Iraq Army Adopts M16 (Strategy Page)

[Guest]

Iraq Adopts the M16 and M4

May 17, 2007: The Iraqi army is switching from the AK-47 assault rifle, to the U.S. M16 and M4. Iraqi officers and some NCOs will get the shorter M4, while everyone else will get the M16. The first classes of Iraqi army recruits are already training with the M16. There are several reasons for the switch. For one thing, the M16 is two pounds lighter than the AK-47, and more accurate. It simplifies ammo supply, especially with all the U.S. and Iraqi units working together. There is also a morale factor. Many Iraqis may not like American troops, but they certainly respect their military skills. That respect extends to the weapons, and Iraqi troops see their AK-47s as something losers use, while M16s and M4s are the weapons of winners. You get the idea, so do the Iraqis.

On the negative side, the M16 requires more maintenance to prevent jamming. Many tests have been conducted on this subject, and it's quite clear that M16s have more jams, in dusty and sandy conditions, than do AK-47s. Historically, Iraqi troops have never been diligent about keeping their weapons clean. This will have to change, or Iraqi troops will start losing confidence in the M16. The M16, in the hands of trained shooters, is more accurate than the AK-47, and that could turn out to be a key advantage if the Iraqi army follows through on providing adequate target practice.

The M16 is also a more expensive rifle, costing about $600 each. The second hand AK-47s the Iraqis are now using are worth less than a hundred dollars. Given the culture of corruption in Iraq, measures have been taken to try and reduce the temptation of soldiers to sell their new rifles. Each Iraqi soldier that is issued an M16, has his name, fingerprints and retinal scan taken, as well as the serial number of the weapon, and the data is sent to a central database in Baghdad. This attempt at curbing corruption may turn out to be more interesting, and influential, than equipping Iraqis with new rifles.
------------------------

mh
.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[airtwardo 7]

name, fingerprints and retinal scan taken, as well as the serial number of the weapon, and the data is sent to a central database in Baghdad.

Quote

Thought you were talking about California for a second there!

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Iraq Adopts the M16 and M4

May 17, 2007: The Iraqi army is switching from the AK-47 assault rifle, to the U.S. M16 and M4. Iraqi officers and some NCOs will get the shorter M4, while everyone else will get the M16. The first classes of Iraqi army recruits are already training with the M16. There are several reasons for the switch. For one thing, the M16 is two pounds lighter than the AK-47, and more accurate. It simplifies ammo supply, especially with all the U.S. and Iraqi units working together. There is also a morale factor. Many Iraqis may not like American troops, but they certainly respect their military skills. That respect extends to the weapons, and Iraqi troops see their AK-47s as something losers use, while M16s and M4s are the weapons of winners. You get the idea, so do the Iraqis.

On the negative side, the M16 requires more maintenance to prevent jamming. Many tests have been conducted on this subject, and it's quite clear that M16s have more jams, in dusty and sandy conditions, than do AK-47s. Historically, Iraqi troops have never been diligent about keeping their weapons clean. This will have to change, or Iraqi troops will start losing confidence in the M16. The M16, in the hands of trained shooters, is more accurate than the AK-47, and that could turn out to be a key advantage if the Iraqi army follows through on providing adequate target practice.

The M16 is also a more expensive rifle, costing about $600 each. The second hand AK-47s the Iraqis are now using are worth less than a hundred dollars. Given the culture of corruption in Iraq, measures have been taken to try and reduce the temptation of soldiers to sell their new rifles. Each Iraqi soldier that is issued an M16, has his name, fingerprints and retinal scan taken, as well as the serial number of the weapon, and the data is sent to a central database in Baghdad. This attempt at curbing corruption may turn out to be more interesting, and influential, than equipping Iraqis with new rifles.
------------------------

mh
.

Yeah right. The money factor again. Colt Manufacturing and Fabrique Nationale Manufacturing Inc. should make a killing off that deal. (pun intended)

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[willard 0]

Uh...news flash for you. That's what weapons manufacturers are in business for-to make money. Don't like them choosing to go with the M-16/M-4? Jealous because somebody else is making money and not you? You are perfectly free to design a better system and market it to the US military. They are always looking for a more efficient way of dispatching the enemy.

[billvon 3,132]

>Many tests have been conducted on this subject, and it's quite clear that
>M16s have more jams, in dusty and sandy conditions, than do AK-47s.

Well, thank goodness they won't need to use them in conditions like that, then!

[DZJ 0]

So the Iraqis already have an extraordinarily reliable rifle available in quantity, but instead they're going to reequip with a less reliable weapon because it's cooler? Take the point about commonality of ammunition, but seems like an exercise in style (and marketing) over substance to me.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

So the Iraqis already have an extraordinarily reliable rifle available in quantity, but instead they're going to reequip with a less reliable weapon because it's cooler? Take the point about commonality of ammunition, but seems like an exercise in style (and marketing) over substance to me.

It actually sounds to me like there's a manufacturer with astounding political influence.

I'm all for people making high quality products and making money from it, but when politically influential businesses profit from war you've got a positive feedback loop -- which is ALWAYS a bad idea.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[willard 0]

I had the same thoughts.

Since I have never served in the military, I'll have to ask of those who have and, in particular, those who have been in combat.
In a combat situation such as we have in Iraq, just how important is the accurracy difference between an AK-47 and an M-16 at expected engagement distances and under stress?

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

>Many tests have been conducted on this subject, and it's quite clear that
>M16s have more jams, in dusty and sandy conditions, than do AK-47s.

Well, thank goodness they won't need to use them in conditions like that, then!

Yes, but when they invade the eastern USA they'll be handy. I wonder what ever happened to all those RPVs Iraq had, that could attack us within 45 minutes

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

So the Iraqis already have an extraordinarily reliable rifle available in quantity, but instead they're going to reequip with a less reliable weapon because it's cooler?

Reliability is not the only desired trait in a battle rifle. If you can't hit what you aim at, reliability doesn't mean anything. You completely ignored the part about the M16 being more accurate - that's a valuable quality. Take an enemy 300 to 600 yards away with an AK, against an American with an M16, and the American is going to win.

I'd rather spend a little more time cleaning, and be able to kill my enemy at distances where he can't hit what he aims at.

[DZJ 0]

I certainly agree, and I'd also be prepared to spend more time on maintenance for a more accurate weapon. [I'd also be prepared to wager that you're a better shot than your average Iraqi soldier].

However, we're talking about Iraqi troops who don't have a terribly good track record on these things, and given that for the most part I'd imagine engagement ranges in urban environments are going to be on the lower end of the spectrum, I wouldn't consider the extra accuracy to be an urgent requirement. That's not even mentioning the time-consuming necessity of retraining all those Iraqi troops on a new system.

I'd say get them fully battle-ready first, then worry about the finer points of their weaponry.

[DZJ 0]

Quote

It actually sounds to me like there's a manufacturer with astounding political influence.

I'm all for people making high quality products and making money from it, but when politically influential businesses profit from war you've got a positive feedback loop -- which is ALWAYS a bad idea.

Well, obviously. I just thought that bit went without saying.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Uh...news flash for you. That's what weapons manufacturers are in business for-to make money. Don't like them choosing to go with the M-16/M-4? Jealous because somebody else is making money and not you? You are perfectly free to design a better system and market it to the US military. They are always looking for a more efficient way of dispatching the enemy.

The choice in military weapons is largely political. We forced 7.62 x 51 on NATO when something intermediate like .280 British or the new 6.8x43 would provide a better mix of power and controlled automatic fire. While the FAL "won" our 7.62 trials we ended up with the M14 since it was more like the M1. The AR15 gas system was designed to work with rod propellants but the military opted for ball and got fouling.

[crotalus01 0]

That's a funny article considering a lot of my friends serving in Iraq told me the first thing they did on arrival was to procure an AK-47.
I took basic training at Ft Bliss, El Paso, rifle training was in the desert. In desert conditions its simply virtually impossible to keep an M16 from jamming.

As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD...

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

We forced 7.62 x 51 on NATO

They got back at us with 9 x 19....

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>Many tests have been conducted on this subject, and it's quite clear that
>M16s have more jams, in dusty and sandy conditions, than do AK-47s.

Well, thank goodness they won't need to use them in conditions like that, then!

A well trained soldier with an M4 or M16 can clear a malfunction, fire, and hit their target at 300M in less time than it would take a so-so trained AK47 bearer to hit the broad side of a barn at a similar distance.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Quote

>Many tests have been conducted on this subject, and it's quite clear that
>M16s have more jams, in dusty and sandy conditions, than do AK-47s.

Well, thank goodness they won't need to use them in conditions like that, then!

A well trained soldier with an M4 or M16 can clear a malfunction, fire, and hit their target at 300M in less time than it would take a so-so trained AK47 bearer to hit the broad side of a barn at a similar distance.

Adapt as someone once said. Can you say IED, suicide bomber? We need to get out

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

A well trained soldier with an M4 or M16 can clear a malfunction, fire, and hit their target at 300M in less time than it would take a so-so trained AK47 bearer to hit the broad side of a barn at a similar distance.

Your well-trained pride and loyalty is a testiment to your thorough training. Congratulations to your drill instructors.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Quote

>Many tests have been conducted on this subject, and it's quite clear that
>M16s have more jams, in dusty and sandy conditions, than do AK-47s.

Well, thank goodness they won't need to use them in conditions like that, then!

A well trained soldier with an M4 or M16 can clear a malfunction, fire, and hit their target at 300M in less time than it would take a so-so trained AK47 bearer to hit the broad side of a barn at a similar distance.

Will the Iraqi army be well trained in the use of the rifle?

Simplistically, if 2 sections are involved in a fire fight, one being armed with M-16A2's and well trained, the other with AK -47's, and so-so trained, and taking hot, sandy and dusty conditions into account, AK- 47 guys win.

Unless the M-16 users were British.......

History?

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

A well trained soldier with an M4 or M16 can clear a malfunction, fire, and hit their target at 300M in less time than it would take a so-so trained AK47 bearer to hit the broad side of a barn at a similar distance.

Your well-trained pride and loyalty is a testiment to your thorough training. Congratulations to your drill instructors.

What exactly about my post made you think it was about me?

The maximum effective range of an M16 on a single (point) target is 550M. It's less than half that for an AK47, somewhere between 150-200M.

People love to poo-poo on the M16/M4, but it is a hammer.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[willard 0]

They could arm themselves with SKS rifles. I have a Yugo made model, cost me $99. I treated it like crap trying to get it to jam and mal. Left it outside overnight in -20 F. Worked perfect. Left it out in the rain. No problem. Left it in the cab of the tractor while fitting one spring. Got bounced around covered and filled with dirt, grime, dust, moisture 'til i thought I had destroyed it. It functioned perfectly, throwing dust and goop everywhere the first few rounds. I have put 2000 rounds through it between cleanings. Not a hickup. That rifle has never, ever missfired or jammed. Not a single time. And it still, amazingly, will hold under 3" group at 100 yds. Only drawback is the 10 round mag.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

I certainly agree, and I'd also be prepared to spend more time on maintenance for a more accurate weapon. [I'd also be prepared to wager that you're a better shot than your average Iraqi soldier].

However, we're talking about Iraqi troops who don't have a terribly good track record on these things, and given that for the most part I'd imagine engagement ranges in urban environments are going to be on the lower end of the spectrum, I wouldn't consider the extra accuracy to be an urgent requirement. That's not even mentioning the time-consuming necessity of retraining all those Iraqi troops on a new system.

I'd say get them fully battle-ready first, then worry about the finer points of their weaponry.

Even in many urban engagements, the insurgents aren't getting very close. The AK is a terrible reflex weapon in a MOUT environment.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Zipp0 1]

Retinal scan? I don't care if they take their left testicle as collateral - those guns will be on ebay(read: Iraq black market) in a matter of hours.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[Tonto 1]

No way are they using the AK-47. They're using the AK-74.

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[steve1 5]

I would want the best weapon for the conditions I was working in. I like accurate weapons. Much of Iraq is open country where long shots would often be taken. I don't think that all your shooting would be from the inside of a building. So, in that scenario, my choice would probably be an M-16.

In Vietnam many special forces soldiers carried an AK-47's. They liked them because they would jam less often, when dirty, and had a 30 caliber bullet that had far more stopping power than an M-16. Full-metal jacketed bullets in 22 caliber are not very good man stoppers.

Many liked the M-16 for the fact that soldiers could carry 100's of rounds of ammo without weighing themselves down. When you're humping, through the boonies, with everything on your back, weight matters.

So, to tell you the truth, I'm not really too sure which I'd pick. Probably the M-16. I can't stand using an inaccurate weapon....Steve1