 |
|
|
|
October 20, 2006 8:37 AM
AK-47: The Weapon that Changed the Face of War “Even in the hands of untrained children who have no idea how to maintain or aim the crude weapon, the AK keeps banging away, and when a bullet hits flesh, there’s a good chance someone will not get up.” Author and war correspondent Michael Yon evaluates a new book on an old rifle that still finds favor over all others in combat. After many visits to Combat Support Hospitals in Iraq, I was not surprised when an Army doctor commented after a couple of our people had been shot. The exchange went something like this, “Why is it,” the doctor asked with frustration, “that when our guys get hit one time they die, but the enemy gets hit four, five, six, seven times and still survives?” In reality, our soldiers often are shot multiple times but survive, and the enemy often does die from a single hit, but the doctor was making a point. I recall the day CSM Robert Prosser shot a terrorist point-blank, probably close enough to leave powder burns. Result: the man staggered while still trying to fire his own weapon. When Prosser’s M-4 ran out of ammunition, the terrorist hadn’t even been knocked down until Prosser tackled him, and began a brutal hand-to-hand struggle. Having grown up hunting, I was reasonably familiar with the effects ballistics on tissue from various types of firearms long before becoming a Special Forces weapons specialist, and during my military service, I probably carried an AK-47 (or variant) as often as an M-16 (or variant). As a writer/photographer in Iraq, I saw the affects of each weapon on human flesh, and had repeatedly written about the ballistic inferiority of our main assault rifles the M-16 and it shorter variant the M-4. The M-16 and the Kalashnikov (AK) each come with myriad advantages and disadvantages and few people, luckily, possess enough expertise or experience to follow the arguments. The simplest arguments might be that the AK is heavier but more powerful, cruder and less accurate but more rugged and reliable, cheaper and easier to use for the masses around the world, but not finely tuned. Three principle advantages of the AK are: Power, ruggedness, reliability. A person holding an AK can be very confident that when that trigger is pulled, a powerful bullet will launch downrange. Even in the hands of untrained children who have no idea how to maintain or aim the crude weapon, the AK keeps banging away, and when a bullet hits flesh, there’s a good chance someone will not get up. The principle advantages of the M-16 are: Weight and accuracy. A lighter rifle with a smaller bullet means the shooter can carry more bullets, and in the hands of a well-trained soldier – which our infantrymen are – who can handle, tune and maintain this sophisticated little weapon, the shooter can be reasonably sure that an aimed shot will launch a relatively puny bullet into the target. Yet during intense and close urban combat, squeezing every ounce of accuracy out of the weapon is not usually an issue. Aiming is normally a quick affair before the trigger is pulled, and so the excellent and superior accuracy of the M-16 generally is not a trumping advantage. (The superior training of our soldiers often is, though.) But these are old and tattered arguments and those who truly know a thing or two about assault weapons generally come to the same conclusion. We should transcend the argument and go into action. American soldiers should be outfitted with a rugged, simple and powerful weapon like the Kalashnikov, but with the accuracy and other finer attributes of the M-16. Larry Kahaner traces in his latest book, AK-47: The Weapon that Changed the Face of War">“AK-47: the Weapon that Changed the Face of War” the histories and evolutions of main battle rifles, and in particular the most successful and devastating, the Kalashnikov, with interesting vignettes such as how Mr. Kalashnikov sought to trade on the name of his famous monster by hanging the moniker onto a line of Vodka, and that the world’s largest distributor of the AK has been the United States government. The fact that today, in 2006, nearly 60 years after the introduction of the Kalashnikov, illiterate AK-toting Taliban in Afghanistan are not intrinsically disadvantaged by the old and gnarled rifles they carry versus our high-tech space-aged pop-guns punctuates Kahaner’s points. Mr. Kahaner’s well researched and intelligently written book is an important read for military professionals in combat arms – most particularly for Special Forces weapons specialists – and those who believe our soldiers should carry the best rifles in the world. AK-47 is scheduled to hit shelves on October 20. More information is available at: AK-47 THE BOOK. ——— Comments (9)Spade :pudge :Having never fired an M-14, I'm curious -- does the readership see the M-14 as a competitive, short-term replacement for the M-16 in US infantry applications? Spade :Pudge, The M14 is a nice rifle. 7.62 NATO and very accurate. It's also heavy. It makes a great target/marksman rifle, and currently seems to do well there. The only problem I'd see is ammo. 7.62mm weighs more and you can carry less. However, the Norwegians are still happily using their G3's in combat. orwoody :As one who once carried the M-14 in the weeds and who has used the civilian version of the M-16 for competitive shooting, it pains me to say that of the two, the current M-16 is far superior in most every way. It is only deficient in its knockdown power. And, that is critical in the Iraq theater. Unfortunately, there is at least one remedy that is not particularly difficult to implement, but won't be. That is, change the caliber to one that is shown to be far superior to the lightweight cartridge now used. Currently, there are two contenders, each having an advantage over the other in one area or another. They are the 6.8 Remington and the 6.5 Grendel. The 6.8 Rem. may be the slightly better caliber when up close and personal, but gives up way too much when the distances between shooter and shootee increase. The M-16 is a fine rifle even in the 5.56x45 caliber, and all it takes to put a harder hitting bullet on target at almost unbelievable distances is to swap the barrel and the bolt. The magazines for the Grendel are slightly different, but that isn't a major problem. I have used the 6.5 Grendel out to 600 yards and it gives up nothing to the 7.62 round of the M-14 in terms of accuracy or knockdown power. If I had to carry lots of hard hitting up close ammunition and still retain some serious hurt potential at long distance, there wouldn't be any hesitation for me to choose the Grendel over all others. And, I would do it with the M-16. orwoody Barry 03 :The AK is a fine battle rifle I don't like it but that's personal. otis wildflower :I know that the XM-8 is basically dead, but is there any other program evaluating new weapons that would combine light weight, improved operating systems and larger calibers for a general-issue battle rifle? It looks like the new OICW Increment 1 spec still demands 5.56, which seems to me to be a big mistake. The XM-8 looked really good except for the caliber, at least to a layman like myself.. Wes Turner :As Spade posted above, the Mk262 cartridge with its 77 grain OTM projectile is a highly effective round that answers all questions of the 5.56 in terms of lethality. Why this superb round (which is a Match-grade load), or an equivalent FMJ cartridge has not been adopted is a mystery to me. Ask the generals. Frank Drebbin :I recall that the M-16 originally had a barrell that caused the .223 round to tumble and that significant damage was inflicted as a result. That some time in the late 60's the barrell was modified to eliminate this result since it was thought our soldiers might benefit if surviving enemy soldiers weren't pissed off at them for that reason. Also, that US soldiers are using armour piercing rounds that leave clean holes instead of tumbling which tend to put down the party hit. Wes Turner :"Tumbling bullets".....(sigh) Frank, please read; "Black Rifle: M16 Retrospective" by R. Blake Stevens. This will clear up all you mistaken notions of the M-16. In short, the rounds (hopefully)FRAGMENT, but they do not "tumble", unless they are deflected by dense vegetation.
Comments have been archived for this page. |
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
RSS Feeds
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
|
digg this
del.icio.us
Yeah, but everytime I use the iron sights on an AK-type, I die a little inside.
The US should just move to the Mk262, imho. I also say that 'cause I want surplus 77 grain rounds at M885 prices.
Oct 20, 2006 09:58 AM