[Paddlefish]

I don't know anything about this, but I thought I'd post it for comments from those more knowledgeable.

[MeanWestTexan]

The M-16 would be superior, if chambered for a better round.

[SF Republican]

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

[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.

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.

[gaijin]

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.

[SFC Chromey]

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.

[randyclark]

ping

[holymoly]

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.

[Hoodat]

[billorites]

Kalashnikov has earned the right to brag and opine.

[Michael Goldsberry]

I don't know anything about this...

He's pretty much right. The AK is about as simple as it can get, plus it boasts a heavier round that the M-16. (Much slower, too.)

At closer ranges, the AK is better.

For sniping, however, high velocity is key.

[Conservative Firster]

M1A/M14 In Action in Iraq

February, 2006 - U. S. Army soldier in Iraq with M14 rifle

[xsrdx]

Already Posted

[reasonisfaith]

But Mikhail, we're still winning the war. Fifty to one. Or is it a hundred to one.

And we drop the enemy with .223s.

[reasonisfaith]

the 223 is as lethal but takes about 15 minutes longer

[M1911A1]

I have to agree that on the whole the AK is the better weapon in an environment like Iraq. The round is better for the type of combat that occurs most frequently, and it is more reliable.

In every other aspect, as pointed out above, the M-16 family of weapons is better: Accuracy, sights, ergonomics.

In a firefight, however, reliability trumps almost all, and power is a close second.

As to the climate being different, Mr. K has it almost right, but perhaps his English skills are not up to the task. If he meant to say that the AK-47 is less prone to malfunction in that damnable sandbox, he is right on the money.

Anybody who thinks that better maintenance of the M-16 will make up the difference has never tried to keep sand out of a weapon in Iraq.

I would not want to carry an AK unless every good guy in the area knew I had it. The sound of an AK-47 being fired when you don't expect it is likely to attract fatal attention.

US small arms procurement has always had a prejudice against flat out copying better enemy weapons...otherwise we would have been using the MG-42 after WWII and the M-60 would never have been adopted.

[Thunder90]

[Cheburashka]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v99/smallestminority/Kalashnikitty-boy.jpg

[KarinG1]

AK's are good, dependable weapons which fire a considerably larger caliber round than the M-16. The original M-16 was quite buggy, but I've cycled thousands of rounds through my Colt M-16 A-1 and it has never jammed once. I keep it very clean and don't live in a swamp or a desert, which probably makes a difference. Still, I have no complaints.

[Cyber Liberty]

He's correct. It is a better gun.

[I got the rope]

I just have one thing to say Mr. AK...why does your design look like the German "Sturmgewehr"?