Eugene Stoner versus Mikhail Kalashnikov

There are those out there who hold the Kalashnikov in high regard, especially in comparison to the US M16/M4. The myth of Kalashnikov superiority is anything but a myth. It is in fact a very crappy weapon – for various reasons that I will discuss later. The belief that the M16/M4 is an expensive but fragile weapon is also an unfound myth. It is true that Kalashnikov (the inventor, not the weapon) was an able weapon designer, but he was not superior to Eugene Stoner (the father of the M16/M4). Kalashnikov designed a weapon for an ill-trained conscripted army. For that purpose, the AK47 was and is a superb weapon. Stoner designed a weapon for a professional army. Any professional soldier would prefer the M16/M4 family over the Kalashnikovs.

Let take a look at professional armies across the globe. The British Army service rifle is the S-80, but their elite Special Air Service (SAS) used the US M4. The Australian service rifle is the Steyr AUG, but their SAS also used the M4. The Israel Defense Force various special units also use the M4. Most Western Special Operation Forces used M4.

Having handled both an M16 and AK47, I understand why the M16 is a better weapon. My favorite feature of the M16/M4 is the functionality. It is more functional than any weapon out there. I will ignore accuracy because it is an accepted fact that an M16/M4 is far more accurate than an AK47.

(1) First, the fire selector is conveniently located above the pistol grip. Shooter can switch from safe to semi and back almost immediately with his thumb. In a place like Iraq, the ability to put a weapon in action quickly is highly prized.

(2) Second, the iron sight is natural. The rear sight is closer to the shooter eye. The smaller hole in the rear sight allows accurate firing at long range. The larger hole in the rear sight allows quick reflexive shooting at close range.

(3) Third, the weapon can put back in action quickly went the last round is fire. When the last round is fire, the bolt is held at the rear. The magazine release is conveniently located above at the magazine well, next to the shooter supporting hand (I hold my weapon at the magazine well). One press by the thumb and the magazine fall off by itself. Grab a full magazine, put it in the magazine well, press the bolt release, and the weapon is ready for action. The sequence just described can be done in a second. And this is done without the shooter having to take his eye off the weapon sight or his firing hand off the pistol grip.

How does the AK47 function compare to the M16/M4 family.

(1) First, the fire selector is located on the right, below the ejector port. One has to take his hand off from pistol grip, locates the selector switch, the turn it to auto. Yes, the AK setting is safe to auto then to semi – only untrained conscript fire his weapon on auto. It is inaccurate and wasted a whole lot of ammo. The shooter then has to put his hand back into the pistol grip to fire. The lost time in getting the weapon in action is the different between shooting the opponent and getting shot by the opponent.

(2) The sight on the AK47 sucks. The rear sight is far away from the shooting eye and is not very natural. Furthermore, one cannot switch between distance shooting and reflexive shooting.

(3) Now if one run out of ammo on an AK47, one better finds a good cover to hide for a few minutes; because that is how long it takes to reload the weapon. The magazine released is behind the magazine. One has to press the level; and at the same time one has to physically pull the magazine out. Reload a fresh magazine take as long, because one has to rock the magazine in place. Then one has to take one right hand off the pistol grip and physically charge the weapon with the charging handle on the right side below the ejector port, since the bold does not stay at the rear after the last shot. Reload an AK47’s magazine requires three extra motions and five times longer compare to the M16 or M4.

The only advantage the AK47 has over the M16/M4 is reliability. This only matter if a soldier does not maintain his weapon. And the advantage is only slight. The M16/M4 is not as fragile or sensitive as some believed. For the whole year in Iraq, my issued M16 never malfunctioned. And I had an old wore out National Guard M16. With a proper cleaning, an M16 will last for two to three days. I did not clean my weapon everyday. I cleaned it every other day. Every time, I left the base, I test-fired it. And we went to the range quite often. And the faithful M16 never let me down. And the AK47 is not as robust as some claimed. I have seen AK47 jammed because the owner (an Iraqi National Guard soldier) did not clean it. Even the AK47 needs cleaning.

Therefore I am glad that the US Army discontinued the XM8 program intends to replace the M16/M4. The XM8 is not better than the current service rifle. It is lighter and more reliable, but it still lacks many functions that make the M16/M4 my favorite weapon. Reloading magazine is still slower on the XM8 than the M16/M4. The XM8 bolt does not stay to the rear at the last shot. And the magazine release button is as clumsy as the AK47.

The US Army should stay with the M16/M4, however make more M4. I wish I had an M4 instead of an M16. It is shorter and is better to fire in confined space. With a few improvements, the M4 would be a perfect weapon. If the magazine well mouth is flare, like the H&K UMP, it would speed up reloading under combat stress. And perhaps it is time we go for better round, like the 6.8mm SPC or the 6.5mm Grendel. Currently, I am in favor of the 6.8mm SPC because the round fits in the current M16/M4 magazine. And switching to a 6.8 SPC is much cheaper than developing a new rifle. All we need to manufacture is the upper receiver.