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
There are many reasons the M4 was chosen over the M14. For one thing the M4 is much shorter in length. The M14 is much longer and unwieldly in battle.
The M14 is also extremely difficult to aim in fully automatic mode a huge disadvantage to the M4.
They are however used as sniper rifles by some special forces, but they are deemed too unnacurate at fully automatic to be made the standard gun for US infantry.
Indeed but clearly the US army deemed the M14s disadvantages to outweight the advantage of the range. However like i said it is still used as a sniper rifle.
In modern warfare the ability to have a mobile force able to provide automatic fire is very important. Like i said the M14 was shown to be extremely innacurate on full auto. In addition you will not always see the enemy coming from 600 yards away. Much of the fighting done in Afghanistan are ambushes and so the advantage of range is negated, justifying the need for accurate, fully aitomatic weaponry.
So wouldn't the ability to shoot no matter what be more important than having your gun jam and being forced to use your pistol instead? And with a gun that can be as accurate as an M4 if you have the right model would be able to avoid any problems with jaming. Why wouldn't you take that weapon?
So wouldn't the ability to shoot no matter what be more important than having your gun jam and being forced to use your pistol instead?
Taking care of your rifle is one of the first things they teach you. It is of paramount importance. The M4 doesn't jam often, especially if it is properly oiled and looked after. In addition these upgrades you speak of do not matter tooo much, when talking about Afghanistan, as the Taliban use very basic weaponry without any upgrades to speak of.
There would be no need for any of that teaching.Therefore there is more time for recruites to learn how to shoot their weapon, get in shape, learn what it takes to join the army, or just less time in training.
In addition these upgrades you speak of do not matter tooo much
Then why does the U.S military even bother to spend more money on upgrades for their M4 rifles?
Then why does the U.S military even bother to spend more money on upgrades for their M4 rifles?
I am talking of the Taliban. As the enemies we are fighting do not have access to these upgrades,and the M4 without upgrades outclasses the primitive AKs the Taliban use. Of course the US army spends money on upgrading its weaponry , if they can be even better then why not?
There would be no need for any of that teaching.Therefore there is more time for recruites to learn how to shoot their weapon, get in shape, learn what it takes to join the army, or just less time in training.
It probably takes a week tp teach a soldier how to look after and be proficient in maintaining their weapon. In a week how much better at marksmanship/fitter/better at all round soldiery can you get?
Well, this forum post is about AKs for the U.S army not for the Taliban. And some Taliban fighters are using M16s, stinger missles, M249 SAWs and probably other weapons produced by NATO.
And ak-47 takes a few hours to learn how to take care of, never mind a week! How do you explain the fact that small children in Africa at ages as low as 8 years old fire real AK-47s? Care for your AK-47 wouldn't be a terribly huge issue anymore and you would probably only need a cleaning rod and some motor oil for use every 6 months just to be certian. Why spend yet even more money on specialized cleaning kits?
well untill u see an actual AK-47 fire u dont truely know how deadly it is... I mean games try to portray it, but its nothing like the real thing. It is some scary sh't to see one getting fired, never mind getting fired at you. Its a deadly machinegun way btr than scorpians, M16, Carbines... u name it. It would probably be an amazing upgrade to use this weapon in the military
To claim that the Viet Cong won the Vietnam War is such a gross misunderstatement that I can't believe anyone would base their argument on that. The AK-47 is a fine weapon, but the fact remains that it is quickly growing obsolete. The Colt M1911 is still in use as a sidearm 90 years after its creation, but it is no longer standard issue. The M14 rifle is still being used as a sniper rifle because of its reliability and penetration, but was superceded a long time ago by the M16. Even the AK-47 is now replaced in many countries of the USSR by the AK-74M. The fact remains that technology moves on.
I have also mentioned the symbolic nature of the M16 series to the US. What would it look to the American people if the army ended up using the weapons of our past and present enemies? Do not underestimate the power of morale.
I didn't say the Viet Cong won! I just said North Veitnam!! The Viet Cong were almost wiped out in the Tet offensive. They may have been aid to the north but they were not the people who took over South Vietnam, which lost .
An AK-74M is essentialy an AK-47 so it fits as a weapon that the U.S could be utilizing in the M16's stead because of its unmatched reliablity.
