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
First of all I need to repeat myself fifty times because there are people saying the same questions that i have already answered,
Second of all please know what you're saying because the M16 does not have "equal" penetraition power as the AK-47. It tends to fall into fragments upon impact. Good for killing somone, not so good for punching through armor or cover.
And again, I didn't say the original AK-47 was the best weapon in the world, because it obviousley is not. I did say, however, that the AK series of rifles was the best. The Ak-101, Ak-74, AKM ,ect ect are all cousins of the same weapon. And they're are variants of the AK-47/74 and some are as accurate and if not more accurate than the M-16. And yet they are cheaper and more durable.
To solve the problem with cost, just stop producing M-16s and M4s and simply produce and import new Ak-47 series rifles. The old veterans will keep using the M4 and the new recruites would use the AKs.
And stop insulting another countries' military! Have you been in the army? What right do you have to insult and judge another countries' army by saying they can't beat China, Russia, and the U.S? I would have to agree with woody that they wouldn't even go to war with each other. And the army is formed to protect, not to invade and conquer. Any other country that has used its army to invade either didn't last long or lost its original government positions.
If someone said the U.S army would be rushed by the Russian army without much of a "decent" fight, I would be rather appauled.
First we would have to have the permission of the chinese, then I think we'd actually end up paying more because we have to pay for shipping, and special ammunition and production prices since it is not from the U.S.
Soo, I would say it is a great gun to fight over lnog term times so yes.
Spare us. You have not given us any real proof of why it should actually replace the M16, besides hollow arguments of "it won the Vietnam War," its cheapness without giving any statistics, or why it would be actually worth the symbolic and fiscal cost of replacing the M16 family entirely. You consistently oversimplify the logistics of replacement and its actual efficacy of use.
The M16's main claim to fame is its customizability, making it suitable for widescale use. Properly maintained, it is a reliable weapon, as any good well-maintained weapon is. The AK-47 was made for an age when durability and massed firepower was the main point of Soviet military tactics. We are in a different place and a different age, and there is no urgent or even remotely large need to have the M16 family replaced.
I doubt the U.S. army would ever change, to much pride and patriotism to use a Russian weapon. IMO the proof is in the pudding and almost every single war since WW2 ended has had an AK-47 used in it to great success. It is, like so many of the greatest things throughout history, terrible on fave value. It is loud when you change settings from automatic to semi-automatic to single shot (not good for an ambush). It is not particularly accurate. However it works and it is cheap. Kalashnikov never patented it so it can bemade by anyone anywhere and with few costs. From looking around if i wanted to buy an M16 today it would cost £2-3 thousand but an AK-47 is about £400. So one on one an M16 would probably be better but that situation wouldn'y arise though because there would always be 5 or 6 AK's there.
I think we all know that the AK will not be used as it is to easily available but IMO it would be good if they did use it as if they needed bullets in IRAQ for example the Iraqies use AKs so the bullets are everywhere so this would help and cause less cases of being low on bullets. But like Pixie said there is way to much pride at stake for bigger countries to use lower ranked weapons.
You clearly were not reading half of everything I posted on this thread. And the AK has fought and won more wars and revolutions than the M16 could hope to. Also, if I must repeat myself again, the AK-74 nearly clones the M16 in accuracy and is far more durable and cheaper.
And I never simply stated "The AK-47 won the Vietnam war." I gave ample reasons why it was central in the communist victory and why in a sence it did "win the vietnam war".
And I still don't know why anybody who was not effectively brain-washed by the Reagan era would oppose using a gun that can have as many attachments as any other weapon in existance and as accurate and is cheaper and more durable at that
Also I didn't say that we SHOULD make the United States armed forces use AK rifles, I'm saying it would be far more logical. I really don't care what weapons the U.S.A is using so long as they are keeping them alive and they aren't so expensive that our economy is on its death bed.
I have read everything that you have written. The AK has fought in more revolutions and wars than the M16 has, but spears and swords have been used in more than both combined. The number of wars it's been in may be somewhat related, but I do not see any strong correlation. Furthermore, not every Vietnamnese soldier used the AK-47. As such, even WWII era weapons were heavily used.
As I've also stated before, the two weapons represent different military philosophies. While the Soviets put higher priority on durability and rate of fire, both admirable traits of the AK-47, the US prioritized lighter weight, accuracy, and ergonomics, with customizability becoming a later priority with the coming end of the century, qualities seen in the M16 family.
The M16 was a modification of our past weapons used. I think it started with the ones used in WWI. It's been a wile so I don't remember all the evolutions of it.
Well, as i've, mentioned twice, it depends on what enviroment you're working in. In some scenerios the AK-47 is better than the M16 and in other scenerios the M16 is the better weapon.
And the AK-47 has gone up against more accurate weapons in revolutions in Africa and eventualy ended up on the winning side. Not all small wars were AK-47 against AK-47.
