Now that my internets are more faster, I can elaborate on my vote:
The only real strengths of the AK-47 are that it is cheap and indestructible. It's the weapon of choice for sand monkeys who are too dumb to properly clean their guns, too poor to buy a gun that was made more recently than the stone age, and have such shitty aim that the Kalashnikov's lack of accuracy isn't really an issue.
The M16, meanwhile, has aged pretty well. The initial jamming problems with the XM16E1 have disappeared, and the M16 is now considered very reliable. The M16 is substantially lighter and more accurate than the AK-47, and can be fitted with grenade-launchers, flashlights, laser pointers, scopes, silencers, whatever. The versatility of the M16 is complemented by the versatility of its ammo. Despite complaints about its stopping power, the 5.56mm can destroy cinderblocks and leave multiple exit wounds, and is
not something that you want to get hit by unless you're wearing body armor (in which case even the Soviet round would leave nothing more than a bruise). In the event that the first round fails to drop the target, squeezing off a second or third is no big deal: the barrel of the M16 is directly in line with the buttstock, which, combined with the low recoil of the 5.56mm round, virtually eliminates muzzle climb (thus improving accuracy even further). Furthermore, the light weight of the 5.56 allows more ammo to be carried, thus ensuring that you have those extra rounds when you need them. The AK-47, by contrast, is completely unusable in full auto unless what you really need is a shotgun.
Basically, the M16 is designed to be able to spray a target with lead from a half-mile away with godlike precision, whereas the AK-47 just yells "Hulk smash!" and hopes that the target gets in its way.
You also have to take skill into account... and body armor, for penetration, ammo type... you may end up asking "M1-A1 versus a Kia Spectra"
I don't know why people still keep on talking about the Ak-47 when there's AK-74's and AK-103's etc.
Indeen; the M16 and AK-47 are a generation apart, and are not really comparable. A FAIR comparison would have been between the M16 and the AK-74m, or the HK416 and AK-101. However, I was not interested in a fair comparison
It's interesting to me, from a UK perspective, that when we had the problems with our 5.56mm rifle, we considered both the M16 (already in use with our SF) and the AK family. But - sadly in my view - domestic political pressure with regard to 'British jobs for British workers' (!) meant that rather than spend a few million replacing every SA-80 with an off-the-shelf M16, they decided to spend more millions upgrading our SA-80.
SA-80? Don't you mean L85?
Incidentally, my major complaint about our SA-80, and the reason why I'd prefer either an M16 or an AK
You don't want an M16 or AK. You want a Barrett REC7
is the fact that due to its bullpup design (magazine and working parts rearward of the pistol-grip) it cannot be fired left-handed. I still get marksman scores firing right-handed, but I'd love to get back to a left-handed weapon.
Being a bullpup rifle has nothing to do with ambidexterity. The Steyr AUG, for example, is an ambidextrous bullpup design.