As some of you know, the AK-47 is among the easiest of fire arms to produce, the most invunerable to jammming, and extremely easy to maintain. It would cost far less for the U.S to use the AK-47 than it would for them to use the M-16 or the M4 carbine, both of which need special cleaning kits to ensure long-term use. And they both require weeks of training for soldiers to use them correctly
our military takes pride in our weapons. The m-16 has a far better round. it is a 5.56 mm round and when it hits someones body it curves upward and splits apart making a normal shot in to a fatal shot. why would we down grade from the weapons we have. changing our weapons would not change that much in the military budget especially when the military has a budged of 500 billion a year. our ability to have the best weapons out in the field is what makes us the best.
An ak-47 has more energy and is accurate enough to do its job. And it can have as many upgrades as an M-16 can have. Also, some people say that the AK-47 is the world's best weapon INCLUDING its inventor because of its un-challenged reliability. However I agree with you about the damage it can do to human flesh. But you wont always get some body out in the open, the AK, with its 7.62 X 39mm round can penetrate far thicker amounts of cover than the M16 can hope to.
The AK-47 can be used in many more battle fields than the M-16 can, and because it never jams, it could save many more soldiers lives.
ah the ak-47 is accurate but i would not agree that it is accurate enough the kickback recoil prevents a constant pre-fire that is needed to cover an area. This is used in military training to teach soldiers to shoot off the others recoil when using an ak-47. thus another reason we prevail so well in urban combat. But in the end the m16 is a well powered rifle that has a amazing accuracy, while the ak-47 is a very powerful weapon with limited acccuracy. So in the end it is a matter of opinion and feel for guns rather than a question of mechanics.
By the way the British army is the best. And why would you want to use terrorist guns and third world country war weapons if you are the biggest superpower in the world with the 2nd best army.
Well, the main reason is that there are WAY better guns out there then the classic AK. But one thing the army should do is switch from hollow-point bullets to steel-point bullets. I don't want to get too technical, but they can go through things better.
I just thought of another thing - you get what you pay for. Even if the AK is cheaper, you are getting a better product if you spend more. And our defense is one spot where I don't want second class products because they cost less.
British Army -- Not the best. Sorry, Keep hoping. xD
America's Military Budget is higher than the worlds Military Budget COMBINED. We buy extreme products, but we're also rich, why degrade? The Economy is bad, maybe Obama should reduce the military like Bill Clintawn. Who knows.
But anyway, The AK-47 is very reliable but the more expensive products have endless ways to easily beat the AK, Such as (Depending on the weapon itself) Accuracy, Tearing someone apart, etc.
But Yeah, The Defense is a biggy atm, and it would be stupid to be rich and buy cheap things.
Well, in the world today, the last thing that should be cut is the defense budget. One reason Clinton reduced the army was because there was nothing really going on in the world. But now, 15 years later, the defense of this country is #1.
Ok Armmed_Blade could I ask did the American Army ask the British Army to help them in the Iraq war. Answer yes so it proves you need the help from the best. But I agree with not buying cheap stuff, why lower your countries defence and risk your peoples safety?
By the way the British army is the best. And why would you want to use terrorist guns and third world country war weapons if you are the biggest superpower in the world with the 2nd best army.
hehe i love the way ledmonds is so confident about it. Man for man in inter military excercises the Brits have on average fared better.
HOWEVER i am in no doubt as to who would win a war between our 2 nations.
As for the AK it is cheap, powerful and doesn't jam much. It is however extremely innacurate compared to the rifles used by the US army. I don't think that the benefits would outweigh the cots. It would severely limit the capabilities of the US infantry.
As for the AK it is cheap, powerful and doesn't jam much. It is however extremely innacurate compared to the rifles used by the US army. I don't think that the benefits would outweigh the cots. It would severely limit the capabilities of the US infantry.
Well, based on that, what they spend extra on guns, they save on ammo... =)
The AK series of guns are overall easy to use, and are a very reliable Assault Rifle. M14's seem to (as you said) cost more, and are much less reliable. Both seem easy to mod, but he has a point. Even if the "enemy" uses the AK-47/AK-74, it doesn't mean that the U.S. shouldn't, it's a highly reliable gun.
