Quote:
Originally Posted by cmac2012
I consider the source to be sound. They mentioned what you said and more. The speaker pointed out that the CIA has distributed many of them, in Afghanistan (during the Soviet invasion) and in El Salvador. He said they used them in lieu of the M-16 because they're more reliable and cheaper. He said the Pentagon will never go that route because the gun is associated with our lowlife enemies. Plus, the AK is more of a scattershot, close range weapon whereas our guns are better for longer range, sniping type kills.
Relax, I'm aware that there are far better weapons for serious snipers than the m-16. I'd heard a lot of what was in this piece before but it was interesting nonetheless.
|
The AK47 is not a close-range weapon any more than our M16 is. The reason that our forces went to the M16 was not for range, but for ammo weight and cost. You can carry 50% more M16 rounds for the same weight as the earlier US weapon rounds. The only thing that may make the M16 more accurate at longer range shots is the three-shot group available in most of the military rifles. Full-auto with a hand-held rifle is not accurate. If you're sniping, you'll be on semi-auto mode with either (or of course, with a rifle more suited to the task).
It is true that the larger AK47 round is a better killer than the M16 round, but killing isn't what matters on the battlefield. In fact, it's counterproductive. Wounding the enemy is just as effective at removing the immediate threat, and you tie up his friends who have to remove him from the battlefield. Having to leave wounded soldiers is much more demoralizing than seeing them dead.