robert arndt wrote:


Nothing, just proving you wrong again. YOU said the US soldiers
WEREN'T swapping out/using AK-47s in combat in Iraq. You asked me to
prove it and I did.


According to the article, they aren't swapping out. Troops
are authorized to use AK-47s primarily because as armored troops
they aren't issued M-16/M-4s to every troop. Nowhere in that
article did it mention a single M-16 being returned to the
armory in favor of another weapon. There was ONE instance where
a soldier reported that he USED a handy AK-47 to fire (blindly)
towards cover where unseen assailants were firing. In that
case, since he isn't limited on the amount of AK ammo he can
just pick up, and almost certainly doesn't have to account
for any of it, it makes perfect sense to spray several hundred
rounds down range. It doesn't cost anything, you've got more
ammo for that than your M-16 (again, because it isn't issued,
it's just laying around), and it's not like you are going
to take it home when you've finished. But none of those
issues have anything to do with the weapon itself, except
perhaps that the AK is fully-automatic as opposed to burst
(and I believe that the M-4 has full automatic capability
as well- is that correct). If they had the same amount
of ammo for both at the start, he'd be dropping the AK
almost immediately, as he'd be out of ammo.

Mike