I was paging through the new issue of American Rifleman, the monthly magazine of the National Rifle Association, when I came across an interview with General Tommy Franks, who led the brilliant assault on Baghdad last year. (Sorry, no link available).
In the interview, the retired General is asked a couple of questions about his preferences in guns, and I found his answers surprising.
First, he said he prefers the current Beretta 9mm handgun to the .45 he carried in Vietnam. He couldn’t really point to anything concrete, just a generalized (so to speak) preference. He did note that it had to be shooting the right loads to be an adequate combat weapon, but that was the only concession he made.
Second, he said he considered the M-16 to be a superior battlefield weapon to the AK-47 in every way. Period. Based on his comments about the M-16 earlier (he was in basic training when they were first issued), I think there is an unspoken assumption here that that it is a better weapon in the hands of well-trained troops who know how to maintain it.
The only comon critic of Beretta seems to be the lacking stopping power of the 9mm round. They are probably more ergonomic than the .45 and have more rounds.
M-16 is a superior weapon to the AK-47 : much better precison at a given range, less recoil, lighter, a soldier can take more amno with him. Cant take the punishement of the AK it’s the only drawback vs the russian weapon. Both lack stopping power.
The russians use the AK-74 of 5.45mm i am not sure it is a successfull design
I would not dream of insulting General Franks by questioning his choices. He would know.
I would merely add that the poor reputation which the M16 labours under is primarily the result of problems forced upon it – and solved – between 30 and 40 years ago. Most of the people who don’t like it either a) still feel that the US caved in to a passing fad when they ditched the 03A3 Springfield for the M1 Garand and b) will never be satisfied by anything less than a rifle that is absolutely perfect in every single possible application for which a rifle could ever be used. Don’t hold your breath.
The M16 is a fine general-issue, general-purpose battlefield rifle, every bit as good in that role as its real predecessor, the M1 Garand.
Comparisons with the AK47 are all very well, but most of the percieved success of the AK47 results from its use by irregular and guerrilla forces. Its reputation for rugged reliability is also frequently overblown. If you believe its proponents, you can drop an AK47 into wet concrete, let it set and it will shoot its way out. Nothing’s that good. No question that it’s a rugged and reliable design AK47’s are not jamproof, bulletproof or idiot-proof.
It should be noted that the Soviet bloc recognized the shortcomings of the AK47 as a general-issue weapon for organized troops, and their solution, the AK-74, is a lot more like the M16.
llater,
llamas
“General Tommy Franks, who led the brilliant assault on Baghdad last year. (Sorry, no link available).”
I am sorry, this is not germane, but I actually found this formulation to be pretty funny. The irony and all.
I can appreciate the stopping power of the .45, but being able to carry 15 rounds vs. 7 and much less of a cost per round reinforces my admiration of my Beretta 92.
I’m not inclined to put much value on the opinions of a general who “lead” from Kuwait and hasn’t used any weapon in combat for decades.
However, the Army has been surveying soldiers who were actually in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, and at least one of those reports turned up on the web a while back.
As I recall, the troops were generally satisfied with the M16, and moreso with the M4, aside from the usual few complaints about lack of stopping power. The M9 got good reviews when it worked, but there were lots of problems with the magazines being so old and worn out that they barely functioned. The people who wrote the report didn’t seem to concerned about the M9 in general, since it wasn’t used in combat all that often anyway.
Lately I’ve been hearing rumours that the DoD is planning to replace the M16/M4 with a variant of the HK G36, firing a new 6.8mm round. I’ll believe it when I see it, personally.
I cannot believe anyone is still seriously comparing Kalashnikovs with M-16. It’s like comparing Soviet- made watches (very rugged: you can kill a grown person with one – no need for a rifle) with the Swiss-made. I suspect that one of the major reasons for AK-47 popularity is that they are much easier to get for people around the world that are up to no good.
Anyway, ignoring that for a second: weight is a very important factor that has not been mentioned here so far.
Ken: The new rifle is the XM8.
I can appreciate the stopping power of the .45, but being able to carry 15 rounds vs. 7 and much less of a cost per round reinforces my admiration of my Beretta 92.
Don’t care much about cost per round, personally, and my .45 carries 14 rounds in the magazine and one in the pipe.
Arrgh, Lemuel, the juxtaposition of the disclaimer (no link available) in the post was purely unintentional. I regard the drive to Baghdad to be one of the most astonishing military feats of the modern era.
You seem a bit behind the times. There is better in the M4, which is a significant new variable on the 16 in carbine form. It’s better form for close fighting, which is defined as fighting under 200 meters. The M-16 has better range, but the range most combat happens in is within that number. The M4 is both easier to manage in tight spaces (urban combat) and a more comfortable fit for quick engagements.
The 9mm is decent, but people are still looking for the right balance. The .40 is the new caliber of choice, and I’ve found it to be a better mix than either the underpowered 9mm or the low volume .45 for the use.
Here is Hackworth on the new XM8. He strongly favors switching to the 6.8 mm (.270) round.
I don’t go along with Jeff Cooper re the M16, because while I think the 5.56mm/9mm choices reflect a sorry acceptance of the “spray & pray” philosophy and its corollary admission that marksmanship is outmoded, it’s evolved into a fine weapon – more practical for most combat conditions than the M14/FN-SLR with their heavy ammo. But while I have no combat experience myself, I have put a few thousand rounds of .45ACP down-range, and a fair few 9mm – until my government stopped me from doing so. So when Cooper says that if you can’t settle a handgun fight – very close range by definition – with seven rounds then all the ammo capacity in the world won’t help, I go along with him. With military hardball it seems to me you need to make the biggest hole you can in your opponent, and 9mm doesn’t do that; hit him anywhere in the torso with a big .45 bullet and he’ll know about it. If ever I need to shoot someone with a handgun, I hope it’s a .45. Any handgun is hard to learn to use effectively: the 9mm has no advantage here. Might as well learn to use a proper one.
I would expect to see the current m-4s with 6.8 SPC uppers before army ordinance adopts an HK.
Just swapping magazines and uppers would be much less spendy.
A 6.8 SPC M4, with an op-rod instead of a gas tube would be just about perfect .. and cheap.
I would disagree for a simple reason… no one who has fired both a great deal (and I have) would seriously argue that the AK-74 is not a more rugged and reliable design which rarely jams.
Stopping power, accuracy, ergonomics… all these things are important… yet the most important of them comes a distant second behind reliability. The most important thing in a combat weapon is that when you pull the trigger, it goes BANG. And on that score, the AK-74 wins.
I tend to prefer the 9mm hndguns for reasons of weight (both the gun and the ammo), concealability, and the general fit. Im 5’7″ and have comparatively small hands. I have found very few .45s that fit my hand, or that conceal easily on my frame. I dont know how large a man Franks is, but perhaps that comes in to play.
Stopping power can be an issue, but the instances of drugged up attackers oblivious to pain is comparatively low, and rates a secondary concern to my ability to pack the gun in more places and over longer distances. The .40 cal is a good balance, but availability becomes an issue. Many people prefer either .45 or 9mm because the cartridges are plentiful, potentially even on the bodies of the enemy (assuming we are talking all-out war).
As for the M16, I think light weight and accuracy at distance would likely make it a superior weapon. I would rather be light and mobile than tough and heavy. Accuracy is a major issue, especially in situations where the first shot counts, which is most of them. Hence the popularity of the Browning high-power by some, despite its lack of ruggedness.
Either way, nothing backs you up like a good knife 😛
So when is DoD going to start issuing that fancy new rifle that fires the airbursting 20 mm rounds? Looks pretty slick, though it also looks pretty damned cumbersome.
So, the US is not about to adopt the SA80? I just don’t understand.
As someone who knows very little about firearms (compared to the people here), I am surprised that a basic point has not been dealt with.
Is not a basic problem of the AK47 that it is hard to hit what you aim at with this rifle?
I am not a good shot, but I do not believe that I am the only person who has problems hitting what he aims at when using an AK47. It also seems near useless at decent range (indeed I am told it was not designed to hit and kill at decent range – as “most fights are at closer ranges”, unless your opponent knows you are armed with an Ak47 in which case he will……..).
No doubt I will be denounced for my vague reference to “decent range”. And I must again stress (British police) that I have no idea what I am talking about, and this is just fantasy role play stuff.
Still (sticking simply to fantasy role play – police please note), a rifle that is only really good for spray-and-pray (say killing lots of children in a school hall), is a “bad guy” weapon, rather that a weapon a professional soldier would want.
Perry i find strange that it didnt spread to replace the AK-47.
Don’t feel too bad about the SA80, now Royal Ordnance bought H&K we might score a few XM8s… after all, they already got H&K to fix the SA80.
Personally I like the .45, but for those of us with short fat fingers, the slide release on the 92F is too far forward. I cant hit squat with one, but can hit the center with a .45 all day. I think its a matter of taste. Then I have never been in a position where more that 7 bullets was a pre-req.
As for the M-16, it does different kinds of damage. I took a 7.62×39 (AK-47 round) shooting a bowling pin, the bullets bounced off, then shot it with .223 (M-16 round) and the bullets burned the plastic shell…a followup with 7.62 blew it up…different pros and cons..Gen Franks probably knows better what he needs based on what he’s facing. I dont have the same problems at the range or in my living room.
A lot of the units in the thick of things over in the Gulf are rolling M-14s (in 7.62 NATO) out of mothballs, as more suitable for work in the open expanses. The rumors of development of a larger caliber round for the main battle rifle are correct; even the longer projectile in the newer 5.56 rounds with its tumbling “keyhole” effect doesn’t have the stopping power needed, and it’s not very good at longer distances.
They are also working to get hold of larger caliber pistols – the 9mm not having sufficient firepower for offensive use. Some of the special ops type units are carrying .40 cals, and others choose .45s. The problem isn’t last-ditch defensive use, it’s bursting into tightly confined areas and being able to put multiple targets down quickly, which a 9 mm ball projectile isn’t very useful for. The M-4 and full on M-16 aren’t very useful in cramped buildings (M-4 being a bit more maneuverable), so an offensive pistol or good submachine gun is tbe the weapon of choice for some.
Also, as an aside, bolt action 7.62 sniper rifles and the .50 Barrett are very much in vogue. Army snipers have had spectacular results with them, especially the 7.62s.
As for the AK-47, it’s a great rifle. You can build it cheaply using mostly stamped metal. It assembles and disassembles quite simply. It is rugged, and hard to get to jam up, even if you drop it right in the mud, or pour sand through the action. Best of all, you can teach a pre-literate tribesman how to use it in a couple days, and he will have a reasonably effective point-and-shoot weapon. It isn’t the most accurate rifle in the world, and it doesn’t appear to have the stopping power of the 5.56 round, but for a lowest-common-denominator-assault-rifle it’s pretty darn good., especially if your unit is comprised of lowest-common-denominator-troops.
Paul Marks; a competent rifleman can hit a man with an AK as far as he needs to. Unfortunately for the bad guys, most of them are not competent riflemen.
The AK’s are as reliable as people say, minus the obvious hyperbole. They run longer without cleaning, although both the M-16 and AK will run long enough that it is not a factor on the battlefield. Sand isn’t good for either, of course, but if you keep on top of maintenance they will work.
I used to have a cheap semi-auto AK, which I sold to help purcahse an AR-15. The AR has been just as reliable (100%) with heavy use, and I can hit a man sized target much farther away. In 20 minutes I had a friend who had never shot one hitting 300m targets consistently. I would prefer a round that did better against cover, but the 5.56 is fine for shooting people. (Yes, I own my rifle expressly for the purpose of shooting people. Deal with it.)
As for the 9mm…. it’s a trade-off. .45 might be a tad more effective, but with 9mm you get more rounds and more penetration. I carry a 9mm myself; I’m not concerned about the size of the hole because I know I can hit what I aim at. The M9 does have issues with reliability, the one I was issued barely worked on the range. It was very accurate though.
I can’t believe we’ve gotten this far without using the term “poodleshooter.” Kim Du T must be busy elsewhere.
This old-timer originally trained of the M1 Garand, and served with both the M-14 and M-16. I carried my privately owned .45. Round for round, the big irons are better combat tools than the Mousegun, but round for round is not how they are to be compared in the real world.
The military aphorism that amateurs study tactics and professionals study logistics controls this discussion. Do not compare the first round of 06 with the first round of 5.56: compare the 5,000,001st rounds when your supply system can only handle 5 million rounds.
I must accept that Tim has superior knowledge of the AK47.
Paul Marks.
The object of military weapons is not to kill nor stop its to wound. Wound a man and it takes supplies time personel and money to take care of him.