Besides, as far as developed countries are concerned, the cost of small arms is basically petty cash. You can buy the latest M-16 variant for 50,000 troops for less than the cost of a single fighter jet.
Can an AK kill a zombie?
Another thing that nobody’s mentioned is that in today’s volunteer Western militaries, marksmanship is a skill that’s taught and expected to be part of an infantryman’s primary skill set, if not the primary skill. “Spray and pray” is a thing of the past; apparently in the US Army it’s taught to take single aimed shots at distance, and 2-round double-taps in close combat.
This implies that the infantryman’s weapon should be accurate, and the AK-47 is not particularly accurate, but it wasn’t meant to be. It’s an outgrowth of the Soviet experience in WWII- they expected to arm millions of somewhat trained infantrymen with these and using automatic fire and aggressive (high-casualty) tactics, defeat the enemy. No Western militaries use that approach, so the AK series of weapons is not as useful as more accurate weapons like the M16 family.
Your link doesn’t work, but as to why that might be, don’t forget that the AK makes a distinct sound from the M-16 and M-4. As such, using their guns and ammo has the advantage of making the enemy think it’s “his guys” firing at the troops based on the gunshot reports rather than the U.S. troops firing at his guys when he hears the sound off in the distance. That also makes it much harder for the enemy to gauge how many troops are present based on what they hear.
The link doesn’t work because this thread is 7 years old.
Yes, of course. Why do you think the Russians made so many AK-47s? Mark my words, they’re well prepared for the coming undead apocalypse.