US troops in Iraq with AKs!!!

1) Nam had different designs of m16 which didnt tolerate hostile conditions.

2) That soldier is holding the gun like he was going to bring it somewhere or just confascated it. No soldier (other than spec ops) has a different choice of weapons. The AK-47 has less range and less accuracy than the modern m16. Thats why modern armies use AK-74s, M-16s, Enfeilds. Fn Fals. Smaller calaber, but better.

But then again the Russians wanted something that worked and didn't just buy something because some rich bastards who ran the company who donated to their election, recommended them.

Kind of ironic but you know its a good gun.

Originally posted by Taxman
1) Nam had different designs of m16 which didnt tolerate hostile conditions.

2) That soldier is holding the gun like he was going to bring it somewhere or just confascated it. No soldier (other than spec ops) has a different choice of weapons. The AK-47 has less range and less accuracy than the modern m16. Thats why modern armies use AK-74s, M-16s, Enfeilds. Fn Fals. Smaller calaber, but better.

That kinda sounds more like an excuse than a reason. I remember when I was going through boot camp a ways back, our drill instructors were always trying to sell us on how grand the M-16 is. One of their ways of trying to make it a rational statement was this: "Well, we don't shoot to kill we shoot to stop. If we use a bigger caliber weapon to hit an enemy we will kill him and his fellow soldiers will know he is dead and not try to help him. However if we use a smaller caliber weapon and we wound a solider, it will take an average of two of his fellow soldiers to help/carry him. So, in all actuality when using a large caliber weapon we only take 1 man out of combat, but when we wound we take out 3." This SOUNDS all fine and dandy but from what I've seen is if you pop a guy period, he's gonna run and help his buddies, which in turn will make them a target. Although they begin to notice a pattern after about 5-7 men go down. Oh, and by the way I was using an AK-74 5.45X39.5 Needless to say, so much for that theory.

How do you know they are actually using them maybe they were confiscated...

my personal opinion...

is

Our Australian infantry issue steyr.




[Edited on 20-1-2004 by OzChris]

Originally posted by ShadowMan
How do you know they are actually using them maybe they were confiscated...

Quite a few SpecOps units will use confiscated weapons.

I own a saiga AK-47 and it is a fine rifle they are most likely using it because of its realiabllity. The AK can work in conditions that would render a M-16 or useless. The sandy conditons of Iraq must be hell on the M-16. Aks were use in vietnam by Rangers and Seals but were not widely used because they feared the distinctive AK sound would draw freindly fire

A cache of Iraqi weapons that were rounded up from all the POW's. They are set to have explosives placed on them to be destroyed

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Accuracy M16>AK

Nothing left to say.

M-16 A1's are just about worthless. They jam constantly. THe A2's are an iimprovement. In my experience M-16's are more accurate far away. Other than that, the Ak's take the prize.

I read that the US troops in Iraq prefer the Ak because they have a much greater punch that is needed in urban combat and are extremly reliable.

They are quite innacurate but they balance with their stopping power.

Originally posted by BigEasy
M-16 A1's are just about worthless. They jam constantly. THe A2's are an iimprovement. In my experience M-16's are more accurate far away. Other than that, the Ak's take the prize.

the M-16 A-3 is the current issue, personally I prefer the
M-10/SR-25 (built just like the '16 except in 7.62X51)

Originally posted by cyberpilot

Originally posted by BigEasy
M-16 A1's are just about worthless. They jam constantly. THe A2's are an iimprovement. In my experience M-16's are more accurate far away. Other than that, the Ak's take the prize.

the M-16 A-3 is the current issue, personally I prefer the
M-10/SR-25 (built just like the '16 except in 7.62X51)

BAck in my day we trained mainly with the A-1. We used the A-2, though.

I think the rear personnel still used the A-1's.

The Mi-16's are nice, too cause they're alot lighter to carry. AK's are serious metal. But yeah, they are good for close range combat.

the term I use for the 16 is "user friendly"
but the lightweight projectile just isnt efficient after
a few hundred meters thats why I carry the 7.62X51
its EVERY BIT as reliable as ANY AK (way more accurate)
has more punch and more range...I never understood the govt switching to 5.56 I know they argue you can carry more ammo but hell why not just give us a pocket full of BB's each soldier could carry bout a million...

Originally posted by cyberpilot
the term I use for the 16 is "user friendly"
but the lightweight projectile just isnt efficient after
a few hundred meters thats why I carry the 7.62X51
its EVERY BIT as reliable as ANY AK (way more accurate)
has more punch and more range...I never understood the govt switching to 5.56 I know they argue you can carry more ammo but hell why not just give us a pocket full of BB's each soldier could carry bout a million...

A man who knows his shizit. I love it. It's all about contracts. They dont care about what's good for the grunt. It's about the almighty dollar.

www.abovetopsecret.com..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

Ah ha!

[Edited on 25-1-2004 by cyberpilot]

Why isnt my pic showing?...can anyone see it?