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
As for the ak47, terrorists kill soldiers with it, so shouldn't soldiers kill terrorists with it. There is always the cheapness of the AK though. the newer ak74 is better
Well an Ak-74 is really just an Ak-47 with a smaller round and a muzzle break. So in all fairness, I would take the Ak-74 over the M-16 because it's as accurate and far more durable.
i could roll over in the mud and fall in a messy puddle in a firefight with my Ak-47 and i'll still be able to kill who ever is trying to kill me. I would take an Ak-47 over a M16.
the ak-47 is a nice weapon although i don't think it should replace the m16 i think they both should be used the 7.62 has far greater penetrating power than the 5.56 and there are situations where u need a larger round and when u need a smaller round
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?
Who needed help in WWI, WWII, and almost every other conflict they have been in after the 19th century. That is all.
