Kalashnikov says Iraq shows his gun is still best

Reuters ^ | 4/17/06

[Paddlefish]

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Mikhail Kalashnikov, designer of the world's most popular assault rifle, says that U.S. soldiers in Iraq are using his invention in preference to their own weapons, proving that his gun is still the best.

"Even after lying in a swamp you can pick up this rifle, aim it and shoot. That's the best job description there is for a gun. Real soldiers know that and understand it," the 86-year-old gunmaker told a weekend news conference in Moscow.

"In Vietnam, American soldiers threw away their M-16 rifles and used (Kalashnikov) AK-47s from dead Vietnamese soldiers, with bullets they captured. That was because the climate is different to America, where M-16s may work properly," he said.

"Look what's happening now: every day on television we see that the Americans in Iraq have my machine guns and assault rifles in their armored vehicles. Even there American rifles don't work properly."

Some U.S. troops in Iraq have reportedly taken to using AK-47s in preference to the standard-issue M-16. The Cold War-era gun, renowned for its durability and easy handling, is plentiful in Iraq.

[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.

[oolatec]

The guy is right. The AK is so much better.

[King Prout]

...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

[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.

[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.

[umgud]

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.

[holymoly]

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.

[Hoodat]

[ReignOfError]

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.

[billorites]

Kalashnikov has earned the right to brag and opine.

[Doomonyou]

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.

[Sangey]

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

[Drew68]

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.

[Michael Barnes]

MMMMmmmmmm

Scope or no, fantastic rifle.