In Which Mikhail Kalashnikov Emerges to Hock his Invention

Never saw it happen, myself. The only ones I saw were captured and on their way to the armory, to be transferred to Iraqi army units.

I would check out the Israeli Galill, designed for the desert and arid climes.

If I were deploying over, I'd get myself a sniper rifle, an M-14, and a Galill.

And of course a .45.

I haven't been to Iraq but if I was there and I could shoot .30 instead .223, I think I would.

""In Vietnam, American soldiers threw away their M-16 rifles and used (Kalashnikov) AK-47s from dead Vietnamese soldiers, with bullets they captured."

This was true in the unit I was in on my second tour. But only after someone in another unit discovered a football field of weapons, ammo and supplies. It did the job better, (no jams, better shooting through trees, etc.) but the main reason is that it sounded like...well, an AK. That was reason enough to use it, because it didn't give away the fact that Americans were around as soon as you pulled the trigger.

RE-Iraq, I read a post where it said that at least one Marine thought that the 5.56 sucked, no penetration, no knock down power and too many jams. He said if he had to go back he wanted to take an M14, a 45cal pistol and something else I don't remember. He also didn't have too many good words about the "Saw".

Sorry, I can't reference the link.

Papa Ray
West Texas
USA

I think this is the site with the letter you referenced Papa Ray;

http://gmapalumni.org/chapomatic/?p=1325

I hate that poodleshooter myowndangself.

Go see "Lord of War".

The M-16 is quite a bit different (and better) that it was in Vietnam.

I seriously doubt any more than a handfull of our guysare using AK's, simply because they can't mount the advanced optical sights we use.

Don't forget the Galil itself is based on the AK! I'm no fan of the M16, and Kalishnikov certainly has a lot to be proud of, but he strikes me as being a little over-the-top in his claims. Certainly, it's happened, but not universally.

There was an article about the M16 v. AK on the Israeli Special Forces website. They said the current M16 was far superior even in sandy conditions. They also said that the Galill Dan mentioned was useless and worse than a standard AK-47. Probably a case of the Israeli government trying to subsidise their own industry with American money.

I prefer the M4 version of the 16. I also like the Korean variant which compines the receiver of the AK with the magazine and lowers of a 16. It's called a DR200 in civilian world and it is very reliable. To my mind, the AK simply provides a lot of "bang" without much precision.

I prefer the M4 version of the 16. I also like the Korean variant which combines the receiver of the AK with the magazine and lowers of a 16. It's called a DR200 in civilian world and it is very reliable. To my mind, the AK simply provides a lot of "bang" without much precision.

jim b: Thanks for the link. It's a really interesting article and surprising in some of its conclusions.

Hugo: A friend of mine was an Israeli paratrooper and served in the late 70's. He said he much preferred the M-16 to the AK-47, because of the weight. He never mentioned M-16 malfunctions.

Hugo, thanks for that heads up about the Galil. I hadn't heard that before about that weapon.

Learn something new every day.

So OK, if I were deploying over, I would take a sniper rifle, an M-14, and now........a shotgun.

And of course, a .45.

What about the FN/FAL?

That worked well in Rhodesia, arid clime there too, lots of dust.

And I think you can get a version with more oomph than the 5.56.

And Mark, I don't think I would take weight into consideration. I would be willing to carry the additional pounds for the striking and penetrating power.

Our fathers had no problem lugging around muskets and Springfields, so we shouldn't be bellyaching about these weapons.

The South Africans developed a weapon similar to the Galil, which they used extensively in arid climes, from Angola, Nambia, Bhotswana, to Mozambique.

So I would check that weapon out too.

I think they also used the FN/FAL too though.

I would try to find out what the SADF "recces" use. And check that out.

Hey. Your butt is going to be on the line, so it would be time well spent selecting the right weapon.

The principle concept behind the assault rifle is simply that it should be a controllable automatic weapon, thus increasing the firepower and effectiveness of the average infantryman. In 1983, after the M-16 had been significantly improved over the original, the Army converted the new standard M-16 into a non-automatic, burst mode rifle. While relieving some minor logistical problems, this substantially served to defeat the basic purpose of an assault rifle. It certainly decreased what had initially been a very considerable empowerment of the infantryman, realized when the Army dumped the absurd M-14, which was simply an M-1 with a BAR magazine (even an NFL linebacker could not hold down an M-14 on full automatic fire). The M-16 is certainly superior to the AK-47. However, the Army has so degraded the performance of the M-16, by converting it into a burst mode weapon, that it can clearly no longer be classified as a true assault rifle. This, at least, seems clear to the Marines, if not to the Army command.

Pat

Pat has applied impeccable logic to the problem.

I would have opted for the M-14 for accurate placement of heavier rounds, NOT for the placement of an enormous amount of fire.

I don't think that our guys over there are in too many situations where they have to achieve fire supremacy over an enemy. But accurate shots, at distance, or at enemies behind slight cover, that might be called for.

One more thing, the M-14 is a heavier weapon to hold, and in those rare situations where you might be face to face with some dirtball, a blow from the butt of an M-14 to the head is going to knock a guy over. Not an attribute to be dismissed out of hand.

I think it might be time to formulate a new weapon for the combat infantryman.

The M-16 is rather old.

Any of you folks have thoughts on the M-240?

Jesus christ this is an old topic but I need to comment anyways.

The M14 is in the top three best battle rifles ever concieved. To start out with, if you get hit with one of its bullets, your dead, not just firing on your back. Second of all, it has been made into an EBR with RIS rails, so you can mount anything you want on it, even an M203. And finally, the second most efficient muzzle break in the world is that of the M14 and its just as controllable as an AK or even the M468.

On that note, the next weapon is the M468 and HK416. No argument here, they are simply the best. SOCOM's weapon of choice will be the FN SCAR.

A musical about the witches from The Wizard of Oz breaks West End box office records, its producers say...

I prefer the ak 47 myself and I have fired all 3 weapons (m16 a1, m16 a2 and the ak 47).I love the larger round, stopping power and most of all the reliability! I had my 16's jam on me in the military (can't say I would want to go to war with a weapon that would possibly jam on me.
Bryce

Hi cool site amigo12!

qsdbixu uarzq ghxys mksczxdf wvqbfjmkd whlasefut zcbo

qsdbixu uarzq ghxys mksczxdf wvqbfjmkd whlasefut zcbo

qsdbixu uarzq ghxys mksczxdf wvqbfjmkd whlasefut zcbo

Hi cool site friend!

Norton 360 Beta for Windows Vista..

Hello makakas!!!
> [url=So many spammers here :(
][/url]

Hello makakas!!!
> [url=So many spammers here :(
][/url]

I personally own an AK-47, and have shot a semi auto variant of the M-16. The AK-47 doesnt have near the accuracy as the M-16, because its built looser. But being tighter causes the M-16 to jam...