Actually, most of the Iraq war engagements that are going on now are at short ranges, where the long-range accuracy of the AK isn’t an issue. Because it’s an urban environment with many things to hide behind, penetrating power tends to be more crucial than accuracy. Even the thin sheetmetal of a modern car can help to defend an attacker from the relatively lightweight 5.56, where the heavier 7.62 in the AK will tear through it and kill the attacker.
In an urban combat situation, you want the heaviest slug you can manage, coupled with the shortest barrel possible. This gives the soldier both maneuverability and penetrating power. By moving to the M16, the Iraqi army is adopting a longer rifle with a lighter slug.
The M16 is a good weapon for combat out in the open countryside, but that’s not where the war in Iraq is being fought. It’s a weapon that was designed to fight against the Soviets across the fields of Europe, not the Mohammed twins firing out of a moving car 50 feet away.
We may be talking in the same general direction. I recognize the need for a shorter-barreled .30 calibre rifle.
I’m not certain the M16 was designed to fight the Soviets in the open fields of Europe. The brass at the time (late 50’s) was against its adoption. I think it was the beneficiary of the Air Force looking for a shorter, lighter weapon for some of its personnel and the convergence of the need for the same type of weapon for what was then the new concept in the Army of airmobiity. As I remeber, the 1st Air Cav was the first major unit deployed in the summer of ‘65 with the AR15/M16 as its standard issue weapon.
For what it’s worth, Mauser, Browning, Garand, Kalashinikov, and Eugene Stoner were the firearms deisgners of all times.