"The AK-47 vs. the M16 Rifle During the Vietnam War" Topic

"During the Vietnam War, two of the most famous firearms of modern times emerged as icons of the latter half of the turbulent 20th century. The Soviet-made AK-47 and the American M16 were both developments that followed the deployment of the world's first true assault rifle, the Sturmgewehr 44, by the German Army during World War II. There were obvious advantages to the rifle that could be fired in automatic or semi-automatic mode without requiring the soldier to operate a bolt, and the clash between the Ak-17 vs the M16 characterized modern combat with the Vietnam War serving as a proving ground.

The father of the AK-47 rifle was Soviet arms designer Mikhail Kalashnikov, and it is believed that since the rifle entered production in 1949 over 75 million examples of the original or its improved variants have been manufactured, more than any other firearm in history. The AK-47 has developed a reputation for simplicity and rugged reliability. It has also become a common weapon in the Third World and a symbol of the revolutionary, the insurgent, and the terrorist. While the AK-47 was shipped to Vietnam in great numbers to equip the North Vietnamese Army and the Viet Cong insurgency, it also armed the Soviet Red Army and its Cold War allies of the Warsaw Pact…"

Main page

link

Armand

US Troops in Vietnam Hated the M16 So Much They Picked Up the Enemy's AK-47s

link

Armand

The M-16 did have growing pains. However, it was more accurate and far less noisy than the AK-47. In the end, when the problems were addressed, the M-16 and its variants have served us well to this day.

The platform didn't become solid in my opinion till the M-16A2 came along, it's a great rifle. The ammo really is what makes the M-16 series deadly of course, the 5.56mm is a killer.

If you have not read it, The Gun by Chivers is a masterful story of the development of the AK-47, which was the perfect weapon for a conscript peasant army; interestingly, the AK-47 was the result of a competitive process with many competing designs, while the M-16 was essentially a single source contract; you would think given the ideological differences between the USSR and the USA it would have been a different process!

link

Thanks!

Armand

The Armalite design was hardly spawned from the STG. 44. About the only shared features were gas operation and a specially designed round. Otherwise one could say the M-14 is descended from the STG. 44, which it clearly is not.

I recall seeing an interview with Kalashnikov in his later years. The interviewer asked him how he felt about the fact that his weapon had become the preferred rifle for terrorist and drug runners. His reply was, "I wish I'd invented a lawnmower."

My father told me that while he was on his second tour in Vietnam a company of Marines was involved in a running fight and got cut off. The company commander called for an ammo resupply and a helicopter made a run under fire, getting shot up pretty badly, and brought them a resupply of .223 ammo. The capitan had to get back on the radio a short time later and tell his superior that he needed another resupply run because every Marine in the company was armed with an AK-47. They had to scrounge ammo from all over the base to get enough to make a second supply run. The helicopter got shot up again and the capitan had a lot of explaining to do when he got back to base.

I have fired both, though not at all well – I'm a genuinely dreadful shot with any rifle – but I thought the M16 was a pure joy to shoot compared to anything else I've fired…..Lee Enfield, Garand or SLR. OTH I've got deactivated ones as wall hangers and I've never dared strip the M16 in case I break (or maybe lose) something.

Field stripping the M16 is easy and nothing is small enough to lose or break. If you go past field stripping you run the risk of breaking or losing bits.

It wasn't unusual for LRRPs and Recon to use AKs as operating behind enemy lines the VC would not know if the fire was friendly or enemy.

Wolfhag

Dn Jackcson. The base had a supply of Communist 7.62x39mm ammo?

Dn Jackson…..I'm very clumsy!

"Dn Jackcson. The base had a supply of Communist 7.62x39mm ammo?"

He told me they had to scrounge it up. But they found enough to provide the resupply. Apparently, a lot of Marines preferred the AK to the M-16.

"Dn Jackson…..I'm very clumsy!"

LOL – funny thing is I still carry one at work. Even though it's been 35 years since I was in boot camp, I was able to field strip it for cleaning without thinking about it. The new patrol sling does throw me for a loop though.

Some Marines preferred the M-14 over other weapons too.

The initial version of the M16 was evidently not tested out in the jungle very well. The prong-type muzzle "flash hider" got caught on vegetation and branches. My understanding is the three prongs were to be used to cut the wire on the C-Ration boxes but I can't confirm it but we did use it for that. The non-chromed chamber jammed. You also put fewer than 20 rounds in the magazine because the mag spring was weak. Sometimes the bolt would fail to lock all of the way forward too. These were supposedly changed and fixed with the M16A1.

When you have a new weapon that jams and gets caught in the vegetation you'd prefer anything else you could get your hands on. Thankfully, the VC supplied AK's.

Even so, the great majority of Army men, who got the M-16 long before the Marines, swear by it. So do the Viet Cong. Indeed, Le Xuan Chuyen, a former North Vietnamese lieutenant colonel and veteran of 21 years of guerrilla warfare, calls the M-16 "an excellent weapon." Le Xuan, the highest-ranking Red defector to date, says the V.C. also have gripes about the M-16s they have captured. They find the M-16 ammunition almost impossible to procure.

A fair comparison: link

I guess it comes down to personal preferences and how well you care for your weapon.

Wolfhag