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

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 ]

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