A growing number of Iraqi government troops are being equipped with US made M-16s and their M-4 carbine derivative according to a report in the Miami Herald:
The U.S. military in Iraq has begun issuing American M-16 rifles to some Iraqi troops in exchange for their AK-47 rifles, the cheap and sturdy weapon that currently hangs from the shoulder of virtually every Iraqi soldier, police officer, insurgent and militiamen.
U.S. military officials describe the switch, part of a $2 billion arms purchase for the country’s fledgling security soldiers, as a modernization and a vote of confidence in Iraqi troops. The M-16 requires more care than the rugged and familiar AK-47, and demands a better-trained soldier.
That confidence extends only so far, however. With Iraq’s security services infiltrated by both Sunni Muslim insurgents and Shiite militias, the U.S. military is requiring that each Iraqi soldier turn in his AK-47, take four days of training, and be photographed with the serial number of his new M-16.
The deeply ingrained Western concept of personal weapons accountability – about the worst thing you can do is lose track of your weapon in the US military – has not translated well into Iraqi-accented Arabic in recent years. The parlous state of domestic security has extended to the security services themselves, and AK-47 weapons and ammo have gone missing from army units and police stations at an alarming rate.
So long as the new rifles can be kept out of the hands of insurgents and militiamen, shifting over to a 5.56 mm M-16 round will mean fewer of the AK-47’s larger 7.62 mm rounds will be siphoned off from government armories to fuel the insurgency.
Whether or not the swap will have a positive tactical impact in the largely urban battlefields of Iraq- the Kalashnikov is simpler to maintain and use, and has greater stopping power to offset its reduced accuracy as compared to the US rifle – will depend, as always, upon the discipline of the troops equipped with it: It requires loving care and rewards cool-headed precision in the rifleman’s aim.
The rugged AK-47 on the other hand is optimized for the “spray and pray” brand of marksmanship prevalent in theater, the quality of which has ensured that many more coalition troops have fallen to enemy IEDs than small arms fire.
Discipline and accountability are favored, then: This is more than just a rifle swap – it will be a kind of test of national character.
Hopefully a status upgrade too, along with the opportunity to teach our allies how to shoot. Also gives us something to do with our excess when we finally move to an HK product.
Oh god, not the stopping power myth
We’re certainly open to contrary opinion, backed by facts
If it means that the price on 7.62×39 will drop back down again I’m not going to complain.
Enjoy…
http://www.ak-47.us/AK-47vsM-16.php
Another good discussion here, albeit not very scientific.
While the AK series may not be suitable for the National Matches, I’ve fired both 7.62X39mm and 5.45X39mm versions in extended tactical training. They’re both plenty accurate enough.
In the book Black Hawk Down, one of the Delta operators carried the refitted M-14. They commented on the difference as the M-4 armor piercing round would go straight through the indiginous personnel and they would keep running and fighting. That is also not surprising considering all the Khat they were using, but the M-14’s 7.62 round put them on the ground and out of commission.
1. The M-16/M-4 is easier to teach marksmanship with. I bridge the M-14/M-16 age…much easier to teach someone to fire and HIT with the M-16 than the AK. Better sights, ballistics at close range, etc.
2. Stopping power means squat when it is spray and pray. “Lower power” (cough, cough) that hits is better than larger which misses…regularly.
Jeez, our Soldiers and Marines can’t even keep them from jamming, no matter how clean they keep them. In that part of the world, it’s nigh on impossible to keep that talcum powder sand out of everything.
I envision many IA running the other way when they can’t get their new American weapons to fire.
They will soon be buying AKs off of the black market and selling their POS American weapons.
Papa Ray
West Texas
USA
All true AR, but we teach Marines a little thing called aimed fire. Let the girls and the support units carry 5.56. I’ve had the gamut of feelings about this over thirty years. When it comes to the fact that you can pop a Hadji twice in the chest, and he can still return fire, something is seriously F*%KED UP! No ground combat unit should be carrying 5.56.
Oh Gee. Another devolved discussion on the merits of ballistics of the .223 vs the .308…ho humm. Can we get the 5″ guns discussion in here, too? Just kidding.
My $0.02- Agree with Casca on this 100%. Issue men or large capable women something (develop new)on the lines of an M-1 rifle in 30-06- lighten it up and make it auto for infantry and “shock troops” like Paras/Rangers/Marines. Double it up as a unit level sniper rifle (hey there’s an Airspeed Initiative for ya!)….Issue M-16’s to support forces and “specialists”.
Sound sexist?
Did you know certain people can’t fly certain aircraft because physically they could injure themselves on ejection? Same anthropmorphic premise.
b2
Watching the Military Channel the other day and they demonstrated the effect of the M-4/M-16 v. the AK when firing at the cinderblock walls used in Iraq. It was a big difference in its penetrating ability. The same argument can be made with regards to switching to the 9mm v. .45 pistol. I work with a police force and the line officers want a larger round, but the brass will not switch due to cost.
So Therapist, in your world, I guess you’d say that, “size does matter.” LMAO, I couldn’t resist.
Bob, your solutions leave something to be desired, and probably account for why we don’t bring sailors into this decision making process. Heh, we don’t tell you how to drive.
Casca,
re- “Bob, your solutions leave something to be desired, and probably account for why we don?
Casca,
re- “Bob, your solutions leave something to be desired, and probably account for why we don’t bring sailors into this decision making process”
Well thanks. And that kind of blinders on, bullet-headed, vertical-only illogic is probably the reason why our ground forces(incl USMC) haven’t developed a new combat infantry rifle since 1960 or thereabouts! With the exception of some new M-16 derivatives over the years and that new semi auto sniper rifle o’course. You’d of figured with those hopped up Muhj-MFs our guys are facing we could field something faster.
H-K is only a friggin brand. Sorta funny a Jar would advocate a SEAL weapon. BWTFDIK? Being an ex rust-picking varmint hunter and all…
Look. I won’t mention ballistics or rifles, if’n you quit commenting on air power….Nah, that wouldn’t be any fun.
b2
And unlikely to boot.
I suspect the unsatisfactory situation of not having a great weapon vice a satisfactory weapon is more the product of the politics of the procurement process.
I used to own an HK-91 or G3 military variant. It’s an exceptional weapon, but heavy. Heavy enough to butt-stroke with, which is a desired trait, sturdy too. I’m just happy that the house booted the Army’s latest request to buy a couple million more M-4’s back in their faces, and told them to look for a better product.
I read a quote wich I will not get exactly right as the book is not in front of me. I was reading “Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife,” and he said something to the effect of, “The army gets the weapons the civlian leadership wants them to have.” Very important as it speaks to the politics of Congressional district support and factory/job availability.
As a retired US Army ordnance CW2,I have been involved in many a different testing of small arms and as the brass is stuck on 5.56(cause they all served in Nam IMHO), we have passed on numerous new weapons My fav was a 6mm bullpp design. point and shoot, hard hitting et al. Prob is the light inf runs the army a,d they want light. So there we have it. Tom