What is better the AK 47 or the M4?

Answer 1

The ideal equipment list is going to be determined by the mission for which it is used, as well as the personnel using the equipment. They are both rifles designed for a very different user base, with the M16 being designed for a professional force, while the AK series was designed for use by a conscript force. Thus, variants of the M16 (such as the M16) may be better suited for professional soldiers, but would fare poorly in the hands of guerrilla fighters or hastily composed militias, whereas the AK series rifles would be better suited for non-professionals, but may not be ideally suited for the training and techniques used by professional forces.

In the M16/M4's favour, it's strong points are versatility and modularity. Using the same lower receiver, you can exchange the upper receiver for varying cartridges, such as the .458 SOCOM, .50 Beowulf, .6.8 Remington SPC, 6.5 Grendel - even the 7.62x39 and 5.45x39 cartridges. You also have the ability to carry more ammuniton. A typical basic load for a soldier carrying an FAL or G3 rifle is 100 rounds. A typical basic load for a military which fields the AKM and variants is 150 rounds. A typical basic load for the US soldier carrying an M16 or M4 is 210 rounds, given the lighter weight of the 5.56 round. Considering that most ammunition expended in a firefight is used for suppression of the enemy, it becomes apparent where the advantage of this is.

To the AKs benefit, the 7.62x39 round does have greater stopping power (although it should be noted that variants of the AK in 5.45x39 and 5.56x45 are manufactured and fielded by various military forces in the world today). It is a platform which is more forgiving of abuse, and is much easier to train an individual on. Thus, the AKM can provide the guerrilla or militia fighter with a means to match the firepower of a professional force they are opposing.

'Fans' of the two platforms have a bad tendency to overstate the capabilities of their favourite system, as well as overstating the weaknesses of their least favoured weapons system. In reality, neither platform is infallible - both have their strengths, and both have their weaknesses. Both were designed with a different market in mind, and their designs are a reflection of such.

Answer 2

The ideal equipment list is going to be determined by the mission for which it is used, as well as the personnel using the equipment. They are both rifles designed for a very different user base, with the M16 being designed for a professional force, while the AK series was designed for use by a conscript force. Thus, variants of the M16 (such as the M16) may be better suited for professional soldiers, but would fare poorly in the hands of guerrilla fighters or hastily composed militias, whereas the AK series rifles would be better suited for non-professionals, but may not be ideally suited for the training and techniques used by professional forces.

In the M16/M4's favour, it's strong points are versatility and modularity. Using the same lower receiver, you can exchange the upper receiver for varying cartridges, such as the .458 SOCOM, .50 Beowulf, .6.8 Remington SPC, 6.5 Grendel - even the 7.62x39 and 5.45x39 cartridges. You also have the ability to carry more ammuniton. A typical basic load for a soldier carrying an FAL or G3 rifle is 100 rounds. A typical basic load for a military which fields the AKM and variants is 150 rounds. A typical basic load for the US soldier carrying an M16 or M4 is 210 rounds, given the lighter weight of the 5.56 round. Considering that most ammunition expended in a firefight is used for suppression of the enemy, it becomes apparent where the advantage of this is.

To the AKs benefit, the 7.62x39 round does have greater stopping power (although it should be noted that variants of the AK in 5.45x39 and 5.56x45 are manufactured and fielded by various military forces in the world today). It is a platform which is more forgiving of abuse, and is much easier to train an individual on. Thus, the AKM can provide the guerrilla or militia fighter with a means to match the firepower of a professional force they are opposing.

'Fans' of the two platforms have a bad tendency to overstate the capabilities of their favourite system, as well as overstating the weaknesses of their least favoured weapons system. In reality, neither platform is infallible - both have their strengths, and both have their weaknesses. Both were designed with a different market in mind, and their designs are a reflection of such.