Afghan Army goes to M-16s

[Ed L.]

It looks like the Afghan army is going to M-16s. I have my serious doubts about relatively primitive troops in a relatively primative army being able to maintain the weapon.

from: http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htw.../20071124.aspx

The Afghan Army is replacing its AK-47s for M-16s. The first 5,000 M-16s arrive in January, and 10,000 a month after that, until 50,000 have arrived. The Afghan army currently has a strength of about 50,000, and this is expected to reach 64,000 in the next 14 months. While the AK-47 is more reliable when dirty, the M-16 is more accurate, a bit lighter and sounds different than the AK-47. That last item is important in combat, as it helps you sort out who is where. Around the world, rebels and irregulars tend to choose the M-16 over AK-47, if they have a choice. This despite all the criticism the M-16 gets. The AK-47 also has its quirks. But since the AK-47 has been so romanticized in the West, those flaws tend to be played down. Not so in the field.

[Sry0fcr]

As long as we're not paying for it...

[Safetyhit]

But since the AK-47 has been so romanticized in the West, those flaws tend to be played down. Not so in the field.

Don't know what he meant there, as I would say the AK is much more beloved by those in the east as opposed to those in the west. That is largely due to the lack of functional flaws, even when being operated dirty by primitive armies (as you correctly described them). I know many like them here (mostly those that don't know better or see them in movies), but there they are a mainstay over there because they would rather sacrifice accuracy for reliability. Plus, the gun was developed in the east.

That said, I would not own one. In fact, I feel bad just holding one.

[Lumpy196]

As long as we're not paying for it...

We're getting some goats in the deal.

[DirtDiver71]

We're getting some goats in the deal.

fair trade.. they probably shoot straighter than your average Afghan anyway..


(in all seriousness)
I can understand the desire to convert ANA to M-16's, for many reasons, especialy the aforemention difference in report.. what I'm not confident in is the ability of your typical ANA ground-pounder to be able to maintain it properly..

I've got a buddy who's a former SEAL, he currently works Security Escorts for a pvt firm in both Af. and Iraq.. I'm gonna bring this up with him and get his opinion as he's had plenty of contact with the sort of troops that will be using them.

[RustedAce]

Don't know what he meant there, as I would say the AK is much more beloved by those in the east as opposed to those in the west. That is largely due to the lack of flaws, even when being operated dirty by primitive armies (as you correctly described them). I know many like them here (mostly those that don't know better or see them in movies), but there they are a mainstay over there because they would rather sacrifice accuracy for reliability. Plus, the gun was developed in the east.

That said, I would not own one. In fact, I feel bad just holding one.

The article is correct, the "AKs never jam" myth is a western pop culture myth. AKs do not work if you dont maintain them.

They "perfer" AKs because they can get them. They are the mainstay of many forces because the soviets dumped them on them.

They are not idiots. They can maintain an M16. If you can keep a T-55 working for 20 years you can keep an M16 clean.

They would not rather sacrifice accuracy for reliability, they have no choice, where are they gonna get an M16?

[KevinB]

Ditto to Rusted
- I've worked with Afghans and Iraqi's, both of whom have been trained on M16/M4's at some time in their careers.

[John_Wayne777]

The article is correct, the "AKs never jam" myth is a western pop culture myth. AKs do not work if you dont maintain them.

They "perfer" AKs because they can get them. They are the mainstay of many forces because the soviets dumped them on them.

They are not idiots. They can maintain an M16. If you can keep a T-55 working for 20 years you can keep an M16 clean.

They would not rather sacrifice accuracy for reliability, they have no choice, where are they gonna get an M16?

Good to see you on this site, you evil, evil man you!

[graffex]

You would have to be literally retarded to not be able to maintain a functioning AR . I don't by that crap about AK's being more reliable either. It's like saying a Glock is more reliable than an HK USP, You'd be hard pressed to make either fail if you take care of them properly.

[Safetyhit]

The article is correct, the "AKs never jam" myth is a western pop culture myth. AKs do not work if you dont maintain them.

They "perfer" AKs because they can get them. They are the mainstay of many forces because the soviets dumped them on them.

They are not idiots. They can maintain an M16. If you can keep a T-55 working for 20 years you can keep an M16 clean.

They would not rather sacrifice accuracy for reliability, they have no choice, where are they gonna get an M16?

I understand what you are saying, and I know you have the field experience to back up most of what you say. I have also heard and read many first hand stories of dirty M16's/M4's functioning well while coated with that fine sand. But, that is likely due to it's operator taking care of it between incidents. And, as I said, I will not own an AK. I have 3 AR's because I prefer them for several reasons.

However, to say that there is nothing to the statement that AK's are less likely to fail when dirty as an AR is questionable. By most accounts (and I owned 2 myself years ago) they are easier to maintain, largely because of the overall design and the piston system they incorperate. Also, just because a mechanic can keep an old tank running does not mean that the average "infantryman" who is part of some rag-tag army will break down their AR and clean it as often as needed. Maybe the better trained, more disciplined Afghan army will take better care of their weapons. Of course, there are more AK's there (and 7.62 ammo) due to the Russians, but that does not mean most would take an M16/M4 if they could. You know the M16 is better, and so do most here, but they don't necessarily see it that way.