The Galil rifle: why the Israeli don't use it?


PDA






Alexey931
August 11, 2007, 05:44 AM
Never seen on TV an Israeli soldier with anything but M16. Why? They never meant the Galil rifle for domestic use?

Best regards, Alexey

If you enjoyed reading about "The Galil rifle: why the Israeli don't use it?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Number 6
August 11, 2007, 06:14 AM
They can get M16s from the US for a lot less money than producing and making the Galils themselves, so they use M16 variants instead. The Galils are also heavier and not as customizable so they have been regulated to support units.

Expertowgunner
August 11, 2007, 06:23 AM
Like number 6 said, the U.S. sold their m16 (and the variants such as the m4) much "Cheaper" than the cost of producing the galil. I do have a question though, i thought the ak was one of the cheapest guns to build in the world and the galil is just a variation of it. Anyway this is what ive always been told, but the production of the tavor has been succesful and from what ive read is that it will replace all of the worn m16s over time. countries like india have some interest in this rifle as it is supposed to replace their ak copy cat the INSAS (funny that a hebrew gun will be the standard arm of a mainly a hindu/buddhist nation). Tavor looks like a good gun too and fairly cheap (1000 dollars compared to 2,500 for the austrian aug a3)

HorseSoldier
August 11, 2007, 06:25 AM
Galil was adopted right before the start of the 73 War, when Israel got a bunch of M16s delivered as emergency military aid. In a head to head comparison, the AR-15 type weapons just out performed the Galil -- which is heavier but will run when really dirty. Since IDF soldiers clean their weapons, etc., the AK clone angle is not so good. As already noted by the previous poster, the Galil got pushed out of shooter type units like infantry and special operations guys to support units and people who needed a rugged, treat-it-bad-and-neglect-it kind of personal defense weapon (i.e. tank crews).

Like number 6 said, the U.S. sold their m16 (and the variants such as the m4) much "Cheaper" than the cost of producing the galil.

If that was the only reason, it would not explain why the guys who are specifically expected to earn their pay with a long gun are the guys who use the M16, while the guys who need something to possibly defend themselves while doing more important work use the Galil.

El Tejon
August 11, 2007, 06:37 AM
Because tacticool does not equate to combat effective.

American shooters drool over them, but they only have to carry them from their car to the firing line. And if you've seen the food blisters on American shooters then you know that weight is not a concern to them.;)

WeedWhacker
August 11, 2007, 07:10 AM
the AR-15 type weapons just out performed the Galil -- which is heavier but will run when really dirty.

I'd love to see a source for this.

MaterDei
August 11, 2007, 07:53 AM
I suspect that the US gives them M-16s for free.

jonnyc
August 11, 2007, 10:19 AM
WeedWhacker is correct! The M16 variants in IDF service never "just out performed the Galil". Until the late 1980s, the Galil was the primary issue weapon and second-line units got the M16s. US Foreign Military Credits, which Israel started getting more of in the early 1990s, must primarily be spent in the US, so the Galils got pushed aside for the cheaper M16s.
I had an M16 during my IDF basic, and it jammed like a fool in the desert but was relatively easier to run and roll with. Later I had a Glilon (short Galil) and a Mag58, and I was much happier.

MudPuppy
August 11, 2007, 10:28 AM
A stamped AK variant it probably one of the cheaper type of rifles that can be made. A galil is a milled type and requires much more expensive mfg equipment and I'd expect the people making them would require more training (a machinist vs a guy that can operate a press?)

From http://world.guns.ru/assault/as23-e.htm:
While being a successful weapon, the Galil was not widely issued to the IDF during its lifetime, because during the late 1960s and early 1970s Israel received large shipments of the US M16 and CAR-15 assault rifles at the very low prices.

Seems like its all about the money...

DMK
August 11, 2007, 10:34 AM
Did Israel field both 7.62x51 and 5.56 versions of the Galil?

Was there ever a version chambered in 7.62x39?

amprecon
August 11, 2007, 10:50 AM
What is it with the U.S. gov't giving away automatic weapons to foreigners and restricting them to it's own citizens? We have to go through h*ll & high water just to get a 1940's "relic" like the CMP Garand. What are they skeered of........?

Browning
August 11, 2007, 11:20 AM
From what I understand they don't pay anything at all for the M-16's that they recieve from the US.

They're just given them as military aid.

Even if they could produce Galils for next to nothing, they still would not be free.

Free is the cheapest choice of all.

The decision was based on economics, what was better didn't have much to do with it.

Although there's nothing wrong with the M-16 platform.

According to these articles they'll be going to something else shortly anyway (The Tavor).

The Galils that Israel's defense industry produced were exported and sold for cash to help their economy (To countries like South Africa and Columbia).

http://www.answers.com/topic/israel-united-states-military-relations

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/small_arms/tavor/Tavor.html

The Tavor spells the end, locally, of the M-16, a staple assault rifle supplied to Israel since the early 1970s as part of Washington's annual defense grants. The M-16 has drawn complaints. Designed for Vietnam-style tropics, it jams frequently in the desert. Many of the rifles Israel received were from military surplus and often fatigued. Nonetheless, Israel long allowed the M-16 to eclipse its Uzi and another IMI-made assault rifle, the Galil, which both ended up being sold to client states in Africa and South America.

http://www.udnik.area.co.il/

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003408.html

Caimlas
August 11, 2007, 11:26 AM
food blisters

Took me a second to realize what you were talking about there, but once I got it you almost made me spray coffee...

Evil Monkey
August 11, 2007, 11:54 AM
I think besides getting M16's for free, the Galil is HEAVY. Soldiers don't like heavy.

Landlocked Pirate
August 11, 2007, 12:10 PM
According to a History Channel special on Israeli weapons that I saw a while back, the weight of the Galil is the main reason for its lack of use by infantry soldiers.

Coronach
August 11, 2007, 01:03 PM
I have heard greater weight, inferior ergonomics/handling, greater weight, greater cost, greater weight, inferior modularity, greater weight and greater weight as reasons why it was not more popular in IDF service.American shooters drool over them, but they only have to carry them from their car to the firing line. And if you've seen the food blisters on American shooters then you know that weight is not a concern to them.Funniest thing I've read all day!

Yeah, the Galil strikes me as sort of the M14 of the IDF. A good rifle, even a great one, but superceded by the M16 for a number of reasons that are not entirely based upon relative merits to the end-user. I think they're cool. I would not feel poorly armed if I was issued one, but I'd probably rather have a M16 or M4 in modern combat (says I, from the comfort of Camp Couch, nursing my food blister).

Mike

PercyShelley
August 11, 2007, 02:31 PM
I've heard from many people who own them that galils are heavy. What I want to know is whether they're any heavier than other .223 AK variants.

Medusa
August 11, 2007, 02:43 PM
This baby runs at 7.3 kg, unloaded. With loaded 20 rnd mag it's a tad heavier. At least the stock is foldable.

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=61565&d=1185732271

Frightener 88
August 11, 2007, 02:53 PM
how does the galil fair in accuracy compared to the m16/m4 variants?

HorseSoldier
August 11, 2007, 03:13 PM
I've heard from many people who own them that galils are heavy. What I want to know is whether they're any heavier than other .223 AK variants.

If a stamped receiver AK, then yes. If a milled receiver, then possibly (the Galil stock is pretty solid, and I'm pretty sure many of the AK folder stock options are a bit lighter).

how does the galil fair in accuracy compared to the m16/m4 variants?

Real .mil SARs get the job done out to 200 meters easily, personally haven't fired them further than that. Recoil is more pronounced than on an AR type rifle, and a bit surprising for 5.56mm, but still not a big deal.

I'd love to see a source for this.

If it is not the case, then someone please explain to me why Israeli shooters carry M16s and M4s while the Galil only remains on the books as a defensive carbine for tank crews and the like. If the Galil were a superior service rifle, even if the IDF could get M16s/M4s cheap or free, then why not give the shooters Galils and the tankers M4s?

As far as I can tell, having spent some quality time with both the M16/M4 and Galil SARs, it's (as has been suggested) weight and cruddy ergonomics. Galil is much harder to run at speed than an AR -- improves on the AK by adding a left side selector/safety lever, but it's installed backwards. Going hot requires a pretty anatomically impossible backwards thumb sweep with strength to overcome the standard right side AK selector lever. Mag changes are slower as well. The ambidextrous cocking lever is a good idea until you rip your hand open on the real sight post racking the bolt fast, then maybe it's not so ideal.

Much better than a normal AK, but still burdened by the flaws of the parent weapon system.

TOU
August 11, 2007, 03:44 PM
Here is something that blows my mind about the Tavor's the Canadians (with their highly restrictive gun laws) can get them and the VZ-58's along with Norinco & PolyTech M-14's and we don't seem to be able to.

http://www.canadaammo.com/

Bartholomew Roberts
August 11, 2007, 07:31 PM
The reason L&P is closed is not so it can spill out into the rest of the board; but so we can determine what needs to be done to make it part of THRs mission instead of a distraction. I've deleted several posts that have absolutely nothing to do with Galils or Israeli use of them. If you notice your post missing, then please consider this a warning to keep the L&P content out of the Rifle Forum.

GunTech
August 12, 2007, 01:10 AM
The Israelis don't get their M16 for free. The way it works, the Israelis get military aid from the US and are obligated to spend a certain percentage on US made products. So basically we give military aid to the Israelis which they must spend buying US military products, so the M16 is basically highly subsidized by the US taxpayer. The result is the same. The M16 comes in very cheap compared to the Galil. Since the large scale purchase of M16 and M4, the Galil is mainly relegated to armored troops and reserve usints. Most are now being surplussed out - which is why Galil kits are available and Centry and othjers are able to build rifles from Galil parts.

I just bought a CAI Golani (Galil) and it is a very nice weapon - and not at all as heavy as expected despite the machined steel receiver. My 18 inch bbl tips the scale at about 9 pounds, pretty close to the current M16 with it's veavier barrel. It's not as flexible as the M16 with the rail system, but it does have a dovetail on the left side of the reciever for mounting optics. I don;t expect irons to be too great since the rear sight is mounted on the top cover, which has a bit of play in it.

I suspect politics and ecomnomics had more to do with the decline of the Galil rather than utility. The Galil came about after Israels experience with the FAL and captured AKs. The decided the AK was a superior design for a combat rifle.

I doubt the Galil is anywhere near as accurate as the M16, but I'm betting it far more reiable with less than regular maintenance. Since the Israeli troops tend to be very highly trained and take care of their equipment, reliability is probably not an issue.

Alexey931
August 12, 2007, 04:49 AM
In the face of the incoming fire reliability is always the topmost issue. All the more so in the dusty environment...

HorseSoldier
August 12, 2007, 11:52 AM
In the face of the incoming fire reliability is always the topmost issue. All the more so in the dusty environment...

If that were true, we'd all still be carrying bolt guns. In the face of incoming fire, the ability to return overwhelming fire is the most important issue. That's why all modern armies accept inherently less reliable weapons (select fire assault rifles) as the standard. Ten guys with Moisin-Nagants or SMLEs will never have a stoppage, but can't match the firepower of ten guys with assault rifles, even if five of them are jammed up solid.

Alexey931
August 13, 2007, 12:49 AM
It never occured to me to embrace into my statement weapons of different class and generation... :)

swingset
August 13, 2007, 02:04 AM
There are a lot of reasons the Israelis favor the M16/M4 family over the Galil, cost is only one of them...and not the most important reason.

Light weight, adaptable, easier for smaller or different sized shooters to share the same weapon family, modularity, faster mag changes, less muzzle-heavy, and the list goes on.

I love the Galil, but it's a heavy AK...and (sorry you AK nuts) that's not what modern armies seem to want, with good reason.

A lot of armies and SF forces around the world, that can pick ANYTHING they want and pay retail for it, choose the M4/M16. If they were as inferior as the internet lore goes, that would not be the case.

WeedWhacker
August 13, 2007, 03:11 AM
A lot of armies and SF forces around the world, that can pick ANYTHING they want and pay retail for it, choose the M4/M16. If they were as inferior as the internet lore goes, that would not be the case.

The same logic could be falsely applied to Microsoft Office - very few people choose it because they've researched the alternatives and find it to be superior - they choose it because it's what everyone else uses, they require interoperability, or for political reasons.

Yes, I like the durned heavy Galils. :P

CWL
August 13, 2007, 03:15 AM
M16s are cheaper to obtain, cheaper to service, easier to source replacement parts & magazines, allows Isreali military to focus on other armaments manufacture, end of story.

swingset
August 13, 2007, 05:23 AM
The same logic could be falsely applied to Microsoft Office - very few people choose it because they've researched the alternatives and find it to be superior - they choose it because it's what everyone else uses, they require interoperability, or for political reasons.

Some of the SF units, the SAS is a good example, use it because it met their need above all else and it's quite the odd-duck in their arsenal. Other than magazine compatibility, it shares nothing with the MOD's small arms programs but they CHOSE it.

It's one the best small arms systems in the world, and you're kidding yourself if you think it's because it's a political peer-pressure thing.

GunTech
August 13, 2007, 09:43 AM
I'm not sure why the Galil rates 'heavy'. Mine in 9 pounds, give or take, which put it very close to the current M16 with it heavier barrel and add ons. The M16 may have started as a 7 pound rifle, but those days are long one.

As far as the demand for M16, it is interetesting to note that the US is supplying Iraq troops with AKs - not M16. The lack of demand for AK type weapons probably has a alot to do with the fact there are aomething like 45 million already in circulation.

For elite troops, there is no doubt the M16 has a lot ro recommend it. The AK is a very basis battle rifle. The M16 is a modular system. It lends itself to optics mounting and the addition of accessories few rifles can match. Even modern rifles like the G36 lack the mounting options of the M16A4 with M5 Rail Adapter.

Float Pilot
August 13, 2007, 05:31 PM
Heck the M-16s are so cheap they are being giving to... guess who....

From the Jerusalem News wire...

.....According to reports from Hamas members of the Palestinian Authority, three truckloads of weapons and ammunition were delivered to the offices of PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas in Samaria and the Gaza Strip last week.

The consignment consisted of up to 3,000 M16 rifles and three million rounds of M16 ammunition.....


The weaponry was delivered with the blessing of the Olmert-led government, which purportedly believed the guns were to be used to strengthen Abbas? Fatah against Hamas........

WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT


From 1995 to 2002 Israel receievd another 140,000 M-16s per the info release below....so there are more than a few kicking around
Notifications to Congress of Pending U.S. Arms Transfers for year 2002

Country Date ...Transmission No. ....Description............. Transfer Type............... Price
Israel 6/5/2002 unnumbered 50,000 excess M16 Rifles Excess Defense Articles...... $4,460,000

Israel 1/23/2002 unnumbered 30,000 excess M16 rifles Excess Defense Articles .........no price listed

Israel 11/18/1997 M16 rifles and ammunition Excess Defense Articles.................................... free
Israel 10/10/1995 30,000 Colt M-16A1 rifles Excess Defense Articles .......................................... free
Israel 2/15/1995 34,744 Colt M-16A1 rifles .....Excess Defense Articles ......................................free

Number 6
August 13, 2007, 06:43 PM
As far as the demand for M16, it is interetesting to note that the US is supplying Iraq troops with AKs - not M16.

The US is actually supplying the Iraqi military with both. Initially the US supplied them with AKs, but when the Iraqi's got to chose what they wanted to be armed with they chose M16 variants.

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=53489&archive=true

GunTech
August 13, 2007, 07:02 PM
I guess they are giving all their AKs to their insurgent buddies.

HorseSoldier
August 13, 2007, 08:40 PM
As far as the demand for M16, it is interetesting to note that the US is supplying Iraq troops with AKs - not M16. The lack of demand for AK type weapons probably has a alot to do with the fact there are aomething like 45 million already in circulation.

I believe the policy changed recently. We're giving them M16s now. Whether or not Iraqi troops will clean their weapons, etc., is a fair question given the usual disdain for PMCS among Arab troops.

Browning
August 14, 2007, 04:35 PM
swingset: It's one the best small arms systems in the world, and you're kidding yourself if you think it's because it's a political peer-pressure thing.

I wouldn't call it "political peer pressure", but most if not all nations that are allied with each other basically use the same weapons, ammo, equipment, vehicles, artillery, helicopters and aircraft. It makes it easier to help each other out and to intergrate their forces when necessary.

When an ally purchases (or is given) and uses the same equipment as most of its other allies it's called "Standardization". I personally think that the M-16/AR weapons system is very capable otherwise it wouldn't have survived this long (40 years), but there are lots of reasons that nations choose certain weapons over others.

For an example look at the United Kingdom. For almost a hundred years whenever they get into a conflict with another nation they've been forced to obtain weapons, ammo, equipment, aircraft and vehicles from the US as they didn't have enough of their own. During WWI American citizens were donating firearms to help the Brits out. Then when WWII popped off, the same thing happened and they were forced to look to the US for weapons and ammo. The British Home Guard had their regular issue firearms taken away to arm the regular British Army after the regular forces lost their weapons at Dunkirk. The HG patrolled the coast with a motley collection of whatever they could get that shot a bullet as their only stipulation for use and which were donated by American Hunters and Firearms Owners.

Since Israel is dependent on the US to a certain degree because of how much military aid that we give them every year it's a smart move for them to use the same equipment that the US Armed Forces use. The US wouldn't use it if it didn't work to begin with, but I'll bet that US military aid and emergency resupply figured in there somewhere.

ColDecker
August 15, 2007, 07:26 AM
Greetings all. Just got thru reading thru all the postings.
Please allow me to clear up this thread a bit. This info comes directly from the IDF SF's own website: http://www.isayeret.com/main/guide.htm


A common debate in the small arms world is the M16 Vs. AK47 issue - which one is the better assault rifle. As probably the only western army in the world that have used both an AK47 variant (IMI Galil) and the M16 on a large scale, the IDF is often mentioned as a real life example.

The pro M16 claim is that the IDF usage of the M16 is a clear evidence of the weapon's quality, while the pro AK47 claim that the only reason the IDF switched from IMI Galil to the M16 is since it received them for free from the U.S. The truth is that the M16 is by far the superior weapon. It's lighter, more accurate, more versatile, and with proper maintenance it is very reliable. Indeed, it might be less sand proof then the Galil/AK47 series. However, all you need is to clean it once a day and it will work properly. Since modern armies clean their small arms on a daily basis even during combat deployment this is a non-issue.

In fact, most of the myth regarding the M16 unreliability date back to the Vietnam War when the M16 was first issued. The 5.56 mm ammunition used at the time was based on a low quality sticky gunpowder that caused massive buildup of dirt in the M16 mechanism and eventually to jamming problems. When the ammunition was replaced with a proper one, the misfire problems disappeared as well.
One the other hand, the IMI Galil is heavy, inaccurate and it is difficult to attach optics and other accessories to it without special adapters. Many people also don't like the Galil/AK safety mechanism but that's a personnel preference issue. The M16 design, however, is very user friendly and allow numerous modifications to be made such as interchangeability between the different M16 families. The large number of M16 variants used by the IDF for decades of continuous combat deployment is a clear evidence of that.

The reason for the IDF usage of the M16 over the Galil isn't the cost. It's the pure quality of the M16 over the Galil. Most of IDF troops dislike the Galil and will prefer a CAR15/M4 over it. Those who are using the cost factor are simply unfamiliar with the IDF assault rifles history. Short review - up until the mid 1970's the IDF standard issue assault rifle was the FN FAL. At that time most of the Israeli elite units were using the AK47, which was considered as better then the FAL. During the Israeli-Arab Yom Kippur War in 1973 the U.S. made a massive airlift to Israel containing large numbers of brand new M16A1 and CAR15. However, shortly after the war ended the IDF had adopted the IMI Galil as its new standard issue assault rifle so most of the M16 remained in storage.

The Galil wasn't a big success to say the least. Most of the IDF elite units weren't impressed with the new weapon and remained with the AK47, which also was also useful for deniability in covert deep insertions. In the late 1970's, a few SF units tried out the CAR15 and were tremendously impressed. A decade later, by the late 1980's, almost all elite units were already armed with CAR15, which was gradually replacing the IMI Galil SAR and the AK47. Note that this was years before the IDF had officially adopted the M16 in the early 1990's. The IDF SF units that adopted the CAR15 didn't have any cost issue at mind. They could have used either the M16 or the Galil. It made no matter budget wise, since both weapons were already available in masses. The decision was purely quality based, and no one told the units which weapon to use. More clearly - in some IDF elite units the Galil was simply never used and they always preferred the CAR15 over it. Following the influence of the SF units, in the early 1990's the IDF had officially adopted the M16 family as its new standard issue assault rifle for all infantry oriented units, including both SF and conventional units. Today, the IMI Galil is mainly used by auxiliary and rear line units.

Lets again review the situation in the early 1990's. The IDF had large sums of Galil variants it procured over the years, and it also had large sums of M16 it received in the 1973 war as well as via U.S. Army surpluses shipments over the years. Both weapons were available in masses and there wasn't any current or near future need to procure either weapon. The IDF also had thousands of AK47 that were captured over the years. So the IDF could use the AK47 free of charge over M16 or Galil.
Eventually, the IDF chose the M16, so again cost wasn't really an issue. Further more, even if there was such a cost factor, then the IDF could have simply supply all rear line troops with the cheaper M16 and issue the more expensive Galil to the front line troops. The fact that the exact opposite was done speaks for itself. Moreover, some times the cost is less of an issue. The IDF often buy expensive Israeli weapons. For example, the Israeli Police bought the Jericho 941 handguns, while the IDF managed to get the better Sig Sauer 228/226. The Israeli M240 Sufa ("Storm" in Hebrew) jeep is yet another example. The fact that despite the domestic pressure the M16 was chosen over the Galil is yet another evident of its superiority.

Let's review the situation today. The IDF no longer receives M16 for free. Instead, Israel receives from the U.S. few billion dollars per year of FMS. However, the catch is that most of this money must be spent in Dollars back in the U.S. The M4 series is indeed cheaper then the Galil or even the new Tavor series. In order to buy gear and weapons using the U.S. FMS the item must be at least 50% made in the U.S. This is why the IMI is currently looking for ways to manufacture the Tavor in the U.S. - so that the IDF could buy the Tavor using FMS.
To summarize, the IDF chose the M16 over the AK47/Gail because the M16 is the better assault rifle in all parameters that matter. As for reliability, the M16 is reliable enough. As for cost it's a non issue. Modern small arms are relatively cheap. In fact, for modern armies who buy large sums, most optical sights cost much more then assault rifles per unit.
http://www.isayeret.com/main/guide.htm

GunTech
August 15, 2007, 09:40 AM
Well, interesting post. That pretty much kills the cost theory for tha Galil.

I have to say I like the Galil over the AK in terms of design, despite thae fact that mine has proven unrealiable (I blame Century, not the design). It is heavier that the M16 - a full tricked out M16 with rail system and a small optic weighs about the same as a basic Galil. Ergonomics on the Galil are very good compared to the AK. Accuracy is outstanding.

Now if someone could being a modified Galil that used M16 magazines, it would be the perfect 223 AK for the American market - although Galil mags are widely available. It also needs an Ultimak like rail.

All that said, the M16 family is a superior weapons system in terms of accuracy and flexibility - a feature some don't get. With a flat top receiver and rail system almost any gadget required can be easily added. It is perfect for optics mounting. It's fairly simple to reconfigure with different stocks, etc. A barrel change can be done with a simple tool by anyone with reasonable appitude.

What's not to like?

El Tejon
August 15, 2007, 09:52 AM
What's not to like? Well, we are familiar with it, thus the M16 cannot be cool and I gots Iwannacoolgun virus bad. Cool guns win wars.

BigG
August 15, 2007, 10:19 AM
I think Coldecker told it pretty well. I seem to remember back when Galils were current there was some problem with them shearing locking surfaces.

I have a Valmet 71 which is a sheet metal AK that the Galil was derived from. Nice curio, but still an AK with all its warts.

ColDecker
August 15, 2007, 11:04 AM
Yes guys, you can now use this as a show-piece to all the Pro-AK honks out there (referring to my post a few hours ago). Once they learn how fast the IDF (Quite possibly the most Elite Force on the Planet) discarded their AK's (or Galil's) in favor of the M16, their continued high praise of the Kalashnikov should come to a screeching halt.

benEzra
August 15, 2007, 12:27 PM
Yes guys, you can now use this as a show-piece to all the Pro-AK honks out there (referring to my post a few hours ago). Once they learn how fast the IDF (Quite possibly the most Elite Force on the Planet) discarded their AK's (or Galil's) in favor of the M16, their continued high praise of the Kalashnikov should come to a screeching halt.
I have always liked the AK design for reasons other than who uses it, actually. People who evaluate various guns by the "kewlness" of those perceived to be using the platform are unlikely to be AK fanboys, considering that 1st SFOD-D/CAG uses the M16/M4, and they trump the IDF on the Kewlness index.

I have no experience with the Galil (looks like a nice system, though), but IMHO the AKM design can stand on its own merits, particularly for civilian shooters looking for a good all-purpose rifle.

nalioth
August 15, 2007, 12:32 PM
considering that 1st SFOD-D/CAG uses the M16/M4 I believe all our special ops boys have moved to gas piston equipped AR type rifles, which aren't the same critter at all next to a direct impingement AR.

Number 6
August 15, 2007, 03:11 PM
I believe all our special ops boys have moved to gas piston equipped AR type rifles, which aren't the same critter at all next to a direct impingement AR.

Certain special ops units have acquired the HK 416, but that is a far cry from it being universally adopted by all of the Special Forces community. The Asymmetric Warfare Group (AWG) and some Delta units have been reported to use the 416, but the extent of its use even within those units is not clear.

GunTech
August 15, 2007, 03:53 PM
Well, the Galil looks scarier. Like an AK variant, it is the weapon of the Bear andnastuy terrorists everywhere. Anything that makes Diane Feinstein pee in her pants is good in my book.

My goto rifle is a tricked out M1A. I have an M4 forgery that get a lot of use. If and when I get my Century Galil to function, it will be a fun blaster. It will also be a superior club compared to the M4/M16 should you run out of ammo.

Personally, my mission is to 'collect them all' (assasult rifles) before the Dems take the white house in 2009. I anticipate a permanent assasult rifle ban in the first hundred days.

Get them while you can.

HorseSoldier
August 15, 2007, 10:34 PM
Certain special ops units have acquired the HK 416, but that is a far cry from it being universally adopted by all of the Special Forces community. The Asymmetric Warfare Group (AWG) and some Delta units have been reported to use the 416, but the extent of its use even within those units is not clear.


Does the Assymetric Warfare Group even count as a SOF unit? :rolleyes:

Anyway, use of HK 416s is more widespread than just CAG and We-Play-Like-We're-CAG-Lite within the special operations community, but it is certainly by no means universal, and there are definitely still a whole lot more M4A1s out there than HK 416s. With SCAR-L supposed to be on the way, I doubt the 416 ever approaches universal issue.

If you enjoyed reading about "The Galil rifle: why the Israeli don't use it?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!