Yes, you have smoother reloads, yes, you have better accuracy, yes, you have lower recoil.
But to put that another way, the AK platform with good ammo can do head shots at 200 yards and center of mass shots to 300 yards all day long if the user is capable, the trigger is good. Or, even further if the shooter is good with wind and elevation. Marines and SF folks are serious riflemen. I would say it's a safe assumption that Marines and SF folks with AK's would defeat rebels with M16's for a number of reasons, particularly if they were well practiced with them and made sure they had good ones with good ammo.
Anyone who takes an objective look at the AK platform will admit that the problems often lie in crappy commie quality control, and crappy commie ammo. When you take high quality ammo, and a reliable AK with a good barrel and a good trigger, it ends up being a very capable system.
Agree with #1 paragraph.
Disagree with #2. While the generalization is correct that SF and Marines are indeed very serious riflemen, the ballistics of the 7.62x39 at range are vastly inferior to the ballistics of the 5.56 @ 200m+. Furthermore, I hear a lot of crap all the time about how AK's are "reasonably accurate" to 200m, and can repeatedly headshot from said range, then every individual I have gone to the range with to see said demonstration drastically fails, popping maybe 1 out of 4-5 rounds intentionally aimed @ 200m onto target.
Then I can pull out my AR and with irons go 5 for 5 on the same target.
1 round on target is far superior to 15 sprayed rounds to land 1-2.
Modern combat scenarios, ESPECIALLY urban warfare, preclude the spray and pray methodology. The commonality of the AK in conflicts does not speak towards any sorts of superiority in the firearm, merely that it was mass produced.
While I believe that it is the better weapon within 50-100m (the AK), beyond that, it's offset bolt, enormous round with poor coefficient, and much larger recoil play their hand.
If SHTF, I would highly prefer a rifle I could put on point every time, all the time, from any engagement angle or distance. If said hypothetical fantasy shtf scenario evolved, I could take solace in knowing that I could hunt light game with the AR too, and actually have a chance of hitting it, instead of spooking it.
As to the effectiveness of the M16 in role reversal, I have to vehemently disagree there as well. Part of the problem with the Fedayeen, Republican Guard, and the Taliban, is their lack of proficient rifleman skills or combat drill. Pair this with an already inaccurate firearm that you intend to use from ambush sites after launching a mortar attack or IED from distances of 100+ meters, and you have a recipe for failure.
If you handed same group an AR platform weapon, they would drastically increase their ability to hit their targets, even if they did not practice properly/religously to do so. "Inshalla" would have a higher success rate than it does at the moment.
I disagree with #3 as well, in that while it is a reliable system, it is its sheer production numbers that play a dominant role in it's success. Not it's ability as a platform.
If the M16 was mass produced and handed out to rebel countries, we would all be sitting here talking about how "capable a platform it is and how battle proven it is" in the same vein that we discuss the AK.
All because rebels dump thirty rounds of 7.62 at each other, scoring maybe 5 hits.
