Comments on: U.S. Swaps AKs for M16s for Afghan Army

By: nina

nina — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 07:18:42 +0000

hey is the corey wilcox that knows genina allen? if so email me asap

By: Tony

Tony — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 06:32:24 +0000

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.

By: tokeepandbear

tokeepandbear — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 21:00:21 +0000

I have only one question: Where are all the surplussed AKs going? (I’ll take three, please.)

By: herohero

herohero — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 15:44:13 +0000

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).

By: P.J. Busche

P.J. Busche — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 13:34:17 +0000

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.

By: Corey Wilcox

Corey Wilcox — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:50:29 +0000

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.

By: Dormato

Dormato — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:24:23 +0000

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.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Mon, 05 May 2008 00:13:35 +0000

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!

By: Joe

Joe — Sun, 04 May 2008 08:08:28 +0000

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.

By: Nick

Nick — Sat, 03 May 2008 16:08:19 +0000

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?