| Revision as of 17:58, 31 March 2016 editCyberbot II (talk | contribs)Bots, Pending changes reviewers469,532 edits Notification of altered sources needing review #IABot← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 15:10, 21 November 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,307,845 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Comparison of the AK-47 and M16/Archive 3) (bot |
| (46 intermediate revisions by 20 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1= |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Firearms|class=B|importance=mid| b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = yes |
|
{{WikiProject Firearms|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Military history|class=Start |
|
| b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> = yes |
|
|
| b3 <!--Structure --> = yes |
|
|
| b4 <!--Grammar & style --> = yes |
|
|
| b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = yes}} |
|
|
{{WPMILHIST|class=Start |
|
|
|<!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |
|
|<!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |
|
|B-Class-1=yes |
|
|B-Class-1=yes |
| Line 18: |
Line 14: |
|
|B-Class-5=yes |
|
|B-Class-5=yes |
|
|Weaponry-task-force=yes}} |
|
|Weaponry-task-force=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Soviet Union|class=Start|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Soviet Union|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Russia|class=Start|importance=Mid|mil=yes|tech=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Russia|importance=Mid|mil=yes|tech=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject United States|class=start|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Vietnam}} |
|
{{WikiProject Vietnam}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
| Line 45: |
Line 41: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{American English}} |
|
{{American English}} |
|
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot I |age=4 |units=months |dounreplied=yes}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 160K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 160K |
|
|counter = 2 |
|
|counter = 3 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|algo = old(120d) |
|
|algo = old(120d) |
| Line 55: |
Line 50: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion == |
|
== Nice article, but: == |
|
|
|
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: |
|
|
* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2023-04-08T08:08:08.461298 | PM md. 63.jpg --> |
|
|
Participate in the deletion discussion at the ]. —] (]) 08:08, 8 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Direct Impingement vs Internal Piston == |
|
1) So-called "AK-47" is last prototype of the AK, like "AK-46", which was previous.<br /> |
|
|
First mass-produced variant of the AK was called simply "AK", without any numbers in name.<br /> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2) The article was called "Comparison of the AK-47 and M16",<br /> |
|
The article incorrectly refers to the mechanism for the M16 platform as "direct |
|
|
impingement" multiple times, but does also call out this general misconception in one section. Is there any opposition to fixing the incorrect terminology? The operating mechanism is more correctly called "internal piston." ] (]) 18:46, 31 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
so I expected to see comparison of first modifications of AK and M16.<br /> |
|
|
But there is comparison of two weapon platforms - AK and AR15.<br /> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Well if no one has any objections I'm going to start fixing the incorrect descriptions. ] (]) 04:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
3) In first picture, showing length of the rifles, there are "AK-47" <br /> |
|
|
(not a prototype 1947, but first mass-produced version, adopted in 1951)<br /> |
|
|
and M-16A2, which was adopted in 1982. But then there is technical data of M-16A1, not M-16A2.<br /> |
|
|
Got to change picture or technical data.<br /> |
|
|
Plus, there are a lot of unofficial manufacturers of AK: China, USA, etc. <br /> |
|
|
The only time Americans faced real soviet AK was Vietnam (there was AKM actually - not AK). <br /> |
|
|
It would be good idea to compare Vietnam era M16A1 (1967) to AKM (1959). <br /> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Citation Convention Question, Can't Find Answer == |
|
4) In some sections of the article there are comparisons of modern M4A1, chambered with 5.56x45,<br /> |
|
|
and AK-103, chambered with old 7.62x39.<br /> |
|
|
The thing is, since 1974 7.62x39mm M43 is NOT a standard ammunition of AK, <br /> |
|
|
but 5.45x39mm, that exactly IS 5.56x45 counterpart. <br /> |
|
|
It has slightly more stopping power, slightly less range, slightly less penetration ability,<br /> |
|
|
about the same accuracy and about twice less recoil. <br /> |
|
|
Fully loaded ak74's 5.45x39mm 30rnd magazine weights about the same as m16's 5.56x45mm 30rnd stanag.<br /> |
|
|
The only users of 7.62x39 now are terrorists and some poor countries. <br /> |
|
|
Btw, AK-103 was designed mainly for export, main rifle of Russian infantry is AK-74M.<br /> |
|
|
So why not compare modern M4A1 to modern AK-74M? <br /> |
|
|
The answer is simple: AK-103, unlike AK-74M, has no advantages over M4A1 except reliability and price. <br /> |
|
|
Someone who wrote this simply wanted to show superiority of M4A1. <br /> |
|
|
The thing is: superiority of AR15 over AK is obvious and it's not necessary to make such an unfair comparison<br /> |
|
|
in order to make that superiority more significant. <br /> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just removed a repetitive citation from a bullet point list, since it's all the same source and left the one at the end of the sentence introducing the bullet points. This seems a lot cleaner, but I can't find a wiki style guide saying how to deal with violet point citations. Anyone know what the convention is? ] (]) 22:36, 17 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
5) Why to make such a nice article biased? It's pretty obvious that AR15 platform is superior to AK, <br /> |
|
|
so it's not necessary to bring here comparison of "AK-47" to M-16 and M-14.<br /> |
|
|
AK, as an intermediate weapon to lite assault rifle m16 and heavy battle rifle m14, <br /> |
|
|
has NO advantage over both of the rifles: if AK has an advantage over M16, then M14 has and advantage over both. <br /> |
|
|
This section of the article only shows superiority of US firearms to Soviet/Russian, <br /> |
|
|
but doesn't directly compares AR15 and AK. <br /> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== STG seems to be given way too much importance in this article == |
|
AR15 is my favorite weapon platform (especially love hk416 ;D). <br /> |
|
|
But this article makes me mad: guess it was written by M16 fans,<br /> |
|
|
who know about AR15 a lot, but don't know almost anything about AK. <br /> |
|
|
Nothing kills reputation the way unfair comparison do. <br /> |
|
|
Don't kill AR15's reputation as the most successful weapon system. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The AK was developed as an SMG and so the STG had relatively minor influence on it, especially given their wildly different mechanics and the M-16 was introduced in the 60's after pretty much everyone else had come up with an assault rifle, so it was a couple of generations removed from the STG being the shiniest AR on the block. Given that the STG wasn't nearly as influential on the AKM or the M16 as it was on say the G3, I really struggle to see why half the article comparing the two is about it. ] (]) 11:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
* Answer to question # 1...In the English speaking world the common name is AK-47. see Misplaced Pages 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.--] (]) 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? ] (]) 18:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Don't worry about User:BadMotherf...he has been indefinitely blocked from editing for trolling.--] (]) 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
(] (]) 03:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Accuracy of AK74, M16A2 == |
|
|
|
|
|
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? ] (]) 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.--] (]) 22:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Rifle Evaluation Study == |
|
|
|
|
|
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 Misplaced Pages isn't supposed to be biased. I think it should be removed. ] (]) 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. --] (]) 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? ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages. Also, remember ]. 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.--] (]) 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. ] (]) 13:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Conclusion == |
|
|
|
|
|
So M16 is ever better? The article must be translated to other languages. Every worm must know who's the power! |
|
|
] (]) 17:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Are you joking? Read the article again. There are pros and cons in both weapons. ] (]) 16:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== re-scoping of History section == |
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
|
|
|
|
== External links modified == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians, |
|
|
|
|
|
I have just modified {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] 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 {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}). |
|
|
|
|
|
{{sourcecheck|checked=false}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 17:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC) |
|
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
The article incorrectly refers to the mechanism for the M16 platform as "direct
impingement" multiple times, but does also call out this general misconception in one section. Is there any opposition to fixing the incorrect terminology? The operating mechanism is more correctly called "internal piston." Jasavina (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
I just removed a repetitive citation from a bullet point list, since it's all the same source and left the one at the end of the sentence introducing the bullet points. This seems a lot cleaner, but I can't find a wiki style guide saying how to deal with violet point citations. Anyone know what the convention is? Jasavina (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
The AK was developed as an SMG and so the STG had relatively minor influence on it, especially given their wildly different mechanics and the M-16 was introduced in the 60's after pretty much everyone else had come up with an assault rifle, so it was a couple of generations removed from the STG being the shiniest AR on the block. Given that the STG wasn't nearly as influential on the AKM or the M16 as it was on say the G3, I really struggle to see why half the article comparing the two is about it. HamNCheeseSandwich (talk) 11:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Referencing and citation: criterion met
.svg){kind=small}
.svg)
.svg){kind=small}
