# AK-47 inventor: U.S. troops in Iraq prefer my rifle to their



## blaire576 (May 26, 2006)

Mikhail Kalashnikov, designer of the world's most popular assault rifle, says that U.S. soldiers in Iraq are using his invention in
preference to their own weapons, proving that his gun is still the best.

"Even after lying in a swamp you can pick up this rifle, aim it and shoot. That's the best job description there is for a gun. Real soldiers know that and understand it," the 86-year-old gunmaker told a weekend news conference in Moscow.

"In Vietnam, American soldiers threw away their M-16 rifles and used [Kalashnikov] AK-47s from dead Vietnamese soldiers, with bullets they captured. That was because the climate is different to America, where M-16s may work properly," he said.

"Look what's happening now: every day on television we see that the Americans in Iraq have my machine guns and assault rifles in their armored vehicles. Even there American rifles don't work properly."

Some U.S. troops in Iraq have reportedly taken to using AK-47s in preference to the standard-issue M-16. The Cold War-era gun, renowned for its durability and easy handling, is plentiful in Iraq.

Kalashnikov designed his first weapon in 1947 and is still chief constructor at Izhmash arms factory in Izhevsk in the Urals mountains.

The factory's director Vladimir Grodetsky told the news conference that around a billion rifles had been produced around the world using parts of Kalashnikovs or based on the same design, only 10-12 percent of which were made in Russia.


----------



## Danimal (Sep 9, 2005)

Yes the AK design is very basic, and durable. It has a lot of stamped steel parts which makes it economical to produce. This also leads to a lot of gaps between the parts which allows dirt, mud and everything else fall out and prevent jams. The downsides is it not as accurate.

Eric (former SEAL, and hunting partner) has a lot of experience with the AK's and he said the best thing we could ever do in Iraq is,..... If we can't disarm the insurgents, then provide all of them with AK's with the plastic stocks.

As it turns out, the plastic forearms don't protect the shooter's hand from heat. He said that after shooting one full mag. on full auto you can't hold the gun.

Now as for the M-16,... there have been many improvements to it over the years, hence the M-4 model. Eric was a fan of the M-4, but he did state that it needs to be a bigger caliber for close range/urban combat. A lot of his team members used the M-4 with the 7.62x39 uppers in Mogadishu. As an added bonus, they could pick up extra ammo in the streets. He is very optimistic on the 6.8 SPC round, it sounds like a great compromise between the 5.56 and the 7.62x39.


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

I will take the M-16 any day of the week over the AK-47. I dont feel confident at engaging targets over 100 yards with the AK-47. Close range combat may be the reason for what is happining in Iraq,as the advantage of the AK-47 is that it goes bang evry time you pull the trigger. The M-16 will also do this but you gotta babie it a bit.

I look at it like this the M-16 is a woman and the AK-47 is a man and have you ever seen a ****** off woman. :wink:


----------



## Dave_w (May 25, 2005)

Eh. Part of the reason for picking up an AK in Nam had to do with noise. The two guns sound very different. So when SOG teams were operating way out in the boonies, they'd take AKs, thus making their fire indistinguishable from VC and NVA. In addition, the loose tolerances and superb reliability of the AK47 made them ideal for long-range missions where the friendy armorer wasn't exactly close at hand. And then there's that whole captured ammo thing.

The M16, on the other hand, is far more accurate, and the current version in service is highly reliable. Most failures are the result of cleaning problems: too much oil, sand and grit getting on oiled internals during cleaning, so on and so forth. All of these would disappear if people would just clean the bloody things properly, and in a proper environment. Not always an easy proposition, I understand, but an infantryman's rifle is his most important piece of equipment, and should be treated accordingly.

I have great respect for Mr. Kalashnikov, but I also respect Eugene Stoner, and in this case Kalashnikov is just making noise. He's still very much a political figure in Russia, and so every once in a while he says silly things like that. I have yet to see a video or still picture of an American soldier carrying an AK. I know the Iraqi Army uses them, but I attribute that to the rifle's availability. It's what they had before we came, it's what they'll have after we leave, at least until the next generation of combat rifle becomes available to them.

I've shot both guns. I'd feel comfortable taking a 500-meter shot with a decent AR15 any day of the week. As for the AK...well, average bench-vised groups at 100 yards are on the order of 1.1"-1.5", sometimes more. If the shooter sucks, it doesn't matter, but as for me, well, I know how to shoot.


----------



## the_rookie (Nov 22, 2004)

Now this is just my topic. During Viet-nam we had that dispute. You cant compare fact vs opinion... heres some facts...

- the AK-47 can be submerged in water and throwin in sand
and then sand throwing down the barrell and it will still shoot

-the M16 will malfuction if thers a spec of sand in the action

-the AK-47 can go through a 2 foot tree will still 1000 fps behind it

-the M16 *CAN NOT * penetrate a 1 foot tree

-the AK-47 disenagrates around penetrating 3-4 inches into the body

-the M16 disenagrates aroudn 6 inches penetrating into the body.

-the m16 is accurate out to 500 yards

-the AK-47 is good for about 200 yards maybe 300 if your a good shot

-the M16 has a higher rate of fire then the AK-47

-the AK-47 has better stopping power then the M16

So with these facts personally decide what you would rather have at your side. I would personally choose the AK-47 becuase it will fire in almost any condition and disenagrates thus creating more internal damage then the M16 but ive heard of stories that the M16 could enter your foot and come out your neck but i dont know if thats true.


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

the_rookie said:


> Now this is just my topic. During Viet-nam we had that dispute. You cant compare fact vs opinion... heres some facts...
> 
> - the AK-47 can be submerged in water and throwin in sand
> and then sand throwing down the barrell and it will still shoot
> ...


 :rollin: Whare did you get these facts "Around the Campfire"!! Go throught a 2 foot tree with energy to spare MY *** maybe a dead tree! The m-16 will malfunction with a speck of sand in the action "define a speck of sand". You also seem to think the 7.62x39 disinagrates after penatrating 3-4 inches and the 5.56mm at 6 inches WHAT!!! Well you can put the rumor to rest with your "FACTS" about being hit in the foot and the bullet coming out your neck unless of course your 6 inces tall> :lol:


----------



## People (Jan 17, 2005)

I second the AKM being a far superior gun that is why most of the worlds SWAT, special forces use the M16 in the M4 configuration, or one of the other short barrel configurations. Yeah the M16 is such a horrible weapon it has been replacing the MP5 in these roles. We all know that SWAT and Special Forces do not have great weapons.

Superman owns a pair of Chuck Norris pajamas


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

I was fond of the M-16 A1 it was really light in the 6+ lb range. The new A2 version is around 8+ lbs heck now evryone is using M4 / A4 the weapons have changed allot in the time I have been out! I dont know but it looks like from what I have seen that are troops are carring too much starwars crud? I dunno any modern day warriors like to comment?


----------



## sdeprie (May 1, 2004)

I'm not exactly modern day warrior, but I have shot the m-16. It was a pleasure to shoot. I understand the problems it had early in it's career, mostly because the Army downplayed the need for maintenence. I agree that it needs a bigger/heavier bullet for urban fighting, but I'm not a fan of the 6.8. I think the 27 cal was a waste of time. Why not 6.5, or 7 mm. Or better yet, the 50 Beowulf. You're definitely talking special purpose without long range capability, but the short range advantage is tremendous, and a relatively quick change of the upper puts it back in 223 cal.


----------

