"Iraq is the final nail in the coffin for the M-16," said a commander who asked not to be identified.
The current version of the M-16 is a far cry from the original, which troops during the Vietnam War criticized as fragile, lacking power and range, and only moderately accurate. At the time, a leading U.S. weapons expert even recommended that American soldiers discard their M-16s and arm themselves with the Kalashnikov AK-47 rifle used by their Vietcong enemy.
Although the M16A1 — introduced in the early 1980s — has been heavily modernized, experts say it still isn't as reliable as the AK-47 or its younger cousin, the AK-74. Both are said to have better "knockdown" power and can take more of a beating on the battlefield.
And btw, US troops did change their M-16s and M4s to AKs even in Iraq..
And this article has bad errors..
As:
M4s and M-16s are the same..
Only Stock, Handguard and barrel are different
And the change from 3-Burst to Full-automatic is small and internal modification that doesnt affect anything else
than rate of fire.
And if you doubt me..
Look this video!
(Its the same weapon all the time, and its using blanks.. and why is it important that it uses blanks? Well, blanks produce way less recoil and gas energy, making it harder for them to reload the weapon than with live ammo!!!)
[Edited on 23-11-2003 by FULCRUM]
