Yeah but AK variants achieve their reliability by having really loosy-goosy tolerances - which wrecks their accuracy. I see AR variants routinely hitting 300+ yard targets at my local range - never seen it with an AK.
I trained on the M-14 and a few years later was given a course on an M-16 as I had my over the pond orders albeit never went. From my limited knowledge the M-14 was designed as a longer range weapon to defend fixed positions in Europe. The M-16 came along as a more rapid fire closer in weapon which allowed a soldier to carry more rounds. I own ARs in both 308 and 556 and would say the calibers of each fit their billing exactly. So, given our need for a longer range rifle with great knock down power at long range needed in Afghanistan, I would opt for the M-14 or any other 308 rifle deemed OK.
As a side note, there was a story this week that due to ROE in Afghanistan, soldiers in some areas patrol with empty firearms. Now, whether one has a 556 or 308, such rules are beyond the bounds of logic. The nitwit responsible for promulgating them should be fired.
It’s a big improvement over the AK-47. It’s a 2 MOA rifle. There’s even a sniper variant of the Galil which is good for 1 MOA. Would that work for ya?
From Wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMI_Galil
Sights
The L-shaped rear sight has two apertures preset for firing at 0–300 m and 300–500 m respectively (the rear sight can only be adjusted for elevation). The front post is fully adjustable for both windage and elevation zero and is enclosed in a protective hood. Low-light flip-up front blade and rear sight elements have three self-luminous tritium capsules (betalights) which are calibrated for 100 m when deployed. When the rear night sight is flipped up for use, the rear aperture sights must be placed in an offset position intermediate between the two apertures. Certain variants have a receiver-mounted dovetail adapter that is used to mount various optical sights.
I read a very good book a while back, Robert Kaplan’s “Imperial Grunts”, a very well written book and flattering to our military.
In it, an officer deployed in some Godforsaken part of the Horn of Africa was describing to the author the difference between an AK47 and an M16. A lot of stuff about the way they are manufactured and how that affects their accuracy. I kind of figured on that, but he made a point-even the way the magazines are constructed is very different and telling. An AK magazine must be removed with the hand by grasping it and pulling it so it doesn’t fall on the ground and get lost, while and M16 mag can be dropped out and a fresh one inserted without touching it. The officer (I think he was a USMC Major) opined that it highlighted the Soviet approach to soldiering...the magazine was more valuable than the life of the person firing the weapon...it was more important not to lose the magazine than it was to enable the soldier to reload faster.
I don’t know if this is true, but it was what the guy said...:)