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.

[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

[Michael Barnes]

I watched a "Discovery-Times" program about Afghanistan. In many regions of Afghanistan, there are shops that turn out AK's by the goat-load. I can't see Iraq being much different.

[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

[King Prout]

that second consideration applies if and only if your opfor gives a damn about living through an engagement or saving wounded comrades. jihadis may not fit that particular bill.

[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]

[Paleo Conservative]

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

By better do you mean bigger and heavier? I think I read an article stating that due to improvements in marksmanship by US soldiers, the Army would rather have a weapon with bigger rounds that can stop an enemy with one round.

[SJSAMPLE]

Tumbling ?
Please don't tell my you've bought into this.
The 55gr M103 and 62gr M855 are ballistically stable out to 800+ meters. There never is, and never was, any "tumbling".

Within appropriate ranges (300m and less), the M16 rounds will fragment much better than the 7.62mm alternatives, causing significant damage.

[SJSAMPLE]

Holy Shit.
After "tumbling", this is the worst poorly defined myth.
The 5.56 round was designed to fragment, EXPLOSIVELY.
There was never any ingtent to "wound".

[SJSAMPLE]

Closer ranges are more common, even for snipers.
Most combat engagments are less than 100m.
Nobody wants to clear a room with an M14.

[SJSAMPLE]

Nice AIRSOFT pic. ;)
The M-14 has much more mystique since it was one of the shortest-serving military weapons in US history. Lousy ergonimics for urban fighting, and that's where the M-4/M-16 have the advantage. Controllable with a good rate of fire.

[King Prout]

at least some soldiers are getting their expressed wish for a bigger round fulfilled: 6.8mm SPC review and "6.8x43mm SPC Cartridge for Urban Warfare CQB and Short-to-Medium-Range Sniping" and, from our good buddies at Barrett Arms, 6.8mm SPC Upper Receiver retrofit kits and rifles

[Ursus arctos horribilis]

The AK-47 and it's variants are popular for a very simple reason, it simply works, each and every time.

Given the choice for a weapon where little or no maintenance is available, under severe adverse climatic and battlefield conditions, I would take it over any weapon in the world.

[Conservative Firster]

McMILLAN'S MFS-14 MODULAR TACTICAL SYSTEM

[M1911A1]

I've always thought that an assault rifle chambered for something along the lines of the 6.5mm Swedish Mauser round would be just the ticket. Easy to shoot and penetration all out of proportion to the recoil involved.

The problem with bad guys in combat is that they tend to hide behind things...it's nice to be able to shoot them anyway.

[Ursus arctos horribilis]

After Mauser sued and won, even in WW 1, the US was still paying patent royalties for copying the Mauser 98 action in the 03. Almost all sporting bolt action rifles produced to this day, still utilized the Mauser turn bolt system.