Even forty years after the fact, people continue to insist that the M16 is unreliable because of the often fatal flaws that plagued the original M16/AR15 in Vietnam. The original weapon lacked a forward-assist for the bolt and internal chrome plating that would cut down on fouling; it also fired cartridges with an inappropriate propellant that produced increased wear and residue buildup. These problems were effectively rectified in the M16A1, but people still like to think they exist. There are differing schools of thought on the effectiveness of the 5.56 round but the fact that it has been used continuously for 40 years would seem to show that it works well enough. I would also point to the fact that US forces have used the M16A4 without many problems in Afghanistan for several years now; why it shouldn't work as well in Afghan hands is beyond me.
Finally, the US government buys M16A2s like the ones in the picture from FN, a Belgian company, not from an 'American manufacturer'.

Matt, Chicago, IL

The "weapon of the infidels" comment is just silly. The AK/AKM came from the "invading atheist infidels" of the Soviet Union less than 30 years ago. Before that, the favored arms in Afghanistan came from the "invading infidel British": the venerable Lee-Enfield, the Martini-Henry, and the Snider-Enfield.

The Pashtuns have been relieving "invading infidels" of their arms for centuries. They copy and manufacture whatever is most practical. "Practical" often means a steady supply of ammunition captured from the foreign army.

Kevin, Texarkana, Texas

Too bad for the Afghans. Drawing them in to the realm of unreliable weapons that will never hold up in the harsh environment of Afghanistan, all for a little convenience.
I'm sure they will regret this decision the first time they come face to face with their former rifle in combat, and see just how ineffective the .223 out of the M-16 really is.
The AK-47 is the best rifle for their situation. I wonder just how
many Afghan soldiers will have to die to prove it.

Jeff, Paducah, Ky.

"Weapon of the Infidel"? How asinine. The AK47 originated from an Atheist/Communist state (I'm not sure of Mikail Kalashnikov's personal beliefs). If they were so righteous they could make their own weapons instead of relying on relics from the Soviet era.

And these guys shouldn't be using M16's. Heck any country that makes women wear bee keeper suites and executes religious minorities should be using the M16.

Sam, Colorado, USA

There are a lot of reasons to switch to the M16. In addition to the ones already mentioned here, there's the inherent reduction in incidents of fratricide (Afghan troops are much less-likely to be mistaken for enemy soldiers if they are armed with western rifles) and the all important issue of supply. NATO forces all use rifles which fire the same 5.56 round from interchangeable STANAG-compliant magazines. This means that the Afghan soldiers will be able to share ammunition supplies with NATO forces that they will be operating alongside. This simplifies the supply chain (the US no longer needs to deal with dubious ammunition sources in Eastern Europe and East Asia) and makes the resupply of soldiers in the field easier.
The AKM is a reliable weapon, but people tend to use hyperbole when describing it. You still need to clean it (although not as often as the M16 or L85) or it will eventually break down. They also won't last forever. The switch is a good decision.

Matt, Chicago, IL

There are pros and cons to both weapons, but I doubt that was what made the decision. The M16 and AK47 use different ammunition. Changing the afgans to the M16 allows all troops on the battle field to use the standard NATO 5.56 round... makes resupply much easier and allows interchangibility between allies.

Carter, Houston,

The M16 round, while smaller , is higher velocity and is inherently more unstable than that of the AK47, and as a result is considerably more effective in the damage it causes when it encounters flesh and bone. It also weighs less so more can be carried.

Arnold Ward, Weybridge, Surrey, UK

Basil from Torquay - American trained? Read the article again, as the Americans provide the kit (best in the world) and us plucky Brits provide the training (best in the world). This is a good thing, ensuring the Afghan Army gets the best of all the coalition's strengths.

Chris, Portsmouth,

I think it's great. The Afghan army might actually kill some Taleban for a change. I know it's a cultural change for them but they are going to have to get used to it.

Ben, Ely, Cambridgeshire

How about changing the training, rather than the rifle?
Sounds alot cheaper to me, but hey - that's how the army likes to do things.

Jim, Glasgow,

The AK 47 is useless for western style tactics even in Semi-Automatic it is not nearly as acurate as the M-16.

Dean, Southampton, England

The AK has two advantages over the M16 and SA80

Robustness and stopping power.

Since the gun isnt going to be buried in a desert for 20 years, thats hardly a concern, and neither is whether your target dies in 10 seconds or 5.

The M16 and SA80 are lighter, have longer ranges and are much more accurate.

Were training an army, not a village militia.

Dominic, Manchetser, UK

This is as much about modernization as anything else. Bringing Afghanistan into the modern world will require its people to learn to think in new ways. Let this process begin with the Afghan National Army. The effective use of the M16 will not only require Afghan troops to exercise fire discipline, but also to coordinate their efforts as a team instead of each man acting as an independent army. This will give them a tremendous advantage over thei adversaries. When they discover the consequences of not cleaning, maintaining and employing their new weapon properly, they will learn the pride and esprit de corp that comes from discipline and hard work as a member of a team. Such lessons can then be passed on to the general population.

David, Homestead, Florida, USA

Is this not a matter of re-inventing the wheel? The AK-47 has done rather well by the Afghans (and many others) since the last century. Helping them put it to better use would seem to be a better solution if there is a problem.

Richard Mackenzie, Silver Spring, MD, USA

One thing unmentioned here is that the spray and pray tactic is more likely to cause civilian casualties than aimed fire.
The Taliban don't care who they kill so it works for them, though one wonders where they get their apparently inexaustible supplies of ammunition.
The other thing is, if our side has standard weapons if you see someone with an AK just shoot him!

plato, ely, uk

The Americans incorporated the burst feature on the M16 precicely because US soldiers in Vietnam that became spooked would fire wildly into the jungle rarely hitting an enemy.
Spray and pray is incredibly innefective and wasteful.

The AK is good but the M16 and SA80A2 are far superior weapons. Higher muzzle velocity, higher rate of fire, better accuracy, twice the range and a similar weight.
Smaller calibre means more ammunition can be carried for the same weight which means the guys with the M16 have more staying power on the field.

The only real advantages of the AK is rubustness, simplicity, heavier round = stopping power and availability.

Phill, Wirral, UK

Perhaps this will stem the huge numbers of weapons that are "lost" and turn up on the black market. Numerous locals suddenly appearing with shiny M16's would be too obvious so the Afghan army may have to actually keep their weapons for a change!

Richard, Epsom,

It's crazy to persuade the Afghani to abandon the AK. Their way of life and conditions of service are not conducive to keeping the weapons clean. The AK will fire effectively after treatment that will leave other weapons useless.

Mike Poulsen, Reading, Berkshire

American trained armies usually end up to be really quite
good. I remember how the Croatian army retook the
Eastern part of their country (Kryaina) in two days against a
20,000 strong Serbian-Kryaina army.

The Iraqi National Army is now producing some very good
formations like the 14th Division for example, it will be the
same with the Afghan National Army in time. European
ignorance and British pride tend to underestimate the
Americans........DON'T.

Basil, Torquay, England

I understand the challenge of the trainers to teach the more effective tactic. Unfortunately, I don't think it's wise to present an entirely new weapons platform to a society where the Kalashnikov so deeply seated.

I saw this tactic with M-4's being introduced with Iraqi protection teams covering the upper heads of state.

It's a neat concept, but there are other ways to accomplish the task.
Possibbly stronger emphasis on weapons handling an strong leadership.

Jonathan C. H., Westerville, Ohio

Bernard: The US government likely won't be profiting much from this change (indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if the US government were paying for the M16s). If anything, the manufacturer will make some money, but probably not the government.

The M16 is hardly inferior. While it has it's own pros and cons, it compares quite satisfactorily to the AK.

.....

Carlos: As the article states, the M16s will not be full-auto, but rather only capable of a three-shot burst. This allows for one to conserve ammunition, while still being able to deliver effective firepower. The rounds-per-minute rate isn't really relevant in that sort of comparison.

That said, I agree with your statement regarding good training and eliminating the "Rambo" style shooting. Having proper aim is important.

Pete S., Tucson, Arizona, USA

Why don't the Afghans just learn to shoot their AK-47s in aimed, semi-automatic fire from the shoulder rather than adopt the M-16, which is both mechanically and tactically inferior to the AK/AKM series? It seems that new training in aimed fire is called for to break the Afghans of their silly habit of firing the AK in full-automatic mode from the hip and "spraying" the enemy with fire, which obviously ends up in prodigiously wasting ammunition and is always inaccurate, rather than adopting a new weapon in the M-16 or one its derivatives. Btw, both the AK/AKM and M-16 are true "assault rifles" and are so named because they are capable of full-automatic fire for "the assault" phase of tactical contact or battle drills. The term is the English translation of the German "Sturmgewehr" (lit. storm rifle), the Germans being the first to develop assault rifles, a fact commonly known in military and military history circles.

Paul, Sydney, Australia

They'll be trying to sell them SA-80s next.
The only reason to change is for America to recoup some of the cost of their war. Why else change to an inferior weapon?
As an aside, it is normally recognised that during a time of war national economies prosper with the extra manufacturing
effort requred.
Which begs the question, if America is in recession now what would their economy be like without a war?

Bernard, Edinburgh, Scotland

It doesn't seem very wise this change. The AK 47 is more than familiar to the afghans wich is going to save training. You can find spare parts and ammunition in any corner of the country.
The reason given for the change seems quite strange taking into account that M-16 fires more rounds per minute than AK47.
A good training and the elimination of the "Rambo" style shooting is what the afghans need rather that the M-16 wich by the way is a great rifle as well.

Carlos, Spain,