Mislim da ovaj tekst dobro opisuje zašto M16 a ne Gali u Izraelskoj vojsci.
Najbolji je opis kod zastoja, gde piše da je Galil bolji, ali da M16 ZADOVOLJAVA kriterije koje je vojska postavila za pušku.
Ako treba, mogu i da prevedem.
LPB
Now let's look at the supposed advantages of the M-16 over the Galil:
Accuracy - The superior accuracy of the modern M-16/AR-15 over the Galil is really not relevant to the purpose of an assault rifle, but is the primary "advantage" usually argued by M-16 supporters. However, it was not an attribute of the M-16A1. The superior accuracy of the current M-16/AR-15 design is a result of changes made with the M-16A2 update. The DoD requirements that resulted in the M-16A2 included an increased effective range (both for accuracy and penetration), for which the SS109 projectile was developed. However, the rifling of the M-16A1 was not ideal for use with the heavier bullet. So the A2 design incorporated a heavier barrel with a different rifling pitch, which gave the bullet more stability. As a side note, this increase 1) was not as high as the original demands of the DoD standards, which were changed to favor the M-16 when the M-16 could not meet the standards, and 2) decreased the effectiveness of the M-16, since the lethality of the round is due largely to its instability, causing it to tumble. The increased stability decreased this effect, and led to widespread complaints by combat troops that the new bullet/rifle combination was less effective. So, the M-16A1, the version originally adopted by Israel, was not any more accurate that the Galil. Accuracy was not a factor in this decision.
Mounting of Optics - Another big argument of M-16 supporters is the wide variety of mounting options for optics/lights on the M-16. However, again, this was not the case at the time of Israel's adoption of the M-16. The only way to mount optics on the M-16A1 available at the time was through a special mount, not adaptable to other rifles, that bolted on top of the carrying handle. Not only was this just as inconvenient as the situation with every other rifle of the time, the M-16 mount did not return to zero when re-mounted, and its high placement on the rifle caused any mounted optics to have a higher parallax angle with the bore than optics mounted on any other military rifle. This meant that optics mounted on the M-16 were less versatile than when mounted on any other rifle. Even today, except for the flat-top versions of the M-16/AR-15 receiver (which are a very recent change), the mounting options for the M-16 are all add-ons that could have easily been developed for the Galil had mounting options been a concern of the IDF. So optics mounting options were not in any way a consideration by Israel at the time. Another point is the night sights of the Galil. No such option was available for the M-16A1. The only way to add low-light capability to the M-16 was to mount a Starlight scope on it, an option that added significantly to its weight, threw its balance WAY off, prevented the use of its integral sights, and cost several times more than the rifle itself (raising its cost above that of the Galil). In sighting options, the Galil was significantly superior to the M-16A1.
Reliability - Even M-16 supporters have never been able to argue BETTER reliability for the M-16. The best they've been able to do is argue acceptable reliability. The M-16 is not, and never has been, as reliable as the basic AK design. The firing group is much more lightly constructed, especially the springs, and it does not handle sand well. And while the A2 firing mechanism was changed in order to incorporate a 3-round burst feature, the modern versions have abandoned that and gone back to the A1 firing group. The question isn't whether the M-16 is AS reliable os other designs, but whether it's reliable ENOUGH. In the view of government bean-counters, the answer is YES, but it is not as reliable as the AK/Galil, and that's been demonstrated many times, including by Israel's own official testing.
Cost - The M-16 is cheaper to manufacture, there's no argument about that. During the time that Israel was making its choice, one could buy an NIB Colt AR-15 for under $500 in the US. A new IMI Galil ARM was going for about $900-$1000 at the same time. Plus, Israel was getting M-16s for virtually nothing, while they were having to pay full-cost for producing their own Galils. Clearly, price was a big factor in the M-16's favor. I'll leave it up to you to decide if you think it influenced Israel's decision.
Ergonomics - Yes, the M-16 does have slightly better ergonomics than the Galil. Except for the charging handle, all controls can easily be operated with just one hand without releasing the pistol grip. That really is a big advantage, although reloading will usually include using both hands, so most of the time the ability to carry out a one-handed mag drop isn't as big an advantage as it seems (but it IS still an advantage). But the Galil's ergonomics aren't very bad either. The left-side safety is quite good and easily activated, even with it's "backward" action. The mag release, while generally requiring use of the weak hand, is placed right where the hand would naturally go during reloading, and the magazine locks up much more easily than the M-14, and much more reliably than the M-16. I've never had to worry about whether a Galil mag was positively locked, whereas it's quite easy in a stressful situation to insert an M-16 mag and not have it lock completely. Also, the folding stock of the Galil is significantly better than the collapsible option available on the M-16. It allows for a much shorter configuration, without sacrificing barrel length, and is completely out of the way when folded, unlike the collapsible M-16 stock. Also, many people find the loud "boing" that vibrates through one's skull when firing an M-16, due to the placement of its recoil spring in the buttstock, to be quite unpleasant. A minor complaint, but as valid as the difference between the Galil and M-16 safeties.
Weight - Weight actually is a significant advantage of the M-16. While we're only talking about a few pounds, the unloaded weight of an M-16A1 is roughly half that of the Galil. And that much weight does make a difference. If you doubt this, do an hour of rifle PT with each. As Jetsktal noted, the weight is the only actual complaint I have ever heard in person from IDF soldiers. But I doubt that weight played much of a role in Israel's decision. The Galil is comparable in weight to most military rifles of the time. The M-16 is still at the light end of what is available, and at the time that was even more true. This may actually have been a consideration for Israel. It does affect the effectiveness of troops. But I doubt seriously that weight, all by itself, would be adequate justification for switching, whereas price could easily be.
Now, despite the fact that I believe the Galil to be a vastly superior assault rifle than the M-16, that doesn't mean I think Israel made the wrong decision in going with the M-16 instead. Cost is very important in this case. Israel was spending more than twice its GDP to fight wars with its neighbors, wars it had no choice but to fight if it was going to continue to exist. Free rifles are just too good to pass up under those conditions. Also, despite some people being indignant about it, governments very rarely give their soldiers the best available equipment. Claims to the contrary are strictly political spin to satisfy those same indignant people. And they shouldn't. Instead, if they are going to do their best for their military, and country, as a whole, they should supply them with the cheapest option that is good ENOUGH to get the job done on average. This means that more of that particular piece of equipment can be produced, and more funds and resources are available to produce other items the military needs. That is the strategy that wins wars. While the M-16 isn't as good as the Galil one-for-one, it's good enough, on average, that from an army-wide perspective, it's good enough (though the individual soldier whose weapon malfunctions at the wrong time may not think so). It's a simple cost-benefit analysis that every military does; at least those that win wars do. Those that don't tend to lose wars and then complain later that they should have won given their "obvious" superiority. It's not a slur against Israel or anyone else to say that they went with something less than the best available equipment for their soldiers, as long as the reason is one which in the long run saves lives because it leads to improved over-all capability of their military; in other words, as long as other considerations make the worse weapon the better choice. That's what the Israelis did when they chose the M-16. But that decision doesn't then automatically make the weapons they choose "better".
