AK-47 'War-master' & the History of 'Cheap War'

[Marshal Murat]

Ah, AK-47 was created because Kalashnikov knew what the Americans were making!

Also, the Suomi had 9mm so that you could use pistol ammunition in them (that's what i've heard)

[AggonyDuck]

Ah, AK-47 was created because Kalashnikov knew what the Americans were making!

Well the American contemporary for the AK-47 would be the M14, not the M16.

[KrooK]

As someon reminded earlier, we shouldn't compare AK47 (early version) with M16 last version. Let's compare AK 47 early version with first version of M16.
Latest version of M16 should be compared with latest version of Kalashnikov (if I'm sure its AK47 2 - Specnaz Edition) or with modified versions (like polish Beryl). There is absolutely no difference.
According to theory that American special forces are best in the world, please check what Americans were telling about polish special forces after mission on Haiti :) American Delta Force is quite big and good, but there is many units that can be compare with it like GROM, SAS, GSG 9 and maybe with Commando Alfa (but this very brave unit sucked into some missions).

[Marshal Murat]

The modern American rifleman is supposed to be a average to superb marksman. The Afghani who wields an AK-47 can hit something, but doesn't have the range of the M-16. If you could pick off maybe two guys before he can shoot you with a degree of accuracy, then I would say go with the M-16.
AK-47 is a great weapon if you want to mass-equip and irregular, un-trained to average army. The US Army relies on good marksmen and support.

[Beirut]

The modern American rifleman is supposed to be a average to superb marksman. The Afghani who wields an AK-47 can hit something, but doesn't have the range of the M-16. If you could pick off maybe two guys before he can shoot you with a degree of accuracy, then I would say go with the M-16.
AK-47 is a great weapon if you want to mass-equip and irregular, un-trained to average army. The US Army relies on good marksmen and support.

T'would be a mistake to question the marksmanship of the Afghanis. Back when the USSR was in Afghanistan, the Afghanis taught a Soviets a very nasty lesson with decades old Lee-Enfields.

Also, there is the story of the British parachutists (the Blue Devils, I think) who, in the last stages of WWII, were taken on in the woods of Germany by over-aged professional hunters armed with old hunting rifles. The British were shot to pieces.

The point being that it is far less the weapon that wins the fight - it is he who wields it.

As for the statement "... to mass equip an irregular, un-trained and irregular to average army", it is worth considering that some of the toughest armies in the world either fielded the "original" AK series or variants thereof. Israel and South Africa to name just two. I believe only the FN-FAL saw as much service for as long a time.

Regarding the US soldier's marksmanship, doubtlessly many are excellent shots. Also, many are not. But the scope of urban battle does not often allow for a one shot one kill scenario in either case. As for Afghanistan and wide open distances, I would refer you to my previous post about the accuracy of the .223 bullet at long range in combat situations.

If you look at the rounds fired per kill statistics from Vietnam to Iraq, it is probably, on average, in the thousands to one range. When a US soldier empties six magazines in a firefight, it is doubtful he has hit 180 enemy soldiers.

Sorry to constantly argue, but I was a serious gun collector for twenty years and I've read a huge amount about these things.