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
You guys do know that there are many diffrent types of AK's there is the AK-74 and all the AK 100 series so the U.S would probably use the newer versions.
The U.S army probably would never replace the M16A4 with an AEK-971 in real life, but i think it would help out both the economy and the problems the less reliable M16 brings forth. AK-47 based rifles are simply cheaper and more reliable and some are as accurate in full auto as the M16.
Jimmy Carter made this strategic decision a long time ago. He had to choose between having a low-tech, rugged weapon manufacturing philosophy like the Russians, in order to use brute force, or to opt for more high tech weaponry to defeat the enemy with superior weapons. The high-tech decision was what he chose, and it has shown wonderful results in combat. This question was answered over 20 years ago.
You'll never know how green the grass is on the other side until you try it.
I think that the US should try out the AK47 series, and then base their opinions off of that, and see which they prefer.
That would be a great idea, since the U.S. military has never used the AK rifle in combat.
The U.S army probably would never replace the M16A4 with an AEK-971 in real life, but i think it would help out both the economy and the problems the less reliable M16 brings forth. AK-47 based rifles are simply cheaper and more reliable and some are as accurate in full auto as the M16.
The M4 is better than the M16. Why not compare the M4 with the AK47 or other AK rifles.
The AK would definitely help save money for the military but think about it, would the U.S. really need to use the AK rifles to save money? They already spend at least a trillion dollars on defense. If you don't believe what I said about the military spending look here
Technically speaking, the US military determines how green the grass is on the other side by trials and testing, which is done extensively each time a new weapon is added into our arsenal.
The US military has been using the same round as the AK (7.62mm) in their M60 machine gun for decades, so they obviously believe that the larger caliber round is effective.
The big issues that hurt the 7.62 round were weight and cost.
7.62mm rounds are heavier than 5.56mm rounds, and a larger caliber and more powerful round takes a larger and stronger barrel and firing mechanism. Having been in the Army, I can tell you that more weight on the rifleman means that they can carry less rounds.
Tactically speaking, many times an assault weapon like the M-16 is used more for suppression than for pinpoint accuracy. This means spraying an area to provide cover for another advancing or retreating squad, many times not knowing exactly where the enemy actually is! In these situations, is essential that one has the most possible number of rounds on them, without losing kill effectiveness.
Through testing, it was found that the 5.56 round had an acceptable kill vs. weight ratio, and so they went for it. It's not that the 7.62 round isn't very good - in fact it is somewhat superior in penetration and accuracy - but those benefits weren't enough to outweigh the low weight and cost of the 5.56mm round.
Regarding cost, more metal in the round means each round is more expensive to make and transport, a big consideration when you're talking about potentially hundreds of millions of rounds of ammo over decades of use. While it would be nice to believe the Pentagon thinks that human life is priceless, in reality the added cost of a heavier round of ammunition is most definitely a consideration.
On a side note, a HUGE reason the US military would never adopt the AK series is that after several very public wars, the AK is now widely perceived by the US public to be "the enemy's weapon" or a "communist gun." It would be nearly impossible to convince the American public that the very same weapon our government said for the past 30 years was inferior to our own American rifle is now actually superior!
whats the deference all guns kill people so wtf are they for tos all the guns out and weponry and bam a better life but noo the world has to be selfish.
ak-47's are cheap as in there cheaply made and completly break much more easly and there not as accurate, and killing rage isnt as far.
Come on, where is that based from. We all know that when debating over subjects like these you need to PROVE your stance with external information, not only your personal opinion.
