caliber (same as a usual rifle cartridge) was later found to be excessive (Fyodorov insisted on benefits of a smaller caliber from the beginning).

It is interesting to mention that the first German assault rifle - Vollmer Mkb. 35 also used a rifle stock.

To be an Assault rifle...a firearm must

1) be a select-fire automatic rifle

2) use a detachable magazine

3) fire an intermediate powered cartridge.

The Federov Automat is not an assault rifle, because it does not fire an intermediate powered cartridge. It fires the standard powered 6.5mm Arisaka rifle cartridge. How much it weighs is irrelevant. Whether or not it has a pistol-grip is irrelevant. What caliber (size) bullet it shoots is irrelevant. Whether or not it has a bi-pod is irrelevant. It's barrel length is irrelevant.

The Federov Automat was not even the first automatic rifle. The Mondragón rifle was patented in 1887 over 25 years before the Federov Automat. Also, only 3200 Federov Automat's were made, whereas over 1,100,000 Mondragón rifles were made. The Federov Automat was not "...the most important early step" it was at best a foot-note in firearms history...a dead end, abandoned by the Russian prior to WW2 in favor of the SMG.

6.5 mm Arisaka

- 2,615 J

6.5 mm Grendel - 2,633 J

It does indeed fall withing the range of intermediate cartridge. 216.16.232.250 (talk) 01:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

In regard to why the rearmament of Russian army with assault rifles was postponed - there was no other reason other than the time it was introduced (difficult economic situation brought on by WWI and the Civil war). It is still the first assault rifle adopted by any army, period. 216.16.232.250 (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

By using your difinitions and your logic, the Mondragón rifle in 7mm Mauser - 2,745.53 J is the world first assault rifle as it predates Federov Automat by 25 years. Also, the Mondragón rifles was also used by no less than 16 countries: Austria-Hungary, Brazil, Chile, Republic of China, People's Republic of China, Vichy France, German Empire, Weimar Republic, Nazi Germany, Republic of Korea, Empire of Japan, Lithuania, Mexico, Peru, Philippines, Soviet Union, Vietnam. And, since only 3200 Federov Automat's were made, whereas over 1,100,000 Mondragón rifles were made, the Federov Automat is irrelevant and not worthy of note in this article. As for the (difficult economic situation brought on by WWI and the Civil war), this does not explain why at the height of WW2 when the Red Army was being slaughtered by the Germans and was desperate to turn the tide of war, they made no effort to reintroduce Federov Automat. They in fact focused on SMG production and the development other rifle designs.

Simple - the Mondragon rifle was not designed with an assault rifle vision in mind (whereas Fyodorov Avtomat was) and as a result, it couldn't perform as one. As for this does not explain why at the height of WW2 when the Red Army was being slaughtered by the Germans and was desperate to turn the tide of war, they made no effort to reintroduce Federov Automat - the Red Army didn't introduce a man-portable RPG, either. 216.16.232.250 (talk) 06:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

You are again changing the difinitions of this debate...If the "assault rifle vision" is the deciding factor, then the German Sturmgewehr 44 is the worlds first assault rifle, since they intended to replace every rifle and SMG in thier arsenal with the Sturmgewehr, and were in fact actively doing everything in thier power to rearm accordingly. In fact, it was Hitler himself who coined the name Sturmgewehr (Assault Rifle)...Whereas the Soviet Union made no effort to arm itself with the Federov Automat during WW1, the Civil War or WW2. The Soviets only made 3200 of them and used them more like squad automatic rifles (deploying only a handful guns to the few units)...I have no idea what you what you meant to say with the "Red Army didn't introduce a man-portable RPG, either." As such, I have no response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.156.40 (talk) 07:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

1) It still doesn't change Vladimir Fyodorov's role as the first person to theoretically establish the assault rifle concept. Nor does it change the fact that his design was the first in-service assault rifle.

2) The RPG was another important type of weapon yet not one has been fielded by USSR (Germany, USA and Britain fielded own designs by 1942) - the speculation on war-time needs and priorities doesn't disprove Fyodorov Avtomat was an assault rifle. The war was not fought by infantry alone.

Oh, and the Russian term for assault rifle is avtomat (proposed by Nikolai Filatov for the Fyodorov's design in the 1920s). 216.16.232.250 (talk) 09:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

You are again changing the difinitions of this debate...Both Manuel Mondragón and Vladimir Fyodorov designed automatic rifles able to be operated by a single rifleman and which were envisioned to arm entire armies. Only, Manuel Mondragón did it 25 years earlier and made over 1,100,000 of them used by at least 16 countries during both World Wars, whereas Vladimir Fyodorov only made 3200 rifles that never saw significant action. Therefore, by your current difinition the Mondragón was the first assault rifle...I now understand what you meant by the RPG reference; earlier you said that the Federov Automat was postponed, when in fact it was cancelled in favor of the SMG and other rifle designs. The Soviet's had the rifle prior to WW2 and had so little faith in the rifle that they made no effort to reintroduce Federov Automat during or after WW2. As for the RPG, the Soviet's did not have them before WW2 and were unable to develop them until after the war...Also, even I know that "Avtomat" is there Russian word for "Automatic", not "Assault Rifle" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.156.40 (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Assault rifles (in undisputed sense of the word) have been developed in Germany by 1930s. They were not adopted until 5 years into WWII. If you like to credit Hitler so much, it took 10 years to convince him the assault rifle was the way to go. Fyodorov also made great efforts to convince Soviet command in the need of an assault rifle. Yet even if an assault rifle hasn't entered mass production in USSR until late 1940s - he still introduced it first. Keep in mind that only Russians have adopted a modern assault rifle after WWII - USA has relied on sub-machine gun/battle rifle combination for another decade. On the precursors:

Personally, I co-credit Cei-Rigotti as the first assault rifle. Unlike any other precedent, in used a cartridge that was developed as low-powered with theoretical foundations for it. It cannot be fully credited because the cartridge was developed as the standard infantry cartridge in the country of origin (for usual infantry rifles), and because the rifle never left experimental stage. The Mondragon rifle performed poorly in automatic mode - it was not optimized for that role, especially not for firing from shoulder. So it was not an assault rifle.

Also, even I know that "Avtomat" is there Russian word for "Automatic", not "Assault Rifle".

The Russian word for "automatic" is avtomatichesky.

216.16.232.250 (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Now that we both agree that the Germans developed the Assault Rifle (in undisputed sense of the word)...I will restore the first paragraph of the History section to...

The Germans were the first to pioneer the

) 04:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Undisputed by one side - you. And you can't present one side's position as fact. I don't object to removal of the paragraph about Fyodorov Avtomat if the History section is seriously rewritten (there's some dubious shit about M16 also - like "fanatical enemies" as justification for a single rifle cartridge), or replaced with "Introduction" section, leaving history out of it (as advised by administrator). 216.16.232.250 (talk) 06:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

For information purposes profanity is considered civility violation and is punishable by the lost of edit privileges.

You are again changing the definitions of this debate…it’s getting difficult to keep up.

The Cei-Rigotti predates the Federov Automat by 15 years…and, the one English Language reference[1] that you provided clearly states that neither can be considered an assault rifle as they both fired standard power rifle calibers, 6.5 Carcano and 6.5 Arisaka.

The Mondragon rifle performed so well in full-auto that they started issuing 100 round drum magazines for it (circa 1910), and they also made over 1,100,000 of them for use by at least 16 countries. And, I agree that the Mondragon is not an assault rifle, but neither are the Federov Automat or the Cei-Rigotti.

It is you that insist on calling the Federov Automat the world first assault rifle while ignoring the fact that there were other designs that predate the Federov Automat by as much as 25 years, that perform exactly the same function, that were made in far greater numbers, that were used by many more countries and that remained in service for decades. Therefore, the Federov Automat was not the first of anything. It was just one of dozens of obscure automatic rifle designs that fill the pages of firearms encyclopedias and failed to achieve any success in the real world.

Perhaps your not aware of this, but during WW2 the Japanese fought to the death rather than surrender and wounded Japanese troops would routinely blow themselves up with hand-grenades in a final attempt to kill American medics attempting to help them. Also, during the Korean War the Chinese would drug their troops so they could stay in the fight even after being shot multiple times. And, the Chinese sent waves of soldiers to attack American machineguns armed with nothing more than pointed sticks, in order to get the American to give away their positions and exhaust their ammo supply’s. If these actions do not meet the definition of “fanatical enemies”, then please tell me what does.

Also, “fanatical enemies”, combined with the major logistical problems involved in supplying troops deployed around the world, convinced American Commanders that they needed one powerful rifle cartridge in order to simplify the supply chain. Also, the United States was not only providing ammo to its own troops, but also providing ammo to dozens of allied countries many of whom use different types of ammo. It was a logistical nightmare that plagued war planners throughout WW2 and the Korean War. This is why NATO started it standardization efforts and why American Commanders insisted on developing one powerful rifle cartridge for use in all NATO rifles and machineguns.

The Cei-Rigotti predates the Federov Automat by 15 years…and, the one English Language reference[2] that you provided clearly states that neither can be considered an assault rifle as they both fired standard power rifle calibers, 6.5 Carcano and 6.5 Arisaka.

Have you read the source? It states: "The first service weapon which can be identified as conforming to the specification of an assault rifle dates back to the First World War; the Russian Federov Avtomat of 1916... It can be argued that neither the Cei-Rigotti nor the Federov Avtomat used "intermediate" cartridges, as the 6.5mm Carcano and Arisaka were the front-line rifle/MG rounds in the Italian and Japanese armies respectively. This is true, but it is worth bearing in mind that, in terms of calibre and muzzle energy, they were in the same class as the present-day 6.8x43 Remington SPC and 6.5x38 Grendel, which are today regarded by many as ideal intermediate cartridges for assault rifles." The Fyodorov Avtomat was not only the first in-service assault rifle - it was ahead of its time by 70 years.

The Mondragon rifle performed so well in full-auto that they started issuing 100 round drum magazines for it (circa 1910), and they also made over 1,100,000 of them for use by at least 16 countries. And, I agree that the Mondragon is not an assault rifle, but neither are the Federov Automat or the Cei-Rigotti.

Quote: "The Mondragon also suffered from poor accuracy. As noted in the Prussian manual: "The unified construction of this self-loading weapon results in greater variations in the targeting position than exist in previously introduced weapons. Only deviations of more than 20cm from the normal group are corrected." [3]

Sorry, the part about "fanatical enemies" still doesn't sound very convincing.

216.16.232.250 (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

First) You are again changing the definitions of this debate…it is getting boring

If we allow accuracy to be the deciding factor, then the AK-47 cannot no longer be considered an assault rifle, because the Mondragon had much better range and accuracy.

Second) I love how you selectively edited the article in question….here let me add the rest of that paragraph for you.

“The first service weapon which can be identified as conforming to the specification of an assault rifle dates back to the First World War; the Russian Federov Avtomat of 1916……

This was a selective fire weapon using a short-recoil action. It was originally chambered for Federov's own purpose-designed high-velocity 6.5mm cartridge, but as the Great War was then underway there was no chance of a new cartridge being adopted, so he modified his gun to use the Japanese 6.5x50SR Arisaka cartridge, large quantities of the guns and ammunition having been acquired by Russia to meet a shortfall in their supply of rifles. This was an excellent choice, as the cartridge combined moderate recoil with a good long-range performance, but only a few thousand Avtomats were made. They were used in action in the Russian Civil War and also as late as the Winter War with Finland in 1939-40, and thereby earned their place in small-arms history…….

It can be argued that neither the Cei-Rigotti nor the Federov Avtomat used "intermediate" cartridges, as the 6.5mm Carcano and Arisaka were the front-line rifle/MG rounds in the Italian and Japanese armies respectively. This is true, but it is worth bearing in mind that, in terms of calibre and muzzle energy, they were in the same class as the present-day 6.8x43 Remington SPC and 6.5x38 Grendel, which are today regarded by many as ideal intermediate cartridges for assault rifles.”

This was article written in 2012, it is clearly comparing the power range of the Cei-Rigotti developed in 1900 and the Federov Avtomat developed in 1915, to the power range of two cartridges that were developed in 2003 (6.8x43 Remington SPC and 6.5x38 Grendel). It also clearly states that the Federov Avtomat “…was originally chambered for Federov's own purpose-designed high-velocity 6.5mm cartridge, but as the Great War was then underway there was no chance of a new cartridge being adopted, so he modified his gun to use the Japanese 6.5x50SR Arisaka cartridge.” Therefore, the 3200 Federov Avtomat that were made did not fire an intermediate cartridge and cannot be considered an assault rifles.

The Mondragon, Cei-Rigotti and Federov Avtomat all fired standard rifle calibers of the day…the first rifle to fire an “intermediate cartridge” was the Sturmgewehr 44: by shortening the standard 7.92x57mm cartridge to 7.92x33mm and giving it a lighter 125 grain bullet. As such the Sturmgewehr 44 is the world’s first assault rifle.

You are the one who deleted 7 English language references stating just that…while adding 3 Russian language sources that that cannot be verified by those of us who cannot read Russian. The above quote comes from your one and only English source…And, you edited the most important part…the part that clearly states that the Federov's Avtomat was not adopted with Federov's 6.5mm cartridge, but with the standard power 6.5mm Arisaka cartridge…This is a clear admission of the weakness of your argument and your attempt to rewrite history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.156.40 (talk) 02:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

If we allow accuracy to be the deciding factor, then the AK-47 cannot no longer be considered an assault rifle, because the Mondragon had much better range and accuracy.

According to the cited Prussian manual, 20 cm grouping was the norm [edit: 20 cm actually was the acceptable deviation from normal grouping, not the group itself!], and if that was it's accuracy at 100 meters - then it was twice as bad as the AK. The web site doesn't quote the manual entirely - if you can find a source stating the Mondragon rifle had better accuracy, firing from shoulder in fully automatic mode - then I will agree to close the debate in your favor. But if you can't - I guess you've just been caught lying.

"This was a selective fire weapon using a short-recoil action. It was originally chambered for Federov's own purpose-designed high-velocity 6.5mm cartridge, but as the Great War was then underway there was no chance of a new cartridge being adopted, so he modified his gun to use the Japanese 6.5x50SR Arisaka cartridge, large quantities of the guns and ammunition having been acquired by Russia to meet a shortfall in their supply of rifles."

This is not principal - the Fyodorov Avtomat was an assault rifle (short barrel, large-capacity magazine, light weight, fully and semi-automatic mode) so it made use of a cartridge better suited for it, not 7.62x54mm.

the first rifle to fire an “intermediate cartridge” was the Sturmgewehr 44: by shortening the standard 7.92x57mm cartridge to 7.92x33mm and giving it a lighter 125 grain bullet. As such the Sturmgewehr 44 is the world’s first assault rifle.

An intermediate cartridge is a cartridge between a pistol and a rifle/machine-gun cartridge, in all cases - closer by bullet energy to the later. Not a "shortened rifle cartridge with lighter bullet" (then what is 5.56mm NATO?)

You are again changing the definitions of this debate

The phrase "The Germans were the first to pioneer the assault rifle concept, during World War II, based upon research that showed that most firefights happen within 400 meters and that contemporary rifles were over-powered for most small arms combat", isn't true even if sourced - the assault rifle concept was pioneered by Vladimir Fyodorov, based on the experience of Russo-Japanese war and WWI, when the range between opposing trenches was often below the effective range of contemporary Russian rifles.

Anyway, your tone is getting presumptuous. And you've just deleted my edits before a consensus was reached on talk page. I advice you to make a self-revert.

216.16.232.250 (talk) 06:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

You are the one who changed a fully reference section without first getting a consensus…I am the one who restored it to the original version…

Accuracy is irrelevant to whether or not a rifle should be called an assault rifle…and by your own admission; the reference you provided is incomplete at best…

Also, the Federov Avtomat does not use an intermediate powered cartridge…it uses the standard powered Japanese 6.5 Arisaka cartridge…The reference that you provided clearly states this…whether or not the cartridge is less powerful than the 7.62x54mm is irrelevant…The 6.5 Arisaka is still a standard powered rifle cartridge of the day in the same power range as many of the other standard powered rifle cartridge of the day; as the chart above shows

Now your suggesting that the 7.92x33mm and 5.56x45mm cartridges are not intermediate powered cartridges…that is just argumentative…

You wrote…”The phrase The Germans were the first to pioneer the assault rifle concept, during World War II, based upon research that showed that most firefights happen within 400 meters and that contemporary rifles were over-powered for most small arms combat, isn't true even if sourced…”…this clearly means that no matter what source or reference I provide…you will ignore it…In fact, you are ignoring the one English language source that you provided…And, by your own admission; another reference that you provided is incomplete at best…

This suggest to me that you have no interest in having an honest debate…and, that you intend continue this argument indefinitely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.156.40 (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

You are the one who changed a fully reference section without first getting a consensus…I am the one who restored it to the original version…

I've initially rephrased "The Germans were the first to introduce the assault rifle concept..." to "The Germans were the first to prove the assault rifle concept in battle...". The first version comes from poorly informed western sources. The priority of Russian sources as more informed was not challenged in the debate.

Accuracy is irrelevant to whether or not a rifle should be called an assault rifle…and by your own admission; the reference you provided is incomplete at best…

It is as relevant as any other feature that makes assault rifles a separate class. If it is too heavy - it is not an assault rifle. If it doesn't have a burst or fully automatic mode - it is not an assault rifle. And if its accuracy is so poor that it can't be used effectively in fully automatic mode, it is also not an assault rifle.

Also, the Federov Avtomat does not use an intermediate powered cartridge…it uses the standard powered Japanese 6.5 Arisaka cartridge…The reference that you provided clearly states this…whether or not the cartridge is less powerful than the 7.62x54mm is irrelevant…The 6.5 Arisaka is still a standard powered rifle cartridge of the day in the same power range as many of the other standard powered rifle cartridge of the day; as the chart above shows

Not quite. The 6.5x50mm represents a category of low-powered rifle cartridges. They have appeared after full-powered rifle cartridges, such as 7.62x54mm Russian, .303 British and 7.92x57mm Mauser, were already in use with major armies of the world. We now know they were closer to the optimal assault rifle cartridge than 7.92x33mm Kurtz.

Now your suggesting that the 7.92x33mm and 5.56x45mm cartridges are not intermediate powered cartridges…that this just argumentative…

The 7.92x33mm was not the first intermediate cartridge - it wasn't even the first mass-produced intermediate cartridge (in your definition of "intermediate").

this clearly means that no matter what source or reference I provide…you will ignore it…In fact, you are ignoring the one English language source that you provided…And, by your own admission; another reference that you provided is incomplete at best… This suggest to me that you have no interest in having an honest debate…and, that you intend continue this argument

Insecure much? I wouldn't be debating here if I wasn't well informed about Fyodorov Avtomat. I've read enough about it, and heard enough opinions (pro and contra [often silly, such as "it didn't use modern manufacturing methods"]), that left no doubt it was an assault rifle. I can see how it could be valid to question its relevance - it didn't make the same impact as Stg. 44. It was an assault rifle nonetheless.

216.16.232.250 (talk) 19:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I've made several additional changes to the article:

Replaced Stg 44 photo on dark background with photo on light background for consistency with AK-47 and M16 photos, shortened AK-47 description for the same reason.

Removed magazine as a bottle opener - way too minor of a feature.

Added production numbers to worldwide usage map, maps alone are misleading; removed sentence about extensive use of both weapons by the nations of the world - with AR-15's production numbers being less than 10% of the AK's, it just looks confusing.

Removed images according to wikipedia policy on images:

- Firepower gallery (serves no purpose);

- Photos of cartridges (moved to a gallery bellow);

- Rifle evaluation study gallery (serves no purpose).

Removed mid-sentence breaks (don't work as intended at different screen resolutions).

Removed paragraph about

HK416

- basically, it's a G36 with AR-15 furniture. It is only an M16 variant in the sense of large number of interchangeable parts.

216.16.232.250 (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Again,removed

HK416

:

a manufacturer is not an undisputable source - it's a business;

it's an M16 variant in the sense of large number of interchangeable parts - not automatics (crucial for reliability)

finally, the HK are the legal holders of the rights to the design, and that trumps all.

216.16.232.250 (talk) 19:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

You removed three reference stating that the H&K 416 is an M16 variant...even you stated that it has large number of interchangeable parts...in fact, with the exception of the gas system all of the parts are in interchangeable...even the H&K 416 names reference that it's and M16 variant...I challenge to provide a reputable source to prove otherwise. Also you stated that " manufacturer is not an undisputable source - it's a business" then you stated that"...HK are the legal holders of the rights to the design, and that trumps all" you can't have it both ways. Clearly, you made a mistake and you are now doing everything in your power to spin-it your way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.156.40 (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

you stated that " manufacturer is not an undisputable source - it's a business" then you stated that"...HK are the legal holders of the rights to the design, and that trumps all" you can't have it both ways.

1) A business can claim things that aren't true in the literal sense for advertising purposes.

2) If an invention is a variant of another invention but possess significant difference it will be issued a separate patent; the HK are the license-holders for HK416. It's a variation, but it's irrelevant. You could add as much sources that refer to HK416 as an M16 variation - it would still be irrelevant. Especially in the reliability section - which has nothing to do with the M16 design.

Clearly, you made a mistake and you are now doing everything in your power to spin-it your way.

HK416 has to be mentioned in the article, alright. But in a different light - the US Army has finally realized that AR-15 is beyond salvation and purchased a foreign design instead.

216.16.232.250 (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

You removed three reference stating that the H&K 416 is an M16 variant...it is up to you to provide a references that say that it is not an M16 variant...those reference also stated that the H&K 416 is used by the U.S. Military which is indeed relevant to the article...the burden of proof is on you...before you can remove reference content, you have to prove your point and you have offered nothing but your personnal opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.156.40 (talk) 00:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't dispute it's an M16 variant. But I've given valid reasons why it's not relevant - 1) the design rights belong to Heckler und Koch 2) crucial part of the design - the gas system - has nothing to do with M16, and, consequently, it's reliability.

216.16.232.250 (talk) 01:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It does not matter who holds the design rights to the HK 416's short-stroke gas piston...this aricle is not about design rights...it's a "Comparison of the AK-47 and M16"...The reliability section content is based on the AK-47 long-stroke gas operation system and the M16 direct impingement gas system and the fact that the new HK 416 (which you now admit is an M16 variant) is using a short-stroke gas piston is totally relevant.

Suggestion: focus this article on comparison of the AK-47 and M16, leave the history of assault rifle to the assault rifle article, keep here only details which are directly relevant to AK-47 and M16 series. By the way, assault rifle says "the first in-service precursor of the assault rifle .." (and Fedorov, not Federov), which might be a better phrasing than what we have in this article. Materialscientist (talk) 03:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Pursuant to the complaint at

WP:ANEW, I've protected the page from editing for a short time to encourage discussion here instead of rapid reverts on the article. Please come to a conclusion before making any changes. Kuru (talk)

11:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Fyodorov Avtomat

Denying the Fyodorov Avtomat its rightful place as the first assault rifle is based on faulty logics. "Intermediate power" is NOT an absolute number, it's a relative number. The 6.5mm Arisaka is less powerful than the standard rifle cartridge used by the Russians, the 7.62x54R (and also less powerful than the standard rifle cartridges used by other larger nations, such as the .30-06, the .303" British and the 7.92x57iS), and that makes it an intermediate cartridge. So the comparison to the 6.5mm Carcano and others is totally and utterly irrelevant. (PS. Learn how to quote properly and how to sign your posts. All posts must be signed and new text must be added in such a way that it is easy to see who wrote what. As it is the discussion about the Fyodorov Avtomat on this page is almost unreadable, and it's impossible to see who wrote what. Which is why I started a new section.) Allan Akbar (talk) 11:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

This article isn't about "the first assault rifle", or the Fyodorov Avtomat, so it shouldn't be in the article at all. (Hohum ^@) 16:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that, which is why I wrote on the TALK page and not in the article. And it is relevant on the talk page because of a recent heated discussion about the Fyodorov Avtomat, mostly based on the definition of "intermediate power cartridge". Allan Akbar (talk) 16:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I intend to add the following section to this article (below the reliability section). I chose the following references because…“Arsenal” is the only AK-47 type rifle manufacturer that sees fit to state the service life of its products and “ACC” is the only M16/AR15 type rifle manufacturer to do so. I welcome any “constructive” suggestions and additional references.

Service life

The AK-47 was designed to be an inexpensive assault rifle and has a service life of approximately 15,000 rounds. [4] After which a soldier is simply issued a new rifle. On the other hand, the M16 was designed to be a modular weapon system whose components can be replaced using simple hand tools. [5][6] In essence, the M16 has an infinite service life as any part can be replaced at will. However, the M16s barrel life is approximately 20 to 50,000 rounds depending on the intensity of use. [7] A badly worn M16 barrel will cause the bullets to tumble in flight.[8] Both the AK-47 and the M16 have small parts and springs that need to be replaced every few thousand rounds. [9][10]

The paragraph was written on speculation (by editor's own admission). Removed.

Comment: Almost any part of AK-47 can be replaced with simple hand tools as well (video). Full disassembly of AK is actually covered in Soviet army manual (it's a standard procedure when drying and oiling the gun). Only barrel replacement is done with machine tools. It was a common policy of Soviet manufactures to create long-lasting products - be it AK-47, or its magazines. (It was a common policy of manufactures in all Socialist countries - in USSR for example, Chinese products from Socialist epoch have enjoyed reputation of utmost durability).

216.16.232.250 (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Service life

The AK-47 was designed to be an inexpensive assault rifle[11] and as such has a service life of approximately 6,000[12] to 15,000[13] rounds.

The M16's barrel life is approximately 20,000 to 50,000 rounds depending on the intensity of use[14]. and can be replaced using simple hand tools.[15][16] A badly worn M16 barrel will cause the bullets to tumble in flight.[17]

It appears that some users are intentionally suppressing the above fully reference information stating that the AK-47 has a service life of 6,000 to 15,000 rounds. In favor of a vague reference that states the AK-47 has a service life of 20 to 40 years. Said reference makes no mention of how many rounds per year those AK-47s had fired…any gun will last 20, 40 even 100 years if you rarely fire it.

To compare the AK-47 service life in years to the M16 service life in rounds fired shows tremendous bias designed to deny the facts and make the AK-47 appear superior. As it sounds as if the M16 has service life of only a few weeks or months. (unsigned comment added by 71.22.156.40 (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2012)

I'm the one who reverted your "fully referenced" edits, and my reason for doing that is that I don't see Chuck Hawks' page on infantry rifles as a reliable/serious reference. He may be something of an expert on hunting rifles and hunting ammo but summing up the AK-47 like this "All specifications are, however, approximate due to sub-standard quality control and the great production variations encountered in AK-47 pattern rifles manufactured in dysfunctional Communist arms factories all over the world. It is however, reliable and easy to mass produce. The darn things do work…The Soviet preference for quantity over quality is nowhere more evident than in the AK-47. Most examples appear to have been fabricated entirely from sheet metal and orange crate wood. A thing of beauty it is not…Of all the rifles that made it into this article, the AK-47 is by far the cheapest, lowest quality, and least accurate" disqualifies him, in my book at least, as an expert on military weapons. Allan Akbar (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

There were also two manufactures technical specification references that clearly state that the AK-47 has a 6,000[18] to 15,000[19] round service life. Both of which support the pervious statement. Also, you have made no mention that the years to rounds fired service life comparison shows tremendous bias which is clearly designed to suppress the facts, and make the AK-47 appear to be far superior, while the technical specifications clearly state otherwise.

Since, you don’t like the Chuck Hawks' reference, then perhaps you’ll like this one from The New Atlantis A Journal of Technology & Society[20] "The AK-47 further exasperated Westerners by its cheap fabrication from stamped metals and its brilliant operation with just a few working parts. By the late 1960s, soldiers were taking apart, cleaning, and reassembling the weapon in about half the time required for the M16. Something that felt and looked so “cheap,” and that was produced by the Communist Bloc notorious for its shoddily manufactured products, surely, it seemed, could not be comparable to a rifle designed by the Americans, the British, or the Germans, with their far more distinguished firearms pedigree." (unsigned comment added by 71.22.156.40 (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2012)

I don't know what nationality you are and what your first language is, but "surely, it seemed, could not be comparable to..." turns that comment into the direct opposite of Chuck Hawks' comment... Allan Akbar (talk) 08:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

How much is the service life of Russian AKs? How much is the service life of Chinese AKs? How much is the service life if all parts are regularly replaced? (By the way, its not that much of an advantage to be able to replace barrel in the field).

"The conclusion that I've reached from this piece of information..." won't cut it, sorry.

"...tremendous bias which is clearly designed to suppress the facts, and make the AK-47 appear to be far superior, while the technical specifications clearly state otherwise."

Heh. The article in its present state gives an impression of an M16 fanboy looking for excuses. 216.16.232.250 (talk) 11:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Since, you don’t like the Chuck Hawks'[21] and The New Atlantis A Journal of Technology & Society[22] references, then perhaps you’ll like this one from Defense Tech[23] “What accounts for its success? Quite simply: it works. Despite its low price (as little as $10 and as much as $300) and often shoddy workmanship, this rifle rarely jams, is almost indestructible, and is easy to fire with no training. Overnight, it can transform paramilitary forces, thugs and street gangs into formidable armies…It is not very accurate but can fire about 700 rounds per minute. Many western military experts consider it a piece of junk, but it’s perfect for poorly-trained soldiers because they can ‘spray and pray.’ And indeed, it is a piece of junk compared to the M-16A2 now used in Iraq or the shorter barreled version M-4.”

I have now provided multiple references stating that the AK-47 is a “cheap rifle”…You have yet to provide one reference that it is not...All that you have given is your personal opinions. And, you are still supressing two manufactures technical specification references that clearly state that the AK-47 has a 6,000[24] to 15,000[25] round service life...If you actually read, the references provided you would know that 6000 rounds is the service life of a Chinese made AK-47. Also, you have not provided any information stating what is the service life of any AK-47 in rounds fired...Only, a vague reference that states the AK-47 has a service life of 20 to 40 years, which makes no mention of how many rounds per year those AK-47s had fired…any gun will last 20, 40 even 100 years if you rarely fire it. (unsigned comment added by 71.22.156.40 (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2012‎)

So, it's a cheap rifle. So what? In my book that's something positive. If you had simply added a service life of 6,000-15,000 rounds for the AK-47, with proper references, everything would have been fine, but you also tried to sneak in a lot of totally irrelevant stuff, with crap references and blatantly fanboy wording, including some stuff/references that you obviously didn't understand yourself. Which is why your entire edit was reverted. (PS. I'm tired of signing your comments for you, so I strongly suggest you do it yourself the next time...) Allan Akbar (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the

.410 shotgun should be mentioned on the M16's side of the comparison table's row that mentions the Saiga series as having shotgun variants of AKs? Maybe even the Akdal MKA 1919 too, although it doesn't share as many (if any, I don't know) parts with original M16s/AR15s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.6.121.99 (talk) 23:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I would either move it to the Miscellaneous section as:

M16	AK-47
The latest assault rifle variant, HK416 , is [this] and [that].	The latest assault rifle variant, AK-12, is currently under development. It is [this] and [that].

or leave it but add

) 06:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The HK 416 should stay where it is, as it is the most significant advance for the M16 weapons family since its inception. Also, the HK 416 is being used by at least 15 countries and battlefield reports suggest that it is as reliable if not more so than the AK-47. As for the AK-12 it is still in the development stage and is not even listed in the Izhmash catalog [26]. It may or may not be produced and we have no idea what the final version will look like.

With the advent of the new 100 series AK-47’s the differences between them are negligible. The only significant differences are the calibers 7.62x39, 5.45x39 and 5.56x45. And, the only visual cues the casual observer has to differentiate them are the curves of the magazines. Also, they are already mentioned in the article. There simply is no need to mention every single variation of the AK-47 and M16 in this article as the list would be longer than the article itself. This article should be devoted only to the major milestones.

I doubt M16 will ever be as reliable as AK, not even after replacing its heart. The problem with M16 was systematic. The AK is characterized by unusually powerful gas drive, to accommodate for which the cases of 7.62x39mm and 5.45x39mm have to be made more durable than 5.56x45mm. So while it may be as reliable as 5.56mm NATO versions of AK, it will never match the reliability of AKs chambered in Russian calibers. 216.16.232.250 (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I know that the validity of the 416 has been discussed, but I dispute that it's an actual "variant" of the M16 rifle. Even the HK site (http://www.hk-usa.com/military_products/hk416_general.asp) calls it an "M4/M16 type" rifle, which implies that it's not actually related to the platform at all. Like the relationship between the XM8 and G36 rifles, even if the form factor and operating platform is similar, that does not mean that the two can be considered development forks (like how the M4 Carbine is a fork of the XM177/CAR-15 rifle, which is itself a fork of the full-size, full-length M16, or like how the M14 is a fork of the M1 Garand). Even though this article and the 416 article say that the operating system is from the proprietary G36 platform, I don't see anyone or any entity saying that it is an actual G36 in the furniture of an AR-15. Likewise, I think that identifying the 416 as an explicit variant of the M16/M4 would be like saying that the CZ 550 is an actual variant of the M 98 because it has a similar form factor and uses similar operating mechanisms. It's not equitable. The latest advancement of the M16 is either the M16A4 or the C7A2, because those rifles are in fact part of the same lineage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.91.160.222 (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The H&K web site that you referenced states [27]…

“The HK416 (5.56 mm) was developed by Heckler & Koch for U.S. special operations forces as a major product improvement of M4/M16-type carbines and rifles. Using the HK-proprietary gas piston system found on the G36, the HK416 does not introduce propellant gases and carbon fouling back into the weapon’s interior, making it the most reliable of any M4/M16 type weapon.

The HK416 has been combat-proven in Southwest Asia and has also gained the attention of military, law enforcement, and security users outside of the US. In April 2007, the HK416 was selected as the new Norwegian Army rifle.

The origins of the HK416 began with the realization of the deficiencies of the direct gas impingement (gas tube) operating system found on conventional M4/M16-style weapons. Input from the users of current M4/M16-type arms, high-speed video assessment, and extensive live-fire testing in extreme operational environments such as the U.S. Army Desert Proving Ground in Yuma, Arizona revealed multiple areas for improvement.

Improvements were made to the internal operating system and miscellaneous component parts to improve reliability in best and worse case scenarios, with all types of ammunition, with all barrel lengths and with and without sound suppressors attached.

An innovative free-floating 4-quadrant rail system designed by HK allows all current accessories, sights, lights, and aimers used on M4/M16-type weapons to be fitted to the HK416. This HK rail system and can be installed and removed without tools.

The HK-proprietary gas system uses a piston driving an operating rod to control the function of the bolt, preventing propellant gases and the associated carbon fouling from entering the weapon’s interior. This increases the reliability of the weapon and extends the interval between stoppages. It also reduces operator cleaning time, heat transfer to the bolt and bolt carrier, and wear and tear on critical components.

To improve reliability, service life, and operator safety during obstructed bore occurrences or after extreme extended firing sessions, the HK416 uses barrels produced by Heckler & Koch’s famous cold hammer forging process.

The highest quality steel is used in this unique manufacturing process producing a barrel that provides superior accuracy for greater than 20,000 rounds with minimal degradation of accuracy and muzzle velocity. HK416 variants are available with 10.4, 14.5, 16.5, and 20 inch (264, 368, 419, 508 mm) barrels. Some HK416 variants also have “OTB” (Over-the-beach) capability and can be safely fired after being submerged in water and not completely drained.

In addition to the improvements in the baseline weapon, HK has produced a corrosion resistant steel magazine and a proprietary buffer to improve functional reliability.

An add-on single shot 40 x 46mm grenade launcher module can be quickly attached to the rail system of all models without tools. HK has applied its proven and fielded Safety Blank Firing Attachment and Live Round Excluder Magazine technology to the HK416, eliminating the possibility of live rounds being loaded into and fired through a standard issue weapon outfitted for blank firing only.

The HK416 is available as complete carbine or rifle or as a “drop-in” HK416 upper receiver module for use on the lower receivers of existing M4/M16 type weapons.”

How anyone can read this and still claim that the H&K 416 is NOT an M16 variant escapes all reason.--71.22.156.40 (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The AK-107 & AK-108 are not production firearms…no country uses them and they are not even listed in the Izhmash catalog [28]…We simply do not have room to discuss every possible variation of the AK-47 and M16 rifles, as the list would be many times longer than the article itself. Therefore, we should only include the major production variants. The AK-107 & AK-108 do not merit inclusions at this time. Neither, do the shotgun or belt-fed machinegun versions of the M16. Or, any other prototypes or specialized versions produce in such small numbers that they are unlikely to be encountered.--71.22.156.40 (talk) 04:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

We could replace the lines about variants with:

M16	AK-47
Non-assault rifle derivatives have enjoyed limited success.	Non-assault rifle derivatives have enjoyed world-wide success.

and focus on assault rifles only. But that might be another extreme. 216.16.232.250 (talk) 09:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm just thinking about how relevant and important this article would be when the US replaces the M16/M4 with its successor. Would this article still be important? It just seems that at some point in the future, this comparison won't matter anymore. After all do we care about comparing the Springfield with the Mauser? ScienceApe (talk) 13:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

We will cross that bridge when we get there.--71.22.156.40 (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why the comparison table near the bottom compares 5.56mm M16 with 7.62mm AK (or, more precisely, AKM circa 1961) when AK-74 (mot a typo; it's 74, not 47) has been around for a long, long time. When people compare Taurus to Camry, they don't compare 1995 Taurus with 2012 Camry, especially if the engine size and number of cylinders differ dramatically. You might say that in the modern world, when these guns clash, it's most commonly M16 vs AK-47/AKM (e.g. Iraq), and not US vs Russia. In that case you may as well compare donkeys against Humvees (as common transport method), and IEDs vs bunker buster bombs, etc etc. Besides, the newer AK-74s aren't as rare you would think, and they are involved in armed conflicts that engage USA-USSR gun rivalry (Afganistan, for instance).

It would be more informative to include AK-74 in the comparison table, along with AK-47/AKM if you like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.51.253.174 (talk) 07:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

"The AK-47 and its variants are made in dozens of countries, with “quality ranging from finely engineered weapons to pieces of questionable workmanship.” ^[7] As a result, the AK-47 has a service life of approximately 6,000^[8] to 15,000^[9] rounds. The AK-47 was designed to be a cheap, simple, easy to manufacture assault rifle,^[10] perfectly matching Soviet military doctrine that treats equipment, weapons and soldiers as disposable items.^[11] As units are often deployed without adequate logistical support and dependent on “battlefield cannibalization” for resupply, it is actually more cost-effective to replace rather than repair weapons.^[12]"

[29]. Entire quote:

"The doctrine of whole-weapon replacement raises the question of how the Soviets plan to upport the equipment they do have in the field. The answer is first by design, and then by cannibalization. The Soviet weapon-replacement and -use philosophy places a premium on ruggedness and simplicity in design. Soviet equipment is designed "for limited field maintenance by relatively unskilled personnel..." The design position is that if you make it rugged enough, it won't break and, therefore, you won't have to repair it.

The second support methodology, cannibalization, is facilitated by the Soviet policy of using standard components and parts wherever possible. The Soviets expect the battlefield to be littered with damaged and broken-down equipment that has been discarded or abandoned by their troops. This equipment can-be easily cannibalized by the-troops-to provide the spare parts needed to keep their equipment running. The cannibalization operation is largely a major-component change-out operation that can be performed by the "diverse mechanic" (voditel'-mekhanik) with minimal training, so high levels of maintenance skills need not be taught to the troops. The rest of the abandoned, damaged, and now cannibalized equipment is left for specialized recovery and materials units whose job it is to collect the abandoned equipment and piece together operating units by cannibalization. This field-rebuilt equipment is then used to arm the new fighting units formed by the personnel of the dissolved units under the echelon-replacement system.

The Soviet logistics philosophy of maintenance by battlefield cannibalization seems strange to a person steeped in Western maintenance practices; in 1948, however, it was seriously proposed for adoption as the spare-parts supply system for the U.S. Army by Wilfred G. Burgan, the U.S. Army's senior civilian maintenance officer at the Supply Group Staff Conference. Mr. Burgan's position, based on analyses of World War II experiences, was that "modem warfare precludes higher echelon maintenance in combat zones." He asserted that wartime experiences showed that "15% of the different types of spare parts issued during World War II had met approximately 85% of all combat zone maintenance needs" and that the U.S. would be better off not stocking the 85% and relying instead on the tear-down cannibalization of damaged vehicles in the combat zone as its wartime basis. The U.S. chose not to adopt this recommendation. The Soviet system may have some shortfalls in peacetime, but it clearly does have a rational combat experience basis."

The Soviet strategy of resupply was to equip replenished forces with their own weapons recovered from the battlefield. The 'years' lifetime doesn't give proper numbers but will do for the lack of a better source. We can be certain that within 20 to 40 years an AK-47 would be fired way more than 15000 rounds.

[30]'s actual quote:

"Mil-Spec, then, is related to Mil-Std, which stands for “military standard.” Together they comprise the specifications and standards for making a given product that the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has issued as a major part of DoD’s Standardization Program, the goal of which is to ensure that products designed for military use meet the necessary requirements with regard to quality, durability, ruggedness, commonality, interchangeability, total cost of ownership, logistics and other military and defense-related objectives. In the case of an M16 rifle or carbine, the military specification might require a weapon’s bolt to be made out of a certain type and grade of steel and for it to be made via a specific manufacturing protocol, while the military standard might outline the specific inspection and testing protocols for and relating to that part.

According to Jim Battaglini, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer (COO) of Colt Defense LLC, “Commercial black rifles are not considered Mil-Spec because there is no U.S. government verification to assure that their performance, endurance, accuracy, interchangeability and reliability meet all of the detailed and exacting military standards and specifications imposed by the United States Armed Forces.” Just so we’re crystal-clear on this important point: no commercial AR-15 carbine or rifle is, or ever will be, Mil-Spec. If the government is not testing the gun, by definition, it is not Mil-Spec. “Mil-Spec commercial” is an oxymoron.

Colt Defense actually owns the technical data package (TDP) on the M4 carbine, M4A1 carbine and M16 rifle (M16A3/A4 rifle). These weapons are therefore manufactured and inspected in strict accordance with Colt’s TDP, which contains proprietary know-how, trade secrets and other intellectual property (IP) that is owned solely by Colt. The Colt technical data packages for the M4/M4A1 carbine and M16A3/A4, respectively, are, according to Battaglini, specifically identified in the military specification, i.e. Mil-Spec. Only Colt and FN Manufacturing, LLC can use Colt’s TDPs to manufacture the M4/M4A1 and M16, respectively. If another firm wants to make one of those weapons, they must first obtain a license from Colt to do so. Since 1988, FN Manufacturing, a U.S. division of FN Herstal, has won a number of U.S. government awards to manufacture the M16 rifle to Mil-Spec. In order to do this, they must use the aforementioned Colt TDP for the rifle. FN does this under government license, and this license applies only to the production of M16A3/A4 for U.S. government contracts. This licensing agreement is actually between Colt and the U.S. government, and it permits the government to competitively procure the M16 rifle from FN. It’s also important to understand that the M4 carbine, M4A1 carbine, M16A3 rifle, and M16A4 rifle are all select-fire weapons that allow either 3-round burst fire or true full-auto fire, which is written into the government’s and Colt’s technical data package."

Basically, any M16 not made by Colt or FN for the U.S. military might very well be total junk.

[31] Removed. Norinco merely does the same as other companies do to keep their production going on a continuous basis - make poorer-grade civilian variants. G_PViB (talk) 22:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The AK-47 has a service life of approximately 6,000^[13] to 15,000^[14]

These are manufacture technical specifications. The 15,000 rounds refers to the full-auto current issue Arsenal AR-M1 (AK-47 type) rifle ^[15]. To discount that number out of hand shows extreme bias.

The information you provided are not manufacture technical specifications. Nowhere in the reference that you provided does it mention how many rounds a year an AK-47 can fire. Any rifle will last 20, 40, or 100 years if it is rarely fired. In fact, the reference you provide hypes-up the service life of the AK-47 in order to call for a small arms ban.

It show blatant bias to compare the AK-47 in service life in 20 to 40 years and the M16 service life in rounds fired. As it appears as though the M16 has a service life of only a few weeks or months.

I could very easily add a reference to this article that states that states “The United States M16 Assault rifle is still being used throughout the world with an estimated 90% still in operation.” from The Armed Forces Military Museum ^[16] But, that would also show bias, because we have no way of knowing how many rounds those rifles fired.

Also, “The Soviet strategy of resupply was to equip replenished forces with their own weapons recovered from the battlefield.” Is exactly what that reference is all about. Also, if you read the whole report it clearly states that the Soviets believe “that quantity has a quality of its own”. They have no interest in making high quality weapons. They simply want to make large numbers of adequate, cheap weapons that are easy to make. And, that from the Soviet point of view are more cost effective to replace than repair.

And, the other references are clearly intended to refer military “MIL SPEC” M16s not civilian semi-auto AR-15 and clearly states that no AR-15 is “MIL SPEC”

Your belief that "Basically, any M16 not made by Colt or FN for the U.S. military might very well be total junk." Also shows extreme bias. To suggest that the M16 type rifles made by H&K and any other manufactures are junk is absolute proof you simply don’t know what your talking about.

You obvious believe that the M16 is a piece of junk but offer no proof, no references and suppress reference that prove otherwise. Also, you obvious believe that the AK-47 is the best gun ever made but offer no proof, no references and suppress reference that prove otherwise.

I have reverted your edit and I request that other editors review this exchange--71.22.156.40 (talk) 02:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Most of GPviB's comments do make sense, but then again, I'm just another person who thinks the M16 is total crap and that the AK is the best gun ever, so my opinion should be discounted. One minor suggestion is that you should get an account, IP. You're the exact same guy I talked to in April (see the backroom cabal comments in Archive 2), and the sole fact that you're still here means you should probably sign up. Buggie111 (talk) 03:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

And, that from the Soviet point of view are more cost effective to replace than repair. Yes, with their own weapons. According to the source this was the core part of Soviet doctrine. It's sort of ironic that the source proves the opposite of what it was used for. These are manufacture technical specifications. The 15,000 rounds refers to the full-auto current issue Arsenal AR-M1 (AK-47 type) rifle We could cram Arsenal data in there IF there was data for other manufactures as well, especially military-grade Russian (and Chinese) AKs, which is essential. Your belief that "Basically, any M16 not made by Colt or FN for the U.S. military might very well be total junk." I said "might be". Perhaps M16s made for first world armies such as Diemaco are just as good but there is no guarantee other M16s are. G_PViB (talk) 08:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Stop suppressing manufacture technical specifications simply because you disagree with them…produce hard evidence that they are wrong. In a centrally-planned economy a company doesn't have to worry about demand. In a capitalist economy a company has to find ways to create demand. How do you know Arsenal doesn't do the same with their military-grade products as Norinco does with civilian-grade products (intentionally make poor-quality rifles)? The Arsenal data is pretty much pointless without the data for Russian and Chinese made AKs to compare (the section already makes a point that the AK-47 and its variants are made in dozens of countries, with “quality ranging from finely engineered weapons to pieces of questionable workmanship.”) As far as M16 is concerned, we only know that M16A3/A4 (but not M16A2, the most common M16 variant) and M4/M4A1 are made to Mil-Spec standards, only by Colt and FN - the two (of "dozens") manufacturers who have proper technical data packages for these designs. G_PViB (talk) 15:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Stop suppressing manufacture technical specifications simply because you disagree with them…produce hard evidence that they are wrong…Again you have provided no evidence to support you opinions.

1) "In a centrally-planned economy a company doesn't have to worry about demand. In a capitalist economy a company has to find ways to create demand."

This statement is completely irrelevant…And, in fact suggests that in centrally-planned economy quality does not matter. While in a capitalist economy companies have to produce the best product or the customers will buy someone else’s product. This explains why Izhmash which has been making AK type weapons since 1947 has filed for bankruptcy^[17] because they cannot find enough buyers, even when selling AKs for $150 to $160 per unit.

2) “How do you know Arsenal doesn't do the same with their military-grade products as Norinco does with civilian-grade products (intentionally make poor-quality rifles)?”

This is a highly dubious and bias statement and I demand that you provide evidence to back this statement.

3) “As far as M16 is concerned, we only know that M16A3/A4 (but not M16A2, the most common M16 variant) and M4/M4A1 are made to Mil-Spec standards, only by Colt and FN - the two (of "dozens") manufacturers who have proper technical data packages for these designs.”

Again, highly dubious and bias statement and I demand that you provide evidence to back this statement.

As for the section which already makes a point that the AK-47 and its variants are made in dozens of countries, with “quality ranging from finely engineered weapons to pieces of questionable workmanship.”…this is not a hard number…this is a blanket statement that cannot be compared. Especially, when a hard number as 20,000 to 50,000 round barrel life for the M16 is given.

This is an unfair comparison designed to make the AK-47 appear to be far superior to the “…6,000^[18] to 15,000^[19]” round service life references that you removed without any proof. And, now you are desperately doing everything in you power to suppress without providing any evidence to the contrary. If any of the statement you made is even remotely true, you should have no problem finding just one manufacture technical specifications reference that states the AK-47 has a service life more than the “…6,000^[20] to 15,000^[21]” round service life that these references state. Clearly you have no interest in an unbiased comparison….you just want you favorite team to win.--71.22.156.40 (talk) 21:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

This statement is completely irrelevant…And, in fact suggests that in centrally-planned economy quality does not matter. Quite the opposite - if you make a product that is 2 times labor-intensive to make but will last 5 times longer it will pay off in the long term. (Remember that it's a planned economy we're talking about). A product doesn't even have to be 2 times labor-intensive to be rugged - if it can't be made both cheap and durable it's a major failure of its designer. Whereas in a capitalist economy, the company that makes superior-quality products will have an upper hand in the short term... but will run out of customers eventually. They will have to either start making shorter-lasting products, which will support them also by maintenance-related products [I guess the U.S. military doctrine of supply was dictated more by big business interests than by practical need], or leech off of their brand name with ridiculously overpriced products.

This is a highly dubious and bias statement and I demand that you provide evidence to back this statement. It's not a statement. It's a question. Arsenal doesn't make weapons to match quality required by Soviet military doctrine. They make AK clones. That's it. And if Arsenal-made AK lifetime (15,000 rounds) represents Soviet-made AK lifetime (unknown number of rounds). Then why Norinco-made civilian AK lifetime (6,000 rounds) doesn't represent Arsenal-made AK lifetime? I don't think I need to prove anything.

Again, highly dubious and bias statement and I demand that you provide evidence to back this statement. Here you go: "Colt Defense actually owns the technical data package (TDP) on the M4 carbine, M4A1 carbine and M16 rifle (M16A3/A4 rifle). These weapons are therefore manufactured and inspected in strict accordance with Colt’s TDP, which contains proprietary know-how, trade secrets and other intellectual property (IP) that is owned solely by Colt. The Colt technical data packages for the M4/M4A1 carbine and M16A3/A4, respectively, are, according to Battaglini, specifically identified in the military specification, i.e. Mil-Spec. Only Colt and FN Manufacturing, LLC can use Colt’s TDPs to manufacture the M4/M4A1 and M16, respectively." [32] G_PViB (talk) 04:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

This is a highly dubious and bias statement and I demand that you provide evidence to back this statement. It's not a statement. It's a question. Arsenal doesn't make weapons to match quality required by Soviet military doctrine. They make AK clones. That's it. And if Arsenal-made AK lifetime (15,000 rounds) represents Soviet-made AK lifetime (unknown number of rounds). Then why Norinco-made civilian AK lifetime (6,000 rounds) doesn't represent Arsenal-made AK lifetime? I don't think I need to prove anything.

Where's your proof? Where are your references? Where is your evidence? You’re the one that removed referenced manufacture technical specifications. You are the one that has to provide proof. You’re the one that refuses to provide any references to support your claims. And, you’re using smoke and mirrors to avoid answering these questions. Now, you are the one who's saying that you don’t need to prove anything. That’s not the way things works on Wikipedia…if you don’t have proof you edits will be reverted.--71.22.156.40 (talk) 21:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

“Mikhail Kalashnikov, the inventor of the eponymous gun, once said that Arsenal made the best AK-47s” [33] Therefore, the referenced 6,000 to 15,000 round service life for the AK has been restored. You have not provided a single reference to support your claims and your statement that you don't need to prove anything is unacceptable...Your assumptions and arguments are simply wrong.--71.22.156.40 (talk) 01:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Now, you are the one who's saying that you don’t need to prove anything. Indeed I don't - I've explained why the burden of proof is up to you in the post above. "Next Europe" is not a reliable source - it's an opinion dispenser website without a proper editorial board, that might have picked up a simply marketing rumor. Although I could easily see any Soviet ally making a better-quality AK copies than Russia itself - in the Socialist era, that is. If you insist on it, let's kept the data for Arsenal. But data for civilian-grade products has no place in a comparison of military hardware. G_PViB (talk) 10:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

why does the picture of the current incarnation of the m16/m4 have optics and a forgrip depicted, while the ak 103 has nothing? The ak 103 can be outfitted with a variety of accesories. Shouldn't the pictures reflect this? Mophedd (talk) 10:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The scope of this article is about Comparing the M16 and AK-47, yet alot of the comparisons are between the M14 or AR-10 or the AKM, or between the M4 and AK-103 which are modern weapons. If the scope of the article is about both series of weapons, as opposed to just individual models, it needs to be renamed Comparison of the AK-47 and M16 series.

Just my two cents of course but I do work with this stuff. 184.90.121.147 (talk) 04:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The first were Russians in 1911: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedorov_Avtomat 77.254.199.219 (talk) 14:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Its obvious that the ak47 is the most used weapon around the world even more so that the US is buying Ak47 to give them to opposition groups to cover up their influence in this conflict. For example they did it during the soviet war in afghanistan, they bought up ak 47 in afrika and other countries to give them to the muhadin instead of giving them m16 despite that it would be cheaper back then since soviet markets to order that weapon were closed. They aldo did and do the same in lybia and syrian civil war. The ak 47 is a universal weapon while the m16 is a normal weapon like anyone else, even the g3 weapon was more sold than the m16.

I would recomend to add the g3 as well in here.--Venajaguardian (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The Greatest advantage of the M16 is the fact that it's actually 3-4 times as accurate as the AK, which basically shoots like a stormtrooper. The AK lacks the M16's more modular nature and thus cannot be as easily modified with various parts. Overall, the AK-47 is a single-purpose weapon while the M16 is a multipurpose one. Hence refuting the "Universal vs. Normal" statement. An M16 is far more Universally capable than an Ak-47 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.172.176 (talk) 13:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

3-4 times as accurate? God, enough Counter-strike for today, kiddo. Well, if AK is in hands of an experienced shooter, not much difference in accuracy is seen. On the other hand, undertrained guerilla fighter is a muff no matter which battle rifle he uses, but, as AK is much more reliable, it is much more versatile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.243.58.9 (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

facts?

OK, so you don't get the point of the article. Let me explain: it is a comparison of two very long-lived riffle lineages still in widespread use, previously pointed mostly at each other.

Now, facts?

First, it is certain that ak47 is the most used weapon around the world is not correct. Quite wrong. If you stated that the AK-47 was the most used automatic riffle in the Russian Army in the 1950's nobody would have noticed. The Kalashnikov recognized the world over is actually the AKM. It was the changes in the AKM which allowed it to become hot item for those living in the 2nd or 3rd world. (Excepting that USSR ditched the AKM four decades ago, with a newer design).

Understanding this requires consideration of the technology base required to manufacture (and maintain) the weapons, training/doctrine used to deploy it, and economics which resulted in rather divergent strategies during the cold-war (and the rather hot wars which have followed) era which makes the comparison useful and interesting. Comparing the overall driving forces and changes between George Browning's AR-10 based designs (i.e. the "M16") and the Kalashnikov, which all borrowed from the German StG44, is quite informative.

Nearly everything that is labeled an "AK-47" is an AKM (the improved version created in the early 1950's and still made today), excepting that the Soviet forces switched to the AK-74 (74 = 1974, 47 = 1947, maybe too many dyslexics to notice the difference???) which modernized the whole line to be in line with the M16A-1 (including the switch from 7.62mm to 5.56mm, which made the AK-74 quite accurate, if you actually investing in teaching marksmanship. Since even the US struggles with this, and many units are underfunded for range training world wide, this is a real consideration in design and adoption.). The M16 had many well noted problems not found until fielding in Viet Nam. The M16A1, which most of the "M16" in the world are, worked much better. The M16A2 and M16A4 and M4 are substantially different takes on a common "platform". The M16A2 was longer, heavier, and more accurate. The M4 is probably less accurate with iron sights than the A2 or A4, but optic sights are the norm, and most combat occurs at a range so close that the difference doesn't matter.

There were also strategic doctrinal changes which impacted riffle design (e.g. while it looks good in movies, you need a lot of training to hit anything. Also, you consume ammo, which is also heavy, quickly, leaving you with a weapon from the stone age when the last magazine is empty), including selective 2-round fire (with M16A1 training focused on teaching people to shoot ~3 rounds, more or less, with practice, in full auto). This impacted both lines of the now iconic riffles.

As for your assertions above, some research on your part would have prevented you from making some embarrassing statements of fact. I don't know that the US is buying AK-47s and using them to arm opposition groups to cover up involvement. I suspect they are buying AKMs because that is what the insurgents/opposition group/rebel/freedom fighter (name depends on your perspective) asked for. These are machines, and they need spare parts, people who can fix them, and, of course, ammo. Weapons as common as the AKM or M16A1 (or G3) are readily available for any major government to buy in bulk, made in any number of countries (with or without proper licensing of IP rights, etc.), in a huge range of quality. There are also plenty of US companies who make AK-47/AKM design riffles, parts, accessories, etc. So the design of the weapon doesn't exactly cover your tracks, except from people who are easily fooled by superficial images on television. The use of Kalashnikovs in Afghanistan during USSR occupation (talk about wars being a bad idea...nobody walked away from that mess a winner) had a lot to do with trying be sneaky, but also had a lot to do with what was available in country (someone should see if the CIA supplied AKMs or AK-74s, and whether or not the 7.62mm ammo for the AKM was used by the Soviet forces. Having parts and ammo flown in at great expense by your adversary rather than your own assets was not a new idea).

So the discussion is informative, particularly as it involves some rather large military organizations. The H&K G3 (with its long line of adaptations, and licensing) is another long-lived front-line infantryman's riffle. Feel free to add it to the page, but please be sure you know what you are actually talking about before doing so. You might start by reading some of the articles on Wikipedia... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.1.89 (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I think this article violates most Wikipedia policies, particularly

) 00:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

This article got a B-RATING just 4 hours before it was tagged. So, we are suppose to Nuke the entire article because it strikes one editors fancy? Because, one editor does not like the use of the word "endless" in the introduction? Because one editor has a problem with one of the 240 references listed in the article? I don't think so... --RAF910 (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Problems, again

Noted above were problems with RS, SYNTH, and NPOV. Having read through this, it also glaringly has factual errors left and right, and the SYNTH in either version is horrific by Wikipedia standards.

This article should not be included in Wikipedia. Its flaws are irreperable. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• Well, if the flaws are so glaring, go and fix them. The article itself is on a fairly notable subject; there are numerous comparisons between the AK47 and its descendants, and the M16 and its descendants (and ancestors) Lukeno52 (tell Luke off here) (legitimate alternate account of Lukeno94) 22:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but those authors doing comparisons aren't an encyclopedia. These types of comparisons are almost a particular genre of certain arms experts; it's not unusual at all. But we're not a trade publication, nor a source for OR or opinion or SYNTH.

I could write corrections for all the specifics, but my impression is that this is not an ENCYCLOPEDIA topic in a useful manner and should be deleted... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. It seems to be the only specific one-to-one military comparison in the Category:Military comparisons and it may set a bad precedent. It is one of several classic subjects that invite controversy. Which is better? A G3, FAL or an M-14?...or how about the old classic, Revolver versus semi-auto? I'm not sure Wikipedia is the best venue for housing these debates. We'll be comparing Fords versus Chevys if we allow that.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

This article is a summary covering the major points. It was never intended to be an all inclusive comparison covering every detail. Encyclopedia articles are written to give people a working understanding of the subject. If someone wants more information they can go to the AK-47 and M16 main pages which this article links to. If they want more comprehensive coverage than Wikipedia can provide, that what books and libraries are for. If this article is missing major points, then please add them along with verifiable references. But, don't try to rewrite history, or compare an AK without a magazine to an M16 with a loaded 30 round magazine and claim that the AK lighter. --RAF910 (talk) 00:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you responding to me? It isn't clear because there is no

indentation.
 — Berean Hunter (talk)

00:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

This article exist because there is an ongoing debate as to which of these two very long-lived rifle lineages still in widespread use and mostly at each other is better. As the two quotes listed below state the answer is dependent on ones point of view and may never be resolved.

"The debate between exponents of the AK-47 and the M16 has never been resolved, in part because both guns continued to evolve with subsequent improved models and have now both been superseded by more recent designs; in part because ideology and national chauvinism were inseparable from dispassionate analysis." The World’s Most Popular Gun. The Long Road to the AK-47. by Victor Davis Hanson a senior fellow in classics and military history at the Hoover Institution. The New Atlantis. Copyright Summer 2011. pages 140-147

"Endless comparisons have been made between the world's two most widely use assault rifles. Such comparisons, especially if meant to demonstrate that one is better than the other, must be made with caution. While both are intended for close to moderate-range combat, these are two different weapons with different design philosophies, which use different materials and manufacturing techniques and very different tactical employment concepts. Their ammunition is also very different and this too has a major influence on their effectiveness." The AK-47: Kalashnikov-series assault rifles. By Gordon Rottman. Osprey Publishing. Copyright 2011. page 64

This article tries answers the basic questions that most people have about the subject. It does not draw any conclusions. Some will read this article and conclude that the AK is better because it's cheaper, more reliable and offers better penetration. Other will read this article and conclude that the M16 is better because, it's more accurate, a modular design that can be easily changed to suit the users needs and you can carry twice as much ammo. The problem is that some editors want prove that one side is better than the other. --RAF910 (talk) 00:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that the whole article is decending into

WP:SYNTH

to try and do that. And, again, is frankly chock-full of technical inaccuracies which confuse matters. Getting the specs numbers right for 50 characteristics doesn't tell you anything about details of design philosophy, manufacturing details, operating cycle, etc.

Even your note above, you're using the "carry twice as much ammo" still, despite the fact that that's an apples to oranges of original 7.62x39 AK-47/AKM vs M-16 series as opposed to "modern" (last 30+ years) AK-74 series vs M-16 series with 5.45x39 vs 5.56x39.

Look, the entire description of the M-16 operating cycle AND ITS ILLUSTRATION are barking wrong. Look at the animated GIF, and tell me you don't see the obvious glaring flaw.

I understand why people want such comparisons. Your explanation of why you want one here is our evidence for why it should not be. Your arguments are against WP policy. We're not a publisher of original research or synthesis. This type of comparison is not found elsewhere in the encyclopedia. If this article were reduced to citing 20-30 externally published comparisons of the AK and M-16 series, and nothing else, that might be allowed, as the notability of comparing the two is fairly easy to establish given its popularity in firearms trade publications. But this is not ok. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I urge involved users to look at the talk page archive to see where the POV-pushing user is coming from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Comparison_of_the_AK-47_and_M16/Archive_2 The sourced version he vandalized: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_the_AK-47_and_M16&diff=557106814&oldid=549569909 Krutoi dezigner (talk) 01:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I have just had to block Krutoi dezigner for 24 hrs for a personal attack on ANI; please do not edit-war the article or talk page in his absence. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Wiki policy does not prohibit comparisons. Nor does it prohibit synthesis.

policy. They are simply referenced facts. However, if you try to compare the weight of an AK-47 without a magazine, to the weight of an M16 with a loaded 30-round magazine that would be a violation.

If you don't like the description of the M16 operating cycle, then please fix it and add the appropriate references. If you don't like the illustrations then please create a new ones. But, until then, they are best illustrations available on wiki common and show the basic differences between the direct-implement, short-stroke and long-stroke systems.

When the M14 first encountered the AK-47 in Vietnam, on paper the M14 was more powerful, more accurate, and had much better range. On the battlefield it was discovered that men armed with AKs could carry more ammo than men armed with M14s and that the men armed with M14 were often outgunned. This lead to the development of the M16. The result, men armed with an M16s can carry twice as much ammo as men armed with an AK-47 for the same wight. This is an absolute fact. And, is the primary reason that the USSR developed the AK-74. Which allows men armed with AK-74s to carry more ammo than men armed with AK-47s and almost as much ammo as men armed with M16s. Then NATO and the other western powers realized that men armed with 5.56mm rifles can carry more than twice as much ammo as men armed with 7.62mm NATO battle rifles and they set about developing 5.56mm rifles. Today, almost every Western army in in the world is using 5.56mm rifles. All of this is explained and referenced in the article. Even China, has adopted the QBZ-95 in 5.8x42mm, which allows their troops to carry more ammo.

The most common assault rifle in the world is the AK-47/AKM series. There are 100 million of them out there and they can be found everywhere. Right now as you read this article, men armed with AKs and M16s are actively comparing both systems. To call this apples to oranges comparison does not change that facts on the ground or invalidate the comparison.

If you would like to add additional information then you're welcome to do so. However, please remember that this comparison is a summary. It is simply not possible to add detailed specification for every single AK and M16 variant ever made.--RAF910 (talk) 16:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The lead is normally up to 4 paragraphs long. Thus, I am proposing to add 2 paragraphs to the current 1 paragraph lead. The two new paras are an intro on each of the 2 weapons. This gives the reader a nice overview in the lead. An editor removed this content on the grounds that it is redundant. That is not a good grounds, because the lead will always use material from the article, so the content in a lead section will always repeat content from the article.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree...In most Wiki articles the lead is only one paragraph long. For example...

from the 7.92×57mm Mauser page... The 7.92×57mm Mauser (designated as the 8mm Mauser or 8×57mm by the SAAMI [2] and 8 × 57 IS by the C.I.P.[3]) is a rimless bottlenecked rifle cartridge. The 7.92×57mm Mauser cartridge was adopted by the German Empire in 1905, and was the German service cartridge in both World Wars. In its day, the 7.92×57mm Mauser cartridge was one of the world’s most popular military cartridges. In the 21st century it is still a popular sport and hunting cartridge that is factory produced in Europe and the United States.

from the

page... 7.92x33mm Kurz,[4][5][6][7] is a rifle cartridge developed in Nazi Germany prior to and during World War II. The ammunition is also referred to as 7.9mm Kurz (German: Kurz meaning short), 7.9 Kurz, or 7.9mmK, or 8x33 Polte. It was specifically intended for development of an automatic carbine (assault rifle). The round was developed as a compromise between the longer 7.92x57mm rifle and the 9x19mm Parabellum pistol rounds, and is known as an intermediate cartridge (German: Mittelpatrone).

from the StG 44 page... The StG 44 (abbreviation of Sturmgewehr 44, "assault rifle 44") was an assault rifle developed in Nazi Germany during World War II that was the first of its kind to see major deployment and is considered by many historians to be the first modern assault rifle.[5] It is also known under the designations MP 43 and MP 44 (Maschinenpistole 43, Maschinenpistole 44 respectively), which denote earlier development versions of the same weapon with some differences like a different butt end, muzzle nut, shape of the front sight base or with an unstepped barrel, all only visible with close inspection.

from the

page... The Karabiner 98 Kurz (often abbreviated Kar98k, K98, or K98k) is a bolt action rifle chambered for the 7.92×57mm Mauser cartridge that was adopted in 1935 as the standard service rifle by the German Wehrmacht.[2] It was one of the final developments in the long line of Mauser military rifles. Although supplemented by semi- and fully automatic rifles during World War II, it remained the primary German service rifle until the end of World War II in 1945. Millions were captured by the Soviets at the conclusion of World War II and the Soviet Union gave them as military aid widely. The Karabiner 98k therefore continues to appear in conflicts across the world as they are taken out of storage during times of strife.

from the MP 40 page... The MP 38 and MP 40 (MP designates Maschinenpistole.) were submachine guns developed in Nazi Germany and used extensively by Fallschirmjäger (paratroopers), platoon and squad leaders, and other troops during World War II. Both weapons were often erroneously called the Schmeisser, despite Hugo Schmeisser's non-involvement in their design and production.[4]

from the SKS page... The SKS is a Soviet semi-automatic carbine chambered for the 7.62×39mm round, designed in 1943 by Sergei Gavrilovich Simonov. Its complete designation, SKS-45, is an initialism for Samozaryadnyj Karabin sistemy Simonova, 1945 (Russian: Самозарядный карабин системы Симонова, 1945; Self-loading Carbine of (the) Simonov system, 1945), or SKS 45. In the early 1950s, the Soviets took the SKS carbine out of front-line service and replaced it with the AK-47; however, the SKS remained in second-line service for decades. It is still used as a ceremonial arm today. The SKS was widely exported, and was also produced by some former Eastern Bloc nations as well as China, where it was designated the "Type 56", East Germany as the Karabiner S and in North Korea as the "Type 63". The SKS is currently popular on the civilian surplus market in many countries, including the United States, Canada and New Zealand. It was one of the first weapons chambered for the 7.62×39mm M43 round, which was also used later in the AK-47.

from the Aimpoint CompM2 page... The CompM2 is a battery powered non-magnifying red dot type of reflex sight for firearms manufactured by Aimpoint AB. It was first introduced in the U.S. military in 2000, designated as the M68 Close Combat Optic (M68 CCO; NSN: 1240-01-411-1265). It is also known as the M68 Aimpoint and is designed to meet United States military standards. The sight is designed for use with the M16/M4 family of rifles, but can be mounted on any weapon fitted with an upper Picatinny rail. It is also NVG-compatible—the aiming dot is still visible through night vision scopes and goggles.

from the Advanced Combat Optical Gunsight page... Advanced Combat Optical Gunsights (abbreviated ACOG) are a series of telescopic sights manufactured by Trijicon. The ACOG was originally designed to be used on the M16 rifle and M4 carbine, but Trijicon have also developed ACOG accessories for other firearms. Models provide fixed power magnification levels from 1.5× to 6×.[1] ACOG reticles are illuminated at night by an internal phosphor. Some versions have an additional daytime reticle illumination via a passive external fiber optic light pipe.

from the Holographic weapon sight page... A holographic weapon sight or holographic diffraction sight is a non-magnifying gun sight that allows the user to look through a glass optical window and see a reticle image superimposed at a distance on the field of view.[1] The hologram of the reticle is built into the window and is illuminated by a laser diode.

I can go on and on...Now we can can waste time and effort debating whether or not the intro should 1, 2, 3, or 4 paragraphs. We can sight hundreds of pages that support our positions. The only question is whether or not the info is necessary and does it improve the article. The short answer is no. If we remove the info nobody will notice that it's missing...Also, the info added is not an overview of Comparison of the AK-47 and M16 article, User OnBeyondZebrax simply took the first paragraph from the AK-47 page and the M16 page and added it to this article.--RAF910 (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

One of the biggest problem on Wiki is editors cluttering articles with unnecessary and redundant info. For example User OnBeyondZebrax appears to be adding info from other wiki pages to this article when a link to those pages will due. We simply do not need to restate info over and over again in every section of every article. If the reader wants additional info they can link to the relevant page and find it there.

For example User OnBeyondZebrax has now added the second sentence (from the direct impingement page) to the first paragraph of the "Manufacturing philosophies" section when it is already linked to in the first sentence..."The M16 is a select-fire, 5.56x45mm, air-cooled, direct impingement gas-operated, magazine-fed rifle, with a rotating bolt and straight-line recoil design. Direct impingement is a type of gas operation for a firearm that directs gas from a fired cartridge directly to the bolt carrier or slide assembly to cycle the action."

Now, If one reads the rest of the article...you will find a far more detailed and accurate explanation of the M16s direct impingement system in the "Reliability" section where it is directly compared to the AK-47s long stroke system. ie... "The M16 uses a unique gas powered operating system. "This gas operating system works by passing high pressure propellant gasses tapped from the barrel down a tube and into the carrier group within the upper receiver, and is commonly but incorrectly referred to as a "direct impingement gas system" system. The gas expands within a donut shaped gas cylinder within the carrier. Because the bolt is prevented from moving forward by the barrel, the carrier is driven to the rear by the expanding gasses and thus converts the energy of the gas to movement of the rifle’s parts. The bolt bears a piston head and the cavity in the bolt carrier is the piston sleeve. It is more correct to call it an “internal piston” system."[237]"

It is my intention to remove the unnecessary info. However, I will give other editors time to comment --RAF910 (talk) 13:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

O.K. I have allowed over 24 hours for additional comment and there are no objections...not even by User OnBeyondZebrax who has made about 100 additional edits to Wiki during that time. Therefore, I will now remove the unnecessary info.--RAF910 (talk) 14:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

We have a difference of viewpoints about the lead. The lead section in the manual of style says that the lead should serve as a standalone introduction to the topic. "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." The MOS also says "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." I don't think that the current lead is a standalone introduction. I think that it is normal in an article that compares two firearms to give a brief overview of the 2 weapons. You said people can just click on the links. True, but people also export Wikipedia articles as PDF files or print the article out. I think that the current lede does not give the reader a concise overview of the merits and drawbacks of each weapon. I think the article would be better with this. I will continue proposing improvements to the lede and you can keep reverting them. OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I will accept the two added sentences to the lead taken from the article itself.

"The AK-47 was finalized, adopted and entered widespread service in the Soviet army in the early 1950s. Its firepower, ease of use, low production costs, and reliability was perfectly suited for the Red Army's new mobile warfare doctrines.

Despite its early failures the M16 proved to be a revolutionary design and stands as the longest continuously serving rifle in American military history. Today, many small arms experts consider the M16 the standard by which all other assault rifles are judged."

However, I cannot guarantee that other editors will do the same. Should the info cause edit problems in the future I will revisit this issue. Also, what happens outside of Wikipedia is none of our concern --RAF910 (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Germans were first to feel need of assault rifle,and they produced FG 42 and STG 44 there were the fore runners of Ak 47,these not mentioned?why?Ovsek (talk) 05:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

See the previous section where there is a Russian claim to priority. Some edits then deleted the German even though that Russian weapon was abandoned before WW II. I think the German material should return (the Russian priority claim can stay if the ref is good). An NPOV tag might be appropriate until the German weapons return. However, I know next to nothing about this material. Glrx (talk) 03:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

STG 44 was first true assault rifle,and the concept of ak 47 was taken from STG 44.None of previous assault rifles entered in mass production.Ovsek (talk) 04:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Done--71.22.156.40 (talk) 02:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Reverted edits by User:Krutoi dezigner who has been blocked indefinitely by User:Georgewilliamherbert for edit warring and "Personal attacks or harassment: Immediate return to personal attacks after month long block expired"--RAF910 (talk) 22:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The animated diagram illustrating the function of the DI gas system on the M16 rifle is entirely inaccurate and absolutely false. Gas is not vented directly into the receiver body. It is forced through the gas key, into a gas operated piston contained within the M16 bolt carrier group, which unlocks and then vents the gas out of two relief bolts on the side of the bolt carrier and out of the ejection port. It is this kind of false representation that perpetuates massive misunderstandings and common misconceptions about the AR platform in general. I demand it be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.181.120.147 (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

If you don't like the illustrations then please create a new ones. But, until then, they are best illustrations available on wiki common and show the basic differences between the direct-implement, short-stroke and long-stroke systems--RAF910 (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

WOW! This is the best AK-47 vs M16 comparison I've ever read. I can't believe I found it on Wikipedia. Usually, these articles are filled with nonsense such as "the AK-47 can be buried in the surf for a year, dug out, shaken off and fired without a single malfunction." Or, the "I had an M16 jam on me in Nam once and I've never trusted the gun again" stories.

This article accurately list the advantages and disadvantages of both systems. Such as, the AK-47's primary advantages is that they are cheap and they are everywhere. You can buy 4 or 5 brand new AK-103's from the Russians for the price of one brand new M4. While the M16 overwhelming advantage is that a soldier armed with an M16 can carry twice as much ammo as a soldier armed with an AK-47. This was so much of an advantage that the Russians developed the AK-74 to counter the M16. It also helps to explain why American units armed with

's routinely wipeout insurgents and terrorist groups armed with AKM's.

I've already printed off copies of the article and I'm going to hand them out to the guys. I really like the suggestion that the "The M16s bolt carrier group is small enough that an extra group can be carried as a back-up." This is the perfect solution for being unarmed when you're cleaning and lubricating your rifle. Just switch out the bolt carrier groups and clean the dirty one. It's such a simple solution I don't know why I didn't think of it myself. --70.173.135.216 (talk) 21:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

What happened?!! This was the best Ak-47 vs M16 comparison I've ever read. Now, a large amount of information has been removed and what's left has been whitewashed. I recommend that it go back to the last edit as of "20:15, 13 December 2013"‎ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_the_AK-47_and_M16&oldid=585954678 --70.173.135.216 (talk) 17:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Those edits have been reverted and the editor who made them (User:Krutoi dezigner) has been blocked indefinitely for edit warring, personal attacks and harassment.--RAF910 (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Great article! It's been vastly improved since the last time I checked it. I like the new "AK-74 vs M16A2" section. I also like the new "Wound profiles in ballistic gelatin" images. They really do a good job at painting the picture.--70.173.140.192 (talk) 02:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the AK74 vs M16A2 bit I noticed that the accuracy test seems counter-intuitive. Both weapons are supposed to be more accurate, yet are recorded as shooting larger groups. Would it be possible to try to get lab results over practical, meaning seeing how good the machine is without pilot interference. At M16 vs AK47 it states the Ak as having a ~6 inch group at 100 yards, and the M16 as ~4 inch group. Why can't we get that for the new weapons? Grizzly chipmunk (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The AK47 vs M16A1 chart shows 10 round groups in meters. The AK74 vs M16A2 chart shows 20 round group in yards. Twice as many rounds equal larger groups. I will add a clarification in the notes.--RAF910 (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't the rifle evaluation study graph at the end of the article seem a bit biased, especially considering that the study was performed by the United States Army, which rated their rifles (AR-15/M16 and MK14) a lot higher than the AK-47. Especially considering this study was performed during the cold war, the graph makes the MK14 and M16 seem a lot better than the AK-47 in an extremely biased way. If the Russians published a similar study, surely the AK-47 would be rated a lot higher than the two American rifle. This graph is unavoidably biased, and shouldn't be on here, since Wikipedia isn't supposed to be biased. I think it should be removed. Anipad68 (talk) 14:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Facts are facts...The same rifle evaluation study is referenced in the terminal ballistics section showing that the AK has far superior penetration to the M16. Perhaps you want to remove that information as well? However, I suspect not. The simple truth is that in some areas the M16 is superior to the AK, and in other areas the AK is superior to the M16. "As a result, they have been the subject of countless comparisons and endless debate." Which is why this article exists in the first place. The definition of bias, is removing or suppressing factual information that you disagree with. --RAF910 (talk) 17:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

You obviously completely misunderstood what I am saying.... reread my comment and try again. I am saying we should delete the study of a RUSSIAN gun by AMERICANS during the COLD WAR. It doesn't get more biased than that. I am saying that the STUDY is biased, not the article. How do you know that the information in that study is accurate and not biased? Anipad68 (talk) 16:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

So, your claiming that the study is nothing more than cold war propaganda published to convince the masses that the American M14 and M16 are superior to Soviet AK-47. Did you even bother to read the Rifle Evaluation Study? If you did, you would know that it was a Classified U.S. Army study written in Dec 1962, and remained Classified until Nov 1977 when it was finally released to the public. We also have over 50 years of experience proving that the study contains "factually accurate" information. It is now up to you to prove that the information is inaccurate and biased. It is up to you to prove that the AK-47 is more powerful than the M14. It is up to you to prove that the AK-47 is lighter, more accurate and easier to shoot than the M16. It is up to you to prove that 7.62x39 ammo is lighter than 5.56x45 ammo. It is up to you to refute each and every point in the study. And, you will need to do this not just to my satisfaction, but to the satisfaction of every other editor on Wikipedia. Also, remember competency is required on Wikipedia. This article is about real AK-47s and real M16s and has nothing to do with the Modern Combat video games, that you like to edit. If the information you provide proves to be wrong, false or misleading you may be blocked.--RAF910 (talk) 18:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

"you may be blocked" even though I haven't touched the article or edited once. You should read the competence page yourself. And my editing history is completely irrelevant to this article. Besides, you are the one who turned to histility and threats out of nowhere, this makes me think you may have territorial/superiority/elitism issues. No need to be so aggressive. Besides, I doubt you've fired either gun. Anipad68 (talk) 13:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

So M16 is ever better? The article must be translated to other languages. Every worm must know who's the power! 188.17.81.136 (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you joking? Read the article again. There are pros and cons in both weapons. Ladaherra (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

1) So-called "AK-47" is last prototype of the AK, like "AK-46", which was previous.
First mass-produced variant of the AK was called simply "AK", without any numbers in name.

2) The article was called "Comparison of the AK-47 and M16",
so I expected to see comparison of first modifications of AK and M16.
But there is comparison of two weapon platforms - AK and AR15.

3) In first picture, showing length of the rifles, there are "AK-47"
(not a prototype 1947, but first mass-produced version, adopted in 1951)
and M-16A2, which was adopted in 1982. But then there is technical data of M-16A1, not M-16A2.
Got to change picture or technical data.
Plus, there are a lot of unofficial manufacturers of AK: China, USA, etc.
The only time Americans faced real soviet AK was Vietnam (there was AKM actually - not AK).
It would be good idea to compare Vietnam era M16A1 (1967) to AKM (1959).

4) In some sections of the article there are comparisons of modern M4A1, chambered with 5.56x45,
and AK-103, chambered with old 7.62x39.
The thing is, since 1974 7.62x39mm M43 is NOT a standard ammunition of AK,
but 5.45x39mm, that exactly IS 5.56x45 counterpart.
It has slightly more stopping power, slightly less range, slightly less penetration ability,
about the same accuracy and about twice less recoil.
Fully loaded ak74's 5.45x39mm 30rnd magazine weights about the same as m16's 5.56x45mm 30rnd stanag.
The only users of 7.62x39 now are terrorists and some poor countries.
Btw, AK-103 was designed mainly for export, main rifle of Russian infantry is AK-74M.
So why not compare modern M4A1 to modern AK-74M?
The answer is simple: AK-103, unlike AK-74M, has no advantages over M4A1 except reliability and price.
Someone who wrote this simply wanted to show superiority of M4A1.
The thing is: superiority of AR15 over AK is obvious and it's not necessary to make such an unfair comparison
in order to make that superiority more significant.

5) Why to make such a nice article biased? It's pretty obvious that AR15 platform is superior to AK,
so it's not necessary to bring here comparison of "AK-47" to M-16 and M-14.
AK, as an intermediate weapon to lite assault rifle m16 and heavy battle rifle m14,
has NO advantage over both of the rifles: if AK has an advantage over M16, then M14 has and advantage over both.
This section of the article only shows superiority of US firearms to Soviet/Russian,
but doesn't directly compares AR15 and AK.

AR15 is my favorite weapon platform (especially love hk416 ;D).
But this article makes me mad: guess it was written by M16 fans,
who know about AR15 a lot, but don't know almost anything about AK.
Nothing kills reputation the way unfair comparison do.
Don't kill AR15's reputation as the most successful weapon system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BadMotherf (talk • contribs) 18:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• Answer to question # 1...In the English speaking world the common name is AK-47. see Wikipedia common name policy.
• Answer to questions # 2, 3, 4, 5...This is a heavily referenced (341 refs) historical comparison of the AK-47 and M16 weapons families. Starting at the beginning, to current day. The article covers all of the major historical points as both systems evolved. As for comment stating..."The only users of 7.62x39 (AKs) now are terrorists and some poor countries." Well...over half of the world's armies are still using AKMs (about 100 million of them). Also, as you read this, that just happens to be where these two systems are being actively compared, by men on the ground.--RAF910 (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Why did he write his comment in poem form? And why does he say the AR system is more successful if the AK system has more than 10x as many made? Why am I responding to something that I KNEW would just piss me off? Grizzly chipmunk (talk) 18:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry about User:BadMotherf...he has been indefinitely blocked from editing for trolling.--RAF910 (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes I noticed in the relibaility section it was all about the AK47 vs the original M16, whereas the rest of the article is about the M16A2. So this gives the impression that the M16A2 was terrible, or the M16 in general was terrible. There should probably a before/after reliability, and also add the reliability for more modern contemporary Soviet Arms.

Given there is not real upper time frame a modern Kalashnikov (AKM? which one is in 5.45) should be compared with a modern M16/M4 carbine, if there are tests available.

(129.12.131.56 (talk) 03:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC))

I think the History section rather than describing the history of each individual weapons should describe the history of comparisons between the two. It ought to answer questions like: When was the first comparison made? How did evaluation results change over time? For the history of each weapon, this article should refer to the main articles of each.

) 08:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Comparison of the AK-47 and M16. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.izhmash.ru/eng/product/ak103.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—

:Online 17:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

"As of 2012, the United States military buys M4 Carbines for $673 (USD) per unit"

PS the reference is no longer accessible.

DGerman (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The M4 is the current issue M16 version. Also, I have updated the info and reference. The current cost is $647 per unit.--RAF910 (talk) 23:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

"The Russians had a Simonov in 1936 called the AVS-36 which was both semiautomatic and full automatic. It was gas operated, with the piston and gas cylinder on top of the barrel."^[22]TeeTylerToe (talk) 01:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Wrong again...please read the sentence before deleting referenced information.

"Unlike previous rifle designs, it introduced an over-the-barrel gas system, straight stock and pistol grip to reduce recoil and improve handling characteristics"

The AVS-36 may have an over-the-barrel gas system, but it does not have straight stock and a pistol grip. The STG-44 was the first to combine this three things.--RAF910 (talk) 21:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Pistol grips on rifles date back to 1840 at least, so how could the stg-44 have introduced them? Not to mention that it wasn't the first to share any particular set of features either, particularly in light of it's own history not as some sort of fresh, new design, but, rather, as the culmination of a design competition of several different rifles all with the same features, all derivative of, among other things, earlier german machine carbines.TeeTylerToe (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The AVS-36 seems to share those characteristics and it predates the stg-44, again.TeeTylerToe (talk) 22:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on Comparison of the AK-47 and M16. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120616193104/http://www.oneworld-publications.com/pdfs/Small%20Arms%20Trade_ch1_22%20Nov.pdf to http://www.oneworld-publications.com/pdfs/Small%20Arms%20Trade_ch1_22%20Nov.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150622011454/http://www.almc.army.mil:80/alog/issues/NovDec03/Logistics_of_Invasion.htm to http://www.almc.army.mil/alog/issues/NovDec03/Logistics_of_Invasion.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151107045353/http://independencearmory.com/downloads/M14_Articles/American%20Rifleman%20-%20New%20Service%20Rifle_%20Amer.%20Rifleman%20June,%201957.pdf to http://independencearmory.com/downloads/M14_Articles/American%20Rifleman%20-%20New%20Service%20Rifle_%20Amer.%20Rifleman%20June,%201957.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140602021550/http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm to http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.smallarmsreview.com/pdf/Blackrifle.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060105000803/http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/vol15no4/154arms.htm to http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/vol15no4/154arms.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120517092821/http://www.armalite.com/images/Tech%20Notes%5CTech%20Note%2054,%20Gas%20vs%20Op%20Rod%20Drive,%20020815.pdf to http://www.armalite.com/images/Tech%20Notes%5CTech%20Note%2054,%20Gas%20vs%20Op%20Rod%20Drive,%20020815.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.colt.com/mil/M16_2.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.izhmash.ru/eng/product/akm.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.colt.com/mil/M4_2.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714094113/http://militec1.com/swat.pdf to http://militec1.com/swat.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.izhmash.ru/eng/product/weapon.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140618165043/http://www.arsenal-bg.com:80/defense_police/5.56_arsenal_assault_rifle_ar-m1_ar-m1f.htm to http://www.arsenal-bg.com/defense_police/5.56_arsenal_assault_rifle_ar-m1_ar-m1f.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111107225550/http://www.ar15.com/content/manuals/AK47USArmyOperatorManual.pdf to http://www.ar15.com/content/manuals/AK47USArmyOperatorManual.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006092719/http://www.izhmash.ru/eng/product/akm.shtml to http://www.izhmash.ru/eng/product/akm.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130523124550/http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_02/iss_1/CAJ_vol2.1_07_e.pdf to http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_02/iss_1/CAJ_vol2.1_07_e.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120517092821/http://www.armalite.com/images/Tech%20Notes%5CTech%20Note%2054,%20Gas%20vs%20Op%20Rod%20Drive,%20020815.pdf to http://www.armalite.com/images/Tech%20Notes%5CTech%20Note%2054,%20Gas%20vs%20Op%20Rod%20Drive,%20020815.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111109005400/http://www.izhmash.ru/eng/product/vityaz.shtml to http://www.izhmash.ru/eng/product/vityaz.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111109005258/http://www.izhmash.ru/eng/product/bizon.shtml to http://www.izhmash.ru/eng/product/bizon.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• The M16's aluminum lower receivers may be forged or cast.^[23] Their receivers may also be made from titanium and a variety of other metallic alloys,^[24][25][26] composites^[27] or polymers.^[28] If necessary, the M16 can be machined from a billet of steel^[29] and fitted with wooden furniture.^[30] The M16's aluminum lower receiver may even be 3D printed, allowing "people with no gunsmith training to assemble a working assault rifle at home".^[31][32] The M16's internal components such as the bolt carrier group and charging handle may also be made of titanium.^[33][34] This makes the M16 ideal for market economy production, spread among many small manufacturers around the country, using a variety of materials and manufacturing methods; this ensures it would be nearly impossible to disrupt U.S. M16 production in the case of a major conflict.

Virtually every source in this paragraph concerns civilian AR-15s, not military M16 rifles. (The last sentences looks like it might be original research).

• As of 2015, the United States military buys M4 Carbines for $647 (USD) per unit.^[1]

1. ^ http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2016/FY16_ITEF_J_Book.pdf OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BUDGET FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2016. March 2015. FY 2016 Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) Iraq Train and Equip Fund (ITEF)

This sentence refers to the price of M4 carbines, not M16 rifles. So the question is, does the scope of this article cover the entire AR-15 family versus the entire AK47 family? If so, that should be explained in the introduction. Also, when a source talks about an AR-15 we shouldn't change that to M16, we should say, for example "The AR-15's aluminum lower receivers may be forged or cast", or "Aluminum M16-style lower receivers may be..." since that's what the sources says. Felsic2 (talk) 20:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the best way of defining the scope of this article would be to limit it to those specific derivatives of the AK and AR types that have been adopted as service rifles by the USSR/Russia or the U.S. That would include the AK-74, AK-105, etc, and the HK416, but exclude civilian AR-15 models. Felsic2 (talk) 01:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@RAF910: you've been the most active editor on this page recently. Any response before I start removing references to civilian weapons? Felsic2 (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

It's been a month. I'm going to delete the paragraph and alter the intro to indicate that the comparison extends to derivative service weapons. Felsic2 (talk) 17:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Comparison of the AK-47 and M16. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.izhmash.ru/eng/product/akm.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://independencearmory.com/downloads/M14_Articles/American%20Rifleman%20-%20New%20Service%20Rifle_%20Amer.%20Rifleman%20June%2C%201957.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.izhmash.ru/eng/product/weapon.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.armalite.com/images/Tech%20Notes%5CTech%20Note%2054%2C%20Gas%20vs%20Op%20Rod%20Drive%2C%20020815.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.arsenal-bg.com/defense_police/5.56_arsenal_assault_rifle_ar-m1_ar-m1f.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.izhmash.ru/eng/product/akm.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121102030447/http://home.roadrunner.com/~m70AK3/M70.htm to http://home.roadrunner.com/~m70AK3/M70.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.metallic.hr/grenade.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.izhmash.ru/eng/product/akm.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.armalite.com/images/Tech%20Notes%5CTech%20Note%2054%2C%20Gas%20vs%20Op%20Rod%20Drive%2C%20020815.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110626012337/http://www.usnews.com/news/washington-whispers/articles/2011/05/11/the-gun-that-killed-osama-bin-laden-revealed to http://www.usnews.com/news/washington-whispers/articles/2011/05/11/the-gun-that-killed-osama-bin-laden-revealed
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110626012337/http://www.usnews.com/news/washington-whispers/articles/2011/05/11/the-gun-that-killed-osama-bin-laden-revealed to http://www.usnews.com/news/washington-whispers/articles/2011/05/11/the-gun-that-killed-osama-bin-laden-revealed
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.izhmash.ru/eng/arc/021205.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.izhmash.ru/eng/arc/021205.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Comparison of the AK-47 and M16. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150622011454/http://www.almc.army.mil/alog/issues/NovDec03/Logistics_of_Invasion.htm to http://www.almc.army.mil/alog/issues/NovDec03/Logistics_of_Invasion.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151107045353/http://independencearmory.com/downloads/M14_Articles/American%20Rifleman%20-%20New%20Service%20Rifle_%20Amer.%20Rifleman%20June%2C%201957.pdf to http://independencearmory.com/downloads/M14_Articles/American%20Rifleman%20-%20New%20Service%20Rifle_%20Amer.%20Rifleman%20June%2C%201957.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120420232214/http://fliiby.com/file/34705/jruxixos92.html to http://fliiby.com/file/34705/jruxixos92.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921053818/http://www.pica.army.mil/picatinnypublic/news/images/highlights/2011/M855A1/32_The_Evolution_of_the_M855A1_5.56mm_Enhanced_Performance_Round%2C%201960-2010.pdf to http://www.pica.army.mil/picatinnypublic/news/images/highlights/2011/M855A1/32_The_Evolution_of_the_M855A1_5.56mm_Enhanced_Performance_Round%2C%201960-2010.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120626044026/http://fliiby.com/file/34705/jruxixos92.html to http://fliiby.com/file/34705/jruxixos92.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111111015504/http://www.armalite.com/images/Tech%20Notes/Tech%20Note%2048%2C%20Barrel%20Design%2C%20Heat%2C%20and%20Reliability%2C%20030824%E2%80%A6.pdf to http://www.armalite.com/images/Tech%20Notes%5CTech%20Note%2048%2C%20Barrel%20Design%2C%20Heat%2C%20and%20Reliability%2C%20030824%E2%80%A6.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006075455/http://www.arsenal-bg.com/defense_police/7%2C62ar-m1-m1f.htm to http://www.arsenal-bg.com/defense_police/7%2C62ar-m1-m1f.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923175855/http://www.atncorp.com/night-vision-reviews/SPEC-WEAPONS-09-PS23-CGT.pdf to http://www.atncorp.com/night-vision-reviews/SPEC-WEAPONS-09-PS23-CGT.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Comparison of the AK-47 and M16. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151027200534/http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2015/10/26/commandant-approves-m4-standard-rifle-marine-corps-infantry/74593750/ to http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2015/10/26/commandant-approves-m4-standard-rifle-marine-corps-infantry/74593750/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203023022/http://www.vsms.org/Forum/Seite_69_tactical_stuff/120500_Sights_Accessories_Compendium.pdf to http://www.vsms.org/Forum/Seite_69_tactical_stuff/120500_Sights_Accessories_Compendium.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111209112859/http://armedforces-int.com/article/m68-close-combat-optic.html to http://www.armedforces-int.com/article/m68-close-combat-optic.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130922090233/http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070221-136.pdf to http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070221-136.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628234759/http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf to http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120212205748/http://wstiac.alionscience.com/pdf/WQV8N1_ART01.pdf to http://wstiac.alionscience.com/pdf/WQV8N1_ART01.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426023133/http://library.enlisted.info/field-manuals/series-2/FM19_15/CH11.PDF to http://library.enlisted.info/field-manuals/series-2/FM19_15/CH11.PDF
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091228092153/http://www.militarytimes.com/projects/flash/2007_02_20_carbine/ to http://www.militarytimes.com/projects/flash/2007_02_20_carbine/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111128212107/http://www.izhmash.ru/eng/product/ks-k.shtml to http://www.izhmash.ru/eng/product/ks-k.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090219104944/http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Fackler_Articles/ak74_wounding_potential.pdf to http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Fackler_Articles/ak74_wounding_potential.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)