Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 4/16/2008 4:49:33 AM EST
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3746677.ece

Afghan troops told to lay down trusty AK47s

For a country with a fighting history such as Afghanistan, where invading forces have so often been humbled, there could be no greater indignity than to be told to hand over your guns and fight with the weapon of the infidel.

Yet the new recruits to the Afghan National Army (ANA) are being asked to swap their beloved Kalashnikov AK47, probably the most famous weapon in the world, for the American M16.

To judge from the bewildered and disapproving faces of the Afghan soldiers yesterday at Camp Tombstone, the training facility in the middle of Helmand province where the Americans and British train the ANA, the decision to scrap the AK47s for the M16 was not going down too well.

The reason for this dramatic change in the fighting culture of the average Afghan soldier is not to boost the coffers of the American manufacturer of the M16 —- although it undoubtedly will.

Rather, it is designed to improve the efficiency of the ANA and teach its soldiers how to preserve ammunition to ensure that, when a battle is fought, the enemy is defeated before the bullets run out.


Traditionally, the Afghan will fire his Kalashnikov from the hip as he advances, spraying the enemy in all directions on automatic mode until every bullet has been expended.

But that is not the way of the British or American soldier who uses his ammunition stocks with greater husbandry and fires to kill, rather than to deluge the enemy with a wall of bullets.

The M16 is fired automatically but in triple bursts, not a constant stream, and never from the hip but with aimed shots from the shoulder. It is against the very nature of warfare as practised by an Afghan soldier, but at Camp Tombstone the first attempts are being made to consign the AK47 to history.

The reaction of the soldiers of the ANA's No 3 Kandak (battalion) of the Afghan 4th Brigade, normally based in the southern province of Uruzgan and now spearheading the switch to the M16, said it all.

“This is made of plastic, it will break,” one cried. They held up the M16 in ridicule.

But the powers that be, including these soldiers' own commanding officer, Lieutenant-Colonel Abdul Hai Neshat, believe that the future is M16, and the AK47, however well loved, is the past. Yesterday at Camp Tombstone was the first time that No 3 Kandak had laid its hands on the US weapon.

A key part of the British Army's job at the base is to instruct their Afghan counterparts how to fire the M16, but officers admit that convincing them to adopt the gun could be tough.

“The Kalashnikov is cleaned just by covering it in diesel. It comes out looking spotless,” Major Robert Armstrong, the Royal Irish Regiment officer responsible for training the Afghan soldiers, said.

“But we tell them that the M16 is lighter and more accurate than the AK47 and I think they'll come round. There's no question, though, that the AK47 is a good rifle. You can bury it in the sand for 100 years, dig it out and it'll fire first time.”

Sergeant Rab McEwan, of the 4th Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland, had the task of introducing the Afghan soldiers to the M16. “I'm happy with the way it has gone so far but for the Afghans, the Kalashnikov is a cultural thing —- they'll take time to get used to the M16,” he said.

Colonel Neshat had one reservation. “I'm concerned whether there will be enough ammunition with the M16. My soldiers are used to firing hundreds of bullets.”

The British military instructors nodded and smiled.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 4:53:30 AM EST
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 4:54:06 AM EST

Weapons with serial numbers can be traced and accounted for.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 4:55:26 AM EST
It would also help us tell from a distance who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. I for one know that i always disliked doing combined ops and watching from the air seeing them run around with AKs. Its difficult to see their uniforms sometimes but not hard to tell the shape of the weapon.


Aviator
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 6:19:26 AM EST
I see trouble on the horizon there. Can they meet the necessary maintenance standards? I think not. They will be missing those old ak's soon enough.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 6:21:03 AM EST
Just wait until those fancy new M16's fall into our enemies hands.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 6:23:56 AM EST
Apparentally the M16 is a poor weapon for the mountains of Afghanistan. The long range and windy conditions don't lend well to the accuracy of a 62 grain bullet.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 6:31:59 AM EST
[Last Edit: 4/16/2008 6:33:02 AM EST by RunsWithScissors]
While I wonder about supplying/teaching these guys anything, I DO think that letting a competing nation (Russia) get rich, while supplying the West's Woe-bringers, is poor form.

If the problems are going to come no matter what we do, I'd rather a US firm get their hooks in, and make some money, and provide a doorway to a future channel disruption. does "Iranian F14" ring any bells?
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 6:38:06 AM EST

Originally Posted By walrus:
Apparentally the M16 is a poor weapon for the mountains of Afghanistan. The long range and windy conditions don't lend well to the accuracy of a 62 grain bullet.


Yeah, so firing that 7.62x39 cartridge at long ranges in windy conditions from an AK is a huge improvement on accuracy. Thinking before writing is a good idea.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 6:40:55 AM EST

Originally Posted By gopguy:

The M16 is fired automatically but in triple bursts, not a constant stream, and never from the hip but with aimed shots from the shoulder


Let's just tuck that line away for future reference.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 6:42:25 AM EST

Originally Posted By 21BoomCBTENGR:

Originally Posted By walrus:
Apparentally the M16 is a poor weapon for the mountains of Afghanistan. The long range and windy conditions don't lend well to the accuracy of a 62 grain bullet.


Yeah, so firing that 7.62x39 cartridge at long ranges in windy conditions from an AK is a huge improvement on accuracy. Thinking before writing is a good idea.


I didn't say the 7.62x39 was a good choice either. Thanks for putting words in my mouth.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 6:45:30 AM EST

Originally Posted By walrus:

Originally Posted By 21BoomCBTENGR:

Originally Posted By walrus:
Apparentally the M16 is a poor weapon for the mountains of Afghanistan. The long range and windy conditions don't lend well to the accuracy of a 62 grain bullet.


Yeah, so firing that 7.62x39 cartridge at long ranges in windy conditions from an AK is a huge improvement on accuracy. Thinking before writing is a good idea.


I didn't say the 7.62x39 was a good choice either. Thanks for putting words in my mouth.


ok then
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 6:47:37 AM EST
New Afgan hometown forum?
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 6:47:42 AM EST
[Last Edit: 4/16/2008 6:48:17 AM EST by jrkarp]

Originally Posted By opti12206:
Just wait until those fancy new M16's fall into our enemies hands.


I don't imagine that 5.56 NATO ammunition is in ready supply in that part of the world. The rifles will not be very useful to the Taliban.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 6:50:45 AM EST
[Last Edit: 4/16/2008 6:51:12 AM EST by tommytrauma]

The M16 is fired automatically but in triple bursts, not a constant stream, and never from the hip but with aimed shots from the shoulder


Utter bullshit. Brady and Feinstein have revealed the previously secret fact that a pistol grip allows a rifle to be fired accurately from the hip, with more thrusts per squeeze.

I wonder if the afgans will be equipped with the deadly 'shoulder thing that goes up' too.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 6:52:45 AM EST
[Last Edit: 4/16/2008 7:02:07 AM EST by JRBL1A1]
Two HUGE hurdles I see with this venture:

#1. Weapon maintenance. I hope they dont think they can simply dump the M16A2 into diesel and it will be clean.... aint gunna happen. They will very seriously need to be trained on weekly if not daily (due to sand storms, combat, etc) cleaning and inspections.

#2. Marksmanship. If the Afgans are used to spraying and praying from the hip, they will be worse off with the M16A2 than the AK because that tactic does no one any good when in fact rule #1 (see above) will only burden them that much more. However, if true marksmanship skills are taught by US and UK instuctors and LEARNED by the Afgans, the Afgans will be light years ahead of the AK weilding Taliban on the battlefield. Longer ranges and higher accuracy will win the day.

I wonder of the RPK/RPD/PKM will remain the LMG/GPMG of the Afgans or if we'll break out the multiple wharehouses of M60's we have left over???

Over all, I think it is a good move, and I doubt the US govt is making one penny of profit off of this move.

FWIW and IMO: I believe the 5.56 NATO is far superior to the 7.62x39 when long ranges (300yd+) are the standard (the edge is cut slightly when being fired from an M4). Much flatter shooting. Granted, wind drift may become an issue at those ranges but at least a M16A2 rifleman has less to adjust for (horizontal) vs the AK shooter (both range/veticle and horizontal).
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 6:53:14 AM EST
most of these guys can barely read and we're giving them a more complex rifle to take care of.....great idea.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 6:54:14 AM EST
[Last Edit: 4/16/2008 6:56:30 AM EST by whoanelly]

Originally Posted By gopguy:

“There's no question, though, that the AK47 is a good rifle. You can bury it in the sand for 100 years, dig it out and it'll fire first time.



I'll bet it won't.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 6:55:02 AM EST
now i can get one cheap when i go back to astan! id be willing to bet a months pay i could buy an AK47 and trade it to a troop for his A2. what do you guys think?
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 6:56:46 AM EST

Originally Posted By zwvirtual:
most of these guys can barely read and we're giving them a more complex rifle to take care of.....great idea.


My eight year old God daughter has no trouble cleaning and maintaining an AR.
(Goddaughter? God-daughter?)

Of course, she's a better shot them most afgans as well.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 7:05:09 AM EST
[Last Edit: 4/16/2008 7:06:30 AM EST by warlord]
It is the training that makes the soldier. The equipment is less important. I bet the US Army can do well with the AK47/AK74.



Originally Posted By tommytrauma:

The M16 is fired automatically but in triple bursts, not a constant stream, and never from the hip but with aimed shots from the shoulder


Utter bullshit. Brady and Feinstein have revealed the previously secret fact that a pistol grip allows a rifle to be fired accurately from the hip, with more thrusts per squeeze.

I wonder if the afgans will be equipped with the deadly 'shoulder thing that goes up' too.
The story never revealed who the author is, but this is more typical BS from the Brady bunch. Remember the author is a writer and not a firearms expert. It is appearent that they whoever the author doesn't know the difference between a broomstick and a buttstock, and has done its homework by reading up at the anti-gun web sites. And has watch too much television and movies.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 7:05:31 AM EST

Originally Posted By walrus:
Apparentally the M16 is a poor weapon for the mountains of Afghanistan. The long range and windy conditions don't lend well to the accuracy of a 62 grain bullet.
MK262.....Our boys seem to be doing ok with it....
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 7:07:56 AM EST
I think this is a bad idea. Keep them shooting something common to the region. Less training is neccesary, as well as there being more ammunition readily available. Hell, if they run out, they can pick up more 7.62 off the dead rebels they fight.

The AK is also more suited for the sandy region, cheaper to purchase, etc.

Another reason, is somewhat selfish but... When we shipped them that huge shipment of 7.62 x 39mm a while back, anybody remember how much the ammo went up at your local store? I want to keep as much 5.56 here as possible!

Link Posted: 4/16/2008 7:08:58 AM EST
Jesus people calm down.

Its not hard to actually train them let alone train them how to clean a weapon.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 7:13:14 AM EST

Originally Posted By Blackmagic94:
Jesus people calm down.

Its not hard to actually train them let alone train them how to clean a weapon.


And you really think they will clean them as religously as our soldiers would?

What's the cost for upgrading to the M16 platform? Are the benefits large enough to justify that cost?
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 7:17:05 AM EST

Originally Posted By lougorilla:

Originally Posted By Blackmagic94:
Jesus people calm down.

Its not hard to actually train them let alone train them how to clean a weapon.


And you really think they will clean them as religously as our soldiers would?

What's the cost for upgrading to the M16 platform? Are the benefits large enough to justify that cost?


once they are trained well enough to do it, yes, of course. Their lives depend upon their rifles.

There are a lot of people throwing out "facts" and incorrect opinions of foreign troops in this thread that have absolutely zero idea what they're talking about.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 7:20:49 AM EST

Originally Posted By lougorilla:

Originally Posted By Blackmagic94:
Jesus people calm down.

Its not hard to actually train them let alone train them how to clean a weapon.


And you really think they will clean them as religously as our soldiers would?

What's the cost for upgrading to the M16 platform? Are the benefits large enough to justify that cost?


If the money is spent domestically, it's just more economic stimulis, right?
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 7:25:31 AM EST

Originally Posted By lougorilla:

Originally Posted By Blackmagic94:
Jesus people calm down.

Its not hard to actually train them let alone train them how to clean a weapon.


And you really think they will clean them as religously as our soldiers would?

What's the cost for upgrading to the M16 platform? Are the benefits large enough to justify that cost?


I guess you would have said the same when we gave M16s to the South Vietnamese, which ironically had less problems with it than our own troops.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 7:29:15 AM EST

Originally Posted By tommytrauma:

Originally Posted By lougorilla:

Originally Posted By Blackmagic94:
Jesus people calm down.

Its not hard to actually train them let alone train them how to clean a weapon.


And you really think they will clean them as religously as our soldiers would?

What's the cost for upgrading to the M16 platform? Are the benefits large enough to justify that cost?


If the money is spent domestically, it's just more economic stimulis, right?


There are 10,000 other ways to waste money domestically.

The question is, would they benefit from a change to the M16 platform? I prefer the M16 platform, but that goes with the understanding that our forces are well funded, well trained, and are utilizing the accuracy potential by using sophisticated optics, etc. If we are talking about bone stock M16/A2 types with Iron sights, then why bother?

I just think the AK design is more suitable for that region anyway, and if we expect them to be more self relient, would be easier for them to maintain for years to come.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 7:41:03 AM EST

Originally Posted By AngeredKabar:

Originally Posted By lougorilla:

Originally Posted By Blackmagic94:
Jesus people calm down.

Its not hard to actually train them let alone train them how to clean a weapon.


And you really think they will clean them as religously as our soldiers would?

What's the cost for upgrading to the M16 platform? Are the benefits large enough to justify that cost?


I guess you would have said the same when we gave M16s to the South Vietnamese, which ironically had less problems with it than our own troops.


That's a different scenario. What were the south Vietnamese using at that time? Were they using the AK47 or a similar platform, or were they using outdated bolt action and semi auto rifles? I thought the south had a hodgepodge of weapons, and by issuing the M-16, they were able to standardize their arsenal.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 8:07:54 AM EST

Originally Posted By 161Infantry:

Originally Posted By walrus:
Apparentally the M16 is a poor weapon for the mountains of Afghanistan. The long range and windy conditions don't lend well to the accuracy of a 62 grain bullet.
MK262.....Our boys seem to be doing ok with it....


I really doubt they're going to hook the Afghans up with MK262. I just wish they would have given them FAL's, or something that is a better platform for the type of fighting taking place there. Just my .02.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 8:12:16 AM EST

Originally Posted By walrus:

Originally Posted By 161Infantry:

Originally Posted By walrus:
Apparentally the M16 is a poor weapon for the mountains of Afghanistan. The long range and windy conditions don't lend well to the accuracy of a 62 grain bullet.
MK262.....Our boys seem to be doing ok with it....


I really doubt they're going to hook the Afghans up with MK262. I just wish they would have given them FAL's, or something that is a better platform for the type of fighting taking place there. Just my .02.



Where do you get this shit?


A 20" M16A2 is ballasticly superior to a surplus AK-47 that has had the barrel shot out a decade ago.


M855 will kill at 500 meters out of a M16A2, you are not taking that shot with an AK-47 that is brand new let alone what the ANG is using.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 8:17:30 AM EST

Originally Posted By Blackmagic94:

Originally Posted By walrus:

Originally Posted By 161Infantry:

Originally Posted By walrus:
Apparentally the M16 is a poor weapon for the mountains of Afghanistan. The long range and windy conditions don't lend well to the accuracy of a 62 grain bullet.
MK262.....Our boys seem to be doing ok with it....


I really doubt they're going to hook the Afghans up with MK262. I just wish they would have given them FAL's, or something that is a better platform for the type of fighting taking place there. Just my .02.



Where do you get this shit?


A 20" M16A2 is ballasticly superior to a surplus AK-47 that has had the barrel shot out a decade ago.


M855 will kill at 500 meters out of a M16A2, you are not taking that shot with an AK-47 that is brand new let alone what the ANG is using.


And you're telling me that M855 will be accurate to 500 meters in Afghani conditions?

No where have I said the M16 isn't a better alternative to the AK47 in Afghanistan. I AM saying that it isn't the best alternative.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 8:18:06 AM EST
and now 5.56 ammo will be $1/per round
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 8:20:20 AM EST

Originally Posted By 21BoomCBTENGR:

Originally Posted By walrus:
Apparentally the M16 is a poor weapon for the mountains of Afghanistan. The long range and windy conditions don't lend well to the accuracy of a 62 grain bullet.


Yeah, so firing that 7.62x39 cartridge at long ranges in windy conditions from an AK is a huge improvement on accuracy. Thinking before writing is a good idea.



Most of these fuckers cant hit shit at 50 meters so is there really a point in giving them anything but an AK? AK-74 would have been a better fit in this case.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 8:21:04 AM EST

Originally Posted By Chokey:
and now 5.56 ammo will be $1/per round


Exactly my concern.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 8:23:05 AM EST

Originally Posted By Mattl:

Originally Posted By 21BoomCBTENGR:

Originally Posted By walrus:
Apparentally the M16 is a poor weapon for the mountains of Afghanistan. The long range and windy conditions don't lend well to the accuracy of a 62 grain bullet.


Yeah, so firing that 7.62x39 cartridge at long ranges in windy conditions from an AK is a huge improvement on accuracy. Thinking before writing is a good idea.



Most of these fuckers cant hit shit at 50 meters so is there really a point in giving them anything but an AK? AK-74 would have been a better fit in this case.


+1

I wanted to say that, but I was afraid of it being construed as racist.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 8:27:00 AM EST
So you are saying that our boys do not have the ability to train an army to be marksmen. That is fucking retarded.



Im sure Rusted Ace would say otherwise.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 8:28:39 AM EST

Originally Posted By lougorilla:

Originally Posted By Chokey:
and now 5.56 ammo will be $1/per round


Exactly my concern.


That's a great reason to oppose giving our allies better tools with which to fight Islamic extremism.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 8:31:44 AM EST

Originally Posted By lougorilla:

Originally Posted By Mattl:

Originally Posted By 21BoomCBTENGR:

Originally Posted By walrus:
Apparentally the M16 is a poor weapon for the mountains of Afghanistan. The long range and windy conditions don't lend well to the accuracy of a 62 grain bullet.


Yeah, so firing that 7.62x39 cartridge at long ranges in windy conditions from an AK is a huge improvement on accuracy. Thinking before writing is a good idea.



Most of these fuckers cant hit shit at 50 meters so is there really a point in giving them anything but an AK? AK-74 would have been a better fit in this case.


+1

I wanted to say that, but I was afraid of it being construed as racist.



To say that marksmanship is obviously lacking is not racist, most Americans can probably not hit passed 50 meters either.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 8:36:04 AM EST
Maybe 762x39 wil go down and I will get the old maadi back out and have some more range time...I just really hate paying double for ammo now than I did 3 years ago. I guess thats why I limit my range time drastically these days and keep what ammo I allrwdy had bought when it was still a good deal. But i see this as certain fail ofr the afgans unless they learn new firearms maintenance skills. Clean it and clean more.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 8:36:40 AM EST

Originally Posted By jrkarp:

Originally Posted By lougorilla:

Originally Posted By Chokey:
and now 5.56 ammo will be $1/per round


Exactly my concern.


That's a great reason to oppose giving our allies better tools with which to fight Islamic extremism.


where in my post did I actually say "oppose"?
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 8:38:48 AM EST
[Last Edit: 4/16/2008 8:39:30 AM EST by jrkarp]

Originally Posted By Chokey:

Originally Posted By jrkarp:

Originally Posted By lougorilla:

Originally Posted By Chokey:
and now 5.56 ammo will be $1/per round


Exactly my concern.


That's a great reason to oppose giving our allies better tools with which to fight Islamic extremism.


where in my post did I actually say "oppose"?


I was more addressing lougorilla than you, and he does oppose it.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 10:22:12 AM EST
[Last Edit: 4/16/2008 10:24:10 AM EST by 21BoomCBTENGR]

Originally Posted By Mattl:

Originally Posted By 21BoomCBTENGR:

Originally Posted By walrus:
Apparentally the M16 is a poor weapon for the mountains of Afghanistan. The long range and windy conditions don't lend well to the accuracy of a 62 grain bullet.


Yeah, so firing that 7.62x39 cartridge at long ranges in windy conditions from an AK is a huge improvement on accuracy. Thinking before writing is a good idea.



Most of these fuckers cant hit shit at 50 meters so is there really a point in giving them anything but an AK? AK-74 would have been a better fit in this case.


and you know this how? If i was given an M16 and told "do good things" like their military training used to be, i'd be just as shitty a shot. However I was trained properly and am an Expert marksman. It's all training, and anyone who thinks Haj can't learn to shoot cuz he's some dumb Haj is spouting off some stupid and racist shit. Of COURSE anyone can be trained to be a good marksman by US soldiers, so why would you say something stupid like theres no point in giving them an accurate weapon.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 11:25:59 AM EST
[Last Edit: 4/16/2008 11:31:35 AM EST by lougorilla]

Originally Posted By jrkarp:

Originally Posted By Chokey:

Originally Posted By jrkarp:

Originally Posted By lougorilla:

Originally Posted By Chokey:
and now 5.56 ammo will be $1/per round


Exactly my concern.


That's a great reason to oppose giving our allies better tools with which to fight Islamic extremism.


where in my post did I actually say "oppose"?


I was more addressing lougorilla than you, and he does oppose it.


Ooooh, are you trying to call me out?

This is simply a matter of opinion. The Military leaders should make up their own mind about what they think is best. In my humble opinion, I don't think it's a good idea. I guess I'm a terrorist sympathizer in your eyes...

ETA, and I gave you a bunch of reasons posted above on my reasoning for this line of thinking. I do think the M16 system has inherintly better acuracy, but the ruggedness, cheapness, simpleness, and the familiarness with the AK-47 by our allies in Afghanistan seems to make it a no brainer to keep the system.

I don't understand how the AK could be considered a crappy weapon system to fight terrorism with.

They need proper training no matter what weapon system they use. I think it matters more how much training they get. Having a better rifle won't automatically make you a better shot unless you are properly trained to use it to it's fullest potential.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 11:34:29 AM EST

Originally Posted By 21BoomCBTENGR:

Originally Posted By Mattl:

Originally Posted By 21BoomCBTENGR:

Originally Posted By walrus:
Apparentally the M16 is a poor weapon for the mountains of Afghanistan. The long range and windy conditions don't lend well to the accuracy of a 62 grain bullet.


Yeah, so firing that 7.62x39 cartridge at long ranges in windy conditions from an AK is a huge improvement on accuracy. Thinking before writing is a good idea.



Most of these fuckers cant hit shit at 50 meters so is there really a point in giving them anything but an AK? AK-74 would have been a better fit in this case.


and you know this how? If i was given an M16 and told "do good things" like their military training used to be, i'd be just as shitty a shot. However I was trained properly and am an Expert marksman. It's all training, and anyone who thinks Haj can't learn to shoot cuz he's some dumb Haj is spouting off some stupid and racist shit. Of COURSE anyone can be trained to be a good marksman by US soldiers, so why would you say something stupid like theres no point in giving them an accurate weapon.



Whats the point in discussion if you just call everyone a racist?
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 11:38:49 AM EST
Having trained a couple Armies in third world countries, I don't like the idea. They will not treat them like they should and maintance is going to kick them in the rear. I've seen M16A2s in 3rd world countries given as aid by the US and they fall apart faster then anyone here could believe. I like the AR system, but they are not ready for them yet, both mentally and pyshically.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 11:39:59 AM EST
The IMI Galil might be a better choice for their environment. Yes, I just went there.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 11:41:28 AM EST

Originally Posted By Bob1984:
The IMI Galil might be a better choice for their environment. Yes, I just went there.



Would they use it given that where it originates?
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 11:42:29 AM EST
height=8
Originally Posted By lougorilla:
I think this is a bad idea. Keep them shooting something common to the region. Less training is neccesary, as well as there being more ammunition readily available. Hell, if they run out, they can pick up more 7.62 off the dead rebels they fight.

The AK is also more suited for the sandy region, cheaper to purchase, etc.

Another reason, is somewhat selfish but... When we shipped them that huge shipment of 7.62 x 39mm a while back, anybody remember how much the ammo went up at your local store? I want to keep as much 5.56 here as possible!



+1
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 11:44:16 AM EST

Originally Posted By Mattl:

Originally Posted By Bob1984:
The IMI Galil might be a better choice for their environment. Yes, I just went there.



Would they use it given that where it originates?




Probably not. So they'd have to go with the Valmet or the FNC. Or the SIG 550 series.

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top