I always thought that AK-47's were their weapon of choice. I'm no weapons expert, but it's my understanding that an AK-47 is a relatively simple weapon compared to an M-16, but you can drag an AK-47 through the mud and it still works. Is that so?

Hmmm - I asked my son about the M16's when he finished up with Basic. He doesn't like them. Says they jam to easily and are only reliable in the single shot mode.

Of course he hates the 9mm side-arm even more and says the Army should be issuing 45's.

That's my second-hand report. *G* FWIW.

Well, I think what you're saying used to be true, but I suspect that the M-16 has evolved to be a lot more reliable and easier to maintain. I bet John over at Arrgghhh! can tell us.
-Jim.

Well, I agree about .45's, but it's a personal thing.

The M16 is an adequate weapon, but does require greater attention to detail than the AK. As for Teresa's son's experience - the rifles issued to basic trainees are just about the most worn rifles in the inventory, used by the most inexperienced troops. So they tend to be in less than stellar shape. If reports of Iraqi training are to be believed (and I have no reason to doubt them) a single US basic training rifle has fired more rounds in a training cycle than an Iraqi company of rifles fired in a year.

Those of us who know how to shoot, and like to shoot, and are partial to shooting long tend not to like the M16. Lots of pros and cons. It works, but does require a well trained, disciplined soldier and a chain of command that enforces that discipline. Something not always true as the maintenance company found out in An Nasiriyah.

Funny thing is, in most wars, soldiers like their opponents weapons better than their own. Not always true, but many times. I believe because they 'feel' the effects, and don't have the same level of experience at the other end of their weapons.

The AK is simple, and if properly made, is a very serviceable weapon. Like anything mechanical, the cheaper the make (especially in combat conditions) the less satisfactory it will be.

Something we tend to forget - military weapons are *meant* to be cheap to make, relatively easy to maintain, and generally effective. They aren't long range hunting weapons. And long range hunting weapons don't hold up that well in combat, generally, except in the hands of specialist troops.

my dad fought in the vietnam war and he said that the same problems with the M-16 will arise again due to the weather and conditions that are present there. i just talked to my second cousin who is based in iraq and he says he is always having to constantly clean his beretta and M-16 because of the fine dust from the desert. he prefers the Ak-47 and because it can be fired with much more dirt in the feeder.