That's probably because the M16 is a longer weapon, making it harder to maneuver inside an APC/IFV, and there are not enough M4s in the area. Another is that the region is awash with AKs, so they're using it instead of the M16s since the AK with its larger calibre has greater penetrating capability - good where the insurgents are hiding behind a concrete wall. Then again, there's always the .50-cal or even the 120mm HEAT or MPAT for that one.

The problem with the "M16 is junk" myth is that when it was first introduced, it had a lot of problems, problems which permeated in the people's psyche that it is a worthless weapon, whereas the facts show that most of the problems have been fixed, that it has its strengths above the AK, and that it is now a sought after weapon for SpecOps troops due to its accuracy, "Lego" capability, weight and punching power.

Last I heard, some US Army personnel - particularly security personnel - were trading their M16s/M4s for FALs.

The SA80A2 I heard did mighty fine in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, I also heard that the MOD is seriously considering replacing the SA80A2 - perhaps they (the MOD) is still haunted by the earlier problems of the SA80 - problems which the M16 had in its earlier days but now have been corrected. The SA80A2 is currently at par with the M16A2/A4.

The AK has a "bad recoil" because it is a heavier weapon at 7.62mm calibre. The round is basically a shortened version of that used in machine guns. The greater recoil means less accuracy - especially when fired in the full auto mode. One permutation of the AK - I think it's the AK-101, not sure - uses a 5.52mm calibre, hence it is lighter, has less kick, resulting to greater accuracy.

In short, both AK and M16 have their strengths and weaknesses, and it all boils down to the user. If untrained, undisciplined, the AK is the better weapon. If trained, disciplined, the M16 is a better weapon. In the end, both can kill, both do their jobs fine.

Remember that the AK was made for the soviet army, which is composed of conscripts, instead of trained professionals like the US army, the reason i guess why most 3rd world countries use the AKs.

There are 2 general types of AKs. The 1st one the AK-47, was actually produced around 1947, and from what iv'e read, was a rip off from a german assault rifle, the Stg-44 (for better comparison, place a 1/35 scale AK beside the 1/35 scale stg-44.), but off course with a little tweaking to make it easier to handle. the next generation was the AK-74, which if i'm not mistaken was made around 1974, and addressed the deficiencies of the early one, ie lighter, less recoil etc.

The M-16 was introduced during Nam as a replacment for the M-14.

Like GiB mentioned, in the early phase, the rifle was useless in Nam, specially during the mud slogging, rains, etc, to the point that soldiers died in an ambush without having been to defend themselves.

but i believe there are plans to replace it with the bullpup OICW. Back me up GiB!

If untrained, undisciplined, the AK is the better weapon. If trained, disciplined, the M16 is a better weapon. In the end, both can kill, both do their jobs fine.

But what if one is trained & disciplined & uses the AK-47???? hehehehe......just my thoughts

OK........the M16 is light, accurate, but more prone to damage & less reliable.