From: (robert arndt)
Date: 7/19/2004 4:29 AM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:



Yeah, the official statement is "permitted"... as if any high command
could prevent the soldiers from using captured stock in close combat
situations. The US soldiers in Iraq have been using AK-47s for months
and I never suggested they turned in their M4s for the weapon... just
that they swapped-out (switched main arms) for the AK-47 in street
fighting.

Actually you said the U.S. troops were throwing away their M-4s and picking up
AKs.

With all the plentiful ammo they could fire full auto all
day and not run out. They also don't have the cleaning requirements of
the M4 and have much better durability under harsh conditions.

Only a fool wouldn't keep his weapon clean in a combat zone.

I didn't lie at all. The official US Govt, does that much better
Really Dan, are you just a little jealous you can't have an AK-47/74
yourself?

I have either owned or used more M-16/AR-15 and AK types than you have, but
this is irrelevent to your claim U.S. troops were throwing away their M-4s and
carrying AKs instead.

They are excellent weapons and the new Nikonov AN-94 is even
better. I still want to "procure" one if I can but the cost would be
prohibited.

Try "prohibitive."

They are most used by Russian MoD troops and SFs. Our
Govt. has had a hard time trying to get their hands on a few.. lucky
*******s the ones that did. I suppose the Secret Service Armory
already tested one out or maybe the French who worked with their paras
a while back. The Poles were nice enough to let Western troops try out
their Beryl but this rifle is nowhere near the AN-94 in capabilities.

Rob

Now then, I ask again: what has any of this to do with military aviation?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired