US Govt prefers AK's to AR's- Truth

[preventec47]

Yep, little known fact depending on how you interpret it. The US govt has funded more
money for purchases purchases of AK rifles
and obviously way greater quantity of them
then AR rifles. This is due to the fact that
we have armed so many 3rd world countries.
Most recently I'd guess acquisitions for the
Iraqi and Afgan armies.

I stumbled across this last year in reviewing
some congressional funding military bills.
Thank god really because in the quantities
of AKs that have been bought, if we had
bought ARs instead we taxpayers would
have spent many millions of dollars more
although the price of ARs might have come
down some. I believe what was mentioned
was a 3 to 1 ratio of cost per rifle differential.
The AKs in the particular acquisition was
just under $300 per unit.

The problem is all these monies were going
to off shore manufacturers of the AK rifles.
If only we had a domestic company who
could compete we could keep the money
and jobs here at home.

[93GT]

I think the going rate for an M4 is just shy of 600 for the government.

[Aceman]

Yep, little known fact depending on how you interpret it. The US govt has funded more
money for purchases purchases of AK rifles
and obviously way greater quantity of them
then AR rifles.

At two posts sir - I call INTERNET BS on you.

Show us some links to published government docs.

and I find that price a tad high...That's almost retail.

[deadday]

Yep, little known fact depending on how you interpret it. The US govt has funded more
money for purchases purchases of AK rifles
and obviously way greater quantity of them
then AR rifles. This is due to the fact that
we have armed so many 3rd world countries.
Most recently I'd guess acquisitions for the
Iraqi and Afgan armies.

I stumbled across this last year in reviewing
some congressional funding military bills.
Thank god really because in the quantities
of AKs that have been bought, if we had
bought ARs instead we taxpayers would
have spent many millions of dollars more
although the price of ARs might have come
down some. I believe what was mentioned
was a 3 to 1 ratio of cost per rifle differential.
The AKs in the particular acquisition was
just under $300 per unit.

The problem is all these monies were going
to off shore manufacturers of the AK rifles.
If only we had a domestic company who
could compete we could keep the money
and jobs here at home.

Normally I'd just say you're full of **** and should do some research before making claims, but today, I'll try to explain things for you....The reason the US .gov purchases AKs (and RPKs and RPGs, and RPDs) by the bushel is because that is the weapon we arm the vast majority of our allies with. The only ally I can think of that we regularly supply with M4s/M16s is the Philippines. The reason for going with the Eastern Bloc weapons is twofold. First, our allies are already familiar with the weapon system, and second, the supply lines are already in place for ammunition and spare parts.

The US .gov obviously prefers the M4/M16 as that is what has armed our miliary and LE forces since the late 60s.

[deadday]

I think the going rate for an M4 is just shy of 600 for the government.

Last time I saw paperwork (2005), an M16A4 with accessories was $748 from FN/H to the US Army...

[slewfoot]

Normally I'd just say you're full of **** and should do some research before making claims, but today, I'll try to explain things for you....The reason the US .gov purchases AKs (and RPKs and RPGs, and RPDs) by the bushel is because that is the weapon we arm the vast majority of our allies with. The only ally I can think of that we regularly supply with M4s/M16s is the Philippines. The reason for going with the Eastern Bloc weapons is twofold. First, our allies are already familiar with the weapon system, and second, the supply lines are already in place for ammunition and spare parts.

The US .gov obviously prefers the M4/M16 as that is what has armed our miliary and LE forces since the late 60s.

Good Post. DD

[Jon_R]

Normally I'd just say you're full of **** and should do some research before making claims, but today, I'll try to explain things for you....The reason the US .gov purchases AKs (and RPKs and RPGs, and RPDs) by the bushel is because that is the weapon we arm the vast majority of our allies with. The only ally I can think of that we regularly supply with M4s/M16s is the Philippines. The reason for going with the Eastern Bloc weapons is twofold. First, our allies are already familiar with the weapon system, and second, the supply lines are already in place for ammunition and spare parts.

The US .gov obviously prefers the M4/M16 as that is what has armed our miliary and LE forces since the late 60s.

We bought tons of AKs for the Afghans in the early 80s. Flew them into Pakistan, loaded them up on Donkeys and into Afghan they went. Those same trails are still carrying AKs in and probably will be for a long time. Those trails carried AKs to kill soviets, then to kill Afghans as groups fought for control after the Russians left, now the AKs are coming in to kill Americans, when we leave they might still be coming in. You would think there would be more AKs in that country then people by now.

At least now the ones we bring in can just be flown in to Kabul and distributed.

[93GT]

Last time I saw paperwork (2005), an M16A4 with accessories was $748 from FN/H to the US Army...

I went ahead and looked up some data on fedlog so I wasn't just throwing numbers out there. Apparently I need to have someone update my MAL at work. It seems prices have gone up since the last time someone did any price reconciliations.

M16A4, 1005-01-383-2872, 950.00 shipped to using unit as of 2009335
M4A1, 1005-01-382-0953, 1329.00 shipped as of 2009032

As for AK-47's 20 years ago, I can't imagine buying in bulk and paying over 150.00 a rifle. Of course I heard something about an agency buying a hammer for 1,100 dollars so who knows?

[93GT]

There have been contracting officers chartering Jingle Trucks and buying trailers full of AK-47's and 7.62x39 at least since the current conflict in Afghanistan began, but not because Americans prefer Jingle Trucks or AK-47's over 7 tons and M16A4's. It's because a billion of other reasons such as ease of procurement, price, less maintenance required, etc...

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j303/tequiladude/46968868.jpg

[Spiffums]

The only ally I can think of that we regularly supply with M4s/M16s is the Philippines.

I thought we sent a fair number of M16s to Israel.

[NoyzeeGlocks]

What else would we supply them with? lol...

[PlasticGuy]

They haven't bought me an AK yet. What line to I have to stand in?

[Titurel]

Just listen for the Jingle Truck!

[93GT]

I don't know Plastic, but if you figure it out, send me a PM.

[faawrenchbndr]

US Govt prefers AK's to AR's- Truth



Yeah,....and Obama is going to FIX THE WORLD!

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Karbala03]

Just listen for the Jingle Truck!
:rofl::rofl::rofl:

[PlasticGuy]

Just listen for the Jingle Truck!
The ones around here just sell ice cream. :dunno:

[jdavionic]

Who would have thought I'd find such a funny post in this section :rofl::rofl:

[Tangodown0311]

I thought we sent a fair number of M16s to Israel.

You can add the ANA and Iraqi Army to the list of recipients for M16's now as well.

[RMTactical]

They haven't bought me an AK yet. What line to I have to stand in?

Yeah, I want mine too!!

[TacticalBling]

I went ahead and looked up some data on fedlog so I wasn't just throwing numbers out there. Apparently I need to have someone update my MAL at work. It seems prices have gone up since the last time someone did any price reconciliations.

M16A4, 1005-01-383-2872, 950.00 shipped to using unit as of 2009335
M4A1, 1005-01-382-0953, 1329.00 shipped as of 2009032

As for AK-47's 20 years ago, I can't imagine buying in bulk and paying over 150.00 a rifle. Of course I heard something about an agency buying a hammer for 1,100 dollars so who knows?

Betcha it is about $150.00 for bulk AKs! :tongueout:

I don't know Plastic, but if you figure it out, send me a PM.

Sign me up on that list too! :supergrin:

[steve1988]

Well, if you are going to treat a rifle like crap, then an AK isn't a bad choice at all.

[deadday]

Well, if you are going to treat a rifle like crap, then an AK isn't a bad choice at all.

Any modern military weapon can be treated like crap and still function flawlessly...

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j3/deadday/Motivational%20Pics/34riqz6.jpg

[PlasticGuy]

Any modern military weapon can be treated like crap and still function flawlessly...
My experience has been different. My Colt 5.56 is a good rifle, but it does not like blowing sand.

[deadday]

My experience has been different. My Colt 5.56 is a good rifle, but it does not like blowing sand.

Mind gave me no problems...just keep your CLP really light and dust cover closed when applicable..I tortured a Colt M4 and an FN M16A4..

[RMTactical]

My experience has been different. My Colt 5.56 is a good rifle, but it does not like blowing sand.

My AR15's never seem to mind it. The lack of reliability of the AR15/M16 is often exaggerated. The reliability of the AK is most often over exaggerated as well. Both platforms are good and battle proven. Use what works for you.

[mangkukhan]

The per unit cost of an M4/M16 is about $450-$475 for the military, the $1000 and up costs you are seeing is the per unit cost after equipped with optics, rails, lasers, etc etc etc. You go throwing that crap on an AK and it would cost you the same. The most recent appearance of what the army is paying per unit came up about last year when FNH outbid Colt for the M16 contract again. Also keep in mind we probably arm just as many countries with M16's as we do AK's.

[PlasticGuy]

My AR15's never seem to mind it. The lack of reliability of the AR15/M16 is often exaggerated. The reliability of the AK is most often over exaggerated as well. Both platforms are good and battle proven. Use what works for you.
I absolutely agree. That's why I specifically wrote that the AR15 is not a bad rifle. AR15 reliability is much better than many detractors would have us believe, just like AK accuracy is much better than many detractors would have us believe.

My point was (and still is) that I've fired my own personal Colt as well as a few of our company issue Colt AR15's in sandy conditions, and have had more problems than I would like. That doesn't mean my experience is the norm, but it is the truth. Just passing it along.

[Bren]

Yep, little known fact depending on how you interpret it. The US govt has funded more
money for purchases purchases of AK rifles
and obviously way greater quantity of them
then AR rifles. This is due to the fact that
we have armed so many 3rd world countries.
Most recently I'd guess acquisitions for the
Iraqi and Afgan armies.

Well, as one of the guys who helped train the Afghans to use the weapons we gave them, I don't think it's a "fact." We may have paid plenty, but not for AK's. We gave them M16A2's, M4's, M240's and M249's - their ancient AK's and other soviet weapons have been or are being disposed of.

[Bren]

We bought tons of AKs for the Afghans in the early 80s. Flew them into Pakistan, loaded them up on Donkeys and into Afghan they went.

Only because (a) US involvement had to be deniable and (b) since we couldn't set up full-scale supply the Afghans had to be able to use locally obtained ammo and parts.

[Jon_R]

Only because (a) US involvement had to be deniable and (b) since we couldn't set up full-scale supply the Afghans had to be able to use locally obtained ammo and parts.

Pretty much. I think they Russians where onto us though when the stingers started taking down the helicopters. :whistling: I am pretty sure they knew they where not RPGs with eradicate flight patterns and very lucky shots.