Jump to content

U.S. soldiers using confiscated Iraqi AK-47s b/c they can't get enough U.S. rifles.

Poop Man Bob

By Poop Man Bob
in Channel Zero

Recommended Posts

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
seeking

seeking

Posted
Posted
Originally posted by RECTAL-ATACK

stupidist attempt at intelligence ive ever seen

 

actually, he's right. thats one of the reasons the m-16 was chosen, because it diidnt have the flat out stopping power of the ak, but it was still acurate and effective at putting bullets into people.

think about how many war movies you've seen where one of our soldiers gets shot, then 5 more get shot trying to save him. or how much it hinders an operation to have to drag aroound a wounded man. if they're dead, they're no longer a concern, if they're screaming and crying, you cant very well just tell them to fuck off.

 

mr. yuck,

the billion dollar a week figure, that you find so hard to believe, that is reported on every news broadcast dealing wiith the topic (clearly stating that you are talking wiith absolutely not a grain of actual knowledge on the subject) includes the whole 'rebuilding' operation, not just the feeding and housing of our troops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rip

rip

Posted
Posted
Originally posted by Smart

Tease, you are the lowest common denominator.

 

 

And, everyday we are in Iraq it costs MILLIONS, and Bush knows that's what the Dems are gonna use against him during the election. I'd say it's less a question of a lack of supply and more of a using captured arms to ease the co$t$... every bit counts.

 

Of course, if you are in an actual fire fight that involves more than just your HumVee then it might not be the best idea to be spitting out green tracers...

actually i think its about a billion a day. but yeah. anyways i think its cool were usin ak's. if there right now why not use em?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mr.yuck

mr.yuck

Posted
Posted
Originally posted by seeking

mr. yuck,

the billion dollar a week figure, that you find so hard to believe, that is reported on every news broadcast dealing wiith the topic (clearly stating that you are talking wiith absolutely not a grain of actual knowledge on the subject) includes the whole 'rebuilding' operation, not just the feeding and housing of our troops.

 

You are correct. I have no real clue on what is going on over there. I haven't been keeping upwith it lately. I didn't realize that it included the rebuilding process. Thanks for the enlightenment.:idea:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KaBar2

KaBar2

Posted
Posted

The AK is a good rifle, BUT....

 

The M-16/ M-4 is a more accurate and flat shooting rifle than the AK. The 5.56mm cartridge is a much, much more flat trajectory round than the 7.62x39mm AK round. The 7.62x39mm bullet penetrates brush and light obstacles better than the light 5.56mm bullet. But this is really not a valid comparison, because the 7.62x39mm cartridge was developed in the late 1940's (during/after WWII) for the SKS rifle and the 5.56mm cartridge was a U.S. "wildcat" small game/varmint bolt-action rifle cartridge of the mid-1950's.

 

To compare the U.S. 5.56mm cartridge against it's Russian/Soviet alternative, we should be comparing the 5.56mm cartridge to the Russian 5.45x39mm cartridge, which is the standard Russian military cartridge today. The Russian rifle that shoots it is the AK-74 (developed in 1974.)

 

The 5.45x39mm cartridge was developed as an answer to the U.S. 5.56mm cartridge in Vietnam. Lighter bullet, smaller cartridge, much higher velocity, which creates a bigger and more incapacitating wound cavity. And it shoots flatter. Easier to hump a lot more ammo in hot, humid weather (Vietnam.) The 5.56mm cartridge weighs about 1/2 of the other U.S. military cartridge, the 7.62mm NATO round.

 

The Kalashnikov, while outdated, is a very robust and effective design. They are tough, reliable and hard-hitting. They are also low-tech, not too accurate and often cheaply made. But they work, and they work pretty well.

 

One of the great things about military small arms is that they are DURABLE. Once you get your hands on a rifle, you are empowered for about 100 years, or until it wears out, LOL. The guys I know have about equal numbers of AR-15's, Ruger Mini-14's and MAK-90's. We ain't NEVER giving them up, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Don't Panic

Don't Panic

Posted
Posted
Originally posted by Poop Man Bob

Do you really believe that is what goes through a soldier's mind when they are firing on someone? That they're trying to merely incapacitate the enemy and not kill them?

Not at all. But lots of weapons are designed to simply wound combatants, for the reason I mentioned earlier.

Besides, RECTAL-ATACK disagrees with me, so I'm right by default.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...