The Other Nightly News

 

1. I have just one problem with these photos:  Why are the Iraqi security forces carrying those commie AK-47’s?  Please spare me the drivel about how good the weapons are.

   Posted by Illegitimi Non Carborundum       01/27/2005  at  03:56 PM  



2. Why give them M-16’s which they have no knowledge of when every one of them knows how to handle an AK-47? Besides, the AK-47’s are free, having been captured from “insurgents” or “appropriated” from the former Iraqi Army. The military is letting them use what they know best how to use. Besides, the AK is just as reliable as the M-16, if not more so.

   Posted by The Skipper       01/27/2005  at  04:18 PM  



3. INC:  the AK can be put through more shit and still fire as opposed to the M-16.  I’d take an AK over a 16 in combat any day.

   BTW:  do you shoot often?  Have you ever shot an M-16? Just curious because sometimes that can affect how you feel.

   I also think the AK has more stopping power than a 16.  (I could be wrong and have not checked the numbers.)

   Posted by Vilmar       01/27/2005  at  04:58 PM  



4. Here are the specs:

   Caliber -
   AK-47: 7.62x39mm
   M-16A2: 5.56x45mm

   Muzzle Velocity -
   AK-47: 700 m/s
   M-16A2: 975 m/s

   Rate Of Fire -
   AK-47: 600 rds/min
   M-16A2: 800 rds/min (cyclic)

   Killing Range -
   AK-47: 1500 meters
   M-16A2: 550 meters

   All data above from Kalashnikov Arms and US Army.

   Summary: the AK has a bigger bullet, travels slower but farther. It also has fewer moving parts and greater tolerance between machined parts making it more reliable in inclement conditions, i.e., dirt, mud, sand.

   I’ll take an AK any day over the M16. I’ve fired both and like the feel of the AK much better than the M16. But that’s just my opinion. I could be wrong. Someone ask Kim Du Toit what he thinks for a more definitive answer.

   Posted by The Skipper       01/27/2005  at  05:51 PM  



5. Allan and Vilmar:  My main problem with the AK-47 is that it has been the weapon of choice of our enemies for the last 40 years, and in the hands of those enemies, has killed a lot of American troops.  So I guess it is a symbolic issue for me, although I would not hesitate to use one, especially if I just killed the bastard who last held it and my 16 was broken or I was out of ammo.  There are so many other good weapons out there that I don’t understand the fascination with this commie rifle.  It is just a symbol of evil to me.

   And, yes, as a former US Marine, I have sent many, many rounds down range with an M-16, at the range where I qualified Expert every time, and in combat where I dropped a few Somali ragheads with it.  I know of the AK’s almost mythical durability, but much of the bad rap the M-16 has received in that department involved the model A1, not the A2.  As you know, a rifle is only as good as the person shooting it and on how well that person maintains it.  I never had a problem with mine, and I have used it in combat in a quite harsh environment.

   As far as “stopping power” or muzzle energy goes, I’m not sure.  The standard M-16 round is 55 grains, travelling at 3100-3300 ft/sec, the necessary velocity to achieve hydrostatic shock.  I’m not sure of the stats on the AK, but the round is probably around 150 grains with a muzzle velocity of around 2200 ft/sec, so I’m not sure.  I am still working on my morning coffee (it’s 11:30am, Friday) and not about to break out the ol’ calculator.

   I personally prefer an M-14 or any other rifle that shoots a “real” .308 like an HK-91 or an FN FAL, none of which, I’ll admit, are “cheap.”

   Posted by Illegitimi Non Carborundum       01/27/2005  at  05:52 PM  



6. Funny you should mention it but I think I read on Kim’s site that some of our soldiers are now getting M-14s instead of M-16s.  They are ecstatic!

   Posted by Vilmar       01/27/2005  at  06:41 PM  



7. Actually, they’re getting something much better - the FN-SCAR (HEAVY). Special Forces Combat Assault Rifle. I want me one of them!!!!

   Posted by The Skipper       01/27/2005  at  07:40 PM  

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.