If I'm not mistaken, aren't M-16s notorious for requiring constant cleaning, compared to the AK-47, which you can practically drop in mud, then pick it right up and shoot?
I mean, the M-16 is more accurate, but I thought it was pretty much certain that the AK-47 was easier to maintain/produce?
Actually, the ease of production is somewhat misleading. While the AK is far, far simpler, it was designed with large, Soviet-esque production lines in mind, and isn't perfectly suited to smaller production facilities you would find in nations like Iraq. Moreover, while we're talking about the far more modern and less problematic M16A2 here, the AK-47 has always had the edge in reliability and durability in ****ty conditions, which is exactly where this army is going to be spending 99% of its time.
The fact of the matter is that the M16 is more expensive, less reliable given the conditions, and requires a complete retraining of their entire army to introduce. In essence, this entire move is based on publicity/propaganda and profiteering by the American military-industrial complex. This really is no different than all the other pocket-lining and money-grubbing we've seen in Iraq over the past 4 years, but it's kinda funny to see an Army colonel say the M16 is more durable than the AK.
Oh, and Mefustae, seems like you're just trying to find another reason to hate America. So what if it's Colt's weapons - they really are better overall than AK's.
I see it as blatant profiteering in a war-torn region. Defying logic and common sense in favour of substantial dollar value.
That what I hate about America, whereas you're making it out as if i'd like to grab the nearest yank and grind his bones to make my bread...
...Although, I am kind of hungry... *gets wooden club*