Comments on: Iraqi Army Trading AKs for M-16s

By: fmJK-47

fmJK-47 — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 03:42:48 +0000

The M16 and the AK-47 both have their own problems, it just depends on the origin of combat they are entering into. M16’s have a longer reach than an AK does and is generally more accurate… but he 5.56x45mm NATO round falls significantly shorter on stopping power than the .30 cal: 7.62x39mm Soviet. While AK’s are extremely durable and powerful, they lack in accuracy due to the increasing muzzle climb generated by the higher power .30 calibre round.
Note: The 5.56’s power becomes even more decreased after the bullet has descended below 2700 fps.
+Standard loads are at like 55 grns.

By: Kilo

Kilo — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 12:19:27 +0000

“I saw a picture of a Sadrist militiaman proudly brandishing an M-4, so these weapons seem to have a great deal of street cred in Iraq.“
Posted by: CSI at February 28, 2008 05:18 AM
Do you really think the weapon itself was what he was proudly displaying, rather than what it implies he did to get it ?
A lot of Afghan muj proudly wear Russian army belt buckles. It ain’t because they hold pants up better than others.

By: AK-47

AK-47 — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:59:02 +0000

“Any soldier who doesn’t maintain his weapon at every oppurtunity, no matter the design, is a fool“
AK works after being in a sand bath. M-16 doesn’t.
During the firefight, you’re not gonna have time to clean your weapon after sand or mud gets into it.

By: freefallingbomb

freefallingbomb — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 02:08:47 +0000

"Robert Brenzel 'Bob' " writes: "Some day the neighborhood will learn to get along. There couldn't possibly be a better marriage than the IAF's industrial base and the oil rich customers next door." The people whom you just called "Israel's neighbourhood" ARE the original, legitimate owners of Palestine, mind you. Hey "U.S. American" (= self-exiled European or his descendant) : How do you like the red Indians' "neighbourhood" yourself?

By: David Woroner

David Woroner — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 23:10:04 +0000

Umm, Army Col. Stephen Scott is sorely mistaken.
(Wait, i get it, a hedge against “the future?”)
“If we get the aks away from them, when they shoot at us next time, they won’t kill us.” Smells like VICTORY!!!!!! LOL, DW
(FICTION) PS — Army Col. Stephen Scotts children have had a two million dollar scholarship acct opened for them…

By: Robert Brenzel "Bob"

Robert Brenzel "Bob" — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:39:44 +0000

The Israelis’ rifles are made for sandboxes. Too bad they all probably have the Star of David imprinted on them. Some day the neighborhood will learn to get along. There couldn’t possibly be a better marriage than the IAF’s industrial base and the oil rich customers next door.

By: Vitor

Vitor — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:40:54 +0000

Ah, What now? M16 more reliable than G-36, FAMAS, Galil?

By: CSI

CSI — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 10:18:47 +0000

I saw a picture of a Sadrist militiaman proudly brandishing an M-4, so these weapons seem to have a great deal of street cred in Iraq.

By: mark

mark — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 04:43:15 +0000

m-16’s are not really that reliable in the desert conditions unless you clean them very often.

By: Brian

Brian — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 03:53:54 +0000

To me this seems like a step to force the IAF to become more professional. Maintaining the M-16 will instill discipline. A well disciplined, professional army will be more likely to perform like soldiers, not street thugs.