ForumsWEPRAK-47 for the U.S army

250 43089
Communist
offline
Communist
522 posts
Nomad

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

please post your opinion!

  • 250 Replies
Talo
offline
Talo
945 posts
Nomad

Sounds like a solid argument. If you are going to say that the AK is a better machine gun then the M16, you are right.... you need to compare the AK to the SAW then.


There shouldn't be any more argument about this.

Fritz_Rublehem
offline
Fritz_Rublehem
1,076 posts
Nomad

Yeah, I'am sad to say that the SAW would outbeat an AK47 in shooting and performance.

17dman
offline
17dman
786 posts
Peasant

A SAW is more like back up shooting because of its weight in my opinion in close quarters a p90 would do the trick.

Communist
offline
Communist
522 posts
Nomad

Well first of all the SAW is kind of like a high capicity machine gun, not an assault rifle given to every single unit.

Also, the reason why the AK47 is as accurate as it is is because of the fact that combat takes place well below 300 yards, not above 800.

It's like using a flamthrower to get snow out of your drive way; it's not needed. The Ak-47 shoots just as well at about 50 yards away as an M6 can. Prehaps recoil would be an issue but the AK makes up for this with superior energy and reliablility.

Communist
offline
Communist
522 posts
Nomad

I ment the SAW is like a high capacity assault rifle sorry!

Fritz_Rublehem
offline
Fritz_Rublehem
1,076 posts
Nomad

I quite agree Communist, you bring up and make a great point.

thepyro222
offline
thepyro222
2,150 posts
Peasant

the AK 47 does less damage than both of those, and the AK is from Vietnam. Go to This link. they do a pretty good job at explaining

KamikazeKraut
offline
KamikazeKraut
152 posts
Nomad

It depends what you want to use the gun for.The M-4 has high accuracy, and an adequate size caliber. The AK-47 is a very powerful weapon, but not as accurate. If we could somehow combine the two, we would have a monster of an assault rifle

dudeisman
offline
dudeisman
9 posts
Nomad

i'm with communist on this, AK's are some of the best weapons ever made and guess what, if we got the AK's we could send troops into battle quickly out of the boot camp and in the millitary's current staging place it would be great due to reiliablity. plus the AK is suited for this kind of combat the army is in today. As many weponolagists say: it's more of a SMG then an rifle. And as i say: it's still an assult rifle

LordBob
offline
LordBob
517 posts
Nomad

Ak's Suck, they are inaccurate, the recoil is horrible and they jam often. If our army used this will would have more casualties do to friendly fire. I don't get why you guys think Ak's are the "one of the best weapons ever made" put down the video game and actually read something about it. Yes Ak's are cheap, but at what cost? M-16's are cheap to, and they are a whole lot better.

dudeisman
offline
dudeisman
9 posts
Nomad

lorbob look up teh AK, many weponoligists say it is reliable. Oh and by the way, have you ever watched world's best wepons? Ak's where on the lsit and not the M-16 >. Oh and by hte way game over exxagerate the M-16 isntead usualy.

Fritz_Rublehem
offline
Fritz_Rublehem
1,076 posts
Nomad

@LordBob, who told you that AK47's jam? Have you ever shot one to know that it's recoil is horrible? I don't think so mate, do some research on a topic before you post.

@dudeisman, congrats on supplying sufficient information.

LordBob
offline
LordBob
517 posts
Nomad

Sorry I need to check my facts a bit more, I guess I got carried away :/

So here is a more "researched" view.

The Ak is a great weapon for Army vs. Army combat. It is accurate within short range, reliable, and has firepower.


BUT it is not for Iraq.

The M-16A4 the current main firearm we use now I light weight and very accurate. It can shot single, burst of automatic rounds. It can be modded with a grenade launcher. this makes it perfect for the urban combat of Iraq. The enhanced accuracy helps keep cilvian casualties down. Also the gernadelancher attachments help take down enemies in house and other hiding spots. The single fire lets you take down man with out to much recoil from far away.


The bottom line. The M-16 is much better for the urban combat of Iraq

dudeisman
offline
dudeisman
9 posts
Nomad

so does the AK. It si fully moddable and also has the three modes. and in urban combat(and in real life) one shot one kill. the AK was designed for urban combat and inide a building it can rip up the surroundings and destroy the opposition would be eating lead for dinner.

Pixie214
offline
Pixie214
5,838 posts
Peasant

BUT it is not for Iraq.


I thought the U.S. were pulling out of Iraq soon anyway.

The AK was designed while Kalshnikov was in hospital. Bed ridden he felt angry that so many Russians were being killed by superior Nazi weapons so he designed the AK to counter it.

The AK has always been the underdogs/revolutionaries weapon. If the US used it the enemies would drop it (they wouldn't want to use the same gun as the U.S. would they?) then what weapions would they use? obviously this could be repeated until the enemies have no weapons.
Showing 181-195 of 250