Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Kalashnikov says Iraq shows his gun is still best
Reuters ^ | 4/17/06

Posted on 04/17/2006 3:44:47 PM PDT by 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.

(Excerpt) Read more at today.reuters.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: ak47; ak47s; army; bang; banglist; gunporn; guns; iraq; kalashnikov; m16; oif; russia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-120 next last
I don't know anything about this, but I thought I'd post it for comments from those more knowledgeable.
1 posted on 04/17/2006 3:44:49 PM PDT by Paddlefish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Paddlefish

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


2 posted on 04/17/2006 3:46:59 PM PDT by MeanWestTexan (Many at FR would respond to Christ "Darn right, I'll cast the first stone!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paddlefish
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
3 posted on 04/17/2006 3:47:54 PM PDT by SF Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paddlefish
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.
4 posted on 04/17/2006 3:49:32 PM PDT by oldleft
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paddlefish
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.

5 posted on 04/17/2006 3:49:47 PM PDT by gaijin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paddlefish

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.


6 posted on 04/17/2006 3:51:07 PM PDT by SFC Chromey (We are at war with Islamofascism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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


7 posted on 04/17/2006 3:51:18 PM PDT by oolatec
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan

...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


8 posted on 04/17/2006 3:52:39 PM PDT by King Prout (The UN 1967 Outer Space Treaty is bad for America and bad for humanity - DUMP IT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 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.

9 posted on 04/17/2006 3:53:38 PM PDT by gaijin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Paddlefish

ping


10 posted on 04/17/2006 3:54:45 PM PDT by randyclark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paddlefish
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.

11 posted on 04/17/2006 3:55:32 PM PDT by holymoly (Dick DeVos for MI Governor: http://www.devosforgovernor.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gaijin

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.


12 posted on 04/17/2006 3:57:17 PM PDT by umgud (12 gauge, the original pepper spray)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 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.

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.

13 posted on 04/17/2006 4:00:13 PM PDT by holymoly (Dick DeVos for MI Governor: http://www.devosforgovernor.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Paddlefish

14 posted on 04/17/2006 4:00:45 PM PDT by Hoodat ( Silly Dems, AYBABTU.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: holymoly
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.

15 posted on 04/17/2006 4:04:53 PM PDT by ReignOfError
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Paddlefish

Kalashnikov has earned the right to brag and opine.


16 posted on 04/17/2006 4:07:20 PM PDT by billorites (freepo ergo sum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SFC Chromey
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.

17 posted on 04/17/2006 4:10:20 PM PDT by Doomonyou (FR doesn't suffer fools lightly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: oolatec
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
18 posted on 04/17/2006 4:10:24 PM PDT by Sangey (Buddha bless the USA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 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?"

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.

19 posted on 04/17/2006 4:10:38 PM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: gaijin
MMMMmmmmmm

Scope or no, fantastic rifle.

20 posted on 04/17/2006 4:11:11 PM PDT by Michael Barnes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Paddlefish
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.

21 posted on 04/17/2006 4:11:27 PM PDT by Michael Goldsberry (Lt. Bruce C. Fryar USN 01-02-70 Laos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paddlefish; All
M1A/M14 In Action in Iraq

February, 2006 - U. S. Army soldier in Iraq with M14 rifle


22 posted on 04/17/2006 4:11:40 PM PDT by Conservative Firster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: holymoly

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.


23 posted on 04/17/2006 4:14:24 PM PDT by Michael Barnes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Paddlefish
Already Posted
24 posted on 04/17/2006 4:16:19 PM PDT by xsrdx (Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paddlefish

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.


25 posted on 04/17/2006 4:16:31 PM PDT by reasonisfaith (Liberals are sissies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paddlefish

the 223 is as lethal but takes about 15 minutes longer


26 posted on 04/17/2006 4:18:08 PM PDT by reasonisfaith (Liberals are sissies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ReignOfError

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.


27 posted on 04/17/2006 4:18:30 PM PDT by King Prout (The UN 1967 Outer Space Treaty is bad for America and bad for humanity - DUMP IT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Paddlefish
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.
28 posted on 04/17/2006 4:18:53 PM PDT by M1911A1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paddlefish

29 posted on 04/17/2006 4:20:51 PM PDT by Thunder90
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan; Paddlefish
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.

30 posted on 04/17/2006 4:25:09 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SFC Chromey

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.


31 posted on 04/17/2006 4:34:48 PM PDT by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Doomonyou

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".


32 posted on 04/17/2006 4:35:57 PM PDT by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: umgud

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


33 posted on 04/17/2006 4:38:41 PM PDT by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Michael Barnes

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.


34 posted on 04/17/2006 4:40:46 PM PDT by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative; MeanWestTexan; Paddlefish; Eaker; archy; Chode; Shooter 2.5
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
35 posted on 04/17/2006 4:41:59 PM PDT by King Prout (The UN 1967 Outer Space Treaty is bad for America and bad for humanity - DUMP IT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: SF Republican
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.
36 posted on 04/17/2006 4:44:26 PM PDT by Ursus arctos horribilis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #37 Removed by Moderator

To: SJSAMPLE
McMILLAN'S MFS-14 MODULAR TACTICAL SYSTEM


38 posted on 04/17/2006 4:49:00 PM PDT by Conservative Firster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: SJSAMPLE
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.
39 posted on 04/17/2006 4:52:11 PM PDT by M1911A1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ideas_over_party
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.
40 posted on 04/17/2006 4:56:32 PM PDT by Ursus arctos horribilis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: M1911A1

see #35 ;)


41 posted on 04/17/2006 4:57:08 PM PDT by King Prout (The UN 1967 Outer Space Treaty is bad for America and bad for humanity - DUMP IT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Paddlefish

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v99/smallestminority/Kalashnikitty-boy.jpg


42 posted on 04/17/2006 5:02:23 PM PDT by Cheburashka (World's only Spatula City certified spatula repair and maintenance specialist!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJSAMPLE
The 5.56 round was designed to fragment, EXPLOSIVELY.

I've fired a lot of .223, and I've never seen ball ammo fragment. On the other hand, I have seen one tumble, AFTER hitting the target. Fired a round into a line of water soaked phone books. It went in about a foot and blew out one side at a 90-degree angle. The recovered bullet was bent in the middle, also at about a 90-degree angle.

It blew one hell of a ragged hole, BTW. Although it was NOTHING compared to what I did to a similar line of phone books with a .30-30. The difference was that the .30-30 made a massive wound channel in a straight line (totally destroying 3 phone books at its largest diameter), while the .223 was clearly tumbling. It was one ragged, jagged hole.

You should have seen what happened when I used a .223 hollow point. It went in about 8 inches and basically detonated. Soaking wet yellow paper flew in every direction, about one phone books' worth. There was no round to recover. It was ugly.

43 posted on 04/17/2006 5:03:59 PM PDT by wyattearp (Study! Study! Study! Or BONK, BONK, on the head!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ideas_over_party
Yes, IIRC we even ended up paying up in the case of the '03. The beloved Springfield is probably not quite as good a military weapon as the '98 Mauser, but in that case the Krag was so markedly inferior the Mauser design that we had to copy it, more or less.

I read somewhere that after WWII, the US Army, after hearing endlessly from GI's who bitterly complained about the superiority of the MG-42 over our design, converted a couple to .30-06, and the conversions, being sloppily done, didn't work right. The Army then pronounced the design unreliable.

The M-60 incorporated features of the MG-42, but they changed it enough to screw it up.

The sad fact is that in the US method of making war, rifles and machineguns are very much of secondary importance to supporting fires in the big scheme of things, and the discipline and training of our guys (and gals) makes up for any small arms edge the Jihadists might have. The possible shortcomings of our infantry weapons only becomes an issue after the "big battle" is over, and the "small battles" of counterinsurgency begin.
44 posted on 04/17/2006 5:07:44 PM PDT by M1911A1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: SJSAMPLE

My post said "some".

Agreed, the M14 is too big for close quater combat, etc.
BTW, I trained with the M14 in basic training, then the M16 in AIT.


45 posted on 04/17/2006 5:08:52 PM PDT by umgud (12 gauge, the original pepper spray)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Firster

Just another stock for a rifle that is better replaced with the SR-25 or AR-10 system. The M-14 has difficulty holding zero, especially with optics. And the heavy gas system does not lend well to free-floating.

I liked my M1A (sort of), but it was never as accurate as my HB AR.


46 posted on 04/17/2006 5:09:34 PM PDT by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: umgud

You're showing your age.

The kids I served with in Iraq were convinced that my boot camp issue weapon went "TWANG" when it was discharged. :-)


47 posted on 04/17/2006 5:10:45 PM PDT by M1911A1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: wyattearp

I've never seen ball ammo that doesn't fragment.
That's what it's designed to do.
Past 400m, velocity begins to drop off quickly and that's the key to fragmentation. Perhaps the dense phone book material kept the bullet from splitting. My XM193 will detonate in water.


48 posted on 04/17/2006 5:12:21 PM PDT by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: gaijin
it was basically stolen and copied by EVERYONE

Kinda fun to here a Commie whine about that.

49 posted on 04/17/2006 5:13:36 PM PDT by Dead Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ReignOfError
Wounded shoot back. To my knowledge our military shoots to kill, not wound. The Soviet's, IIRC, came up with that BS about wounding..mainly to justify crappy land mines.
50 posted on 04/17/2006 5:15:14 PM PDT by Dead Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-120 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson