Skip to comments.
Kalashnikov says Iraq shows his gun is still best
Reuters ^
| 4/17/06
Posted on 04/17/2006 3:44:47 PM PDT by Paddlefish
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-120 next last
I don't know anything about this, but I thought I'd post it for comments from those more knowledgeable.
To: Paddlefish
The M-16 would be superior, if chambered for a better round.
2
posted on
04/17/2006 3:46:59 PM PDT
by
MeanWestTexan
(Many at FR would respond to Christ "Darn right, I'll cast the first stone!")
To: Paddlefish
That was because the climate is different to America - so true, whereas the weather in Siberia and Iraq are very comparable. what a load of commie bull
To: Paddlefish
Sounds like a load of crap to me. Where do you get ammo? You just walk up to the armory and say, "Hey, can I get a couple boxes of AK-47 rounds?" I don't think so.
Most likely what he's seeing is Iraqi soldiers and police and mistaking them for US troops. I would then to think that if a soldier or Marine decided to go on patrol with a non-issue weapon they'd get their ass chewed-and then some.
4
posted on
04/17/2006 3:49:32 PM PDT
by
oldleft
To: Paddlefish
The M-4 is WAY less reliable than the AK, for all its improvements over the original M-16.
OTOH, The M-4 trigger is WAY better, and taking the M-4 off of safety does not issue a hard-to-miss, CLACK! sound effect that gets the user killed before an ambush. Also, the sights of the M-4 are clearly superior.
Next, dumping the M-4 mag does not require the base hand to leave the pistol grip. But as far as reliability goes, I'm am afraid this report is completely true.
Bear in mind that Kalashnikov is kind of ticked, cuz he never really made money off his design --it was basically stolen and copied by EVERYONE.
5
posted on
04/17/2006 3:49:47 PM PDT
by
gaijin
To: Paddlefish
Our company had several situations where it took additional squeezes on the trigger to eliminate threats. It has to do with putting the bad guys down. M-16 takes 2 three round burst to drop someone, with the tiny bullets.
The AK is a larger round, that causes more damage in shorter range engagements. The M-16 round works best at longer ranges when it starts to tumble. In most engagements we are well within 150 meters. The round basically zips through them.
6
posted on
04/17/2006 3:51:07 PM PDT
by
SFC Chromey
(We are at war with Islamofascism)
The guy is right. The AK is so much better.
7
posted on
04/17/2006 3:51:18 PM PDT
by
oolatec
To: MeanWestTexan
...and if its gas system contained a buffer piston instead of venting directly into the bolt/bolt-carrier/breech interface...
...and if it wasn't built to such close design tolerances that a single grain of sand can jam the forward action of the BCU...
etc...
the '16 as it finally came out was not one of Stoner's better ideas, IMO
8
posted on
04/17/2006 3:52:39 PM PDT
by
King Prout
(The UN 1967 Outer Space Treaty is bad for America and bad for humanity - DUMP IT.)
To: gaijin
I forgot to mention that K. is basing the balance of his complaints against the M-16 with the variant that the US first settled on, and at this time they were using a type of ammo that used surplus powder that contributed to ALL KINDS of fouling.
Most of the problem cleared up when they changed the ammo for a type with cleaner-burning powder.
But the real evidence that his complaints still carry some validity is that you see more and more troops seeking to carry the M-14.
9
posted on
04/17/2006 3:53:38 PM PDT
by
gaijin
To: Paddlefish
To: Paddlefish
I don't know anything about this, but I thought I'd post it for comments from those more knowledgeable.I've read articles/news reports in which troops in Iraq criticized the 5.56 Nato round, saying it often takes 6,7, or 8 hits to put a Jihadist down for good (Obviously, I can't vouch for the veracity of these reports.).
I believe some Marines are now carrying the M-14 (7.62x51/.308 Winchester). IMO That speaks volumes.
Remember, our armed forced are prohibited the use of expanding/hollow point ammo. .223 ball doesn't make a very big hole.
The Hague Convention of 1899, Declaration III, prohibits the use in warfare of bullets which easily expand or flatten in the body.
11
posted on
04/17/2006 3:55:32 PM PDT
by
holymoly
(Dick DeVos for MI Governor: http://www.devosforgovernor.com/)
To: gaijin
The M14 outshines the AK and the M16 in a lot of situations in Iraq, where it is common to need more power at longer ranges.
12
posted on
04/17/2006 3:57:17 PM PDT
by
umgud
(12 gauge, the original pepper spray)
To: oldleft
Sounds like a load of crap to me. Where do you get ammo? You just walk up to the armory and say, "Hey, can I get a couple boxes of AK-47 rounds?" I don't think so.Our armed forces are blowing up arms stashes all the time. I believe a few weeks ago someone posted an article which stated 30,000 rounds of small arms ammo in Iraq had been destroyed.
Our troops would have no problem finding 7.62x39 in Iraq or Afghanistan.
13
posted on
04/17/2006 4:00:13 PM PDT
by
holymoly
(Dick DeVos for MI Governor: http://www.devosforgovernor.com/)
To: Paddlefish
14
posted on
04/17/2006 4:00:45 PM PDT
by
Hoodat
( Silly Dems, AYBABTU.)
To: holymoly
Remember, our armed forced are prohibited the use of expanding/hollow point ammo. .223 ball doesn't make a very big hole.That's part humanitarian and part practical. If you kill an enemy outright, you've taken one soldier off the field. If you wound him, you've taken out of the fight him and the two comrades it will take to carry him to safety.
To: Paddlefish
Kalashnikov has earned the right to brag and opine.
16
posted on
04/17/2006 4:07:20 PM PDT
by
billorites
(freepo ergo sum)
To: SFC Chromey
The round basically zips through them.That's the point. It was designed to wound and not kill. Wounded soldiers require other soldiers to get them off the battlefield and out of the fight. Plus 300 rounds of .223 weighs about the same as 100 rounds of .308 ammo so you can pack more.
17
posted on
04/17/2006 4:10:20 PM PDT
by
Doomonyou
(FR doesn't suffer fools lightly.)
To: oolatec
Please consider the purpose of the AK versus the M16.
These weapons are not designed for same type of soldier.
The soviet army for whom the weapon was originally designed needed a weapon that did not require intensive technical maintenance and could be used by minimally trained conscripts to produce a great volume of fire.
It is far less accurate than the M16. It is not as good
as the M16 in most aspects except for two: Easier to maintain and easier to mass produce.
The AK was designed for those not well trained and not well supported.
trained for maintaining complex weapons. The M16 is a better weapon but it needs more maintenance. If you want better weapon performance you need M16 with WELL-TRAINED troops. Jihad monkeys without much time to train would quickly find an M16 about as useful as 2x4. Well-trained US Soldier or Marine w/an M16 is a superior warrior with a superior weapon.
Hello Freepers long time no post sorry Sangey
Buddha Bless the USA
18
posted on
04/17/2006 4:10:24 PM PDT
by
Sangey
(Buddha bless the USA)
To: oldleft
Sounds like a load of crap to me. Where do you get ammo? You just walk up to the armory and say, "Hey, can I get a couple boxes of AK-47 rounds?" Pretty much. The military maintains a large supply of captured enemy ammo. Keep in mind, we are equipping Iraqi security forces with 7.62x39. As far as soldiers getting their asses chewed for using captured weaponry, that would be up to individual commands. Some commands might frown on it while others condone it. If you see your officers patrolling with Kalashnikovs, that is a good sign that they aren't going to be too bothered if you brandish one yourself.
Using captured weapons goes way back. I've seen photos of American soldiers in WWII using German MP-40s.
19
posted on
04/17/2006 4:10:38 PM PDT
by
Drew68
To: gaijin
MMMMmmmmmm
Scope or no, fantastic rifle.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-120 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson