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 ...
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
(snicker)...;0)
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.
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.