The Instigator
Fogofwar
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
nerdykiller
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points

Is the AK47 superior to the M16?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Fogofwar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/26/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 10,267 times Debate No: 17273
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (29)
Votes (2)

 

Fogofwar

Con

This debate is in regards to the question that has been asked time and again. Is the AK47 the superior of the M16 in regards to a combat rifle? This comparison is to be based on factual comparisons of the two weapons platforms, and not personal opinion.

Pro must give reasons at to why the AK47 is superior.

Con must give reasons as to why the M16 is superior.

The first round will be for acceptance only.
nerdykiller

Pro

I thank the Con for this debate.

I shall accept!


Ak-47 shall be victorious.
Debate Round No. 1
Fogofwar

Con

As the major factor in the ability of a combat firearm is the soldier himself; this debate will primarily focus on the two debaters ability to argue their side. Obviously certain circumstances do exist that give these weapons distinct advantages; however it comes down to personal preference in the end. So, it being clear that this debate is about personal preference in differing roles; I argue that the goal shall be for each side to provide compelling evidence from statistical facts; and even personal experience; to express argumentative reasons as to why they feel each weapon is superior.

I propose that we begin the first round by comparing the statistical facts of these weapons; and then conclude by comparing their functionality in the real world.

Let us first take a look at the specifications of these two weapons:

AK47 Specs:

Action: Gas-operated
Cartridge: 7.62x39mm
Feed System: 30 round magazine fed
Muzzle velocity: 710 m/s (2,330 ft/s)
Cyclic rate of fire: 600-775 rounds per minute
max effective range: 300m (984ft/328 ids)
Overall length: 869 mm (34.21 in)
Empty weight: 4.3kg (9.48 lbs)

(the specifications for the M16 are slightly different with each version. For the purpose of argument, I have chosen to use the specifications of the M16A2, the most common used variant).
M16A2 Specs:

Action: Gas-operated
Cartridge: 5.56x45mm NATO
Feed System: 30 round magazine
Muzzle velocity: 930 m/s (3,050 ft/s)
Cyclic rate of fire: 700-940 rounds per minute
max effective range: 600m (1,969 ft/656 ids)
Overall length: 1000 mm (39.37 in)
Empty weight: 3.58kg (7.89 lbs)

When we stack these two weapons up side by side; we can see the differences in these specifications:

Both are gas operated.
The AK47 fires 7.26x39mm, the M16 fires 5.56x45mm rounds. This difference will have to be scrutinized in debate.
Both have a 30 round magazine feed system. The difference in design will again be a topic of discussion.
The muzzle velocity of the M16 is 220 m/s (720 ft/s) faster than the AK47.
The M16 fires 165 more rounds per minute than the AK47.
The M16 effective range is double that of the AK47; being 300 m further than the 300m range of the AK.
The M16 is 131 mm (5.16 in) longer than the AK47.
The M16 is 0.72 kg (1.59 lbs) lighter than the AK47.

Among the differences not mentioned are:

The M16 has a selective rate of fire. Variants are made in repetition (semi-auto) + fully-auto, or repetition + 3 round burst. The AK47 has only been manufactured in fully-auto. Several newer versions of the AK, such as the AKM, the SKS, the PKM, etc. have featured a 3 and 5 round burst instead. None have been designed with semi-auto selection. The M16 can perform in two distinct roles, whereas the AK can only perform one. The realistic nature; and practicality of these roles will be discussed in round two.

Another major difference is the design of the picatinny rail; allowing several modifications to be made to various M16 models; including the mounting of virtually any after market sights available. Attachments such as PAC 2/4 infrared lasers can also be mounted; and the M16 is designed to mount the M203 grenade launcher; increasing it's role from rifleman to grenadier.

Among other differences include the manufacture of these arms. The AK47 is made of pressed steel parts; whereas the M16 is drop forged; a process that wields denser and stronger material. The M16 is therefore capable of surviving force that would fracture or otherwise damage the metal parts of the AK. This pressed steel does give the AK a few advantages in its design however: the parts are cheap and easy to manufacture. They can even be made by a non skilled machinist if need be. The M16 however; was designed for the role of military use; and so is not required to be serviced by the user. This does not give any advantage to the AK in the usage of conventional war; only guerrilla tactics. The other advantage is the loose fitting parts; as it prevents the AK from jamming up. This is also what decreases range; as it creates instability. This advantage is not without a major set back.

Another major difference is the ammunition. The powder used in AK47 rounds is not smokeless; and the gas created is highly corrosive. This means that the AK47 is prone to rusting. The M16 uses cleaner smoke free powder; which does not corrode; and many variants have also introduced chromed parts that eliminate corrosion inside vital parts of the weapon.

These are the major statistical variations among these weapons; and by comparison; we can already see a clear advantage to the M16. However I will not attempt to claim this even begins to prove that the M16 is superior to the AK47; because of all the statistics on these weapons; many do not apply in real life combat situations.

In this; I conclude my first round; comparing the statistics of the two weapons on paper. I welcome the pro challenger to use this round to fill in any necessary statistics and match-ups he needs for his argument; and allow for a final round of comparison of these platforms function in the real world.
nerdykiller

Pro





Since my opponent didn't provide the definition I will.

Superior - of higher grade or quality
http://dictionary.reference.com...


Since my opponent didn't write the whole specifications for both of the guns I would like to add on.
My opponents has only put in the specs that benefits him.
And I ask my opponent that next time if he is too make a debate be sure not to change what we are debating about.
The title is "Is the AK47 superior to the M16?", but he decides to use a M16A2 to write the specs.
I mean M16A2 is a newer type of the gun. If my opponent is able to change what he has already wrote to his advantage then I will be using a newer version of Ak-47 which is AKM or even the new Ak-107.


AK-47 the original
Designed in 1947
weight (with loaded 30 round magazine) - 5.22 kg
Overall length - 87 cm
Barrel length - 40.6 cm

Cartridge - 7.62 x 39 mm
Bullet weight - 123gr
velocity- 2,400 ft/s
energy- 1,560 ft ft/lbs
effective range- 350 meter
Accuracy- 2 to 4 inches
Penetration- 26 inches
Rate of fire- 600 rounds per minutes

M-16 the original
Designed in 1957
weight (with loaded 30 round magazine) - 3.6 kg
Overall length - 100 cm
Barrel length - 50.8 cm

Cartridge - 5.56 x 45 mm
Bullet weight - 55gr
velocity- 3,280 ft/s
energy- 1,314 ft/lbs
effective range- 350 meter
Accuracy- 2 inches
Penetration- 15 inches
Rate of fire- 750 rounds per minutes

As you can see there are parts that my opponent has left out such penetration or the amount of energy it creates.

http://en.wikipedia.org...


Rebuttals!

"The AK47 fires 7.26x39mm, the M16 fires 5.56x45mm rounds. This difference will have to be scrutinized in debate."
-Ak-47 has a greater penetration power because the gun uses a bigger and better round. Which bullet can deliver the kill shot it is the 7.26x39.mm rather then the small 5.56x45mm.

"Both have a 30 round magazine feed system. The difference in design will again be a topic of discussion."

- I have found this fact which says.
"The M16 originally used a 20 round magazine which was later replaced by a bent 30 round design. As a result the magazine follower tends to rock or tilt causing malfunctions. The M16's magazine are made of light weight pressed/stamped aluminum. Therefore, it is easier to damage than an AK-47 magazine. Also, the feed lips are proportionally weaker when compared to the AK-47. Many U.S. civilian aftermarket magazines have been developed to effectively mitigate these shortcoming (i.e. Magpul's polymer P-MAG, H&K's all-stainless-steel magazine, etc.)."
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Look under Reliability.


"The muzzle velocity of the M16 is 220 m/s (720 ft/s) faster than the AK47.
The M16 fires 165 more rounds per minute than the AK47.
The M16 effective range is double that of the AK47; being 300 m further than the 300m range of the AK.
The M16 is 131 mm (5.16 in) longer than the AK47.
The M16 is 0.72 kg (1.59 lbs) lighter than the AK47."
-This is information based of your M16A2 against Ak-47 which like I have already said it isn't fair for you to change your information after I have accepted it. If you wanted you could have just made the title to say Is the Ak47 superior to the M16A2?

"None have been designed with semi-auto selection."
- You are proved wrong by this information.
"On the AK-47, the fire selector lever is located on the right side of the rifle, it also acts as a dust-cover and is operated by the shooters right fore-fingers. It has 3 stages: up = safe, center = full-auto and down = semi-auto. "
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Look under Controls.

" The M16 is therefore capable of surviving force that would fracture or otherwise damage the metal parts of the AK. "
- Let me ask you a question. Can M16 survive being run over by a truck or able to survive a 5 story fall. Ak-47 is still around because of its reliability. Ak-47 has been in battles around the world and survived with having to be modified every time it goes to a different battle field.

"They can even be made by a non skilled machinist if need be."
-They isn't true you are purely making an assumption.

" The M16 however; was designed for the role of military use; and so is not required to be serviced by the user."
-Can you please clarify this.

"The other advantage is the loose fitting parts; as it prevents the AK from jamming up. This is also what decreases range; as it creates instability."
- "Decreases range" This is not to important in war these days since many battles are taking place in urban areas where your enemy is right next door.
"creates instability." This is a false statement because Ak-47 is stable enough gun that it has been chosen as the primary weapon for many countries.

"Another major difference is the ammunition."
- This is a category that Ak-47 wins and literally kills. Ak-47 has a larger bullet and able to penetrate almost anything.

"The powder used in AK47 rounds is not smokeless; and the gas created is highly corrosive. This means that the AK47 is prone to rusting. The M16 uses cleaner smoke free powder; which does not corrode; and many variants have also introduced chromed parts that eliminate corrosion inside vital parts of the weapon."
- I think that Ak-47 which is able to work after being covered in mud, sand, and water and still fire as if nothing happened to it is going to survive a little rust.
"We now know that the real problem was the type of powder used. "
" The new powder caused much more fouling which quickly jammed the action unless it was cleaned well and often. "
These quotes are from marines who had trouble with the M-16.
http://opkingfisher67.blogspot.com...


Reasoning!
1) After reading my opponents argument I have found that he doesn't know that Ak47 is more reliable weapon then M-16. Both are great assault rifle, but The aK-47 brings more to the table. Ak-47 was manufactured in 1947 and is still use in the world today.

2) Ak-47 is a cheaper and more effective gun than M-16.

Ak-47 price: $361.00
http://www.budsgunshop.com...

M-16(closest related gun is the AR-15) price:$954.00
http://www.budsgunshop.com...


You can almost buy 3 Ak-47 rifles compared to buying one M-16.
Ak-47 is more effective because it can survive weather and the places that would break guns like the M-16.


Conclusion
Ak-47 is more powerful, reliable, and cheaper then the M-16.
Ak-47 for the win!
Debate Round No. 2
Fogofwar

Con

I wish I had room to address pros comments; unfortunately; it would leave me no room to respond in my own; so therefore I will choose to post the better of arguments. However; I will address his concern of using the statistics from the M16A2. This is still a fair assessment; because all variants have identical stats in these regards. Only weight changes as a result of newer models extendable butt stock.
As I have stated in rd 1; the effectiveness of a weapon in combat comes down to the soldier using it; therefore; I will use the statistics provided to compare real life situations faced in combat; and the effectiveness of these weapons.
As a soldier in the Canadian Forces; I have had the experience of handling both of these weapons in the combative role. From my experience, I will show the downfall of the AK47, AKM, RPK, and all varieties of the AK family which have led to to favour the M16. I trust my life to an M16; and this is why:
As pro states; the AK fire selector is located on the right side; along with the charging (cocking) handle. The M16 charging handle is located on the top centre and is designed for ambidextrous use. A left or right handed shooter can cock the weapon and remove it from safe without taking his finger off the trigger. The AK however only favours left handed shooters. A right handed shooter must either: remove his trigger hand and cock the weapon; this action has led to the death of countless soldiers in combat. His other option is to tilt the rifle to allow an overhand grasp of the charging handle or fire selector with his left hand; causing him to drop his point of aim. In the time required to retake a sight picture; a trained soldier can have half a magazine from an M16 fired down range. The calibre of bullet means nothing when you cannot shoot it first.
The calibre of bullet makes many differences. There is no argument that the 7.62 has more energy; which is why machine guns use them often. For close quarters however; where a rifleman; the job in which both the AK and the M16 are designed for, is effective; the heavier rounds make for slower movement of the rifle. Again; this makes bringing the M16 onto target a split second quicker. Another major downfall is the distance required for the 7.62 to reach the full energy in which pro stated. In fact; at less than 50 m, a 7.62 round cannot penetrate a single layer of sandbags; making it no more lethal than a 5.56. Because of this; the Russian Army has adapted the 5.45x39mm round for their AK107 that pro mentioned, to replace the 7.62. In the role of a rifleman; the 5.56 has proven itself time and again.
Pro made mention of the magazine; and while he did provide a grain of truth; he neglected to mention that the mag is not actually a part of the weapon; but an after market product. Current issued mags used in theatre are exceptionally reliable; and durable. The big difference in mags is actually in the design of the rifle. The AK requires the mag to fit perfectly in on the front; then roll into place. This have proven devastating to inexperienced soldiers; who get nervous and full of adrenaline; as it is near impossible to fit the mag in properly with shaky hands. The M16 mag slides straight up; with room to play; making it almost impossible to screw up. Even a terrified person can reload an M16. It also allows the mag to fall out by it's weight; meaning no hands are required. A trained soldier can drop his mag while reaching for another and reloading it; all without taking his finger off the trigger; or his sights off the enemy. In the time an experienced shooter can reload an AK; an M16 shooter can have nearly half a mag downrange.
Reliability is no issue for either; as neither suffers from stoppages like video games and movies claim. I have fired thousands of rounds through an M16; and not once had a stoppage.
Pro states the AK comes with a selector for semi-auto; yet there is not one. This is only available IN PLACE of auto on civilian models; not combat rifles.

"Let me ask you a question. Can M16 survive being run over by a truck or able to survive a 5 story fall"
Yes, however, I have never experienced running over a weapon with a truck; such a soldier who would allow this has no place in combat; I know from our airborne training that the M16 can survive falls from up to 200 feet.

""Decreases range" This is not to important in war these days since many battles are taking place in urban areas where your enemy is right next door."
As a 15 year old kid; it is clear that you are making this statement based on assumption. As a trained infanteer, I know the reality is that our firefights often begin from up to; or even further than a 1000 m away. No one sits in a town and waits for the enemy to breach it before opening fire. Range is of the utmost importance in rifles.

""creates instability." This is a false statement because Ak-47 is stable enough gun that it has been chosen as the primary weapon for many countries."

Instability means that the weapon 'shakes' due to excessive recoil. This instability makes it hard to fire accurate; even in small bursts; which is all the AK can do. The weapon has actually been abandoned by almost all nations worldwide; with only 3rd world armies and insurgents still using it; and still favouring newer modified versions of it. Even Russia; the nation which developed it hasn't used it since the AK74 from 1974.

"This is a category that Ak-47 wins and literally kills. Ak-47 has a larger bullet and able to penetrate almost anything."

In every engagement (firefight); the AK falls short of the M16. Clearly reality speaks otherwise. I personally know a man who was shot in the head by an AK47 in Afghanistan and survived. His kevlar helmet saved his life. Apparently AK rounds do NOT go through anything.
In regards to surviving rust; rust deteriorates the metal; weakening it's strength. In time; it will cause the metal fatigue to fracture or blow out portions of the weapon. NO, it can not handle rust.

""We now know that the real problem was the type of powder used. "
" The new powder caused much more fouling which quickly jammed the action unless it was cleaned well and often. "
These quotes are from marines who had trouble with the M-16."
These quotes are erroneous; as it was the "CLP' cleaner that was the problem, not the M16. The manufacturer of CLP claimed it would clean the rifle on its own. It failed to. The weapon jams were the result of gunk building up in the gas tube. To remedy this; they issued cleaning kits. FYI, even the AK needs to be cleaned.

"Ak-47 was manufactured in 1947 and is still use in the world today."

As is the STG44, manufactured in 1944. Most nations that still use AKs use the newer AKM (Modified).
"You can almost buy 3 Ak-47 rifles compared to buying one M-16."

I would hope so; as you will need three to handle one M16.

"Ak-47 is more effective because it can survive weather and the places that would break guns like the M-16."

The M16 has seen service in every climate and region on Earth; and has never failed to perform its function.

The M16 is capable of mounting additional accessories; including the M203 grenade launcher; turning it into a devastating force all on its own. There is no ability for the AK to achieve similar roles.

With better range; better targeting; and easier immediate actions; the M16 is capable of engaging the AK from outside the AK's range; within it's limited effectiveness; and with accessories like the M203; through cover the AK could only dream of penetrating.

There are a hundred other points I could mention on reasons the M16 is vastly superior in my eyes; however time does not permit; nor do I feel I need to post them to persuade anymore than my argument already has. An effective soldier is one who responds to the situation at hand faster. With an AK47, the soldier would have to respond even faster still to make up for the seconds lost due to the performance of the weapon
nerdykiller

Pro





*My opponent did good job with his argument, but forgot to display any source at all.
*Sadly they were all opinion based on his job, but his job can't be proved.

Rebuttals!
"This comparison is to be based on factual comparisons of the two weapons platforms, and not personal opinion." Fogofwar said in round 1.
-I like how you just contradicted yourself right now because you didn't provide any source so far other then your opinion.

"using the statistics from the M16A2. This is still a fair assessment; because all variants have identical stats in these regards. Only weight changes as a result of newer models extendable butt stock."
-You can't use the M16A2 because if you can why can't I use the newer Ak-47 family of guns. Why couldn't you just changed the title in the first place. My opponent has no excuse to just change something about the debate between the debate.

"As a soldier in the Canadian Forces; I have had the experience of handling both of these weapons in the combative role. From my experience, I will show the downfall of the AK47, AKM, RPK, and all varieties of the AK family which have led to to favour the M16. I trust my life to an M16; and this is why:"
-I can't know for sure that you are a Canadian soldier. Look at my profile I can quickly change it to a 32-year old male, who works for the marine and makes 150,000 a year. My opponent could be a 10-year old in Japan! The point is you can't know who he is. Everything he says is opinion while I provided facts and backed it up by sources.

"In the time required to retake a sight picture; a trained soldier can have half a magazine from an M16 fired down range. The calibre of bullet means nothing when you cannot shoot it first."
-The calibre of bullet means nothing is a false statement because it can be devastating when a bullet 7.62 just smashes through your skull.

"The calibre of bullet makes many differences."
-I agree this is why the Ak-47's bullet is more effective then the M-16 bullet.

" Again; this makes bringing the M16 onto target a split second quicker."
-Split second quicker does nothing if the opponent's powerful bullet comes after you after you fire only one or two shot.

"In fact; at less than 50 m, a 7.62 round cannot penetrate a single layer of sandbags; making it no more lethal than a 5.56. Because of this; the Russian Army has adapted the 5.45x39mm round for their AK107 that pro mentioned, to replace the 7.62. "
-Where do you even get your source. Seriously You can't rely on your military opinion the whole debate. You didn't site any source.


"In the role of a rifleman; the 5.56 has proved itself time and again."
-This is a false statement based of a false opinion.

"Pro made mention of the magazine; and while he did provide a grain of truth; he neglected to mention that the mag is not actually a part of the weapon; "
-I actually provided more then a grain of truth. Also, the magazine is definitely a part of the gun. With out the magazine you can't even shoot the gun.
Like I have stated already in round 2 the magazine is indeed a part of the gun and is important.
"The M16 originally used a 20 round magazine which was later replaced by a bent 30 round design. As a result the magazine follower tends to rock or tilt causing malfunctions. The M16's magazine are made of light weight pressed/stamped aluminum. Therefore, it is easier to damage than an AK-47 magazine. Also, the feed lips are proportionally weaker when compared to the AK-47."
http://en.wikipedia.org...






"Current issued mags used in theatre are exceptionally reliable; and durable. The big difference in mags is actually in the design of the rifle. The AK requires the mag to fit perfectly in on the front; then roll into place. This have proved devastating to inexperienced soldiers; who get nervous and full of adrenaline; as it is near impossible to fit the mag in properly with shaky hands. The M16 mag slides straight up; with room to play; making it almost impossible to screw up. "
-Where is your source? Again my opponent is giving off more false statement off of his false opinion.

"A trained soldier can drop his mag while reaching for another and reloading it; all without taking his finger off the trigger; or his sights off the enemy. In the time an experienced shooter can reload an AK; an M16 shooter can have nearly half a mag downrange."
-Next time site your source please. Again another false statement from false opinion.

"Reliability is no issue for either; as neither suffers from stoppages like video games and movies claim. I have fired thousands of rounds through an M16; and not once had a stoppage.
Pro states the AK comes with a selector for semi-auto; yet there is not one. This is only available IN PLACE of auto on civilian models; not combat rifles."
-Give some source and your job starts to sound fake.

"Yes, however, I have never experienced running over a weapon with a truck; such a soldier who would allow this has no place in combat; I know from our airborne training that the M16 can survive falls from up to 200 feet."
- Ak-47 can survive more then M-16 through toughest condition.

"As a 15 year old kid; it is clear that you are making this statement based on assumption. As a trained infanteer, I know the reality is that our firefights often begin from up to; or even further than a 1000 m away. No one sits in a town and waits for the enemy to breach it before opening fire. Range is of the utmost importance in rifles."
-I am offended that you called me a kid. Dear people of DDO this person believes he has a right to assume that cause I am a kid he can consider I have no knowledge as all.
I believe the enemy do wait in town for the enemy because they could ambush their enemy. If the range is so important in rifles then why not use a sniper.

"Instability means that the weapon 'shakes' due to excessive recoil. This instability makes it hard to fire accurate; even in small bursts; which is all the AK can do. The weapon has actually been abandoned by almost all nations worldwide; with only 3rd world armies and insurgents still using it; and still favouring newer modified versions of it. Even Russia; the nation which developed it hasn't used it since the AK74 from 1974."
- Russia is actually planning to use the Ak family weapon again for their army.

"In every engagement (firefight); the AK falls short of the M16. Clearly reality speaks otherwise. I personally know a man who was shot in the head by an AK47 in Afghanistan and survived. His kevlar helmet saved his life. Apparently AK rounds do NOT go through anything."
- False statement from a false opinion. Truthfully anyone can make something up like that. I had an uncle to fought of enemy soldiers by himself using an Ak-47.

"In regards to surviving rust; rust deteriorates the metal; weakening it's strength. In time; it will cause the metal fatigue to fracture or blow out portions of the weapon. NO, it can not handle rust."
- Can't M-16 rust? If it doesn't why does M-16 need cleaning everyday?

"To remedy this; they issued cleaning kits. FYI, even the AK needs to be cleaned."
-Ak-47 doesn't have to be cleaned as much as M-16 would.

"As is the STG44, manufactured in 1944. Most nations that still use AKs use the newer AKM (Modified)."
- Yet that gun is a gun that one in the world uses anymore.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

"I would hope so; as you will need three to handle one M16."
- Wow. You completely disregarded my statement and basically insulted it. Ak-47 is cheaper , effective, and powerful then M-16.

I will write my conclusion now. I am running out of characters.
There are too many reasons I can state to prove that Ak-47 is better then M-16. There are billions more reason if I start to say false statement like my opponent did throughout the whole debate.
Ak-47 is more then anything M-16 wishes it can be. Ak-47 is more durable, cheap, stronger, powerful, effective, and deadly compared to the measly M-16.

Ak47
Debate Round No. 3
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by nerdykiller 6 years ago
nerdykiller
Fog of war takes things way too seriously and made his arguments on opinion.
Posted by Fogofwar 6 years ago
Fogofwar
Yes, the AK is closer to a machine gun…CLOSER TO. It is not. ;) It is an assault rifle; and one that the Soviet Red Army originally failed to accept. It was actually only brought into service as a temporary means until a better weapon could be made. ;)

Early 'copies' of the M16 were not the issue with reliability genius. It was the CLP that was introduced with the M16. When CLP came out, it claimed to be self cleaning; all the soldier had to do was pour it on; let it sit; and it would clean the weapon…it doesn't. You still have to clean it. The CLP was the issue with the weapon jamming; not the weapon itself. By the way; the early 'copies' of the AK (That being the ACTUAL designated AK47) had more than a handful of issues with the upper receiver cracking due to poor manufacture. It wasn't until 1951 that the issue was resolved by modifying it.

By the way; under combat conditions; it is more than possible to maintain a clean weapon. I have spent more time in the field with an M16 than you have spent with any weapon; and not once have I had to worry about it being too dirty to operate. Even an M16 is designed to operate with some carbon; it shouldn't be spotlessly clean. There is more than enough time to clean your rifle while in 'combat conditions' and still be bored out of your mind between missions. This isn't Call of Duty. Soldier's don't spend their entire time fighting.
Posted by Makhno 6 years ago
Makhno
Sorry for the typo AC - AK.

Oh yes, one more thing, you were talking about the reliability of AK vs. M16.

Check out those videos, and just try to imagine doing the same with M16.

Yes, if lubricated properly the M16 will work flawlessly (of course if we're not talking about the early copies). However, under combat conditions it is not always possible.
Posted by Makhno 6 years ago
Makhno
As usual you are trying to twist debate beyond recognition.
You said: "like the name suggests; Automatic Kalishnikov".
I corrected you. AK stands for "Avtomat Kalashnikova".
Word "avtomat" in regards to firearms is a very specific term, and can be translated to English as machine gun, submachine gun, or assault rifle. Why so many different translations? Because Russian classification of firearms is different. There are: pistolet, ruzh'e, vintovka, karabin, pistolet-pulemet, avtomat, pulemet, stankoviy pulemet, krupnokaliberniy pulemet, e.t.c.
So, what exactly is AC then?

3:50
"The M16 is closer to a rifle. The AK47 a machine gun."
4:11
"This is primary a machine gun."

But arguing classifications is pointless and no fun. I just offered a translation, if you don't like it, use Google Translate. Oh wait! Does it give the same result? Damn!
Posted by Fogofwar 6 years ago
Fogofwar
"Now tell me – do you understand the real meaning of "avtomat"? Be careful with words – at least while hunting for souvenirs in Moscow. In some shops dealing with military items, sales managers can easily misinterpret your "Avtomat, please?" and offer you a de-activated copy of an AK-assault rifle instead of showing you the way to the nearest bank cash-machine."

http://russiapedia.rt.com...

Automatic rifles are rifles fired from the shoulder; which fire a standard rifle cartridge. Machine guns are automatic weapons used in a mounted position. The AK is designed as an automatic rifle; hence it is categorized as an assault rifle (form of automatic rifle). Ironically however; machine guns do not have selective fire. If it were in fact a 'machine gun' as you claim; then definitely would not have semi-auto selection. ;)

Examples of machine guns: M249 SAW
MG4
M240

Examples of automatic rifles: M16
AK47
STG44
SA80
Posted by Makhno 6 years ago
Makhno
Please do not argue about the Russian language with Russian.

Rifle – vintovka (rus).
Assault Rifle – shturmovaya vintovka (rus).
Machine Gun – avtomat or pulemet (rus).
Submachine gun – avtomat or pistolet-pulemet (rus).

Examples:

M16 – vintovka or shturmovaya vintovka;
Sniper Rifle - snayperskaya vintovka;
MP40 – avtomat.
Thompson– avtomat.
PPSh-41 – avtomat.
AK – avtomat.

In Russian language "avtomat" is a family of firearms capable of firing rifle ammunition in fully automatic mode it does include some light machine guns, some submachine guns and some assault rifles. But it doesn't mean that it has only fully automatic mode. Moreover, I had never heard of such variants of AK.
Posted by Fogofwar 6 years ago
Fogofwar
AK stands for Avtomat Kalishnikova, which translates to Automatic Kalishnikov in English. The AK is not a machine gun; it is an automatic rifle, also called an assault rifle.
Posted by Makhno 6 years ago
Makhno
"like the name suggests; Automatic Kalishnikov"

It's called "Automat Kalashnikova" which translates to English as "Kalashnikov's Machine Gun".

But you are right in regards that Russia uses different tactics were fire power more important than accuracy.
Posted by Fogofwar 6 years ago
Fogofwar
...by the way; your picture is of an AKM, not an AK47. ;)
Posted by Fogofwar 6 years ago
Fogofwar
It must be noted that the original design of the receiver, which was assembled from stamped steel 'box' with large machined steel insert pinned at the front, caused a lot of troubles at factory. The technology (equipment and labor) level of the time resulted in extremely high percentage of rejected receivers due to misformed walls, improper pinning of parts, bad geometry etc. After critical revision of the process at the factory it was calculated that it will be more economically feasible to return to the 'old-school' machined receivers. New, machined receiver was designed by one of factory's staff designers, and after approval by military, it was put into production at IzhMash in 1951, under the same basic designation.

http://world.guns.ru...

yet, you claim that the AK47 has survived without modification. In fact; the AK was considered a failure to the Soviet Army; who took it as a temporary rifle while awaiting a better design. That design came in 1959 with the AKM; the most common used version of the AK; and the model you chose to base your argument on; despite criticizing me using statistics taken from the M16A2; even though they are the same as the original M16 design of 1957. By comparing the two original rifles; the AK47 was barely accepted as a weapon. It wasn't until later updates were made to a newer version of the AK.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by SuperRobotWars 6 years ago
SuperRobotWars
FogofwarnerdykillerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was more convincing.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
FogofwarnerdykillerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:34 
Reasons for voting decision: There is little place for you are 15 I am rambo in a debate, it has to be the words not the speaker. 2 pt to Pro. Con continually asserts experience but is unaware that the AK has selective fire? 1 pt to Pro for catching this. Pro gets funky formatting in the end making it near impossible to read 1 pt to Con. Con does make a number of strategy arguments 2 pt, but Pro does rightfully demand sources and provides counters. 1 pt