Why does the US supply AKs?

Status
Not open for further replies.

MrBill120

Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2007
Messages
206
Location
The Cold North East
Does anyone know why, when "we" (the US) supply rifles to foreign lands its the AK??
Every pic I see of Iraqi forces all have AKs while our guys are carrying the M4's??
 
Probably familiarity. Plus weapons can be supplied through arms dealers, not directly from us. See Charlie Wilson's War. I'd say Lord of War as well, but that is fictional, the other is a true story. Charlie Wilson used an Israeli (IIRC) arms dealer to supply weapons to the Mujihadeen in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets.
 
Im thinking its due to the cost factor. Low end AK's can be made for less than $100. For me personally, its a matter of choice. I just like AK's better than the rest.
 
If I have to give a gun to someone I do not fully trust I am darn sure not gonna give him the best there is...
 
The fact that 'x39 is commen around where we have been giving out rifles. .223/5.56 isn't, except for our stuff. and 'x39 is cheaper.
 
Well, we're actually arming the Iraqi army with M16's. They just have tons of AK's already and we haven't finished refitting them.

The M16's actually make good sense, because they won't work well for very long if we stop supplying them parts and / or the country dissolves into anarchy. It's not a good insurgent's weapon because they lack the means to properly clean them. Therefore, by arming them with M16's, we're giving them a weapon that's less likely to be usable against us.
 
Well, we're actually arming the Iraqi army with M16's. They just have tons of AK's already and we haven't finished refitting them.

The M16's actually make good sense, because they won't work well for very long if we stop supplying them parts and / or the country dissolves into anarchy. It's not a good insurgent's weapon because they lack the means to properly clean them. Therefore, by arming them with M16's, we're giving them a weapon that's less likely to be usable against us.

Right, because insurgents/guerrillas NEVER use M16s...

Cowboy.jpg

Aware.jpg

08190102.gif

621_pic5_vietnam_pic1.jpg

BSW
 
We were initially resupplying the Iraqis and Afghans with AKs due to the locals in both those places being familiar with them (they definitely needed new rifles, regardless of model -- lots of clapped out junk in both countries that disprove the myth that AKs need zero maintenance and run forever). The various security forces of both countries have since started re-equipping with M16s and some M4s, though I don't think the switch over has been 100% in either country.

The logic of paying for a bunch of new rifles a few years ago to turn around and pay for a bunch of new rifles again . . . not the worst case of government wastefulness on record, but a bit hard to figure.
 
Because they are awesome.

+1000!! lol

well we didnt supply georgia with AK's. has everyone forgot about the Russian captured Bushmaster M4's and SAW's just a few short months ago???? We are resupplying the Iraqi's with the M16 along with afghanies.
 
The son of my preacher is a Marine in Iraq, and was involved in training the Iraqis. He says that the average Iraqi does not see a need to aim his weapon. He points it at the enemy, pulls the trigger, and if it Allah's will, his enemy will fall.

If thats the case, then having an accurate rifle is unimportant. Maybe that played into the decision to use AKs. That, and there cheap as heck.
 
Lone Gunman, you said:
The son of my preacher is a Marine in Iraq, and was involved in training the Iraqis. He says that the average Iraqi does not see a need to aim his weapon. He points it at the enemy, pulls the trigger, and if it Allah's will, his enemy will fall.
That's pretty much me at dove hunting, maybe I need to start using my WASR instead of that old 11-48.... :D
 
it doesnt matter what you give them. Most of them apparently aren't known for using the sights anyway, from what some of the news articles have said in reference to their combat style.
 
Some foreign govt agencies (British or Euro?) have paid former Warsaw Pact countries to destroy many thousands of surplus combat rifles. What a sad waste.
They are afraid that arms merchants will buy much of it and sell them to various insurgent or guerrilla groups around the globe, perpetuating non-stop hostilities. If they were stored in good condition and function normally, maybe it's a shame that some of it can't be sold to the US Army or Marines, letting them have the options to use rifles (i.e. AKs) which reportedly function in any environment?

The US govt destroyed heaps of old NATO ammo in the 80s/90's (worth tens or hundreds of millions of dollars'), but whether it was 7.62x51 or 5.56, I have no idea.
 
Why can't they be sold to the US Army or Marines, letting them have the options to rifles which can function in any environment?

Sounds like a nightmare in terms of logistics and training up at a big picture level like US Army or USMC-wide.

The US govt destroyed heaps of old NATO ammo in the 80s/90's (worth tens or hundreds of millions of dollars'), but whether it was 7.62x51 or 5.56, I have no idea.

Hadn't heard that -- any additional details? The only thing I can think of would be disposing of old M193 55 grain ammo since we'd switched over to M855/SS109 -- but the National Guard didn't completely get rid of M16A1s for years after the adoption of the M16A2 (may still be some 'Guard and Reserve units out there with M16A1s). You can still get M193 through official channels, in theory.
 
I've seen a few of you touch on the answer, but not hit it dead on. It's because there were already thousands of unissued AK's already there. I was guarding an airstrip just south of Tikrit in April/May-ish of 03'; I watched them ship in maybe 50 (literally) 5 tons FULL of surendered AK's, unload them into a hole about 20 feet deep and the size of three football fields, cover them with some type of powder(?) and push the dirt over them and pack it down. I about cried, then seriously contemplated running over there with my e-tool to try and save them. Shortly after that, another 20 or 25 5 tons showed up heaping with military crates filled with brand spankin' new AK's, RPK's, RPD's, RPG's, and what I've seen called SSG 97's here in the states. They stacked those crates about 4 or 5 high and evenly spaced, maybe a hundred yards long and 50 yards wide. Talk about a conflict of interest, it was like a nursury on top a graveyard. To this day I take a peek at it every once in a while on Google Earth and think about whats burried there.
 
We're still makign the 55 grain M193 ammo for the military, where do you think all that XM193 overrun stuff with the LC headstamp's coming from?

There are still a bunch of M16A1 and XM177 Commando carbines out there. The Navy and USCG still have bunches of them along with USAF. Besides, the M193 is still used for training and shoots just fine in the M16A2 and M4's.
 
Does anyone know why, when "we" (the US) supply rifles to foreign lands its the AK??
Every pic I see of Iraqi forces all have AKs while our guys are carrying the M4's??

We have supplied M16 as well, but usually it's a cost thing. We can give more rifles for less money with AKs. It used to be because we could deny that we supplied the rifles if they were non-american rifles (Russian-Afghan war, etc.).
 
I'd say Lord of War as well, but that is fictional, the other is a true story


Look up Victor Boot. Nicholas Cage's character in LoW was in part based upon Boot.
 
The same reason that we set up parliamentary forms of government and not an American form of republic. They are fit for purpose solutions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top