I have spent a long time in the United States Army, and for years I have taken the M4 into battle. Whether it was for a close quarter combat or for a homemade explosive raid in Afghanistan or Iraq, I’ve used it.
However, now I wouldn’t take the M4 or the M16. For a lot of reasons, I would choose instead to take the AK-47.
If you believe the stories of the M4’s capability to shoot an enemy in the leg and for the bullet to travel upwards and hit a vital spot, I’d say good luck. I haven’t been in battle where I was able to shoot an enemy from a point at which the bullet travelled upwards and eliminated the target.
SCAR: My Ideal Rifle
In Afghanistan I was able to use what was probably the best weapon in any military. Yes, the SCAR! It was used by Finland’s military personnel while we were working with their special operations teams and EOD, and we were able to spend some time at the range with the rifle.
For anybody who hasn’t had the opportunity to fire this weapon, and if you’re in the military, I hope you get the opportunity. Then you’d agree that you’d want to carry the SCAR into battle.
I say this because of its ability to fold into a smaller size. It makes great use in CQC and it can fire accurately over 300 meters.
Why I Wouldn’t Choose the M4/M16
A major flaw to the M4/M16 is the fact that both rifles use a smaller round, and nowadays the enemy will probably be wearing the same type of protector-vest as you, or maybe better.
This means the way you’re taught to fire at center mass is obsolete. That smaller round is in no way going to damage the enemy. So we either need to teach our military to aim for the neck and above or give them a better round.
Benefits of the AK-47
The AK-47 with its larger size round (7.62) will obviously travel further and hold its energy. And in CQC it will obviously knock the enemy down due to the amount of kinetic energy. Also, its muzzle velocity is way better than the old, outdated M4. Why don’t we give our military a better opportunity to defend themselves with a larger, more-efficient round?
I’ve been deployed on several occasions and I’ve had to use the M4 in combat, both at close range and further distances. For years I have asked why the smaller round. Yes, it’s fast, however, it’s more fit for groundhogs or squirrels!
The AK-47 is a lot more versatile, even with the M4’s ability to fire at fully automatic. The M4 doesn’t even come close to what the AK-47 can do to smaller sized weapons used in CQC or even the larger sized ones used for targets at a distance. For example the 5.56 muzzle energy is 1,325 while the 7.62X39 is 1,527 and the 7.62×51 is 2,802.
The Marines have continued to use the M16 for years because of its accuracy at further distances. I myself have fired many rounds with the AK-47 and no matter if it’s the smaller weapon for CQC or the larger weapon for further distances, it’s way better.
The military uses the smaller round because of the recoil, pure and simple, because of POGs. As a Ranger and EOD, I say at least give the AK-47 to the infantry and combat units so they can defend themselves.
Make a Choice
You can choose. I know if I had to, I would choose the larger round for better accuracy and greater muzzle energy.
I myself have been able to shoot AK-47s at targets from 0-600 meters away, and believe me, they are way better. It’s a shame we have continued to use the Colt M4 because somebody lost a bet and had to sign a contract for the M4/M16.
As combat soldiers, we should have the choice and a chance to prove that we can fire the large round accurately in order to eliminate any threat.