Skip to comments.Iraqi Army receiving M-16s and new trust
Posted on 06/05/2007 5:36:35 PM PDT by ButThreeLeftsDo
The M-16 is America's rifle. Putting it in Iraqis' hands is a symbolic but also a tactical maneuver.
The U.S. military in Iraq has begun issuing American M-16 rifles to some Iraqi troops in exchange for their Soviet-designed AK-47 rifles, the cheap and sturdy weapon that currently hangs from the shoulder of virtually every Iraqi soldier, police officer, insurgent and militiaman. U.S. military officials describe the switch, part of a $2 billion arms purchase for the country's fledgling security soldiers, as a modernization and a vote of confidence in Iraqi troops. The M-16 requires more care than the rugged and familiar AK-47 and demands a better-trained soldier.
That confidence extends only so far, however. With Iraq's security services infiltrated by both Sunni Muslim insurgents and Shiite militias, the U.S. military is requiring that each Iraqi soldier turn in his AK-47, take four days of training and be photographed with the serial number of his new M-16.
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
m16s are weaksauce, we should give them all of them and replace our guns with hk416s and fn scars, who cares if they arent american
M16 for IAF ping.
Are they .223 or .308?
Are they .223 or .308?
I first saw this in the print version of the Strib. All the info was in one article. They have split the two on the web.
I get it now.
Yesh, poor Iraqi’s. I’ll take an AK over an M16 any day. Especially in a dirty, sandstorm prone desert environment.
The M16 doesn’t fare all that well in urban combat either. The 5.56 doesn’t have the mass to punch through walls and cars nearly as well as the 7.62.
JMHO~~~Bad move,,,the AK is a far better weapon than the
M-16 type rifle,,,any of them,,,they WILL NOT operate
with any sand/etc. in the action,,,the AK will,,,
this ammo problem(stealing) is BS,,,the world is full of AK ammo,,,it will never “dry-up”...
I think we’re all in agreement on this. Not the best choice.
LOL,,,They never ask us nothin’...;0)
BS. The Ak is perfect for that enviroment and if we had used them we still would have won in 3 weeks. Now the Iraqis wont clean them, they will jam and they can get captured and beheaded on al jazeera and you are out $250 in tax dollars for each one when they already had serviceable AKs.
For some reason, I can't re-access the full article...But I think the point is that WE are no longer suppling AK ammo that is being stolen at an alarming rate.
P.S. Although I have kept an AR in .223 for many years, I'm no cheerleader for it as a combat weapon, either.
All in all, This idea makes sense....Provided our friends remember how important cleanliness is in their few days of training.
Once while talking with a former Navy SEAL, I was told that when he was in Vietnam, he was shooting at an oncoming Vietcong with an M-16. He said “I knew that I hit that SOB at least 10 times and he still kept on coming. A guy next to me shot the same soldier with an M-14 once and he went down.”
AK’s are for illiterate 3rd-world soldiers. They aren’t worth a shit beyond a hundred yards. The M-16 and its varients, is a much more accurate weapon at longer ranges. Most of the combat that I’m aware of in Iraq tends to be urban, or at ranges under 300 meters. The M16 will do fine here.
Don’t get me wrong...I still think the best main battle rifles was/is the M14. I carried one in the Nam and can attest to its ruggedness and reliability. That long barrel got in the way of, or got caught on, anything and everything. Someting like Springfield Amory’s SOCOM would be a better solution. Sure, put a pistol grip on it.
7.62 NATO rules.
Before or after he’d been hit with the 10 rounds of 556?
that fn scar is a bad weapon
- and by bad i mean good
Actually, most of the Iraq war engagements that are going on now are at short ranges, where the long-range accuracy of the AK isn’t an issue. Because it’s an urban environment with many things to hide behind, penetrating power tends to be more crucial than accuracy. Even the thin sheetmetal of a modern car can help to defend an attacker from the relatively lightweight 5.56, where the heavier 7.62 in the AK will tear through it and kill the attacker.
In an urban combat situation, you want the heaviest slug you can manage, coupled with the shortest barrel possible. This gives the soldier both maneuverability and penetrating power. By moving to the M16, the Iraqi army is adopting a longer rifle with a lighter slug.
The M16 is a good weapon for combat out in the open countryside, but that’s not where the war in Iraq is being fought. It’s a weapon that was designed to fight against the Soviets across the fields of Europe, not the Mohammed twins firing out of a moving car 50 feet away.
I’ve fired quite a few types at the local range where me and some friends go every so often,,,one guy has near
$3,000 invested in his(M.O.A.rifle)very nice gun,,,fancy
“Bull Barrel” et al,,,But,,,like you said,,,That ain’t combat...;0)
When our ship went down to IV Corp to support riverine ops, we fired the M-16 as we got ready to be on station and I didn’t notice much difference between it and the Remington Nylon 66 .22 cal my dad gave me. Then I saw one of the Seawolf gunners fire his M-14. Right then I said I got to get me one of those. Well, it took thirty years, but I have a Springfield Armory M-1A. You just brush the trigger and it sends the bullet into the black every time.
We may be talking in the same general direction. I recognize the need for a shorter-barreled .30 calibre rifle.
I’m not certain the M16 was designed to fight the Soviets in the open fields of Europe. The brass at the time (late 50’s) was against its adoption. I think it was the beneficiary of the Air Force looking for a shorter, lighter weapon for some of its personnel and the convergence of the need for the same type of weapon for what was then the new concept in the Army of airmobiity. As I remeber, the 1st Air Cav was the first major unit deployed in the summer of ‘65 with the AR15/M16 as its standard issue weapon.
For what it’s worth, Mauser, Browning, Garand, Kalashinikov, and Eugene Stoner were the firearms deisgners of all times.
Plenty of us.
Do you think you could take a minute and think about what you just wrote?
Thanks for the ping
Polish Tantal Beryl’s would work. They take 5.56mm NATO and operate similar to the AK, thus requiring little new training for the Iraqi forces.
What the Iraqi Army badly needs is medium and heavy weapons like al-Qaeda and the Madhi Army has.
Of the three biggest (non-Western) armed groups in Iraq the Iraqi Army is the most outgunned of the three.
If their goal is to prevent ammo stealing, they will be sadly dissappointed. The Iranians have a 5.56mm NATO rifle that they have been smuggling into Iraq.
American troops are held responsible for their weapons, don't know why it should be different anywhere else.
AK-47 is less accurate than M-16. Maintenance is a problem for M-16, and less power, but more accurate than AK-47. More accuracy means less chance to shoot again and hit a civilian.
Agree. They are outgunned.
Great ... send them north to fight off the Turks now.
After; and you could easily argue that those 10 rounds accounted for the guy falling, not the shot by the M-14.
And I'm simply repeating what I was told. Maybe I was being naive in accepting this account.
Thank you for your courtesy in the way you addressed the matter. Now i'll get to the one who decided to post a smart-ass remark to me, shooter 2.5.
OK, Mr. Cute. Why don't you give a specific reference instead of such a oblique, rather smart-assed way of addressing me.
I don't know what you're talking about (and that opens me up to your saying that the OldPossum doesn't know what he's talking about). And that would be true, I'm not knowledgeable on military rifles (but I did serve three years in the Army and qualified with the M-1 Garand and the M-1 Carbine...didn't really care about anything except qualifying).
I just thought I would post what I thought was an interesting comment by a guy I had known for some time and who I didn't think would s--- me, Didn't think I would be critiqued on such an insignificant matter, but then I think about the significant population of FR know-it-alls, I should have known I'd hear from someone like you.
Now, why don't you summon up all the courtesy that you can muster and address the question in a civilized, polite manner? Otherwise, I think I'll just go to another thread.
See post 41. Amplify on your “snicker”. That is, if you are capable of anything beyond grunts.