Well, I know for sure that if I could snag a 1920’s Style Death-Ray on the battlefield that I wouldn’t hesitate to use it.
Have we digressed?
The OP wants to know how often US troops pick up another weapon in a war zone…
I am still content to talk about the merits of one rifle vs another rifle, but I think we ought to start another thread in great debates or something.
The only reason I can see for general infantry to pick up another weapon is because he/she does not want the enemy knowing that he/she is an american just by firing thier weapon. I can think of other less legitimate reasons, but I am not going into those now…
Actually, the real reason soldiers use enemy weapons is that they need to. Say your machine gun has jammed, or run out of ammo, or been blown up by a lucky mortar shot - wouldn’t you use your captured RPK? Or say you’ve captured an enemy outpost and are holding off the counterattack - wouldn’t you use that RPG-7 they left behind?
Fact of the matter is, a soldier in the field can never have too much equipment (except when he has to travel light) - especially of the kind that goes BOOM.
Slightly tangential, but a book I read as a youngster, Mark Of The Lion, told the story of Captain Charles Upham, a New Zealander uniquely * awarded the VC twice for combat heroics. In Greece and Crete circa 1941 he routinely equipped himself with German machine-pistols whenever the opportunity arose. I don’t think Brit and ANZAC forces had much in the way of light automatic weapons at the time, and the German ones were very good.
Upham liked things up close and personal; his other favoured weapon was the grenade, and he used to snag all he could, to the extent that other soldiers were heard to complain that they couldn’t get hold of any.
(* There have been two other double-VCs, both for rescuing wounded men under fire.)
My boss was a Vietnam vet from fairly early on (1965-66) and has told me that Americans would grab an AK-47 if possible because of the jamming issue on the M-16.
I was talking to my armorer and he said that the reason the M-16 jams so much is in order to get that notable accuracy the tolerances have to be really tight. So what you gain in accuracy against the AK-47 you lose in reliability. An AK will fire and fire and fire some more. Very, very rarely will it jam. An M-16 will jam if the wind is right.
I’m not sure where you’re getting your numbers. $400 for a US retail AK is correct, but it’s a really artificial price. They have to go through various BS in order to be legally sold in the US, and I have no idea what the labor charge is on a thing like that. A military sale would be much cheaper - how much depends on where, of course. I’m not sure what the average is in USD.
As far as M-16s, I’m not sure where you get $1800. Perhaps the army pays that much for them, but I would expect them to be priced more in the range of the decent civilian variety, more like $800-$1000, less probably in bulk.
IIRC, non-east bloc countries generally use AK-47s, both to keep continuity in their production, and because buying old Russian issue AK-47s was cheap.
And the 74 doesn’t shoot 5.56, it shoots 5.45x39, a similar round with much superior terminal ballistics.
As I understand soldiers learn to distinguish enemy from friendly fire based on the distinctive sound of weapon types, wouldn’t there be a concern that you would be mistaken and shot at by your own men when firing an enemy weapon?
As has been mentioned earlier, the military is good at standardized prodedures and strongly encourages use of issued weapons and ammunition. A lot depends on the command. Some Sherman tank crews used sand bags to augment weak armor in WWII but Patton wouldn’t allow it. I’m sure it’s the same with infantry.
It’s probably not much of an issue in a firefight. An enemy weapon that works is better than an properly issued weapon that doesn’t. Most problems crop up where the issued weapon has problems. As noted, the M-16 originally had teething problems that were corrected. There is no doubt the M-16 is more accuate than the AK-47 but assualt weapons are designed for close-in combat. Accuracy is secondary to reliabiltiy when your enemy is a few yards away. The AK does sound different than the M-16. Unfortunately, situations where soldiers are picking up enemy weapons and using them are likely to be confused messes anyway (close quarters, limited visibility, high-anxiety, lots of noise, and everyone has an assualt weapon).
The French machine gun issued to US troops in WWI is another example of a lousy weapon that was quickly discarded if something better became available.
Special ops has more lattitude in chosing weapons (as a group) but it probably didn’t happen without a fight with military brass.
I know for a fact many shotguns were used in Nam.
I’m not POSITIVE about the Sixties, but the shotgun was a standard issue weapon in the 80’s and 90’s, we had the Remington 870. Not a standard infantryman weapon, but one or two at the company/battery level is not at all unusual.
That aside, many guys picked up AK’s in Gulf War, Episode One, for the PERCEIVED need, and the coolness factor. There was ample 7.62 ammo also picked up to sustain individual weapons for a limited time. very few of our guys ever fired either the AKs or their issue M-16A2’s.
(We were a Stinger Missile Battery, with two man teams out by themselves all day, coming together most nights at the Squad/Section level, very decentralized command and control. AK’s were taken away when the dust settled.)
I think the weapons deal has been beated to death but Littlenemo brought up the point of Patton’s ivory handled revolvers. It was my understanding (and was taught this in the army) that generals could essentially create their own uniform. I once ran into one in pre-gulf war dessert fatigues and a bright gold belt buckle. Kind of looked goony but he definately stood out and I wasn’t about to tell him.