PDA

View Full Version : US army short on rifles! Use AK-47's!



AK-Lover
03-02-2004, 10:23 PM
U.S. Troops Use Confiscated Iraqi AK-47s

ANDREW ENGLAND

Associated Press


BAQOUBA, Iraq - An American soldier stands at the side of an Iraqi highway, puts his AK-47 on fully automatic and pulls the trigger.

Within seconds the assault rifle has blasted out 30 rounds. Puffs of dust dance in the air as the bullets smack into the scrubland dirt. Test fire complete.

U.S. troops in Iraq may not have found weapons of mass destruction, but they're certainly getting their hands on the country's stock of Kalashnikovs - and, they say, they need them.

The soldiers based around Baqouba are from an armor battalion, which means they have tanks, Humvees and armored personnel carriers. But they are short on rifles.

A four-man tank crew is issued two M4 assault rifles and four 9mm pistols, relying mostly on the tank's firepower for protection.

But now they are engaged in guerrilla warfare, patrolling narrow roads and goat trails where tanks are less effective. Troops often find themselves dismounting to patrol in smaller vehicles, making rifles essential.

"We just do not have enough rifles to equip all of our soldiers. So in certain circumstances we allow soldiers to have an AK-47. They have to demonstrate some proficiency with the weapon ... demonstrate an ability to use it," said Lt. Col. Mark Young, commander of the 3rd Battalion, 67th Armor Regiment, 4th Infantry Division.

"Normally an armor battalion is fighting from its tanks. Well, we are not fighting from our tanks right now," Young said. "We are certainly capable of performing the missions that we have been assigned, there's no issue with that, but we do find ourselves somewhat challenged."

In Humvees, on tanks - but never openly on base - U.S. soldiers are carrying the Cold War-era weapon, first developed in the Soviet Union but now mass produced around the world.

The AK is favored by many of the world's fighters, from child soldiers in Africa to rebel movements around the world, because it is light, durable and known to jam less frequently.

Now U.S. troops who have picked up AKs on raids or confiscated them at checkpoints are putting the rifles to use - and they like what they see.

Some complain that standard U.S. military M16 and M4 rifles jam too easily in Iraq's dusty environment. Many say the AK has better "knockdown" power and can kill with fewer shots.

"The kind of war we are in now ... you want to be able to stop the enemy quick," said Sgt. 1st Class Tracy S. McCarson of Newport News, Va., an army scout, who carries an AK in his Humvee.

Some troops say the AK is easier to maintain and a better close-quarters weapon. Also, it has "some psychological affect on the enemy when you fire back on them with their own weapons," McCarson said.

Most U.S. soldiers agree the M16 and the M4 - a newer, shorter version of the M16 that has been used by American troops since the 1960s - is better for long distance, precision shooting.

But around Baqouba, troops are finding themselves attacked by assailants hidden deep in date palm groves. Or they are raiding houses, taking on enemies at close-quarters.

Two weeks ago, Sgt. Sam Bailey of Cedar Falls, Iowa, was in a Humvee when a patrol came under rocket-propelled grenade and heavy machine gun fire. It was dark, the road narrow. On one side, there was a mud wall and palms trees, on the other a canal surrounded by tall grass.

Bailey, who couldn't see who was firing, had an AK-47 on his lap and his M4 up front. The choice was simple.

"I put the AK on auto and started spraying," Bailey said.

Some soldiers also say it's easier to get ammo for the AK - they can pick it up on any raid or from any confiscated weapon.

"It's plentiful," said Sgt. Eric Harmon, a tanker who has a full 75-round drum, five 30-round magazines, plus 200-300 rounds in boxes for his AK. He has about 120 rounds for his M16.

Young doesn't carry an AK but has fired one. He's considered banning his troops from carrying AKs, but hasn't yet because "if I take the AK away from some of the soldiers, then they will not have a rifle to carry with them."

Staff Sgt. Michael Perez, a tanker, said he would take anything over his standard issue 9mm pistol when he's out of his tank.

And the AK's durability has impressed him.

"They say you can probably drop this in the water and leave it overnight, pull it out in the morning, put in a magazine and it will work," Perez said.

Dennis G
03-02-2004, 10:29 PM
Anyone have photos of US troops with the AK-47?

Vance
03-02-2004, 10:31 PM
I think this article is quite old.

AK-Lover
03-02-2004, 10:35 PM
I'll try with the photo's but this story is true, saw it on cnn. :P

AK-Lover
03-02-2004, 10:37 PM
http://nandotimes.nandomedia.com/ips_rich_content/695-iraqsoldier.jpg Only one I've found so far, I think their pretty rare. But I'll keep searching for you.
Here's some more:
http://www.brandonblog.com/FRA13.jpg
Apperently the story behind this pic is the soldier took the AK he captured from the Iraqi and used it later in an ambush.

George W. Bush
03-02-2004, 10:39 PM
AKs are good for tank crews who need more firepower than M9 but not much else (in Iraq that is)

No infantry soldier will pick AK over M4

ibstolidude
03-02-2004, 10:40 PM
I'll try with the photo's but this story is true, saw it on cnn. :P
really when case that specific story pre-dates 25Aug03.

The US Army is not short rifles. That unit expected one thing, prepared for one thing and encountered another. They adapted and overcame using the materials at hand.


Vehicle crews also use them if they are not isued anything larger than a pistol and smaller than a M16. an Ak with folded stock or stock cut down offers an alternative to a full length rifle and better penetration than an M9 for those who are vehicle crew.

George W. Bush
03-02-2004, 10:57 PM
The AK is a great rifle, no question. But the M4 is better :)

Jack Mehoff
03-02-2004, 11:03 PM
I'm having a hard time to believe that U.S. Army in Iraq is short on rifles. All they have to do is go to inactive National Guard/Reserve armory rooms back in state and borrow their rifles. Of course this is the last desperation.

soma
03-02-2004, 11:11 PM
^ That would take time.

SR15
03-02-2004, 11:41 PM
m4-m16 jams alot, so you have to clean that sucker 2 times a day.
you dont have to clean ak that much. it just works.

SeanAshi
03-03-2004, 12:12 AM
m4-m16 jams alot, so you have to clean that sucker 2 times a day.
you dont have to clean ak that much. it just works. There is nothing special about the AK-47 it jams like ever other weapon in the world.

Kilgor
03-03-2004, 12:19 AM
The AK is favored by many of the world's fighters, from child soldiers in Africa to rebel movements around the world, because it is light, durable and known to jam less frequently.



Is favoured because there is 10's millions out there on the blackmarket for very cheap prices.

Jack Mehoff
03-03-2004, 01:22 AM
m4-m16 jams alot, so you have to clean that sucker 2 times a day.
you dont have to clean ak that much. it just works.

what?

James
03-03-2004, 02:14 AM
That's crazy talk.

I carried an M16 for years and didn't have to clean it twice a day. I was in the Persian Gulf in 1995 and spent quite a bit of time in the Mojave Desert. Maybe I cleaned it once a day, and that took all of 5 minutes.

Name a weapon that doesn't need PM.

Kilgor
03-03-2004, 02:42 AM
Id tend to believe the soldiers on this board (james) than the usual anti M16 retoric.

Of course the Ak47 is a damm good gun, but if it was near perfect why did they adopt the nato style smaller calibre for the AK74 ???

perdurabo
03-03-2004, 02:54 AM
:cantbeli:
not again :cantbeli:
use serch option thread ak vs m16 was discuted GAZILION times ;-)
and ak in us hands few times too

George W. Bush
03-03-2004, 03:20 AM
the 5.45x39 was to improve accuracy and have the fragmenting qualities of a low weight high velocity projectile.

7.62x39 has very similar ballistics of american 30-30 so don't expect to hit man-sized targets at 400 meters. it's only good to around 100-350 yards after that your groups are going to be huge.

HELEX
03-03-2004, 03:32 AM
The M-4 is a Jam-o-matic even when it´s cleaned every two minutes. Especially in dusty environment. Just read the Story about the capture of "hero" Jessica Lynch....
AK is more reliable due to it´s better concept...

George W. Bush
03-03-2004, 03:45 AM
The M-4 is a Jam-o-matic even when it´s cleaned every two minutes. Especially in dusty environment. Just read the Story about the capture of "hero" Jessica Lynch....
AK is more reliable due to it´s better concept...

What a load of garbage. I own an M4gery and have ran 800 rounds thru it without cleaning.

You're just an idiot.

HELEX
03-03-2004, 04:04 AM
@George W. Bush

(I would never call you an Idiot, you did it yourself :lol: )


What a load of garbage. I own an M4gery and have ran 800 rounds thru it without cleaning.

At the shooting range maybe and not using the low grade Powder like the Army, You can put 50000 rounds through a G36 for example without cleaning and jamming. Just ask yourselve why they are changing to the XM8(G36 interior) but still using the same Ammo? Does this make sense it the AR-15 is´nt crap? The Magazines are also crap.
Just ask any US-Soldier if he hates cleaning his Rifle....

Just read this:


Army, Marines rate weapon success (M16A2/A4; M4; M9)
Stars and *****es, European Edition ^ | Sunday, July 13, 2003 | Mark Oliva


Posted on 07/14/2003 1:31:45 AM PDT by xzins


U.S. forces rolled over the Iraqi military in just weeks.

The plans seemed flawless, and the courage of the soldiers and Marines unflappable.

But with the dust settling — and the adrenaline rush of battle now subsiding — military officials are finding some weapons performed as advertised. Others, however, let troops down when they needed them most.

Army and Marine officials recently released after-action reports compiling what was right and what was wrong about the small arms with which troops squared off against Iraqi forces. Soldiers and Marines rated the rifles and pistols they carried into battle, and not all got perfect scores.

Soldiers and Marines relied on variants of the M-16 rifle. The M-16, in service since the early days of the Vietnam War, was highly criticized then as unreliable, often jamming during firefights. Soldiers who participated in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan also complained the M-4 variant, a shorter version of the M-16, lacked what they needed in combat.

In Iraq, reviews were mixed.

Most soldiers carried the M-4 into battle in Iraq and “were very satisfied with this weapon,” according a report from the Army’s Special Operations Battle Lab. “It performed well in a demanding environment, especially given the rail system and accompanying sensors and optics.”

Marines carried the older and larger M-16A2 rifles, but a report from the Marine Corps Systems Command Liaison Team stated: “Many Marines commented on desire for the shorter weapon vice the longer M-16s.”

One Marine told the team that the shorter rifle would have been better in confined urban battle. Some also said the smaller rifle would have been easier to handle when climbing in and out of trucks and armored vehicles.

“Several Marines even opted to use the AK-47s that had been captured from Iraqi weapons caches,” the Marine report stated. “Others were trading rifles for pistols to go into buildings to allow for mobility in confined spaces.”

Marine Corps officials announced late last year that infantry forces would soon switch from the M-16A2 to the M-16A4, a heavier-barreled version of the long rifle with a rail system like the M-4. Stocks of the weapons, however, arrived in Kuwait too late to be fielded and sighted for battle. Most stayed in storage, but some weapons were delivered to Marines under a plan to initially field one per squad.

A number of M-16A4 rifles, fitted with a 4X scope, were given to Marine rifleman. The combination, Marines said, allowed them to “identify targets at a distance, under poor conditions, and maintained ability to quickly acquire the target in close-in environment[s].”

But not all soldiers and Marines were enamored with the performance of their rifles. Complaints centered on lack of range and reliability problems.

“The most significant negative comment was reference [to] the M-4’s range,” the Army report stated. “In the desert, there were times where soldiers needed to assault a building that may be 500+ meters distant across open terrain. They did not feel the M-4 provided effective fire at that range.”

Safety was another concern. The M-4’s bolt can ride forward when the selector switch is on safe, allowing the firing pin to strike a bullet’s primer.

“Numerous soldiers showed us bullets in their magazines that had small dents in the primer,” the Army report said.

Reliability complaints also found fault with the oil soldiers and Marines used to clean their weapons. In the dusty, sandstorm-plagued battlefields of Iraq, weapons became clogged with sand, trapped by the heavy oil, called CLP.

Several Washington Post articles recalling the night the 507th Maintenance Company was ambushed recounted moments when soldiers in the convoy, including Pfc. Jessica Lynch, battled their weapons to continue fighting Iraqi irregular forces.

“In the swirling dust, soldiers’ rifles jammed,” one article reported. “Pfc. Patrick Miller, 23, from suburban Wichita, began shoving rounds into his rifle one at a time, firing single shots at enemies swarming all around.”

“We had no working weapons,” Sgt. James Riley told The Washington Post. “We couldn’t even make a bayonet charge — we would have been mowed down.”

The Army’s after-action found more soldiers unhappy with CLP.

“The sand is as fine as talcum powder,” the report stated. “The CLP attracted the sand to the weapon.”

Unlike the soldiers’ reports after Afghanistan, Marines in Iraq said the 5.56 mm round fired from the M-16 “definitely answered the mail” and “as long as shots were in the head or chest, they went down.” The Marine reports said many were initially skeptical of the small rounds’ performance against the heavier 7.62 mm round fired from AK-47s. There were reports of enemy being shot and not going down, but most were referencing non-lethal shots on extremities.

Still, “there were reports of targets receiving shots in the vitals and not going down. These stories could not be described, but are of the rare superhuman occurrences that defy logic and caliber of round.”

The report said Marines asked for a heavier-grained round — up to 77 grains.

The M-16 series of rifles fires a 55-grain bullet, a projectile that weighs slightly more than three-and-a-half grams. Some servicemembers believe a heavier-grained bullet would carry more energy downrange, creating greater knockdown power.

Both soldiers and Marines also noted problems with the M-9 9 mm pistol.

“There was general dissatisfaction with this weapon,” the Army report said. “First and foremost, soldiers do not feel it possesses sufficient stopping power.”

Soldiers asked for a tritium glow-in-the-dark sight for night firing.

But soldiers and Marines alike railed against the poor performance of the M-9 ammunition magazines.

“The springs are extremely weak and the follower does not move forward when rounds are moved,” the Marine report stated. “If the magazine is in the weapon, malfunctions result.”

Soldiers complained that even after they were told to “stretch” the springs and load only 10 rounds instead of the maximum 15, the weapons still performed poorly. Lack of maintenance was determined not to be the cause.

“Multiple cleanings of the magazine each day does not alleviate the problem,” the Marine report stated. “The main problem is the weak/worn springs.”

Still, Marines wanted more pistols to back up their rifles, especially in urban environments, according to the report.

KalleBalleSvartSk@lle
03-03-2004, 04:35 AM
Id tend to believe the soldiers on this board (james) than the usual anti M16 retoric.

Of course the Ak47 is a damm good gun, but if it was near perfect why did they adopt the nato style smaller calibre for the AK74 ???

Maybe because it made the ammo load lighter?

Ballistic
03-03-2004, 04:45 AM
I read somewhere (possibly the Marine Corp .pdf file I posted not long ago about their equipment in Iraq) that some Soldiers/Marines were swapping there M16's for AK's because the M16 was too long for the close environments in built up areas in Iraq. That would be the only reason they are swapping them.

Regarding the M4 and it's jamming, there is a modification called the RROC (Reduced Recoil Operation Control System) which basically eliminates jamming and virtually all recoil of the weapon.

http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=258

I'd take the RROC mod over the XM8 anyday. Plus I think the M4's look better. :D

George W. Bush
03-03-2004, 04:47 AM
Let's see.. XM8 has no rail and it looks like a super soaker.

Aside from that the only good quality is that it uses a gas piston.

HELEX
03-03-2004, 05:09 AM
Let's see.. XM8 has no rail and it looks like a super soaker.

Rails can be attached wihout modification if you need them. The aiming unit contains an IR-Laser and an Illuminator for use with NVG, it can be replaced in seconds.
The Design is according to what the Army wanted, when the M-16 was issued everybody said it looks like a toy....

Precision of the M-4 is good, weight is low, Magazines are crappy and it jams.

George W. Bush
03-03-2004, 05:15 AM
Where did you get the idea that M16 magazines are crappy? The only problem was with the followers which are now replaced.

HELEX
03-03-2004, 05:16 AM
@Ballistic.

They will go with the HK M-4 Upper or the XM8, RROC weights 6 lbs. for itself according to the text and make the weapon not as reliable like the HK upper whitch is using gas piston.

HELEX
03-03-2004, 06:13 AM
@George W. Bush

I´ve heard M-16 type Magazines are falling out of the weapon if you shake the weapon like if you are running or sth. , ok mainly a problem of the british SA80 using same type of mags.



All of the G.I. contract 30s work fine with two exceptions, all Cooper mags and early production Sanchez with the black followers. This is what the May 1987 issue of PM Magazine (The Army's Preventative Maintenance magazine) had to say, "The 30-round magazines made by Cooper Industries don't fit the magazine well, they double feed and they won't feed the last five rounds when fully loaded." To avoid any problems, NEVER buy Cooper mags these were recalled for destruction by the military. The second exception, some early black follower lots of Sanchez (DSI) production are also said to have feeding problems, however, they were never recalled like the Cooper mags were. To avoid problems here buy only Sanchez with the green follower (from the newer production runs) or plan on replacing the black followers with the green ones.

After-market (civilian) manufacture. Most of these are total junk! Don't even bother with any of these. The steel ones are particularly troublesome.

gilgoul
03-03-2004, 10:00 AM
m4-m16 jams alot, so you have to clean that sucker 2 times a day.
you dont have to clean ak that much. it just works. There is nothing special about the AK-47 it jams like ever other weapon in the world.

Come on, compared to the m16, the AK is simply the parangon of reliability.
It s not for nothing that whoever wanted HIFI in close range always chose the AK 47, from the navy Seals in the mekong to the Shayetet 13 lately.
Usually, whenyou have a jam with an Ak, it`s due to the ammo, not to the weapon itself, at least for the soviet block made one.
It`s true however that the ones made in Egypt or some late romanian produstion had enough problems to create a false "problematic" reputation.
Another point quickly, did you ever try to fire an m16 when wet, just out of the water but not dried?
With the ak, for the 7,62*39mm, not problem even in half immersion, wich is not that bad for an old rifle like this one :hug:

Undo
03-03-2004, 12:20 PM
AKs are good for tank crews who need more firepower than M9 but not much else (in Iraq that is)

No infantry soldier will pick AK over M4

Sorry, man, but you don't speak for me. I would definitely toss the old A2 I was saddled with into a ditch at the first opportunity and grab an AK. This may be rectified now with the M4, but in my experience I couldn't reliably fire through four mags without an "alibi" with the A2. It didn't happen every time, sometimes it would run forever without a hitch, but other days...

11F5S
03-03-2004, 12:45 PM
That's crazy talk.

I carried an M16 for years and didn't have to clean it twice a day. I was in the Persian Gulf in 1995 and spent quite a bit of time in the Mojave Desert. Maybe I cleaned it once a day, and that took all of 5 minutes.

Name a weapon that doesn't need PM.


I agree with you 100%....I carried the M16 and CAR15 during 4 tours tours in the RVN...never failed me...I'm still kicking.

Backis
03-03-2004, 01:11 PM
The big problem with the STANAG mags used by the US Army now are that they are OLD and WORN. Nothing a little shopping can't fix.

Purely hearsay of course. ;)

Dennis G
03-03-2004, 01:33 PM
I own both AR-15 CAR-15 and Ak-47’s I cant say what rifle I like more. They are both good in my eyes but with the M-16 the .223 (5,56 NATO) Is a horrible round for military use .22 caliber 55 grain bullets are not made for military use. You use these type of rounds on woodchuck and other small vermin. My father used to talk about how everyone snagged AK-47s in Vietnam the AK-47's better "knockdown power". That sounds surprising - as some enterprising chap at DU noted, the 5.56 NATO round in the M-16 hits with greater force, and causes greater flesh damage, than the Russian 7.62mm round. The little round is superior in every way, on paper, to the big ol' slow Russian. So why would the 7.62 be perceived as a better stopper?

Assuming you could wind a BB up to several times the speed of sound, and fire it through your bicep, you'd be left with a little bit of shredded flesh, and a tiny 17 one-hundredths of an inch hole, clean through the upper arm. It would hurt like hell, and bleed a bit, but it would be a clean wound and you would probably be able to use the muscle afterwards.

Now take a baseball bat, and have a burly friend take a big swing on the other arm. If the arm doesn't break, it will be severely bruised, and you won't be able to move it for a couple days. The force of the blow from the bat, and the BB, were probably nearly equivalent -- so why did the blow from the bat knock you down, while the BB left a bleeding hole but less bruising?

Two mechanisms are at work here - resistance, and a transfer of energy.

The larger blunt force from the baseball bat is dissipated very quickly, at one point. It is a sharp blow, and it delivers all its foot-pounds at once. The energy transfer from the bat to your arm is instant, and traumatic. In contrast, the BB has a much smaller surface area. Its energy is dissipated as it passes through the flesh. Instead of a single sharp blow, it is a long pull - causing a long thin wound channel rather than a shallower crater-like impact area. The frontal surface of the 7.62 round is geometrically larger than the 5.56 round -- so it slows down much faster. All "slowing down" is, is a transfer of energy from the bullet, to the body. So a round hitting flesh and slowing immediately transfers all that energy at once, causing a blunt force trauma. The smaller round whizzing through the flesh is painful, but the smaller surface area means less drag, and the projectile loses speed more gradually.

It's the difference in braking, going from 65-0. You can stand on the brakes, and do it nearly instantly. Or you can hit a tree, for that matter, and do it actually instantly. Or you can ease on the brakes, and slow down gradually. Either way, the same amount of energy is converted from rolling motion, to heat (via friction on the brake rotors, or the energy expended bending your car into a lawnchair-sized heap). The sudden stop is far more violent and traumatic than the gradual stop due to the sudden energy loss.

Even though the AK projectile travels far slower than the M-16 projectile, it is a little heavier and much broader, and it stops much more quickly, transferring that energy so suddenly that the troops note the difference in "knock down power". Even though the 5.56 is faster, has longer range, and actually transfers about twice as much energy, the way that the 7.62 transfers the energy makes it an effective killer. (Note: This is why serious law enforcement and military users treasure the .45 ACP

So why do we have the M-16 at all, if it isn't an effective killer?

Well, the 5.56 is a light round. Troops can carry more of it than a heavier round, such as the 7.62 NATO. The 7.62 NATO is half and again heavier than the Russian 7.62 round, and even though it has awesome stopping power, you need a heavier weapon for it, stronger troops, and more frequent resupply. I think that I would go with the AK-47

Trident-za
03-03-2004, 01:34 PM
I have never fired the M4, but I do have this recollection from my days in the military:

In a mud-filled ditch for cover, needing to fire, looking down at my R4 (South African version of Galil, VERY similar to Ak-47, apart from caliber) and seeing that the whole damn thing was covered in mud. Used my finger to remove enough mud from the trigger guard area for the trigger to actually be accessible, rifle to shoulder, look down sights, BANG. Fired, no problem.

I don't know if this is good or bad in comparison to the M4, but I was most certainly impressed (and relieved).

Dennis G
03-03-2004, 01:36 PM
http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/?target=htweap.htm The U.S. Army is seriously looking into adopting a new caliber bullet for its infantry weapons.

AK-Lover
03-03-2004, 07:42 PM
1) Over 50 million kalashnikovs built since 1953.
2) 7.62mm round has more "stopping power" doesn't mean it's more lethal. 5.56 tumbles and rolls on impact. 7.62 goes right through.
3) Refer to Armalite vs. Kalashnikov thread in general discussion, there are results from test between M-16A1 and Zastava M-70AB2 which has accuracy comparable to M-16.
4) M-4 is shortened assualt rifle with lower muzzle velocity and weaker receiver it's effective range max over M-16A2 is no more than 400 meters. M-70 can hit accurately at this range.
I'd take AK variant anyday over M-16 "plastic". :D

Salty Dog
03-03-2004, 07:49 PM
That's crazy talk.

I carried an M16 for years and didn't have to clean it twice a day. I was in the Persian Gulf in 1995 and spent quite a bit of time in the Mojave Desert. Maybe I cleaned it once a day, and that took all of 5 minutes.

Name a weapon that doesn't need PM.

i thought it was something closer to that.

Sierra
03-03-2004, 08:09 PM
Here's some more:
http://www.brandonblog.com/FRA13.jpg
Apperently the story behind this pic is the soldier took the AK he captured from the Iraqi and used it later in an ambush.
Thats prob the AK of the person being arrested. o woops. read below the post. but how do u kno that is true?

AK-Lover
03-03-2004, 08:11 PM
Because the picture is in Baqouba where there has been the largest "shortage" of rifles in Iraq. :D

Sixgun Symphony
03-03-2004, 10:32 PM
I would much prefer an M-14 rifle over the M-16 and AK variants.

Undo
03-04-2004, 12:19 AM
I would much prefer an M-14 rifle over the M-16 and AK variants.

Spoken like someone who has never had to **** an M-14 and its ammo. Don't get me wrong, I love this rifle. I shot expert with the M-14. But it is a heavy b*tch after the first 2 miles or so.

THE_Dorff
03-04-2004, 06:31 AM
Dennis G- you went on a spiel about the effectiveness (or lack of it) of a .223 round- IT'S ILLEGAL for the US Army to use rounds that cause serious amounts of damage ( I.E- spall and designed to "shred" the insides of a target). Thats why the M9 is still loaded with FMJ's rather than hollowpoints.

There was a story from the recent conflict that a US squaddie fired off an entire magazine of FMJ into a charging Iraqi and it didnt stop him, but hollowpoints aren't allowed legally...

regarding shortages- welcome to the British army! mind you our new SA80 A2 got shining reviews from squaddies in theatre...

M16/XM8 argument- the G36 is FAR superior weapon system to the 16 family, the XM8, has an inbuilt optical system, attachable picatinny rails, attachable AG36 grenade launcher (superior to the 203) plus all manners of combat lights etc... the XM8 was born out of the US army's failed OICW project which was deemed too bulky for squaddie use...

B

11F5S
03-04-2004, 07:07 AM
deleted

hank
03-04-2004, 07:21 AM
Dennis G- you went on a spiel about the effectiveness (or lack of it) of a .223 round- IT'S ILLEGAL for the US Army to use rounds that cause serious amounts of damage ( I.E- spall and designed to "shred" the insides of a target). Thats why the M9 is still loaded with FMJ's rather than hollowpoints.

There was a story from the recent conflict that a US squaddie fired off an entire magazine of FMJ into a charging Iraqi and it didnt stop him, but hollowpoints aren't allowed legally...

regarding shortages- welcome to the British army! mind you our new SA80 A2 got shining reviews from squaddies in theatre...

M16/XM8 argument- the G36 is FAR superior weapon system to the 16 family, the XM8, has an inbuilt optical system, attachable picatinny rails, attachable AG36 grenade launcher (superior to the 203) plus all manners of combat lights etc... the XM8 was born out of the US army's failed OICW project which was deemed too bulky for squaddie use...

B

Dennis G - thanks for that explanation - much appreciated.

As for the FMJ in the M9 - I thought that the Geneva Conventions required FMJ's in all military sidearms. Am I correct in this? I thought that was right and I that James or another BTDT posted that some time ago. Anybody able to confirm that?

Thanks

hank

11F5S
03-04-2004, 11:12 AM
I would much prefer an M-14 rifle over the M-16 and AK variants.

On what personal experiences with those weapons ( military training or combat ) do you base your preference on.

11F5S
03-04-2004, 12:29 PM
delete

11F5S
03-04-2004, 05:20 PM
I would much prefer an M-14 rifle over the M-16 and AK variants.

On what personal experiences with those weapons ( military training or combat ) do you base your preference on.