[quote=@idlehands]
<Snipped quote by HeySeuss>

Impressive though, I do remember hearing how the M16 was really touchy and prone to jamming vs is the superior AK 47 that is truly all weather and retard proof. 
[/quote]

The Army insisted on a type of powder that was not workable in the M-16 and that counted for a majority of the problems, though a chrome-lined bore to prevent barrel corrosion and a cleaner, less fouling sort of primer were also problems. Very early on, a forward assist was added to allow for the operator to chamber a round in case of feeding difficulty, but that wasn't much in the face of the fundamental problem -- the army wanted to slot in a type of ammo that was not going to work in the gun.

Not only that, magazines were inferior and the springs weren't strong enough to feed well. 

In ideal conditions, the M-16 does a good job, though it is a precision instrument that assumes a trained operator that maintains his weapon. The AK is designed for East Bloc and Soviet conscripts with minimal training to be durable and keep working in the field. Accuracy is sacrificed, ergonomics are not a priority and so forth. The weapon is designed to function while pretty dirty, for example. 

Different design philosophies at work, basically. In this case, the Soviet bureaucracy managed to produce an excellent weapon and not fuck it up with insane demands predicated on unrealistic expectations, such as trying to force a gun that's already been designed to fire a different type of ammo without redesigning it. The ammo is cheaper to redesign and produce, which is what happened -after- a lot of US troops encountered reliability problems with their weapons. It took Congress to basically start demanding the heads (and careers) of responsible parties to make that happen. Of course, back then, congress had a lot more veterans in the ranks too.