In a sharp break for a military with long experience wielding the battle-tested AK-47, the Afghan national army is set to replace its entire inventory of Kalashnikov rifles with the American-made M-16.
By the end of the year, the U.S. military plans to ship about 55,000 used Marine Corps M-16A2 rifles to Afghanistan with the intent of outfitting every soldier in the Afghan army with one by the late spring of 2009. So far about 6,000 M16s, including Canadian C-7 variants, have been fielded to Afghan units and about 6,000 M-4 carbines have been in the hands of Afghan commandos since May 2007.
Officials in charge of the $44 million modernization effort recognize the difficultly in transitioning a largely illiterate force from a weapon designed for the third world to one that requires intensive maintenance and marksmanship. But the new, more accurate weapons are already proving their worth on the battlefield.
“When the commandos go into a fight against an enemy that’s armed with AKs, it’s not a fair fight. And even fire against ‘spray and slay,’ it’s not a fair fight at all,” said Army Col. Mike McMahon, who heads up the modernization program for the Afghan army.
“The competence you get [from the M-16] and the confidence is just incredible.”
The effort to abandon decades of experience with the venerable Kalashnikov is in part an attempt by Kabul to make a symbolic break from its insurgent past, where genocidal battles with AK-47-toting Soviets and Taliban religious zealots weigh heavily on the memory of Afghanistan’s post-September 11 government, McMahon said.
Similar efforts are in the works to supply the new Iraqi army with M-16s as well.
But the enhanced performance and increased assurance gained by wielding the M-16 and its variants come at a cost. Early efforts to train the Afghan army on the M-16 have been mixed, with some soldiers sticking to their trigger-happy ways — firing triple the amount of ammunition that a typical U.S. trainee would — and others using diesel fuel to lube the finely-tuned carbine as if it were an AK.
“The Afghans called this the ‘Black Kalashnikov’ — it was nothing different than just a plastic weapon,” McMahon explained. “They figured out very quickly — after they went through zeroing — that it was way different than the Kalashnikov, and you didn’t fire all your rounds at the same time.”
The M-16s do take some getting used to, McMahon said, and some long-standing habits have to be broken. For one, Afghan troops can’t just pick up any M-16 and fire it with any hope of hitting what they’re aiming at. Each soldier has his individual weapon zeroed to his particular shooting style and is accountable for that weapon’s whereabouts.
And no more ripping off a 30-round magazine shooting from the hip, McMahon said. The M-16 is designed to be fired from the shoulder, so forget the “spray and slay” shooting style.
Initial training on the M-16 with the 205th Afghan Army Corps in January was mixed, mainly because there were too few instructors with deep enough range and marksmanship know-how to get the students up to speed. So a new program has been launched along the lines of the M-16 training regimen in Iraq to hire six teams of 12 civilian contract instructors who will teach Afghan non-commissioned officers how to use the new rifle.
In a classic “train the trainer” model, those NCOs will then be in charge of teaching Afghan grunts on the M-16, giving small unit leaders the added benefit of perfecting both their rifle and management skills.
“We see a huge secondary benefit in terms of development of the NCO corps by doing this; in teaching them how to train, how to run ranges and how to teach” other soldiers, McMahon said. “Also this gives them a system that will have a devastating impact on the enemy in terms of almost revolutionizing the army.”
– Christian
Besides being more accurate and breaking the link to the past the project now channels the 44 million back to the pockets of some US (linked) corporation, but thats probably a very minor detail.
I reckon there should be some alternatives that are both accurate AND easy to maintain by some illiterate farmer, but chances are the’re made by the wrong company..
Starting to look alot like vietnamization. M-16’s and all now
Does this really serve America’s self interest? My major concern is the added stress on ammunitition manufacturing, .223/5.56 production is already stressed enough, and 50,000+ more trigger happy Afghans/Iraqis is only going to make it worse.
I think it’s a great idea. At the moment it will put extra stress on the 5.56/.223 supply but that will pick up cause the money is good and there are more buyers.
Breaking the link seems like a minor issue next to having a rifle that can hit the target and the training they get on it. It will give the Afgans the confidence to operate more complicated weapon systems, give them skills in teaching, and raise moral as they will more and more fights.
Consider a side argument to this. We are giving used weapons from the Marine Corps to the ANA. Could it be that the Pentagon finally has realized there is a significant difference after the sandtable tests were done to see the US Military needs itself a new rifle? What better way to get rid of a bunch of surplus rifles than to give them to a fledgling army while at the same time funding a program to start production on a new rifle for the military?
We have seen the Pentagon sending m16s and m4s to the Iraqi Army, and they said they were “new” rifles. But what if that is part of the same ploy? A new army gets better rifles and our army gets to lose a massive amount of older rifles that would either have to be scrapped or sold anyways, so why not send them overseas so we don’t have to pay more than shipping costs to get the Iraqis and the Afghans some better weapons?
Michael Yon was on our local radio station a few days ago promoting his new book. The radio show talk host asked Michael about the controversy surrounding the M-16 and his experiences with the rifle. Michael is a former special forces soldier and has a lot of experience with the M-16 and its variants. His comment was that he had been in a lot of fire fights all over Iraq, as a journalist, and had never seen an M-16 or M-4 jam. He did say that he had seen the 50 cal and the MK-19 grenade launcher jam in battle. His complaint against the M-16 was the round was not big enough, nothing new with that observation, but very interesting on the jamming question from a guy who has been there
Hey, there’s nothing wrong w/ using diesel to clean the M-16! WD-40 works just as well as CLP in cleaning the 16. Anything that gets the crud off!
Good! Even better if the Marines dump their over-long and –heavy M-16A4s to the Afghans and get proper M-4s for themselves.
Long term, diesel is corrosive.…
hmm are these the same illiterate farmers that learned to use stinger missiles? while there is more cleaning to do with a m16 you can still the concept of properly cleaning your weapons properly to afgans
AK-47s are the most reliable small arms platform ever IMO. This move will come back to bite the Afghanis.
$44million for 55,000 USED rifles! = $700 / rifle.
A rifle that while has some good characteristics has been found wanting in recent tests against new technology.
What kind of shitty deal is that!?
Talk about rip off!
I doubt the powers that be are this forward thinking, but I hope that this is the first step in us dumping our old rifles and replacing them with something new in a different calibre.
I was in Afghanistan for OEF6 and worked with the Afghan National Army (ANA). I carried an M-4 with optics and PEQ2 and it worked well for me. I have seen the AKs that the ANA carried and many of them were not battle worthy. Many needed parts or were broken. Ammunition was scare or unreliable. It was hard to get Wolf “match grade” ammo for the ANA. The ANA used to call us zombie killers since we fired single shots, while they did the pray and spray for little effect. Also while at night in a TIC, figuring out Taliban/al Queada would be hard since they would all be carrying AK. We just pinned a few pieces of glint tape on the ANA. They saw us cleaning our rifles as a sign of professionalism. It will take years to unlearn the Afghan cultural warrior ethos and pick up professional Western style soldiering and marksmanship, but many have all ready but it will start with the young recruits of the ANA that we are mentoring right now.
read the history of the M16. The AR15 was not designed to be a front line combat weapon. It was designed as an airfield security weapon to replace the (underpowered) M1 carbine without appreciably increasing the weight. LeMay loved it, and rightly so. It did what it was designed to do, put a .22 caliber pill right where you wanted it and tumbled it after it hit. Then MacNamara and the Wiz Kids got hold of the idea, decided to cut some corners and then make it a front line rifle. Stoner’s design was great. The weapon was good at what it was designed to do so lets not diss the man. Even he admitted to its failings. After all, look at the AR-18. Simpler, cheaper construction, better reliablity, and basically the same format as the AR-15. What was he trying to do? Come up with a front line rifle, not a security rifle. Before that he tried to make the AR-10, which due to some materials failures was scrubbed (they tried some tricks with composite barrels to lighten the load and it didn’t work). Had it worked it would have been a direct competitor to the M14 and probably would have beat it because it was lighter, and somewhat more modular.
Or we could blame MacArther for scrapping the Pederson round (ballistically very similar to alot of the new 6.5/6.8 cartridges that are all the rage) and saddling the Garand with the 30–06, thereby reducing the mag capacity by 2 rounds. Had the Garand been adopted in that original chambering, our armed forces might be shooting something similar to (a much improved) Mini-14 or M-14 chambered in a cartridge with performance very much like the 6.5 grendel (light recoiling, decent energy retention and range characteristics, 30 round magazine capacity, and good terminal ballistics).
We could play this what if game all day. The point is, that right now the armed forces are saddled with the M16/M4 and the 5.56 and the brass are in no hurry to change (just like “Dugout Doug”) from that cartridge. one can only hope that they see the error of their ways and adopt a better, more modular, easier to maintain rifle, and/or a better cartridge.
Please, let us not speak ill of the dead anymore.
I am currently deployed in Northern Iraq, as a company armorer in a Stryker battalion. I work with small arms and crew served weapons every day, and I have yet to see serious problems with the M4/M16. The most jamming problems we have are with our M249s, but this is due to age and wear on the weapons.
Don’t get me wrong, I hate the M4. It is the filthiest operating weapon I have ever seen, but it doesn’t seem to jam.
Here’s what I believe is the truth. The M4/M16 has come a long way since Vietnam, and along the way, the Army has worked out what the manufacturing tolerances need to be to keep them from jamming at the first sign of sand or dust. If anything, I find this more irritating than if they jammed all the time, because DoD is not going to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to replace weapons that work.
Most of the guys around here who complain about the reliability of the M4 will tell you, if you press them on the issue, that they have never had their weapon jam. They still hate the things. We have seen too many insurgents take three or four rounds to the chest and run away to feel any different.
I was able to get our snipers some M14’s with SAGE stocks, and they work better than anything else we’ve seen. Forty year old rifles, sure, but so far everyone the snipers shot with them went down and stayed there. In the end, isn’t that what really matters?
So let me get this clear: we are training people how to shoot better, and giving them our guns so they can be more accurate the next time they need to shoot at us for some reason?
Does this make any sense? Do we really need to train potential sharpshooters who aren’t really sure whether they are on our side or not?
Brilliant.
Joe makes a good point– we trained and armed a lot of the insurgants that are fighting today. Who is to say that after we leave, another nut is going to take control of all those rifles?
On the other hand, we do not want to be there forever, so we have to try and build a little stability. At least if they shoot at us ten years from now, it will be with 5.56 not 7.62x54.
Which brings up another interesting point. Using the 5.56 will come in handy if we ever need to restrict the flow of ammo, incase they DO start shooting at us. They will either have to learn to dye and load their own, or not piss off the US or Israel, where most of it originates.
Lets just hope that no one desides to give them weapons and ammo manufacturing plants until a good thirty years from now!
Dumb, these people will probably be our enemies in 10 years? Something tells me this had something to do with “equal opportunity” or some sort of politically correct nonsense over the Afghan’s feeling “unequal” becuase they shoot the AK.
This is a smart step because its giving the Iraq military firepower and a symbolic disconnection from the insurgency. This early in the game U.S inspectors will HAVE to stay and man the name charts and biometric scanners or the whole system will break down.
M16A2s for the Afghan Army? Yeah, we’ll really piss-off the Afghans now. I’ve shot expert twice with the M16A2; the sites are excellent, otherwise you can throw the rest of the rifle away.
It’s probably true that Colt wants to guarantee some business by selling parts to the ANA, and the US is more than happy to get rid of its old rifles.
The ANA got away with taking lousy care of their AKs but this won’t work very long with the M16 series. Improper cleaning will lead to unreliability. Sure, the M16 has better sights and much better ergonomics, but the AK has fewer moving parts and will last much longer.
Therefore, the AK is probably a better choice for such a primitive army (and culture).
I have only one question: Where are all the surplussed AKs going? (I’ll take three, please.)
Umm… What? You can’t possibly be serious. The M16 is a good weapon, but better than the AK? I think the durability is more than enough for me to sacrifice a little range of my projectile.