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
My question is: why is this even a discussion? Do you even know what the training is for each weapon? Do you know anything about the Army and what weapons are actually used? This thread is as useless as if it were talking about the weapons in Halo.
Do you even know what the training is for each weapon?
I have been trained to use the SA80 assault rifle and my brother is in the royal marines so yes i do know the training involved and what happens in practice.
I have been trained to use the SA80 assault rifle and my brother is in the royal marines so yes i do know the training involved and what happens in practice.
So... no you don't know anything about the US Army...
So... no you don't know anything about the US Army...
Firstly this thread is primarily about weapons. One can understand weapons without having been trained by the US army to use them. Secondly the weapons and training received by UK forces are very similar to those used by US forces.
I'll say it again, it's not the gun that matters but the bullet. The AKs 7.62mm Soviet round is large and more powerful than the M16/M4 5.56mm NATO round. Distance and accuracy are determined by actually bullet (not cartridge) shape and barrel design. The US could just make a bullet that breaks the air better or use the larger 7.62mm NATO round and own on any AK.
The AK-47 is a highly reliable gun, but it can jam. The M4/M16 are very good rifles as long as they are kept clean. The military has considered replacing them with weapons such as the XM8, which failed due to problems including parts melting, and the FN SCAR, adopted by SOCOM. But, the M4/M16 are very good rifles as long as they are kept clean, and most soldiers know how to do this. The best thing to replace them with, if it had to be done, would either be the SCAR-H version or the older M14, in use before the M16 as the main infantry rifle but still in most armories and the battlefield.
Distance and accuracy are determined by actually bullet (not cartridge) shape and barrel design.
That is true up to a point, but when you consider that the accurate range of the AK is 400 metres whereas the M4 is 600m. Perhaps a larger bullet would increase the accuracy of the M4 even further but as it can already outgun the AK then why bother, as it might cost to make the transition to larger bullets.
Let me just point out that the US Army always buys cheap. The bullets being used were made 20 years ago. We just recently used up all the rounds from WWII. The weapons used today are LIGHT WEIGHT and SMALL but are ACCURATE with LOW RECOIL for PERSONAL use. The M16 isn't even used by the Army. Any time there is a fight, the US Army uses 30 and 50 cal guns mounted on vehicles. Snipers use special bullets and weapons. So there really is no need for another weapon. Also we know that if we see a M16 or M4 in the hands of some one other than the US, we can stop them and find out how they got it wile the AK is every were with no way to track them. Wile on the subject of just guns in general, there are 100 guns better than the AK. ISAF and Special Forces use MP5s, AUGs, P90s, and what ever they find that works for them.
The next argument you are going to make is that they should replace all the M9s with Desert Eagles???? Do some research if you are so interested in the subject.
The next argument you are going to make is that they should replace all the M9s with Desert Eagles???? Do some research if you are so interested in the subject.
If you want to argue that then make another thread about it.
