Part of the issue going on in this thread can be addressed by the issue of military doctrine.

Mikael Kalashnikov designed his weapon (the AK-47) to meet the needs of the Soviet Army. Their doctrine revolves around the infantry, armor and artillary. In the attack they apply massive suppressive fire and simply overwhelm the enemy. This is how they defeated the well trained and technically superior (except for the Russian T-34 tank) German Whermacht.

For combat such as this the weapon has no need for tack driving accuracy. It must however be capable of hitting (not necessarily killing) a man at ranges not exceeding 400 to 500 meters. Anything over that range can be engaged with artilliary. The AK-47 and the 7.62x39 are capable of this requirement.

It must be completly reliable in all terrain and weather conditions. The Russian winter is very cold and in parts of the country is simply terrible. Russia also has deserts in parts, so the weapon must be able to handle extreme conditions. The AK-47 does this quite well too.

Lastly, the weapon must be simple and cheap to produce. Russia's Army is (was) huge. It costs to arm many, many, soldiers. Soldiers who for the most part are two year conscripts, lacking formal education and technical training. A weapon that takes special care and constant maintenance is contrary to Russia's needs.

America in contrast, is a "Nation of Riflemen." Or so the military authorities have believed for the last 200 years or so. Our weapons must be capable of long range accuracy to engage the enemy at ranges greater than they can effectively engage us.

While this is a fairly accurate assumption (long range rifle fire has served the U.S. well in all her wars), it is a concept that really does not relate to the modern battlefield. WW II proved that the average Infantry engagement occurs at ranges of 300 meters or less. Most everyone except America took this concept to heart and designed and built rifles of smaller caliber with box magazines after the war.

The result for the U.S. after WW II was the M-14 and the 7.62 NATO cartridge which we shoved down the throat of the NATO Alliance. Vietnam demonstrated that the U.S. needed something different than a long range .30 caliber battle rifle. The Armalite design was good (not perfect) and readily available. The U.S. took it and ran and hasn't slowed down since, however still keeping the concept of accurate long range riflefire.

I've used the M-16 in very hot and humid climates, but not jungles. I've used it in deserts, but not like the deserts of the mid-east. It has never let me down, yet. It does require more maintenance. And if in a sand storm, will pick up enough grit to make it inoperable.

The problem with those troops that were captured was that they had been in a sand storm, they had not stopped long enough to be able to clean and maintain weapons. Anyone who thinks you can effectively clean a weapon in a moving truck by flash light is weak in the head. I'm not convinced that many other rifles would have faired better, however I've not soldiered with many of the others in those harsh environments.

Bottom line? The AK-47 is a masterpiece of design and one of the greatest in firearms history. The M-16 is also a great design, however it has some flaws that means it requires constant attention to function.

Regards,

Eric