So, we now have one of the ususal suspects, retired General Kalashnikov, claiming that U.S. troops prefer to throw away their M-16 rifles and pick-up AK-47 rifles. Absurd? Of course! But no one would blame them if they did so, for the Army is no longer going to war with a real Assault Rifle. The basic principle behind such a rifle is that it greatly increases the firepower and effectiveness of the average infantryman by providing a controllable automatic weapon. This certainly empowers the average infantryman in any combat situation (except in the role of sniper, for which there are special rifles).

The Germans, in WW II, first demonstrated the effectiveness of the original automatic Assault Rifle, with their StG44. The Russians immediately took serious notice! The Allies, including the U.S. Army, did not. That is why we fought the Korean War with WW II type M-1 rifles, against automatic weapons. In 1957, ten years after the Russians adopted the AK-47, the chair warmers in the Pentagon officially adopted the M-14. This was not an Assault Rifle, but nothing more than an M-1 rifle with a BAR magazine. It was totally unacceptable and adopted completely against the advice of the Army's own experts. Finally, exactly 20 years after the Russians adopted an Assault Rifle, the Army officially adopted the M-16 Assault Rifle in 1967! Incredibly, it was the Air Force which had to bring the issue to a head by advising the army that it was adopting the Assault Rifle, even if the Army did not (God Bless the great Air Force General and Chief of Staff, Curtis LeMay, who always looked after the troops).

Although the M-16 had some initial problems, it was a pretty good weapon by world standards. Then, in 1983, having made some basic improvements in the M-16, the Army did a very, very stupid thing! They converted the fully automatic M-16 into a three shot, burst mode rifle. Suddenly, the army no longer had a real Assault Rifle! This did, of course, resolve some minor logistical problems, about which the Brass were concerned. Unfortunately, the Brass were not concerned about empowering the troops. So, the Army no longer has in mass use a fully automatic Assault Rifle, such as the Germans had in 1944 and the Russians had, starting in 1947. The Marines and the Special Forces do not, of course, agree with the Army's non-automatic M-16. They know that no electronic aiming device can compensate for the lack of an automatic Assault Rifle. The Army command is simply not looking out for the troops! Why, after all these years, should we not be susprised?

Thank you for the kind words, Hawk.

...or you could say that the 3-round burst was a great idea to get troops to actually aim their shots, and not have to carry 500lbs of ammo. A number of squad weapons more than take up the slack.

Why yes, there is plenty of time to "aim your shots" when fighting house to house in urban warfare. Even the Krauts, whose Russian logistics were a joke, managed to get trench guns to help out in Stalingrad. Did we see any trench guns in house to house fighting in Iraq? Golly, I guess I missed that. No doubt the chair warmers in the Pentagon just could not locate the phone number for Remington. And goodness knows, it is certainly difficult to walk two blocks to the local hardware store to find double-ought buck shot. Gee Whiz, in the absence of trench guns, it sure would be nice to have automatic Assault Rifles for such urban fighting. But maybe the Pentagon is right, we should all just stand back half a mile and slowly and carefully shoot them down with bolt action Springfield's. Alternatively, we could drag heavy machine guns, hut to hut, as it were.