s_qwert63

Have you ever shot any?
(Besides OPFOR in training)

Anon

I never engaged a uniformed target below the rank of Major, if you must know.

Obviously that means no, i've never shot a machinegunner. Wasted lots of them in various field problems though.

Order of targeting was as a general rule:

1) Ranking enemy officer
2) Any enemy officer
3) Anyone that looks like an enemy officer trying not to look at an enemy officer(binoculars, pistol, cleaner uniform than the others, map case, polished boots, soft cap instead of helmet, chinstrap unbuckled, etc, etc).
4) RTOs
5) NCOs
6) Machinegunners/HW troops(Dragon, AT-4, Grenadier, etc, etc)

As a general rule 'regular' riflemen were only engaged if we were supporting a friendly unit or operation. If left to our own devices, we generally didn't shoot at them at all. Wasn't worth giving up your position over.

Does that answer your question satisfactorally?

troung

“Is that why over 100 million AK's were made, as opposed to about 15 million M16's? These simple facts prove you outright wrong.”

Look at the end users.

Nations with money who know what they want seem to go towards the M-16 family rather then the AK-47. Even French Special Forces make use of the CAR-15/M-4 along with units from the UK, Indonesia, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and forces all over Asia and the Middle East along with South America.

Just becuase a gun is made in bigger numbers and exported for free to friends (Vietnam, China, Tanzania, North Korea, Warpac, Laos, Cambodia etc...) does not mean it is better.

The AK-47 is a nice combat weapon but in terms of important things such as accuracy and weight it comes up short. The M-16 is lighter and more accurate in battle conditions as well as being reliable.

French SF, Brunie SF, Kostrad trooper, ARVN paratrooper, Ecuadorian SF........

Attached Images

	French SF 02.jpg (26.2 KB, 507 views)
	Brunei SF 00.jpg (90.3 KB, 513 views)
	indo troopers 01.jpg (46.8 KB, 504 views)
	ARVN para 01.jpg (27.8 KB, 493 views)
	Ecaudor M-4 00.jpg (104.3 KB, 485 views)

Officer of Engineers

I don't know about the Brigadier but Thanks a lot. *** Cold hand just grab my spine ***

__________________
Chimo

Anon

What can i say sir, i'm very selective about whom i shoot at.

Carnage_59

I've heard about the accuracy issue time and time again. Beyond 150-200 yards, an AK loses accuarcy quickly. But the dadgum thing NEVER jam. Kalashnikov was interviewed by the History Channel about eight years ago... he designed it for RELIABILITY.

Now, if you want AK reliability and approach M-16 accuracy, try a VEPR.

If I was in a nasty situation, out in the mud, swamp, jungle, desert.... I'll take an AK any day.

Anon

You can have it, and someone like me will shoot you from a distance where you can't return fire.

Lunatock

Same thing for the M-14. They were preferred if not made for the swampy area's during Vietnam. Just as reliable as an AK, and chances are more accurate.

Anon

The M-14 is a damned accurate weapon to 500 meters with iron sights.

eMGee

Comparing the AK-47 with the M-16 is not fair. The AK-47 is a far older weapon, (late) post-WWII actualy, while there are many newer Kalashnikov models that are quite accurate and have very advanced recoil supression (dual gas-regulation pistons in opposite directions; such as on the AK-103, AK-105, AK-107 etc.)

Not to mention the AN-94 "Abakan", although no "Kalashinkov", which has (by now) become the standard issue rifle of the Spetsnaz and it was quoted to be one of the most advanced assault rifles in the world. (With it's impressive ~1800 RPM bursts).

s_qwert63

This might have more to do with which camp the countries belonged to. All of the ones you mentioned leant more towards the Western camp.

However, even the Israeli Special Forces used the AK.

Reliable? Not as reliable as the AK!

Ever heard of the AKM?
There were no more AK47's produced in the USSR since 1959 FYI.
The AKM empty, weighed roughly as much as the M16. It has a compensator, and is far more robust and reliable than the AK47, while at the same time it was cheaper to manufacture.

Praxus

Look at one their enemies use.

All IDF people I ahve talked to tell me the M16 is supperior.

troung

“However, even the Israeli Special Forces used the AK.”

And they replaced them with the CAR-15/M-4. They prefer the M-16 family. They used the AK-47/AKM rather then the FN-FAL. They then replaced the AKs with M-16 based firearms.

Same with the Indonesians who replaced AK-47/AKMs with the M-16 family.

“Reliable? Not as reliable as the AK!”

The people who find their M-16s unreliable happen to be too lazy to clean them. Troops in combat use M-16s daily all around the world so there is no reliability problem with the gun provided you have the brains to clean it. If you’re too lazy to clean your gun then you deserve to have it jam up on you.

Attached Images

	indo kostrad 04.jpg (33.1 KB, 349 views)
	indo roit 00.jpg (64.0 KB, 347 views)

Fury

Good point

eMGee

I thought the Indonesians mainly used the FNC and Steyr AUG.