quote:

Originally posted by swremwin:
The AK-47 is a far more reliable weapon than the mattel-16. One dust storm and they will have a bunch of overpriced alloy and plastic clubs. Just the other night on Military channel they had a story/report/evaluation of the AK-47. It is user friendly and will keep going long after the mattel-16 is clogged and bogged.

quote:

Originally posted by NAVBLK4:
What are you saying? Are they not a Marine division? Iv'e seen numerous photos
of US toops and British troops together peacefully with armed Iraqi soldiers?

quote:

Originally posted by inflatable_soulmate:

quote:

Originally posted by NAVBLK4:
What are you saying? Are they not a Marine division? Iv'e seen numerous photos
of US toops and British troops together peacefully with armed Iraqi soldiers?

No. No. No. No. No.

No.

The "Green Berets" as they are informally known are not members of a Marine Corps division nor are they even a division of the Marine Corps.

They are part of the Special Forces of the US Army.

Maybe you were thinking of Force Reconnaissance.

quote:

Originally posted by MarkAntney:

quote:

Originally posted by KillToSave:
not only that, but the M16 is a much better rifle than the AK-47. With the M16, the Iraqis will take back their country in no time.

"the Iraqis will take back their country", from who?

quote:

Originally posted by 17294836:
With all respect to Army Co. Stephen, he must not be reading the troops comments on the problems with the M-16 & M-4 rifle

The M16 rifle is more accurate but that is it. The design has not changed since the 1950s, the AK is on its 3rd generation, the AK-74.
The M-16 must be cleaned every day, the AK-47 when you feel like it. M-16 jams even when in a clean environment. The small NATO round has no stopping power, can't go through a tree, car door etc.

When the iraqi soldier has his 1st firefight & the plastic M-16 jams, he won't be all smiles. He will sell it or trade it in for a AK-47.

The whole deal is a joke!!!

quote:

Originally posted by rkgtactical:

quote:

Originally posted by muslimmarine2000:

quote:

Originally posted by Jfile:

quote:

Originally posted by nbr1echo:
I personally do not like the idea as a whole and this is from personal experience itself. Pros: Yes they are planning on using biometrics and assigning weapons to each individual. Ammunition will be harder to come by as far as terrorists are concerned and yes the accuracy is much better in comparison with the AK-47. Cons: No matter how you look at it, terrorists will be supplied even if it's a small amount. If there is a conflict and americans are shot, wounded and or killed by a seized M-4/M-16, what kind of investication will ensue to determine if it is fratricide or not. We aren't supplying the Iraqi army to oppose an incoming enemy like the Afghanistan/Russian invasion, we are supplying the Iraqi army to battle "internal" conflict with a large percentage of their own "trusted" commrades being the enemy themselves. Too many times I've seen Iraq Police get supplied with weapons and ammunition and turn around and quit the forces, sell the weapon or just join in order to get one more weapon on their side. How many of these Iraqi Army personnel are possibly just going to join within the next year after the employment of the M-16/M-4s with the sole intention of getting the weapon, as much ammunition as possible and leaving because they were Al-Qaeda already. They already attempt to infiltrate as workers on military bases and that's unarmed. Of course the Iraqis are going to say the weapon, is "more accurate". Of course they will say it's "More efficient". Of course they will say it's "A superior weapon all around". Would you if you saw "a superior force" carrying around a weapon that looks different from yours? Have you seen the condition of half the AK-47's we've issued to the Iraqi's brand new, a year later? What's to happen when something breaks? How many "Extra Parts" are we going to give them? Personally, I have too many questions that are probably already answered just not in this specific article. And, the MONEY. I hope that the Iraqi's are recieving already used M-16/M-4's because WE need to outfit OUR military with BRAND NEW weapons first. If I were to start seeing brand spankin new rifles in Iraqi hands and I'm running around with a 20 year old weapon, I'd be a little pissed off. OK, I'm off my soap box now :P

You hit the nail on the head. This seems like a dumbass idea. From my understanding We are selling them NEW weapons. I don't and won't get a new weapon. I get one that some fuzzypatch private used in BCT 10 years ago. We all get hand me down equipment to save a couple bucks, and the people that we are not sure we trust are being handed better gear, and weapons. Does this seem stupid to anyone else?

I don't like this at all. It makes me tense. We are basicly handing the enemy more accurate, more durable weaponry. The same we use. Why?

I agree!. If they truly care about success then get new Ak's and leave that Jammed up rusty M16 away from them.

No matter how many times I cleaned up my M16, that S^it kept jammed up specially in that God forsaken desert.

Even that old a^s Ak that was at least few decades old could go through mud and I could keep shotting it.

I am sure that insurgents are laughing!

Not good move for Iraq or any deserted areas.

Mohammad,
Exactly what rifle did you qualify "expert" with, the M16 or the AK47? It would seem that the M16 proved suitable for you during basic or you would never have made it. These are these pety little complaints that I hear about this weapon all the time. I gunsmith on this weapon in my spare time and have built numerous variations. It is a reliable weapon in the right hands. In the hands of a lazy dufus, no. They won't want to take the time to clean it our properly shoot it.

quote:

Originally posted by dbeausoleil:
At least we finally have someone to dump them on as we move to something actually reliable like the HK...

Good riddance to one of the last vestiges of pork barrell politics giving us the non-compete weapon manufactured by the lowest bidder...

quote:

Originally posted by gazlind:

quote:

Originally posted by inflatable_soulmate:

No. No. No. No. No.

No.

The "Green Berets" as they are informally known are not members of a Marine Corps division nor are they even a division of the Marine Corps.

They are part of the Special Forces of the US Army.

Maybe you were thinking of Force Reconnaissance.

The Marine Corps does not have a Green Beret. They are part of the army and their mission is to infiltrate deep behind enemy lines and organize the native population into a guerrilla fighting force.
The Marine Corps has the Force Recon marines, who up until very recently were led by marine commanders in the field. Now, they have become part of Special Operations Command. I know this very well because I'm a marine myself. More specifically I'm a veteran, but once a marine always a marine.

quote:

Originally posted by 17294836:
With all respect to Army Co. Stephen, he must not be reading the troops comments on the problems with the M-16 & M-4 rifle

The M16 rifle is more accurate but that is it. The design has not changed since the 1950s,
Rifle and Carbine Variants:
M16
M16A1
M16A2
M16A3
M16A4
Gee, that’s 5th Generation by my count.
Comparing the M16A4 to the M16 is like comparing a 2008 Ford Mustang to a Ford Model T.

the AK is on its 3rd generation, the AK-74.
The M-16 must be cleaned every day, the AK-47 when you feel like it. M-16 jams even when in a clean environment. The small NATO round has no stopping power, can't go through a tree, car door etc.

I guess that M855 SS109 Penetrator ammo, 62 grain with steel tipped penatrating core for combat use, firing at 3,025 f.p.s., really doesn’t penetrate. I seem to recall the news complaining that the rounds would punch through things and cause ‘collateral’ damage.

When the iraqi soldier has his 1st firefight & the plastic M-16 jams, he won't be all smiles. He will sell it or trade it in for a AK-47.

The whole deal is a joke!!!

quote:

Another concern is the increasing cost of vehicles, equipment, and individual gear. General Anderson said that it costs more than $17,000 to fully outfit an individual soldier. For example, the various components of modern body armor costs almost $4,000 per set. More advanced armor is in the offing -- which will cost more. The next most expensive items for the rifleman is his M16A4 rifle -- $1,200. And, the next most costly item is the ILBE (Individual Load Bearing Equipment) harness -- $415.

quote:

Originally posted by Bladensburg:
Who is making money out of this little deal then, the same people who brokered the deal for AKs for Iraq a few years ago?

Are Iraqi forces actually up to a good enough standard with regards weapon cleaning to keep M16s working in the desert?

quote:

Originally posted by bandageboy18:
"We in the U.S. know that the M-16 is superior to the AK ... it's more durable," said Army Col. Stephen Scott"

Who is this Colonel? While the M16/M4 family of weapons are very accurate you would be hard pressed to find anyone who would say that the M16 is more durable than the AK.

quote:

Originally posted by rmularz:
I think many people are missing the idea here. There is a much bigger picture here. Giving the IA new weapons makes them "feel" more professional, more like an elite armed force than a bunch of schlubs who got shanghaied into the army. They have new, better uniforms and equipment. They ride around in newer HMMWV's. They have body armor more advanced than hammered steel. The bigger picture is a much more subtle context than a lot of people seem to get. We are equipping the IA up to the standard of OUR OWN armed forces. They are more than just the locally conscripted guards, they are an "allied" army. This will trickle down, probably very slowly at first, but it will happen.

The maintenance / cleaning argument I reject outright. A Roman shortsword requires even less cleaning / maintenance than either an AK or a M16... maybe we should just start issuing those. Ridiculous! There is also more maintenance required to keep an air defence system radar operational. But they certainly are beat the alternative: a guy up a tree with a whistle and a pair of binoculars.

The dicussions always seem to bring out the same tired and downright stupid comments such as "Oh, when I was in the Nam, I'd always throw away my M16 and pick an AK (Kar98, sword, wood club, big rock) and use it instead". Really? Thank you for your service, but, be quiet! Poor morale, bad leadership, lousy discipline. It's no big surprise what the outcome was. Things have changed a bit in the last 40 years!

quote:

Originally posted by PFCHunter:
I love it whenever a story about the M-16 and the AK 47 are both in it, the amount of fertilizer is great for the lawn!
So the Iraqis are getting M-16s and disposing of their AK 47s. Well, if we swap straight across, we get a wundergewehr and the Iraqis get a weapon that jams, doesn't penetrate, has no knockdown power and every other complaint you hear about the M-16! The AK's should be issued as is to anyone who wants it in lieu of their M-16A2s. I usually read all the posts in a subject, but on one like this, 2 pages and the last one will suffice.
You don't want Colt to make M-16s or any other weapons? You're about to get your wish because H&K will allow any company that can meet it's standards to manufacture any weapon under license from HK....can we say outsourcing?
The AK-74 shoots a amaller round than the M-16, wondr why the Russians went to a similar round to the 5.56? Oh I know, it's in an AK-47 body so it will keep on shooting even if the cartridge hasno knock-down, penetrating qualities, just high velocity and a bullet designed to tumble on impact with a body.
Newsflash: You can get an AR-10 in 7.62 NATO, you get knockdown, penetration and recoil all in one compact, well designed package.
Why not ask for the M-1 carbine to be brought back in 7.62x39? Gas operated, reliable, lightweight, and best of all, looks like a real gun!
Lord knows that we would have won in Vietnam if it hadn't been for that damned M-16! Army statistic: Average field of fire in RVN = 5 meters, avg. no. of rounds per dead VC = 5000. No estimates on Iraq, but AFF =50 meters, less in cities, no est. on kills per no. of rounds fired. 6.8 (.277 cal) is a rimless 30-30, look up the ballistics in a reloaders manual. 6.5 is (.257 cal?) heaviest bullet in grains is 120, 3 less than the AK. smallest best cartidge in 6.5 would be .250 Savage 87 gr. bullet at 3000 fps max. 117gr. at 2570 fps.
Sorry guys, but you cannot have it all. Accuracy and low low recoil from the 5.56 round or 1/3 the accuracy with heavier recoil from the 7.62x39 in the AK or change everything and someone will still complain. The M-16 was designed to be used on soft targets, not armour, hence the SS-109 penetrator which will out penetrate 7.62 NATO at 800 meters (mil tested) on the standard WWII steel helmet, but you gave up soft targets with the 1" in 9" twist rate when 1" in 12" was more than adequate and let the bullet become unstable in the body plus the light bullet hitting a bone like the hip joint made it blow apart and the hip with it. During basic training at Ft. Lewis. my M-16 fired over 800 rounds of blank ammo w/a blank adapter until it locked up from carbon overload. The cleaning kits we were issued were jokes...a raggedy bore brush, no chamber brush, LSA, no bore cleaner, but I managed to clean it to where it never jammed or failed to do it's part. This was winter and rain plus sand and mud were part of a day's training. Complain about the crap you get for cleaning your weapon...silicone, teflon, lubes that are dry not sticky, real powder residue remover makes maintenance better and easier.