Do any of the military types here have a problem with this?

[Az]

I'd still like to have one

[Ned]

Had the Iraqi police had M-16's and not AK47's, the tragedy of the their being confused for the enemy the other night would have been avoided.

[Chemical Ollie]

I got training for 3 personal weapons during my time in the military.

1) K-pist M/45 B (9 mm sub-machine gun). A very rugged weapon with only a few moving parts. The only reason it ever jammed was that empty cartridges sometimes got stuck in the peace-time cartridge collector (used to prevent red-hot cartridges flying into your buddy's collar and burning him). And that was rare. I liked the accuracy at short range and I was the best shot in my company as long as I had the K-pist. It was also easy to clean. When officers didn't see, I sprayed it with triclorethane, brought it into the shower to remove the dirt and put on some fresh grease. But I read that it was quite useless at long range in real combat. The Swedish UN soldiers in Kongo 1962 complained that it didn't penetrate the wooden shields the Baluba tribe warriors used. This didn't prevent the K-pist to be used by US special forces in Vietnam. It's extreme realiabity makes it a very good short-range weapon.

2) AK 4 (7.62 mm assault rifle) I volontered to get it, but I soon got to regret that. It was harder to clean, heavier and bulkier to carry, more prone to jam and worst of all, the sight did not fit my personal preference at all. I dropped from the best shot in the company to below average and I didn't even qualify for the Marksman Badge. Yuk!

3) AK 5 (5.56 mm assault rifle) My wartime unit got issued these rifles at my first repetition excercise. It was a very sexy little toy, easy to carry, cool looking and extremely accurate. Scoring a headshot on a non-moving target at 300 meters was a piece of cake. On the other hand, it was a nightware to clean and very vulnerable to minor disturbances. One of my magazines had a damage on the magazine lips (is that the correct term in English?) and it jammed all the time.

The K-pist is still my favorite. Given my experience of jamming and non-jamming weapons, I fully understand if the Yanks prefer the reliable AK-47. On the other hand, the "spray and pray" doctrine of the Americans will cause even more friendly and allied casualties if the US themselves start to use the same rifle as the enemy, as some of you already pointed out.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
Go old style and semi auto - the H&K PDW. Small round, but never jams and high rate of fire.



In theory maybe, but in practice, no. Just read 'About Face' or 'Steel my soldier's hearts' both by Colonel David H. Hackworth. That is enough to show that the AR-15, and the M-16 sucks in field conditions.

Hackworth is well known for his opinions. Experienced infantry are by definition complete troglodytes when it comes to making major switches in weapons types, operational doctrine, etc. More than anything else, though, God help you when you want to change the basic combat weapons, and no cow is more sacred then the infantryman's rifle.

In the late 30's up to the beginning days of WW2, you had a similar sort of thing with the M1 Garand (a great rifle) replacing the '03 Springfield. (God's own rifle, if you listened to most old timers back then). The USMC was even worse, with their "My Rifle" dogma. According to the Marines, although that M1 piece of **** might be suitable for those army pukes who couldn't shoot anyway, the Marines were by God real riflemen, and a Marine with an '03 could keep up the rate of fire and fire with more accuracy than any army puke with that piece of **** kid's toy. Gotta love Uncle Sam's Misguided Children - what they lack in brains they make up for in attitude and style.

The M14 was in most respects a pretty vanilla change from the M1, and it was well received as in most respects. The only downside to it was that the government spec considered the .308 / 7.62 x 51 NATO round to be an "intermediate" round suitable for a full auto capable rifle, because it was cut down from the .30-06 round (which kicks like a pissed off mule on steroids) used in the M1 and Springfield. Except for the fact that in full auto the M14 was pretty wild, to put it mildly, it was a great rifle. It was very much evolutionary from the M1, not a radical change.

Gene Stoner's designs (AR-10, AR-15/M16, the Stoner weapons system that the SEALs used as the M63A1, etc.) were radical changes in every respect. A new round, the 5.56mm x45, new materials (synthetic plastics, leading to the "If it's Mattel, it's swell" putdown), new action type, completely new design philosophy for new small unit tactics, etc.

The inbuilt prejudices against these changes were huge, and just about anything that could be construed to discredit the AR15/M61 design was construed that way regardless of facts. Of all the claims about jams, misfires and general unreliability of the original AR15/M16, the huge majority fell into three areas: bad ammo, improper field maintenance by poorly trained troops in violation of standard procedures, and target fixation leading to excessive full auto firing.

The ammo problem was caused by the rapid change to 5.56 x 45 as the Vietnam war built up. As an "economy measure" ordered by the government, millions of rounds of 5.56 were produced with old powder from surplus artillery munitions, and this powder burned dirty as hell.

In 'Nam, grunts who didn't know better had a tendency to think that WD40 was ****ing liquid duct tape in aerosol form. They WD40'd the hell out of everything, causing in many cases primer seepage and dissolution of the machine oil in various parts of the weapons action, due to WD40 flooding and it's solvent effects.

Other problems included things like taping clips end to end, leaving the exposed end to get bent, dinged, and crap in it. Barrel burn and misfeeds due to excessive full auto fire were also problems, but these were attributed as defects in the weapon design, rather than defects in the soldier and his training.

The difference is that over time, the Army Infantry Board and other review / audit groups who looked into the M16 performance issues got past the myths, rumors and assumptions into the actual facts. Hackworth's opinions have stuck with the initial informal rumor mill perceptions.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
Had the Iraqi police had M-16's and not AK47's, the tragedy of the their being confused for the enemy the other night would have been avoided.

Not necessarily. The simple fact that they were coming out of Indian Country where no US forces were, in vehicles, apparently firing in the direction of the US checkpoint, would tend to muddy up the issue a bit.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
On the other hand, the "spray and pray" doctrine of the Americans will cause even more friendly and allied casualties if the US themselves start to use the same rifle as the enemy, as some of you already pointed out.

That's twice now you've referred to my use of the term "spray and pray" describing the Iraqi approach to the US checkpoint without NV gear, as "American" "doctrine" which it is not.

"Spray and pray" is fairly universal in close urban combat settings, but is not at all a favored US approach.

[Chemical Ollie]

I'm sorry for that, it's nothing personal, but the expression is pretty cool and colourful. Perhaps I should go back to the "shoot first and ask the questions later" terminology to describe the situation?

[realpolitic]

Originally posted by Sava
I'm a little bit disappointed that our military isn't being given the supplies to get the job done.

A friend of mine spent several years as a supply sargent, and she'd bounce off the walls claiming the Generals never were willing to keep the supplies flowing, but I'm not sure she was unbiased, she did have a temper, even though she was attractive, she'd gone through 6 husbands by age 40.

Also, the situation there is so messy, you can't do it perfectly.

[The Mad Monk]

she'd gone through 6 husbands by age 40.

I'm torn between admiration and horror.

[The Mad Monk]

I've been thinking about the 120 rounds issue -- it dosen't look like a hell of a lot, but how much do you expect to go through in a firefight? What's an optimal load? I suppose in many way "limitless" would be optimal, but that would be rather difficult to lug around.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
I'm sorry for that, it's nothing personal, but the expression is pretty cool and colourful. Perhaps I should go back to the "shoot first and ask the questions later" terminology to describe the situation?

Q. What do you call a crew of an armored vehicle after it's been hit by MBT or missile fire?

A. Shake-n-bake (helps if you're familiar with the American food item)

Q. What do you call an artillery fire mission on a soft target?

A. Shred-n-Spread

Q. What do you call the targets of a napalm (or nowadays that napalm is out of fashion, overpressure FAE ordnance) attack?

A. Crispy Critters (another American food reference, from an old cereal)

Grunt humor tends to be a bit hard-edged, but we really don't spray and pray except in places like Mogadishu where the number of targets exceeds the supply of ammo.

The US approach is more "massive application of firepower" and it's the bastards (poor or otherwise) on the receiving end that do the praying.

[Chemical Ollie]

I know grunt humour very well. One of my best buddies (I will drink with him next Saturday) has been on 7 UN missions to Lebanon, Bosnia and Hebron. He has been sprayed by AK-47 rounds (none hit him), bombed by the Israel Air Force, shelled by Serb artillery and personally hit by intifada stoning. He has picked up casualties, both friends and foes, who were hit by bullets, RPGs and hand grenades. From this, he has grown very cool and non-sentimental. Or more frankly: he's not normal.

Where am I aiming with this post? I don't know. Perhaps I should log off before I get to drunk to do nothing but trolling. Good night...

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Hackworth is well known for his opinions. Experienced infantry are by definition complete troglodytes when it comes to making major switches in weapons types, operational doctrine, etc. More than anything else, though, God help you when you want to change the basic combat weapons, and no cow is more sacred then the

I'm not sure about Hack being a troglodytes when it comes to chances in operational doctrine. He pretty much wrote the book on how to beat any guerrilla insurection, and that after fighting a Korea (a conventional war)

In the book, Hackworth states that the M16 didnt have enough power to penetrate the bush that is found in the jungle. It also had to be kept extremely dry, or it would jam. In the jungle, its always wet, and the dirt is very humid, so it sticks to the parts inside. When building a firebase, they found one NVA/VC complete with weapon. It had been buried a few months. Hackworth picked up the AK 47 and fired the gun until the clip ran out.

The fact is that, most of the wars that have been fought since WW II have been guerrilla style. It doesn't matter how accurate your gun is at 600 meters, because most of the time, you cannot see that far - whether its in the jungle, or in the mountains, or in an urban setting. What you need is a gun that wont fail you, can penetrate the bush, and can kill with three shots to the chest.

[Spiffor]

Azazel:
Were you in boot camp these last 3 weeks ?

[vee4473]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
On the other hand, the "spray and pray" doctrine of the Americans will cause even more friendly and allied casualties if the US themselves start to use the same rifle as the enemy, as some of you already pointed out.

Spray and pray couldn't be farther from the truth when describing US military training.

US troops are trained for accuracy. The AK I believe was the true spray and pray weapon at close range. Not a US design.

There is a reason the M16 isn't even fully automatic anymore...for pete's sake...

but, whatever...people may believe whatever they want...and they will.