Posted on 11/10/2009 8:07:04 AM PST by usalady
It is being said that the Afghanistan insurgents are using weapons previously supplied to the Talaban by the United States government as well as those acquired during present battles.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
Discussion on video
Going from an AK to an M-16 or any variation thereof is a downgrade in my opinion. The AK is more reliable under trying environments and carries a better stopping power.
Where’s Ironman when you need him?
I’ll go for “Only Hits Count” for a thousand, Alex.
The AK is a serviceable weapon, but it lacks in a number of areas.
They probably bought it from the new Pakistani government; you know, the one Senator Kerry flew to Pakistan at the last election to support instead of Mushareff....say, didn’t Mushareff lose and since then haven’t we been worried about the Pakistan Government falling?
The M-16 has superior accuracy, ergonomics, and is
just as reliable as the AK with proper cleaning and
lubrication. The available accessories such as rail systems, optical sights, suppressors, etc. far outweigh the available accessories for the AK system.
The AK is a fine rifle for untrained peasants,conscripts, & point & shoot terrorists, but for a modern Army the M-16 is the best.
Not in my experience. Now, don’t get me wrong the M-16 is OK, but I can hit with an AK just as well as a M-16 and the AK fires dirtier than the M-16. I do care for my weapons, but in the fight sometimes it is hard to stop for cleaning.
There have been many, many weapon failures during firefights in Iraq and A-gan.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.