If AKs are so much more "reliable" (which I may be willing to grant), how come we don't use them?

A properly maintained M16 is more accurate than an AK. Otherwise, the AK is a superior weapon.

you are correct, it's an out and outright LIE that the M-16/M-4 family is more reliable!

This is coming from a former Marine, too!

You can take a dump inside an AK-47, then run over it with a freaking bulldozer, and it wills till fire!

If you break wind in the general direction of an M-16, it jams!

That doesn't even take into account the whole stopping power issue!

An AK-47 will stop a charging Cape Buffalo in it's tracks.

In Iraq, we've had numerous military members killed, because they shot Jihadis with the M-16/M-4, only to get shot dead in the back when the kept on moving thinking they were dead, and in fact, the Jihadis jump up and shrug it off.

A colleague of mine, who is currently in Falluja, say that standard training now is for all Marines to put, time and ammunition allowing, a minimum of TWO M-16 rounds into each Jihadi; preferable one in the head and one in the chest area, to ensure they stay down!

So, this is crap, and the question by the above poster is too idiotic to even respond too!

My take, we WANT the Iraq military to have M-16's/M-4, so we KNOW who the "good guys" are, and who the "bad guys" are, they will be the ones carrying the AK's!

Additionally, if any M-16's/M-4's show up in the hands of any Jihadis, the serial numbers will show where they came from, and thus can be traced back to the sympathizers inside the Iraqi Military who are passing them out or selling them!

No serial numbers on AK's, only Model types/numbers!

And considering the M-16's/M-4's are an inferior weapon compared to the AK's; we'd actually be levelling the playing field a bit, by arming the Iraqi military with them, and hopefully, some leaking out to the Jihadis!

Actually, in hindsight, this is a pretty brilliant deception plan; plus we get to put a Billion dollars into the Colt corporation's pocket!

A Win-Win for everyone!

How's that for being cynical?

An AK only is better than a M16 in one way, that is that it can take more neglect on maintenance than the M16. Everything else about the AK is horrible. Horrible accuracy, horrible ergonomics, horrible weapon sights, ineffective rainbow-shooting cartridge, no modularity, no way to attach optics/light/laser/etc.

Look, I am not saying that the M16 series is perfect, but the dust test results were insignificant from an end users standpoint. Seriously, if you dump 600 rounds at once, you might end up with two failures to feed on the M16 versus one on one of the other rifles. Big deal.

I wonder, how much of the scorn aimed at the M16A2/M4 comes from the poor reliability of the Vietnam era M16 - which has been seriously improved upon in the later versions of the weapon.

Personally, I'd like to see them chamber the sucker for 7.62mm and see what happens.

Yes you would rather be hit with a round from a M16 or M4 than a round from a AK47.

And, you would be more likely to be.

I would also bet that the Iraqis wanted this - not because the M-16 is a good or bad weapon - but because it's what the cool kids use, and the Irqis want to be cool too. And then they'll want to pimp them out with multiple Picatiny Rail attachedments, etc.

Well, I loved my Elcan sight, but that's just because I was proabably too blind to be a really good shot wihout it at over 200m.

I'm blindly speculating, but perhaps one benefit of this could be a way of denying logistics to the insurgents. If it's known that a lot of 7.62 ammo from Iraqi Army/Police stockpiles is falling into the hands of insurgent groups, a switch to 5.56 rounds, which probably aren't of much use to Kalashnikov toting insurgents, could help to stymie the flow of ammo to the enemy.

Of course, that discounts how easy it probably is to get 7.62 ammo in Iraq anyhow...

If AKs are so much more "reliable" (which I may be willing to grant), how come we don't use them?

Maybe because defense contracts with our military are subject to the same lobbying? Just throwing that out there.

And don't forget, the guys who invented the AK now chamber the latest versions of the AK74/100 series in 5.45 & 5.56. And Knight's armament did make an M4 version for the green beanie types that took Ak mags, called the SR-47. And Armalite is making a modern version of the AR-10 that fires 7.62 NATO.
Besides why should we give the Russians money in defense contracts?
The reason they're looking for an M16/M4 replacement is mostly in looking for weight reduction. They want to put all the whiz bang optics, grenade launchers, shotguns and flashlights and other super soldier aids they can think of on a package lighter than whats available now. the whole reason the xm8 exists is because they couldn't get the OICW's weight down enough, so they split the rifle and greande launcher apart.

all the people that knock the m-16 platform forget that the biggest reason that the round is ineffective is that by the rules of the hague convention, we are required to use ball ammo... if we used hollow point or soft point ammo, the 5.56 would perform exactly like it does in deer and other game here in the US, extremely well... sure the AK is durable, but so is a cinder block, that doesn't mean that i want to get into a fight with one... the M-16 is lighter, easier to shoot, easier to aim, more accurate, has a lower recoil, and lighter ammo than an AK... the trade off is that the M-16 needs to be cared for and cleaned a lot more... but since the primary source of 5.56 is fairly clean burning ammo, this isnt much of a problem...

I agree with Andrew.

There may some favorable graft here, but I would guess the primary reason is to help keep the ammo in the good guys' hands.

I could think of one scenario where reequipping like this might make some sense.

Suppose there's a someday future where Iraq becomes more or less quiet, and Uncle persuades his Iraqi friends to lend him a brigade or three to go to places like Afghanistan ? It would be good to be able to tie said Iraqis into the US supply chain. I'm thinking of the US and the ROKs in Vietnam. Nobody would have predicted that deployment in, say, 1953.

I know it's fun to create a conspircy theory out of all this, particularly when it involves Jack Murtha. But the fact of the matter is that, right now, the US is Iraqs main supplier of military hardware and will be for the foreseeable future, no matter who wins in November.
It is just a lot easier to supply the same weapons that we use along with the same ammunition, which is a lot more to the point for ongoing logistics.
And plus it's better for us to be providing an American weapon made in America than a Chinese or Yugoslavian knock off of a Russsian design.

Been there done that. Given a choice between the M16 and the AK, I'll take the 16 every time. As for putting two rounds into every Haj, hell, I'd do that if I had a tank. Anything worth shooting once is worth shooting twice (Words to not die by!).

RickM
MSgt USMC (Ret)

I fail to understand the problem with American arms manufacturers making money selling to allies during this war or any other.

Why shouldn't American arms be supplied to Iraq? Why would it matter if it is a backroom deal? Why would America be better off if Iraq uses weapens from another country?

Doug Santo
Pasadena, CA

Listen to RickM, he knows what he is talking about. Anybody who thinks any modern military small arm round guarentees instant one shot stops is living in a hollywwod Rambo fantasy land.

Anyone who thinks the .30 cal AK round is so wonderful should google Fackler and Stockton.

The Russians abandoned the 7.62x39 for a round much closer to what the M-16 uses. That should be a clue.

The AK is more reliable because the chamber gases push a piston to actuate the breach cycle, whereas the M16/M4 ejects the hot gases directly onto the bolt face. Mix powder residue with dust and you have a jammed rifle.

This is a design flaw that's been recognized for 40 years. The XM-8 (a variant of the HK G-8) was supposed to be the replacement - it has the accuracy of the M16/M4 plus even better reliability than the AK. But the brass decided not to fund the switch because they felt the M16/M4 was "good enough", and there were better uses they could put that billion+ dollars to.

Feel like I stumbled onto DU by mistake. You don't want to speculate about motives, you say, but you haven't done anything else here. Some of the comments read like loser's laments from the caliber wars.

Why not consider a cleaner not to say less PMS'd explanation: that Iraqi commanders and officials, after long and close examination of the M-16 family, were impressed? What would you think if your experience of assault rifles was restricted to the AK?

An objective summary of forces carrying AKs versus those carrying M-16s shows the guys with M-16s are winning.

About that recent "test": The M-4 ostensibly did 'worse' (actually in one very important area no one ever mentions it did better than the rest) on a test that may or may not have had any correlation to reality.

Love or hate the M16/4 for whatever reason you want to give (I'm no big fan of it)- but that test proved NOTHING to me as to which weapon tested was "best".

If this thread runs to form, it has to be only a matter of seconds now before we hear the first calls for bringing back the M14

Ironic-funny that the very people (Murtha and the Democrats) who work hard to demonize and deny EBR's (Evil Black Rifles) to Americans will turn around and cut a deal to sell them to Iraq...

AK's may be as reliable as a brick shithouse but you can't *hit* with them reliably because the sights are are crude as a day-old turd in the shithouse, and the bullets don't group past 150-yards they patterns -- which is why we like to engage Jihadis with aimed-fire (not spray and pray) at 200, 300-yards - a comfortable distance from which to comply with their Allah-oriented wish fulfillment.

The US military uses the M16 for myriad reasons, some good (an emphasis on accuracy of aimed fire), some not so good (with rare exceptions we don't use something somebody else developed.)

The main problem I see with the Iraqis adopting that weapon system now?

When your M16 variant breaks, you take it to a highly trained armorer, who uses top shelf parts to put it back into service.

When your AK (47 or 74) variant breaks you take it to the scrap heap and get issued a brand new one.

And both processes cost about the same...

At 300 meters out in the open desert, I'd want the M16 over an AK. At 50 meters, in urban terrain I'd want to switch.

While the M4 is inferior to the G36 and the HK416 and so on, they didn't test it against the AK.

Of course a bunch of latest generation 21st century rifles are going to beat the M4, which is an improvement on a 40 year old weapon. It's still a lot better than an AK. You can test this yourself by buying civilian versions of each. Civilian target versions of the M16 win matches. AKs never, ever do. Reliability is fine if you clean the damn thing, and I've had AKs jam on me. They aren't immune to malfunctions.

No, the M4 is not the best rifle on the planet. That's a seperate story than the Iraqi M16s.

Why give the Iraqis M16s? Well, we have a lot in inventory. Since the army is not only smaller, but using the M4, all the old M16s are still around in storage. Also, if the bad guys are using AKs, they can't rob the Iraqi gov't for ammo.

Lastly, eventually our NATO allies who used to be Warsaw Pact are going to run out of AK ammo. Are we supposed to start making it for our Iraqi allies? Or are they going to be relying on China or Russia to make it for them? I suppose they could make their own, but it makes sense to standardize with the US. We're going to be there a long time, so sharing ammo makes sense.

In short, the Army's refusal to switch to a more modern weapon is questionable, but switching an ally to a better weapon than the AK is not.

Let's see, 165,000 rifles with how much ammo? Consider training, backup etc. And it eliminates the possibility of hostile forces using the ammo...

The weapons aren't the reason - it's the ammo supply. By changing to a Western supplier it's possible to start discussing additional heavier weapon systems. Rather than outfitting them with everything all at once, start with something basic. It also may reduce ammo supply problems they might be experiencing, particularly when you're outfitting larger and larger units, and we don't want Russia (or China) to be their supplier.

Any mass-produced firearm will never match up to competition grade weapon systems. That said, the M16/4 platform has facilitated a means for our troops to kill a whole heapin' pile of insurgents, whilst the insurgents have killed very few of our troops with thier AK's by comparison.

Gimme an M-16 anyday. I'll hit what I can see.You can't say that for an AK.

Besides, if the Iraqi's ever get squirrely, we control the ammo supply and replacement parts if they are using US made weapons. I see the decision as paractical and tactical.

I still HATE Murtha though.

Wouldn't it make more sense to use one of the dozens of western-built AK clones re-chambered for NATO ammo? You can use the same ammo without having to re-train the entire army on how to maintain the weapon? Hell, a lot of those clones are made by our allies - you can even get diplomatic points by placing an order through them.

"If AKs are so much more "reliable" (which I may be willing to grant), how come we don't use them?"

Dude, if you need someone to answer this for you, then you need to seek some professional help.

Dear SMSgt

BRING BACK THE M14! :)

"Spray and pray" versus well aimed and placed shots is what makes the difference. I've had both AKs and 16s stove pipe on me. But I'll double tap you at 300yds with the 16. I'd be lucky to hit the building you are in with an AK at that distance.

I agree with Andrew.

I do, too. And besides complicating insurgents' logistics, it'll make it easier to identify if future diversions occur (and telling the combatants apart, making impersonations more difficult, etc.). From a COIN perspective, it makes sense, though there'll be inevitable snafus in the changeover period.

I'd also note the story on the test program last year specified ammo diversions to insurgents, and Gen Petraeus's
support for the program (though he certainly emphasized the FMS aspect). I'm willing to suspend skepticism for a bit.

Now, I'm no expert on this subject, but I think the primary rationale for this switch is both reasonable and compelling: when our troops go into battle together with their Iraqi counterparts, they will be able to share weapon parts and ammo. This will vastly simplify the supply-chain for joint operations, just as having standardized ammunition with our NATO allies has allowed us to do in the past. For that reason alone, this switch makes perfect sense to me.

There are a whole host of issues raised here, and many of the comments are smart and I won't repeat them. This is not news - the switchover to the 5.56 mm round was announced some months ago. The Iraqis got used to their AKs, and want to stick to what they know.

The trainers taught them that they can shoot more accurately with the M16A2 than they can with the AK (which is a brute force blunt weapon compared to the accuracy of the M16). The Irais, once again, got used to area fire (spraying rather than aiming, and the AK is right for this type of fighting).

The U.S. trainers are attempting to teach them to aim - in other words, do it like a real Army. There are indeed maintenance problems with the M16A2 / M4 / SAW, but regular cleaning has kept them functional in theater.

The 5.56 mm round is a tumbler and thus does major damage upon flesh entry, although technically it is supposed to be a more "humane" weapon (which is why NATO adopted it as the round they would use).

And yes to the above comments that the DoD should spring for a replacement for the M16 (although this really means Congress funding it, doesn't it?).

The bottom line is that this story has multiple facets, and is not really amenable to pigeonholing into one category (like this is outlandish corruption). There is certainly corruption in every institution (and who knows, there may be here too), but here I think they have their reasons for the switchover.

That said, I think the Iraqis want their AKs back. And finally, anything Murtha is involved with must be corrupt by definition, so I am hoping that his involvement in this was minimal or non-existent.

BTW, I am not saying anything here that wasn't reported in articles on this months back.

WOULD YOU RATHER THE IRAQIES BUY FROM THE FRENCH?
THE GERMANS?, THE ITALIANS..CHECKS ETC?
AS LONG AS THE IRAQIES CAN PAY FOR GOODS...BUY AMERICAN I SAY.

Yes the AK is tougher and lower maintenance than the M16 and the 7.62 has more knock down power however, it is far more accurate and you can carry more ammo as well as the fact that the AK is crap on full auto if you can hit the broad side of a barn from two meters away with an AK you are a really really good marksman with that said I would really like to see the M16 get bumped up to a 6.8mm round it is controllable on semi-auto and full auto and weight is somewhat mitigated. I have a friend who has a 6.8mm M16 analogue, I have an AR-15 and I have to tell you the 6.8mm is sweet.

Let's see, 165,000 rifles with how much ammo? Consider training, backup etc. And it eliminates the possibility of hostile forces using the ammo...

The weapons aren't the reason - it's the ammo supply. By changing to a Western supplier it's possible to start discussing additional heavier weapon systems. Rather than outfitting them with everything all at once, start with something basic. It also may reduce ammo supply problems they might be experiencing, particularly when you're outfitting larger and larger units, and we don't want Russia (or China) to be their supplier.

We could talk about which rifle is technically superior but I think you all are missing the point:

"The initiative marks a sharp break for a culture steeped in the traditions of the Soviet-era AK-47 Kalashnikov assault rifle, a symbol of revolutionary zeal and third-world simplicity that is ubiquitous among the militaries of the Middle East."

Who cares which damn rifle does what when. This is a political and cultural statement by the Iraqi governmnet. Terrorists use AK-47s. Iraq is no longer a terrorist state. Great news as far as I'm concerned.

If you jammed your M16, you aren't maintaining it properly.

Skepticism is healthy, but I don't see a big problem.

A) We don't make AK-47s. If we're to supply the Iraqis, it should be with something American made.

B) This could be a huge symbolic victory. This war is as much about perception as it is tactical victories. To see American arms replace the old commie guns will be a visible sea change.

C) I don't have a problem with an American company making money off of something that has to be done anyway.

"When your M16 variant breaks, you take it to a highly trained armorer, who uses top shelf parts to put it back into service."

Uh, there are many companies that sell parts for the civilian versions (no full-auto or burst fire) of the M-16 and M-4. I can go right now to http://www.jtdistributing.com or a number of others (blocked by the spam filter) and order a catalog or the parts.

In the US, the lower receiver has to be purchased through a licensed dealer with appropriate paperwork, but any hobbyist who can legally buy one can put on whatever parts he/she wants to make a customized rifle out of it. And many do. The rifles are used for everything from shooting garden-destroying groundhogs and plinking at beercans to serious national rifle competitions. There are web forums devoted to the topic, like http://www.ar15.com and many, many people who aren't "highly trained armorers" manage to safely build, maintain, repair and customize these rifles.

"When your M16 variant breaks, you take it to a highly trained armorer, who uses top shelf parts to put it back into service."

Uh, there are many companies that sell parts for the civilian versions (no full-auto or burst fire) of the M-16 and M-4. I can go right now to a number of them (blocked by the spam filter) and order a catalog or the parts.

In the US, the lower receiver has to be purchased through a licensed dealer with appropriate paperwork, but any hobbyist who can legally buy one can put on whatever parts he/she wants to make a customized rifle out of it. And many do. The rifles are used for everything from shooting garden-destroying groundhogs and plinking at beercans to serious national rifle competitions. There are web forums devoted to the topic, and many, many people who aren't "highly trained armorers" manage to safely build, maintain, repair and customize these rifles.

Hell, if reliability and throw-weight are your concerns, then ditch the rifles and buy everybody shotguns...

Whatever the reason I wish they'd expedite the switchover and maybe the price of 7.62 x 39 would drop back to something resembling reasonable. Not that many years back I was buying laquered case Rooskie stuff at 1000 rds for $69... it's doubled plus a bit more over the last few years.

Geez... I've got a couple racks of SKSs to feed.

Darn you George Bush!

I'm afraid the problem isn't a matter of which is the superior weapon, (yes, it is obviously Eugene Stoner's right-hand). But it is rather a problem of military culture.

The M-16 was designed to be used and maintained by a literate soldier with at least two years of high school education and could be trusted to perform minimum maintenance requirements without constant micromanagement and coercion.

The AK-47 was designed to be used by an illiterate peasant, who has just been clubbed, thrown into the back of truck and informed that (A) he has just been drafted,(B) here is his AK-47 and he will be given ammunition for it only three minutes prior to going into battle because (C Prime) he isn't trusted to do anything except run away if he gets the slightest chance. So keep in mind the Blocking Units behind you, will shoot you if you even think about turning around.

This article "Why Arab Armies Loose Wars" (http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Issues/amdipl_17/articles/deatkine_arabs1.html)
identifies the real problems with equipping the Iraqis with any variant of the M-16.

The Iraqi army is probably the best army in the Arab world by now,(it's officers actually eat the same food as it's enlisted men...shocking). But that doesn't change the fundamentals of Arab military culture.

M-16 variants are high maintenance weapons, particularly in a desert environment.

In an Arab army any small arms maintenance, more involved than a simple cleaning, will be conducted at a regimental if not a divisional level. And that's not just a matter of an Arab army's high rate of illiteracy, although that doesn't help.

When an Arab soldier learns a technical skill, he knows he has become valuable so long as he and only he possesses that skill. This is why manuals are always hoarded, why classes are never taught and why cross training never happens in an Arab army.

Right now the Iraqi army is better than this common model but only because we have our thumbs on their necks. Relieved of that pressure they will revert to their cultural norms.

On the plus side if there is corruption at work, it was almost certainly initiated on the Iraqi side of the house. It's a real show of progress for them. They are finally making enough money to bribe U.S. Congressmen.

Could this be a move to bind themselves to the US and thus reduce the chance that we may pull out and leave them hanging. Using our systems would motivate our companies to stay friendly with/protect the Iraqi government. Enlightened self interest on the part of Colt et. al. is a great hole card for them to play if the Dems win in the future

Bottom line: an assault rifle round, M-4 or AK, has about half the muzzle energy of a WWII infantry round. That's the price of controllability in full auto. There's only so much you can with that level of energy.

Original 5.56: 55 gr round moving fast, thinly jacketed, rifling twist a little slow so it tended to tumble and break up. About as much stopping power as you could get out of the cartridge (w/o breaking the Geneva Convention) but lousy penetration. I've personally seen a revolver hit in the frame by one of these during a gunfight. It made a big chip, maybe 1/2" wide by 1/8" deep and knocked the guy down (it was holstered), whereupon he got up and was back in the fight. A .308 would have ruined the gun and him, too.

Then they went to the SS109 (I thin), heavier, slower bullet, thick jacket, steel tip under the jacket. Good penetration, lousy stopping power since it just drills on thru. That's the tradeoff.

The 7.62x39 makes a little different tradeoff. Bigger, heavier, slower bullet. Probably better stopping power and greater penetration BUT a more arcing trajectory and thus lessened chance of hit at longer ranges (derived from the cartridge -- the AK itself is also a less accurate platform, but as has been pointed out, a more reliable one).

I looked into the dust test, and the XM-8 has about 6 mils average error twice the 3 mils average aiming error of the M-4 at the start of the test. Why? the operaing rod of the XM-8 moves when you shoot, and throws your aim off. By comparison, the aiming error of the AK-47 is about 10 mils. That means the average round hits 10 inches from the point of aim. Some more, some less. At 200 yards, that is 20 inches. Inside of 50 years the AK is superior. Of course, a 12 gauge shotgun would be better yet, with number 1 shot launches 25 each .30 caliber projectiles (3 inch magnum). Number 1 shot at those ranges penetrate all the way through unarmored human bodies.

The M43 round used in the AK47 moves about as fast as the old US .30/40 Krag round, but has the bullet weight of the old US .30 Carbine. It may penetrate, but the ingress hole is .30, the exit hole is .30 and between the round will flip over and begin travelling tail end first. Like the old 7mm Mauser round used by the Spanish in Cuba, soldiers only die if the round penetrates brain, heart, or spinal chord. as noted by T. Roosevelt in his book on the Rough Riders. Of course with modern body armor, the head, heart, and spine are partially protected. The probability of death from a single round goes from 30% without body armor to 3% for a soldier hit around body armor. No wonder we are more concerned about IEDs and RPGs, and we feel rather comfortable giving out AK-47s to anyone who is even modestly of good will.

The M855 round is used in the M-16 and M-4, like its predecessor the M193 round. When it hits flesh at shorter ranges, meaning greater than 2500 feet per second, it fragments. The enemy will usually bleed out, but this takes a while, so he will often try to make it back to a safe house, thus compromising the safe house.

Tactically, soldier training teaches to shoot, and shoot again until the target stops resisting.

Oops. that should be inside 50 yards the AK is superior.

If you want a superior weapon, consider the M14. If it gets mud in the barrel you can just fire it to clear the obstruction. With a selector shaft lock, you can go to town. It also has a little more range and accuracy, if you care about such things.

The M1 was pretty good too, but you can tell the troops who used it by their lack of a right thumb.

By the way, I was told that by the end of Vietnam, we had captured enough AKs to equip our whole Army with them.

I would add that since the sound of the AK-47 is rather easy to differentiate from the M-16, in a gunfight if you hear an AK firing - blast it!

Why have allies firing weapons that sound like the bad guy's guns?

Fact is it's probably misguided to expect a third world army to keep up the cleaning regiment required for the M16. That is why Ak's are so popular around the third world.

The only real benefit besides logistics that I can see in switching them to M16s is it makes Iraqi Army ammo less likely to be stolen and sold on the black market as nobody else in the region (except Israel perhaps) would use that caliber.

Another point that I haven't seen mentioned here; if the entire Iraqi army buys M16's, and then a couple of elections down the road they decide to switch sides (It's been known to happen!) then we can cut off their supply of replacement parts, which may slow them down a bit. Sort of like the Iranian Air Force's F-14's, that they purchased back when the Shah was in power. When the Ayatollah took over, his Air Force was quickly reduced to daytime VFR flight, when they could no longer get American avionics parts.

Wow, check it out, a bunch of guys arguing about AK vs AR on the internet. Have you guys ever noticed that this discussion just goes on and on and on and on? Whole generations have fought wars, gone home, had kids, and gotten old while idiots have discussed this ad nauseum.

Here's a question: If the AK is so f'n great, how come it keeps losing? If the M4 is such a POS, how come it keeps winning? Hell, maybe the Iraqi's want U.S. rifles 'cause it's good for morale. Since, you know, they got thier asses kicked using AK's. Because the AK is a LOSERS weapon ('Vietcong!' Oh, shut up.). Maybe the the Iraqi's have decided to learn to SHOOT, instead of spray.

The idea of the AK's superiority in the field is a myth. It's just not true. Deal with it.

I don't have a problem moving Iraq into the 5.56mm family (as much as I would prefer to be shooting a 6.8 or 7.62), but choosing the M16/M4 over superior NATO competition is ridiculous. If Colt ever lost a major weapons contract to a NATO competitor, maybe it would make a better assault rifle.

It is entertaining to read Colonel's opinions on the reliability of M16/M4s when a vast majority of the soldiers actually carrying the weapon would prefer a rifle with either more stopping power or less proclivity to jam or both.

Colt clearly has some important folks in their pocket.

Since we shrank our army by about 10 divisions, we have a whole lot of arsenal refurbed M-16s in storage. Hmmm, if the Iraqis were to pay the US Army for those rifles, it might be enough to pay for keeping American troops in Iraq for a few extra months even if Congress cuts funding for Iraq. Just saying...

The Kalashnikov is a better rifle for half assed third world armies that don't maintain their equipment and who just spray and pray. The M-16 is better for professional armies like ours and like the kind of army that we are building for Iraq. The Israelis developed the Galil rifle based on the Kalashnikov action. It is now relegated to rear echelon troops while their infantry uses M-16s. Is it possible that the Israelis have some idea of what they are doing?

As for the endless "M-16 is teh suck" debate, a lot of the failures to stop are with the M-4 which has a 14 inch barrel instead of the standard 20 inch barrel of the M-16. Those missing 6 inches cost a lot ov velocity. Instead of a small bullet going very fast, you wind up with a small bullet going not so fast. You are roughly in .22 magnum rimfire territory. A bull pup design makes a lot of sense if you want a rifle that is short enough for scrambling in and out of vehicles and yet has a barrel long enough to work well with the 5.56 cartridge.

The 7.62 X 39 mm Kalashnikov cartridge has almost identical ballistics to the .30-30 cartridge used for deer hunting.

Why would we go back to the wimpy .30 caliber M-14? Let's bring back the trap door Springfield. That .45-70 cartridge has some real stopping power. And the single shot feature requires that you aim and make each shot count.

I see a whole lot of armchair commandoing in this thread, a lot of urban myth sort stuff, and not a lot of common sense.

As for the M16s being more durable - don't confuse "durability" with "reliability". How many of you have talked to soldiers who have to train IA to shoot, or who are familiar with their weapons? I consistently see complaints that many of the AK's they are issued are junk, in terms of parts, assembly, or materials, since they have a wide variety of makes on them.

I also hear consistent comments that the Iraqis want what the Americans are using, to the point that trainers feel the need to ditch their M16's for AK's on the range for credibility reasons. It's not like we're forcing this on them.

As for the M16 itself, it is reliable ENOUGH, and powerful ENOUGH, to get the job done, "dust test" or no "dust test". Anyone vigorously arguing otherwise is either bored or on crack.

Personally I think it would be better for them to stick with new production AK's like they'd been supplying to them, for maintenance reasons, but this is not the end of the world.

(and Dale in Atlanta - there most certainly are serial numbers on AK's, and while they'll show more penetration than anything in 5.56, they're not any more likely to "stop a charging buffalo" than a 30-30, which they're quite similar to in terms of ballistics)

And those AR15 parts that are reasily available from various domestic distributors...

Say, for example the bolt or bolt carrier...

Cost about as much as an entire AK does to produce...

And you DO NOT shoot a barrel obstruction out of any 7.62x51 rifle. Not unless you want to destroy the rifle and possibly yourself.

Oh, and the M-14 is completely uncontrollable when switched to full auto. Substantially worse than an AK in full auto.

All I want to know does all this mean the price of .223 going up or going down? I know, I know probably up like every thing else.
I just like shooting the stuff.

I've shot both of them. The AK is sloppy made, less accurate, and the ammo weighs more. The M16 breaks down for cleaning in virtually no time at all, which promotes more frequent cleaning. The M16 is lighter, better for pointing and aiming (two distinct combat techniques). The M16 has better sights and is easier to carry. The only reason to prefer the AK is the price. You want to go into battle with a cheap weapon? In guerilla oufits, that's a factor. In a country that has oil up the kazoo, go for the better weapon, the M16.
http://calling-muggins.blogspot.com/

The M-16 IS a better weapon. It is lighter and more accurate. Well maintained and in the hands of a well-trained infantry man, it will kill the enemy better at effective engagement ranges than the AK...

...when it fires. And herein lies the rub. Even a well maintained M-16 is less reliable per thousand rounds fire than a poorly maintained AK-47.

The question becomes, will Iraqi soldiers find themselves in the position of having to fire a lot of rounds from a very fixed number of less-than-well maintained rifles without immediate access to maintenance and logistics? If the answer is yes, the AK is a better choice. That's why we gave it to them in the first place.

'The AK is more reliable because the chamber gases push a piston to actuate the breach cycle, whereas the M16/M4 ejects the hot gases directly onto the bolt face. Mix powder residue with dust and you have a jammed rifle.'

no actually, the gas travels down the gas tube from the gas port at the end of the barrel to the gas key on the bolt carrier causing movment to the rear.

'If you want a superior weapon, consider the M14. If it gets mud in the barrel you can just fire it to clear the obstruction. With a selector shaft lock, you can go to town. It also has a little more range and accuracy, if you care about such things.'

ahh yeah, call me up when you try that little trick I will bring my jump bag to control bleading on way to hospital

i just love the old akv M-16 et al arguments, of course someone always pipes in on the M-14, being a Marine, the M-16 series of rifles never failed me, PROPER maintenace is the key. as is with most things you have to make allowances, we prefer to have an accurate rifle as to one that could be argued as being more reliable, that is just simple mechanics until they devlope man portable rail gun.......

I think we will see much more US preferred trade out of Iraq over the next decade. You buy from and sell to your allies to help them stay strong.

Well, could the us be aiming to mold the Iraqi army into something similar to the Turkish model? From what I understand, the Turkish army is professional, competent, and relatively secular. Oh and they tend to keep the local political parties in line (they've been know to throw coups if the gov't turns not to their liking). At least in the past, they've been decent allies to the US. They also use a decent amount of US equipment. Maybe this is the start for Iraqi?

Iraq borders NATO..which makes it a potential NATO country. For relatively poor countries...NATO is a great deal..you're expected to pay 3% of GDP for defense...and you get the worlds largest, most sophisticated defense umbrella.

The subject of Iraq's potential NATO membership was broached in 2006 -
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2006/02/iraq-wants-to-join-nato.html

Politically, it is the wrong time for anyone to be pushing NATO membership. Putin still has his panties in a twist over Georgian membership..there are still some within Iraq that have their heads stuck in the "occupation" mentality rather than "How do we defend our country without spending 50% of GDP against our big neighbor Iran."

But if one is looking at a 10-20 year horizon, Iraq would be a logical extension of NATO.

John, I must correct your above comment. The Turkish army does not execute a coup when "the gov't turns not to their liking." They have been tasked with ensuring that Turkey remains a secular state.

This is a much more specific responsibility. Still, your larger point generally holds; a professional, secular army in Iraq should prove useful against any would-be religious radicals.

I did my four in the USMC infantry, part of it as a coach out on the rifle range at 29 Palms.

Even properly maintained, used by professionals, and exposed to the elements for only short periods of time, the M-16 jams at a rate I consider to be unacceptably high.

The major reason for this it the round. The .223 just isn't powerful enough to drive a mechanically-simple semi-auto action. And with greater complexity comes a greater potential for problems.

Could we field a semi-auto that has comperable or better accuracy than the M-16, but is as simple mechanically and reliable as an AK-47, chambered for a .30? Of course we could. (And the M-14 fits this description to a large extent.)
We'd just have to give up on every rifleman being able to utilize auto or burst fire.

Wow, check it out, a bunch of guys arguing about AK vs AR on the internet. Have you guys ever noticed that this discussion just goes on and on and on and on?

It's one of the gunnie equivalents to the eternal Mac/Windows debate, the ford/chevy debate, or any number of other unresolvable arguments.

As stated earlier, the M16/AK47 or M16 versus the rest will go on forever.

1. I have heard from people who use the M16 family for a living that the M16 is a much better weapon than most would have you believe.

2. The size of the round is a consequence of a US decision years (at least twenty, probably more) ago to downsize the NATO standard round from 7.56 mm to 5.56mm. In fact the early M16 type (not the original name) were produced in 7.62mm. I would suggest that Colt could quite easily adjust its manufacturing to cater for a larger round. However, a decision to increase the size of the round would be extremely costly to a large number of countries.

3. There are a number of reasons the AK47 is the most numerous military firearm around the world.

a. The reason most heard is that it is so robust that even the below average peasant can pull one up out of a rice paddy and it will fire as soon as you charge the weapon.

b. The least heard, and probably the real reason so many AK47s are available, is that the Russians gave millions away to anyone who would lift a weapon in the direction of the West. The manufacturer of the AK47 has complained that it is hard to sell the 5.56mm version because the AK47 was basically given away and no-one wants to actually pay for an updated AK.

The reason they swapped is simple. The M16 series weapons is all and all a better weapon.

Both the external and terminal ballistics are better.

M855 Ball terminal ballistics.
http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/M855.jpg

7.62x39 terminal ballistics.
http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/AK-47%20762x39mm.jpg

7.62 NATO terminal ballistics.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%2520Profiles/M80.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.firearmstactical.com/wound.htm&h=257&w=651&sz=176&hl=en&start=3&um=1&tbnid=gkqEX0ieBXFK-M:&tbnh=54&tbnw=138&prev=/images%3Fq%3D7.62%2Bballistics%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG

You will note that during the first rotation in the yaw cycle the 5.56 will disintegrate. This is a good thing as it causes more internal damage.

So there is two for the 5.56
zero for 7.62x39

Now onto reliablility. That dust test was a crock of crap. It was overseen by a congressman that can not even spell M4 correctly.

Here is a recent test conducted by MARCORSYSCOM and a few army guys.

http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2007/07/army_carbine_lubrication_070716/
M16 3
AK 0

Now onto operability. You have a round that has better terminal effects (kills bad guys faster). It has a lower recoil (so follow on shots are easier to place), you can carry more of these rounds. So why is this a bad thing? Please tell me how the AK series weapons is so much better.

M16 series weapons 4.
AK zero.

Please keep in mind that most of those that talk about how good the AK is do not even know the differences between the AK47 (hardly in use anymore) and the AKM.

I have trained some of the Iraqi SOF guys. They are a good bunch, and when gave them some older M16A2s they were so impressed that they literally dumped their AKMs right there on the spot.

Sorry for the double post. But I forgot to add something to my last post.

I am sure some guys have talked about how they had to hit a guy multiple times before he went down, when using the M4.

First off, shot placement is everything, there is no such thing as a one hit kill unless you hit them in the sweet spot.

Now that being said, for the round to fragment during its yaw, it has to be traveling at or above 2800 fps. From the twenty inch barrel on the M16 series weapons, it will stay above this velocity out to about 300m depending on conditions. Now because the M4 and M4A1 have shorter barrels, it has a lower muzzle velocity, and as such will drop below 2800 fps sooner (about 120m), that is why it is recommended that if using the M4, you use the MK262 MOD 0/1 round, it will fragment at lower velocities, so you keep your lethality out to a greater distance. And because it is a slightly heavier round, and a much more flat shooting round, it will hold its velocity better than the M855 Ball.

Sorry for the double post. But I forgot to add something to my last post.

I am sure some guys have talked about how they had to hit a guy multiple times before he went down, when using the M4.

First off, shot placement is everything, there is no such thing as a one hit kill unless you hit them in the sweet spot.

Now that being said, for the round to fragment during its yaw, it has to be traveling at or above 2800 fps. From the twenty inch barrel on the M16 series weapons, it will stay above this velocity out to about 300m depending on conditions. Now because the M4 and M4A1 have shorter barrels, it has a lower muzzle velocity, and as such will drop below 2800 fps sooner (about 120m), that is why it is recommended that if using the M4, you use the MK262 MOD 0/1 round, it will fragment at lower velocities, so you keep your lethality out to a greater distance. And because it is a slightly heavier round, and a much more flat shooting round, it will hold its velocity better than the M855 Ball.

Now all that being said. In my ten years in the Corps. I can say that 95% of the malfunctions I encountered with my M16s and M4s were because of the magazines, the aluminum mags are crap, that is why we have started going with the steel mags. Sure they are a bit heavier, but they greatly increase the reliability of the weapons.

guys there is one reason and one reason only that we use the m16 is because the infantry board makes these specifications like a particular fire rate, and accuracy requires at different distances, that it past certain tests, anyway, the AK can not pass the accuracy tests, period. That's it. As for which is the better weapon, I think that soldiers who have used AK's will tell you the AK is better, soldiers who have used the M16 will say that it is better. Better is a relative term, the most important thing is the soldier, not the weapon.

In the american army it doesn't matter how good this or that weapon is, which grenade launcher is better, which armored vehicle is better, what matters is that the army puts out these specs, then whoever best meets those specs makes it and then the army gets it and they better be happy with it.

The whole idea of what a rifle means is changing. It used to be a rifle was a primary means of attack and defense. But now, the rocket launcher should the primary means of attack and defense, while the rifles are just there to protect the rocket launcher.

I think our army would still be the most lethal force on the planet if they just had ak-47's and rpg's. It's the training the matters the most.

"I think that soldiers who have used AK's will tell you the AK is better, soldiers who have used the M16 will say that it is better. Better is a relative term, the most important thing is the soldier, not the weapon."

While you are correct in saying that it is the warfighter that makes the fight, not the weapon, you also have to admit that the weapon does play a part in it.

Say you have two forces, that are basically equal in training, one is using a substandard weapon, one is not. Which force does better?

Also, what do you say to those that have used both the M16 and the AK in combat, and training?

Damn I hate not having an edit function.

"The whole idea of what a rifle means is changing. It used to be a rifle was a primary means of attack and defense. But now, the rocket launcher should the primary means of attack and defense, while the rifles are just there to protect the rocket launcher."

You seem to be a smart person, and have a basic knowledge of the subject matter. But this is dead wrong. It is still the standard infantry guy on the ground that is the primary. Everyone else is just supporting them, and that my friend is not going to change anytime soon.

well matt, I think we are seeing more and more urban conflict, partly because of this, and partly because warfare has turned to smaller elements, and smaller conflicts, the soldier with the m203 has become more important (and I think we need a stronger grenade launcher than the 203) but you're right i'm just another civilian that has never been in combat.

Eric. My previous post was not an attempt to belittle you in anyway, and neither is this post. It is simply an attempt to educate people.

Now while you are correct that we are seeing more and more conflict in urban areas, that does not mean that the rifle is no longer the number one weapon that we engage targets with. As a matter of fact, because of collateral damage, it is used more than any other weapon system in our inventory.

"and I think we need a stronger grenade launcher than the 203"

Google EGLM.

While the 203 is important, it is still not the focus. Combat can be done without it. And it can not be used more than it can be (if that makes sense to you). If it were as important as people would have you believe, then people would not have dumped their M230s at the FOBs so they could carry more ammo for their rifles.

I hear a lot of people talk about intermediate barrier penetration when talking about small arms. And the fact here is, neither the 5.56 nor the 7.62x39 does well there. But once again, anymore, if you can not see your target, then you can not fire at it. So that is not as big of a factor as most think. Also, in the cases where we can fire at what we can not see. the M855 ball is better at penetrating barriers than the AK's M67. Chinese steel core does slightly better than the M855, but not much. And if we are really worried about barrier penetration then we will use black tip. But this comes at a cost, because there is zero core separation in target. Then again, there is no core separation with the M47 or Chinese steel core either.

The one and only small arms weapon system that does very well at barrier penetration is the M2 HB.

Anyway. After all that has been said. I would like to respond to the OP.

"Tell me I'm wrong, folks. I want to believe this is more than a backroom deal.

You are wrong. It is more than a backroom deal.