When the US "liberates"a country why don't we swap out their AK'S for M-16'S?

Status
Not open for further replies.
4

41mag

Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2003
Messages
1,021
Location
western mi
I mean really,The AK is a world symbol of anti-US belief.They were either given or sold to most all of our "enemies"for years.Is their any reason why we wouldn't want a "pro"US symbol passed around?
On another note,with the coming XM8 there will be alot of xtra black rifles laying around.You know they won't be sold to us.Why not give them away as part of our"nation building" strategy?
 
because the people we want to be armed have already got a huge bunch of them, and a huge pile of ammo, and know how they work. Why change them for something else which proabaly won't work as reliably, especially if you're rebuilding a peasant army who make weapon maintainance low on their things-to-do list.
 
- Half the cost to make (biggest reason)
- Far easier to maintain
- Good enough for the job at hand

Regarding Iraq specifically -- the only nation using 5.56NATO that I know of in the area is Israel. They're sure as heck not going to ship ammo from their factories to Iraq. I know I wouldn't if I was them. They can buy 7.62x39 from the Russians and Chinese though and probably have the equipment already there to make the stuff.

Just my two cents.
 
Practicality aside,I was more interested in the symbolism of the American arm vs. the commie one.
I'm well aware of both weapons reputations.It isn't my intent to start another this vs, that thread.If we try hard enough I'm sure several impractical things will come to mind brought to us by our governmant.
I should have made this clearer perhaps.I'm really interested in the symbolism aspect of the M-16(freedom)rifle vs. the AK-47(not=freedom).
How it pertains to our foreign policy is more of what I'm asking.
 
Guns don't have political feelings and I thought only anti-gun people worried about symbolism. Besides, in case they turn on us, I don't want them shooting at us with our own guns. They might hit something.
 
Money.

+ You think we're going to spend millions on rifles for another country when our troops themselves are not even properly equipped? IE body armor.. :banghead:
 
We'd be better off giving any nation we defeat our M-16s and KEEPING their AK series weapons for our own use, particularly when we seem to be going into sandy, arid environments, where the M-16 is too finicky, with our deployments for most of the last 15 years.
 
The last time I looked (2003), an M-16A3 cost Uncle Sam $489.

M-14 was ~$130, IIRC.

M60 was $7000+

Advantages of working supply in a Navy Weapons Dept. [:)]
 
State Dept bought AKs for around $145.00 a piece last I heard. But it's economics plain and simple. However if we put the new Iraqi government on the Foreign Military Sales program, they'll have to buy US with our money.

Jeff
 
The Vietnamese equate the AK-47 with freedom? Which Vietnamese are you talking about? The ones who were singled out by "Uncle Ho" and shot in the face for owning property and "being part of the oppressive land-owning class?"

Or just the guys who got tossed into reeducation camps around 1975 or so?
 
Which Vietnamese are you talking about?
Click to expand...

I'm half-Vietnamese myself, and hearing about people going back to visit makes me furious.

They have some of the strictest gun laws in the world. I believe you are executed for having a firearm, or at least punished immensely. There is no way to get guns, even on the black market, so people get killed by much simpler means. Rich, influential families who are connected with the government can buy million-dollar houses with cash or gold bullion, and the average person has few chances to bring themself up in the world. Police will hound you and jail you if you don't bribe them.

Sooner or later, communism always devolves into feudalism.
 
An easy question with an easy answer:

We don't want them with anything they might actually be able to hit a target with , like a nice, accurate AR, since we will probably end up fighting them on down the line. :D
 
Guns don't have political feelings and I thought only anti-gun people worried about symbolism. Besides, in case they turn on us, I don't want them shooting at us with our own guns. They might hit something.
Click to expand...

Well put. Having *A GUN* equates to freedom to me.

Guns don't care black, white, yellow or pink.

And why should we arm possible insurgents with a MUCH more effective weapon?


While I hardly relish either, I'd much rather be shot at by a guy weilding an open-sighted AK at 500yds than a guy with an M-16 w/ ACOG at 500yds.
 
And if I had to make a choice between the two, I'd rather be shot at by the man with the M16/ACOG combo who still can't hit the broad side of a barn, rather than the one with the open sighted AK who can. :D
 
The last time I looked (2003), an M-16A3 cost Uncle Sam $489.
Click to expand...

My hand receipt lists the M-16A2s (All 244 of them) at $449. IIRC from our tour of the FN plant, the govt pays between $470-490 for new M-16A4s. The rail system handguards add another $200+ to the cost.

An AK in Baghdad can be bought used for around $65.

And, as previously mentioned, in places like A-stan and Iraq, the locals already have huge numbers of them and now how to use them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

O
  • Locked
The Paradox of Liberalism in War Time
Replies
0
Views
420
Otherguy Overby
O
C
  • Locked
Washington D.C. "But Can We Liberate Our Children?"
Replies
3
Views
350
pax
P
P
  • Locked
ar-15/m-16 in cold climates
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
Float Pilot
Float Pilot
D
  • Locked
Ten Reasons Why America Is the Best Country In the World
Replies
21
Views
11K
Marlin 45 carbine
M
A
  • Locked
should we rush about "building nations" or should we straighten ourselves out first?
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
LAK
L
Back
Top