Is it about time AMerica drop it’s ego and adopt the AK-47 as it’s Military rifle?
Why are we so arrogant that we think a piece of aluminuim and plastic is better than the best assault weapon design in the world. Again, another news artice,
On the Net:
WASHINGTON – It was chaos during the early morning assault last year on a
remote U.S. outpost in Afghanistan and Staff Sgt. Erich Phillips’ M4 carbine
had quit firing as militant forces surrounded the base. The machine gun he
grabbed after tossing the rifle aside didn’t work either.
When the battle in the small village of Wanat ended, nine U.S. soldiers lay
dead and 27 more were wounded. A detailed study of the attack by a military
historian found that weapons failed repeatedly at a "critical moment" during
the firefight on July 13, 2008, putting the outnumbered American troops at
risk of being overrun by nearly 200 insurgents.
Which raises the question: Eight years into the war against the Taliban in
Afghanistan, do U.S. armed forces have the best guns money can buy?
Despite the military’s insistence that they do, a small but vocal number of
troops in Afghanistan and Iraq has complained that the standard-issue M4
rifles need too much maintenance and jam at the worst possible times.
A week ago, eight U.S. troops were killed at a base near Kamdesh, a town
near Wanat. There’s no immediate evidence of weapons failures at Kamdesh,
but the circumstances were eerily similar to the Wanat battle: insurgents
stormed an isolated stronghold manned by American forces stretched thin by
the demands of war.
Army Col. Wayne Shanks, a military spokesman in Afghanistan, said a review
of the battle at Kamdesh is under way. "It is too early to make any
assumptions regarding what did or didn’t work correctly," he said.
Complaints about the weapons the troops carry, especially the M4, aren’t
new. Army officials say that when properly cleaned and maintained, the M4 is
a quality weapon that can pump out more than 3,000 rounds before any
failures occur.
The M4 is a shorter, lighter version of the M16, which made its debut during
the Vietnam war. Roughly 500,000 M4s are in service, making it the rifle
troops on the front lines trust with their lives.
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., a leading critic of the M4, said Thursday the Army
needs to move quickly to acquire a combat rifle suited for the extreme
conditions U.S. troops are fighting in.
U.S. special operations forces, with their own acquisition budget and the
latitude to buy gear the other military branches can’t, already are
replacing their M4s with a new rifle.
"The M4 has served us well but it’s not as good as it needs to be," Coburn
said.
Battlefield surveys show that nearly 90 percent of soldiers are satisfied
with their M4s, according to Brig. Gen. Peter Fuller, head of the Army
office that buys soldier gear. Still, the rifle is continually being
improved to make it even more reliable and lethal.
Fuller said he’s received no official reports of flawed weapons performance
at Wanat. "Until it showed up in the news, I was surprised to hear about all
this," he said.
The study by Douglas Cubbison of the Army Combat Studies Institute at Fort
Leavenworth, Kan., hasn’t been publicly released. Copies of the study have
been leaked to news organizations and are circulating on the Internet.
Cubbison’s study is based on an earlier Army investigation and interviews
with soldiers who survived the attack at Wanat. He describes a
well-coordinated attack by a highly skilled enemy that unleashed a withering
barrage with AK-47 automatic rifles and rocket-propelled grenades.
The soldiers said their weapons were meticulously cared for and routinely
inspected by commanders. But still the weapons had breakdowns, especially
when the rifles were on full automatic, which allows hundreds of bullets to
be fired a minute.
The platoon-sized unit of U.S. soldiers and about two dozen Afghan troops
was shooting back with such intensity the barrels on their weapons turned
white hot. The high rate of fire appears to have put a number of weapons out
of commission, even though the guns are tested and built to operate in
extreme conditions.
Cpl. Jonathan Ayers and Spc. Chris McKaig were firing their M4s from a
position the soldiers called the "Crow’s Nest." The pair would pop up
together from cover, fire half a dozen rounds and then drop back down.
On one of these trips up, Ayers was killed instantly by an enemy round.
McKaig soon had problems with his M4, which carries a 30-round magazine.
"My weapon was overheating," McKaig said, according to Cubbison’s report. "I
had shot about 12 magazines by this point already and it had only been about
a half hour or so into the fight. I couldn’t charge my weapon and put
another round in because it was too hot, so I got mad and threw my weapon
down."
The soldiers also had trouble with their M249 machine guns, a larger weapon
than the M4 that
Posted in Military Rifles
January 7th, 2010 at 1:57 am
I’m pretty sure you’ve asked this before. Have you heard the definition of mental illness?
Why would the United States adopt the "AK-47", a rifle that has been out of production since the early 1960′s and is no longer even used by the nation that designed it?
And before you get your undies in a bunch most rifles around today that people call "AK-47" are really AKM’s – a much improved model that repalced the original AK-47 in production roughly a half-century ago.
In future I might suggest that you learn something about firearms before you advocate any particular one.
January 7th, 2010 at 1:57 am
Well, I gave you the benefit of the doubt the last time you quoted an entire article. Now I am convinced you are retarded. The AK-47 is not a good choice for us. It does not have the range or accuracy that we train for. We need a new service rifle entirely. Stop regurgitating news articles that simply fit your agenda. It makes you look like a clown.
January 7th, 2010 at 1:57 am
the ak 47 sucks ass. its not a good gun. the m16, and the saw are way better weapons than that.
January 7th, 2010 at 1:57 am
No
January 7th, 2010 at 1:57 am
and sacrifice accuracy? no
January 7th, 2010 at 1:57 am
Bc it’s only accurate up to 300m.
I like being posted at 500m with iron sites and hitting a target.
January 7th, 2010 at 1:57 am
its about time that you stop spamming this section with essentially the same question 4-5 times.
we get it, you love the AK-47. good for you.
Combat tested veterans have already answered your question repeated MANY times.
We like the m-4.
January 7th, 2010 at 1:57 am
all these M4 loving morons keep talking about accuracy at 500m and I am pretty sure none of them could hit the side of bus at 500m so they should shut up. Most infantry combat since WWII is known to take place within 150 yards or so, urban combat is even closer…at those ranges just about any gun will be accurate enough.
In a fight when my life is on the line, I prefer reliability and simplicity of design over a slight edge in accuracy…
who ever likes the M4 can have that if they want it, but dont ask me to cover you when you jam up…
January 7th, 2010 at 1:57 am
why m4 is better weapon
January 7th, 2010 at 1:57 am
You obviously cannot think for yourself. Your most likely in high school and your friends father let you shoot one, so shut the fucck up. Your an idiot.
January 7th, 2010 at 1:57 am
wow i just read that article on yahoo. but i think that since most of the ppl here argue about the stupid range of the AK, which i admit is quite ridiculous because the taliban and insurgents fight up close in most combat situations. if they were to fight far away, then they couldn’t shoot us, cuz they would have aks too. what i think america should do is try to create a whole new gun for the army, with some similarity to rugedness with the ak, but modern enough for the army. for the mean time, we should arm our troops with the formidable M14, with sights because it is a weapon that hardly jammed, even in vietnam, troops who have used it loved it. with sights, like the m16, it has about a 800m range. but it is for the mean time, so dont jump on me.
January 7th, 2010 at 1:57 am
It might not what it seems. Under the pressure of fighting, the mind may not act correctly. To give you an example, after the Civil War battles many black powdered rifles were loaded multiple times yet never fired. The guys would just reload and then reload again without firing in between.
In the story, he shot 360 rounds in about 30 minutes and then wondered why his rifle was hot.
Some have melted their automatic weapons.
January 7th, 2010 at 1:57 am
You miss the point described exactly in the quoted report – a platoon of Marines with M4′s can hold off 300 Taliban with AK’s. What part of superior teamwork, marksmanship and tenacity are you missing?
At seven to one odds the Marines beat back an attack and survived. They were not overrun, and the Taliban attack therefore failed.
The M4 is not designed to fire 12 magazines of 30 rounds apiece continously. Many machine guns are not, either, and the AK also cannot sustain that rate of fire. Assuming a weapon can do so and intimating that a foreign weapon designed in the 1940′s is inherently superior makes the shallowness of the posters education in firearms obvious.
It’s just a gun, it has it faults, and the calibers it’s offered in are behind the times. The AK was meant for production in third world nations to be used by relatively uneducated people. That’s why it takes 300 Taliban to attack 42 Marines.
Yes, the US Army does have an open mind on the subject, which is why trials are scheduled to test existing weapons off the shelf. It is also why Special Forces is buying a large quantity of the FN SCAR.
NOT the AK. It’s a collectible curio – get over it.
January 7th, 2010 at 1:57 am
The AK uses bigger bullets. Unfortunately they travel slow than the M16. Which means its slightly less accurate and has a shorter range. However its also much more powerful. There is a new rifle, The Barret. i forget the rest of it but its combines the build and range of a M16 with the powerful larger round of the AK. Thus being better than both. So AK for more power, M16 for more range. The reason it is so widely used is cause its cheap to make. Not neccesarily cause its the best. Thats why every damn 3rd world country uses them. Ever wonder why every country like USA Britain, and so on don’t? Cause the range sucks compared to modern weapons. The AK is good for reliablity and a good punch. But they are not as good for range and accuracy. Which is preffered. Thats it. Don’t assume you know wo much cause you saw one article on it. Learn about rifles before you make dumb claims such as this.