Red Room? Militaryforge: Iraqi Army Ditches AK47 for M16...

OK M16 haters, according to Military.com, the Iraqi Army has decided to chuck the AK47 in favor of the M16.

[edit: WHOOPS! Almost left out the story! ]

So what are everyone's thoughts? Have the Iraqis changed your view that the AK47 is superior in desert conditions? Or is this just a case of the Iraqis wanting to be like America and they won't be able to maintain them?

If it IS a case of the Iraqis wanting to be like America, doesn't that fly in the face of what the media has been telling us--that the average Iraqi hates Americans?

Or is this just the work of the eevil eeeevil Dick Cheney and Haliburton, who've forced the Iraqis to buy M16s and are somehow going to turn a hefty profit on it and leave them screwed?

I don't know. Are M16's better? I admit I'm not a gun afficianado, but I do recall hearing about M16s failing, and U.S. troops using AK-47s because they were so simple they hardly failed, if ever. I'm sure technology has improved significantly since then, but has the U.S. fixed the problem with the M16? So for me, it's whatever works best.

J.

Or, if you wanted to use your brain, you could've just reasoned that since we dump arms on our various project states, it's a lot cheaper for them to just use our surplus rifles.

Well, they are lighter and the ammo is lighter. From what I have seen those Iraqis are smaller in stature, so this might we a reason also the lighter the ammo the more you can have one you at one time.

So, they are buying the crappiest assault rifle of them all from the 'liberators'? Certainly, the M16 just won the contest

Or you can run your mouth, try to troll and pray nobody calls you on your shit.

Ack! Girls crying... Overloads... Chivalry sensors...

*crashes*

I'm cynical about women's tears and find I'm usually annoyed into fixing the problem as quickly as possible, if a problem even actually exists. Nothing chivalrous about it.

I'm sure the economics of it helped the decision along a lot but the 16 isn't that bad. The differences, IMO, are mainly stylistic rather than functional. Or, what do you want to accomplish and how do you want to do it?

Maintenance is the first thing I thought of....don't just sell them the weapons, keep cleaning materials and spare parts in mind, and send some to Armorers School also.

Anyway, they are professional, experienced soldiers, and can judge for themselves what type of weapon best suits their purposes.

The way I read the article, they weren't so much saying that the M-16 was a more durable than the AK-47. They were saying that the M-16's that we have to offer are more durable than the AK-47's they currently have. An AK straight off the Russian assembly line might be more reliable than an M-16...and an AK may be able to take abuse and neglect that an M-16 cannot, but that's not to say that Uncle Khalid's grandad's AK-47 that's been through three wars and ten years burried in sand is going to be a better weapon than a NIB M-16.

It's a case of no longer being able to get free/reduced price shit from the Russians and being able to get it from us.

Plus, there's the whole ammo commonality thing.

First of all, AK's don't "never go wrong".

Second, AR's are, if anything, more "modular" than the AK. You can customize an AR waaaay more easy than customizing an AK. Additionally, my AR has a lower built by one company, an upper built by another, and a butt stock built by a third.

Folks that can afford the M-16 use the M-16. Those that can't use the AK47.

There have been 8 million M-16's sold world wide, and reliability is now phenomenol. Accuracy is better... everything is.

From my understanding a lot of troops got pissed that a lot M'16's have 3 shot burst but not full auto...

The main advantage that the AK has over the AR/M-16 is that it doesn't take as much training to use. It's way more simple to maintain and employ. The M-16 beats out the AK on lighter weight, accuracy, and ergonomics...as long as the soldier is trained in its use.

Not by much. Less than a pound.

I'm counting ammo as well.

I thought you army boys liked less weight?

So am I.

M16A2 with 30 round magazine: 8.79 lbs

AK-47 with 30 round magazine: 9.5 lbs


But you can that much extra ammo.

I'm talking about what the soldier has to carry. Not just a gun and one magazine.

Isn't the average load out 7 thirty round magazines?

Unless you're a gnome - they carry 8 120 round drums.

I remember Storm posting that the AK47 was a rifle for the common untrained cannon fodder, but any real soldier would prefer the M16. (And by real soldier, I'm assuming one who knows how to take care of their rifles so they don't get dirt in them and cause it to jam.)

I've shot both, and thought the AK47 was heavier than the M16, and after the first shot, it went everywhere. You realize what they mean when they say it's a 'pray and spray' rifle. And this was only after shooting 5 rounds, as Canadians are not allowed to load an 'assault rifle' with more than 5 rounds at a time, due to some weird law. The AK47 had an alright first shot, and the heaviness of the rifle kinda makes the recoil not seem so bad.

I had more accuracy with shots 2-5 using the M16, and the gun was lighter, but because of this, the recoil was a bit harder to handle. Not overpowering or anything, but still more than the AK47. I'd prefer the M16 if I had to lug it around the desert in 100 degree weather. AK47 seemed a bit more than just a pound heavier.

Maybe if this was 1960's you could say crap but today? The M16 and the whole family of guns based on it are excellent weapons.

Give me the choice between the M16 or a AK47 and I'll take the M16 every time.

If the rifle was crap the US would have gotten rid of it long ago.

i'd rather lug around an M-4

You mean the M4A1? You only get a 3 round burst with an M4, while (I think) the M4A1 lets you do full auto.

I also saw another gun in the shooting place. It looked like an M4, but it used a smaller clip, and also used smaller bullets, not the rifle bullets used by the M16. I was curious to try this out, but I had no time.

She might be talking about the recent torture test the .gov had where the M-16 (or M-4...I don't remember which) went up against the HK 416, FN SCAR, and MX8, and came in dead last.

How did the MX-8 do?

It won hands down.

http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1077

However that confirms that it was the M-4 that was in the test...not the M-16. Considering the M-4 wasn't designed for front line combat, I wonder how the M-16 would have fared.