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
Woody... can you read English? You quoted me and then act as if I had said the exact opposite.
No, i was just saying that this thread is about AKs not pistols and so this is not the place to discuss it, so feel free to make a new thread and discuss it there.
..and I was saying that this thread is LIKE saying we need to replace the 9mm with another gun. It's relevant to the post and I'm not actually talking about pistols.
and I was saying that this thread is LIKE saying we need to replace the 9mm with another gun. It's relevant to the post and I'm not actually talking about pistols.
O rite, i thought u wanted to change the line of argument.
If im not mistaken both M9s and Deagles are pistols.
"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."
That heavily depends on where you are!!! :P The AK-47 has more energy and can therefore kill some one through cover, quite frankly, the U.S made rifle aren't going to do that job so well. So the AK-47 would easily outgun the M4 in that situation. But if you were out in the open with an AK-47 and some one with an M4 is shooting at you, yes you are probably in trouble.
Still, it depends upon where you are. the M4 and the AK are equal and opposite in a sence. But neither one of them really outguns each other.
I would say in a conflict in a country that is largely desert with much of the actual fighting taking place at long distances then having superior range is important. In any case the Taliban have little or no body armour so the M4s deficiency in stopping power compared to the AK isnt that important
Here's why the US doesn't use the AK. A squad (8 man team) of soldiers using M4s can take on about 12 men with AKs easily. Why? M4s use smaller rounds, and thus they can hold more ammunition. By having more ammo, they can keep enemy soldiers at bay and in hiding, allowing their own soldiers to move around and strategically place themselves. Secondly, as mentioned many times, the M4 is more accurate. Thus, when enemy soldiers do pop their heads out, it's much easier to target them, now that the 8 man squad is properly positioned.
And Communist, the reason we don't use current bullets with 50 year old guns is simple. They're not made with the same caliber. And secondly, gun design has improved as well, so why use an old gun with new bullets? This can be applied to an analogy about cars. Why don't we just drop in new, more powerful engines into old cars? Some people do, but with new improvements in aerodynamics and types of materials used, new bodies and frames combined with new engines are a much better solution.
Just FYI there really isn't that much sand in Afghanistan, and it's not really a desert. Just thought I'd put that out there.
The Northern, Western and Central regions of Afghanistan are mostly mountanous, however most of the fighting by US troops takes place in the South of the country which is dominantly desert, so even though desert doesn't caover the entire country, as far as US troops are concerned desert is their combat environment.
the reason we don't use current bullets with 50 year old guns is simple
Drace said that not me!
Ok if that theory is correct then why don't we use the M14 as our premier combat rifle instead of the M4? The m14 is far more accurate than the AK-74, the M16 and the M4 cabine. Some of you know that it was brought back fpr use as a specialized sniper rifle. But it was taken out of service because it was simply TOO accurate, no body needed to kill someone from over 800 yards away. That is why they went with rifles like the M16 that are shorter in range.
But if your theory about the more acurate the better is true, then we would just still be using the M14 instead of the M16. I'm not saying we should have guns that shoot bullets all over the place, but i'm saying guns that shoot far enough.
Besides, the Russians and the Americans have successfully product tested newer versions of the AK-47 to match the accuracy of the M4 by simply adding better butt stocks and finding ways to reduce recoil. And they are still dirt cheap!
