The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading Military & Military Surplus AK 47- crap or masterpiece?Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| AK 47- crap or masterpiece? | Login/Join |
| one of us |
I wonder if it may have something to do with the caliber? It is as if they took a 30-30 lever action and made it into a semi/full auto in the SKS, and then designed a platform that was easier to manufacture, in the same caliber, in the AK. What are the ranges and conditions considered common for hunting with a 30-30 compared to the standard combat range for the 7.62x39? they are about the same bullet when they hit. I'm betting ammo design led to the AK from the SKS. | |||
|
| <Sam> |
The AK replaced the SKS because it was easier and cheaper to produce. The SKS has a lot of casting and machine work as oppossed to the AK with it's stamped parts. The caliber decission was based on a German assault round in 7.92. | ||
|
| one of us |
The reason it is so prolific is because it is very reliable and accurate enough to do the job it was intended to do | |||
|
| <stans> |
Cheap and easy to produce, detachable high capacity magazine, reasonably compact, good caliber, reasonably accurate, reliable by design. | ||
|
| one of us |
One can't say that about the m-16 which really embarreses me. | |||
|
| <Sam> |
The M-16 meets half of that. Detachable high capacity magazine, reasonably compact, reasonably accurate, reliable by design. I'd rate the 16 as very to highly accurate. The design was tweaked a bit for reliability, politics rushed it out to the field too fast. | ||
|
| One of Us |
Personally I don't like them. I much prefer the Lithgow FN L1A1. derf | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:derf, You wouldn't like it so much after you had humped it and the ammo for it over several miles. | |||
|
| one of us |
Cheap and easy to produce plus it is low maintenance and can be operated by any idiot. That makes it a superior product. | |||
|
| one of us |
The AK sure isn't pretty..It isn't likely that it will win any benchrest competitions, either. But it is cheap to manufacture, has a large ammo capacity, and you can drop it in the mud, abuse it, even take a dump on it if you like...and it will still kill your enemy at areasonable distance. I have shot AK's but never owned one. I have owned 3 SKS rifles, one of which I put through a torture test. I shot the hell out of it, putting almost 2000 rounds for it with only one cleaning around 1500 rounds. Alot of it was rapid fire, witht he barrel getting nice and hot. It will still do something arouns 3" at 100 yards, without cleaning. As a bonus, you can slip the bayonet into position and stab your enemy as well! ![[Smile]](images/icons/smile.gif){kind=icon} | |||
|
one of us |
quote:Cheap and easy to produce, with sloppy interchangeable parts makes it superior to many. The cartridge is superior ballistically to a .223 as a people-popper. | |||
|
Moderator |
One of my favorite quotes: "Simplicity is the Ultimate Sophistication" - Leonardo da Vinci It is simple and cheap, and that makes it superiour to more complex and hence exspensive weapon systems. | |||
|
| one of us |
I had an opportunity to shoot one in Nevada one time, along with the M-16 and if I were to choose one for down and dirty combat I would take the ak. I like the feel, it's sturdy. Now, one of the owners of the gunshop I go to a few times a week is very well versed on firearms, even more than most gunsmiths and dealers. I asked him one time what he thought of the AR-15, he said it was the second best combat rifle made in his opinion. I asked him which was the first, AK47 he said. They were designed from the beginning to work in adverse conditions, be easy and inexpensive to fix. Not to mention they are heavy enough to make a great club if it comes to it. | |||
|
one of us |
"With an estimated 30,000,000 units counting variations of the AK47 it looks like the AK is the most prolific combat weapon ever made." Someone told me just the other day...."Quantity has a quality all its own..." | |||
|
| one of us |
Somebody has to defend the M-16 and variants so I will. It's a better groundhog popper. | |||
|
| <Roundbutt> |
Well, the safety, mags, and trigger suck. My 4 inch S+W is more accurate at 50 yards. I have 3, all shoot and extract. I like my SKS better the Yougo is accurate.They even work good with crap ammo. Good house to house gun and that is what Saddam is counting on. I vote crap | ||
|
| one of us |
Hmm!,thats a hard one to answer,takeing into consideration that Russia and China,gave them away in large numbers and we sell ours off,other than a clogged gas tube or bent mag I have never seen an AK fail,I have carried and shot them and been shot by them,there is no getting around that 30 calibere slug it slaps you or any thing it hits with authority,223 is great for popping p-dogs,and works real well on humans up close.Pays your money take your chances. | |||
|
| one of us |
Is there an AK copy out there that is actually well made and looks it? I looked at some but they were all really cheaply made and looked very rickety. None of the parts fit well and it inspired no confidence in me at all. I bought a Bushmaster shorty AR even tho I know from experience (Gulf 1) that the design sucks for a sandy environment. I live in Kentucky tho so that isn't a factor. Ruger#1 | |||
|
| One of Us |
Phantom Duck; Been there done that,Canadian Army. Of course back then I was young dumb and in Pretty good shape.lol derf | |||
|
| one of us |
Ruger,INMO, the best copy so to speak was the Valmet or the Gilai{SP} Isreal version they issued | |||
|
one of us |
I like czech SA vz.-58 design more, different locking mechanizm, good accuracy and better machine work/finish . . .it is my opinion . . .  Jiri | |||
|
| <eldeguello> |
It's a masterpiece if you are one of the "spray and pray" tacticians, which most armies seem to espouse these days. Personally, I still believe in aimed fire! This obviously places me in the 19th Century!! | ||
|
| <'Trapper'> |
Probably can't offer much that hasn't already been said but let's look at the substance of the argument of the M16 vs the AK47. I can only base my arguments and points on the use of both during the Viet Nam era. The M16 got a lot of bad press some deserved, some not due to being rushied into service with a variety of "Wrong" features: some later corrected included chrome lined bores (which the AK had from the first), addition of a forward assist, change in the rate of twist and standarized ammo (with a heavier bullet) come to mind quickly. I have posted here before that I am no fan of the M16 as I think a lot of good people are dead because of this POS. I hear claims of how accurate the M16 is and how inaccurate the AK and its variants but both were very close in my experience - the SKS would outshoot either as far as accuracy, with the Chinese rifles being better thatn the Russian and the Russian or Czech ammo being better than the Chinese stuff. The Viets used the AK with ammo that was crudy and dirty; ammo in a similar state I guarantee would not have functioned in the M16 . The Viets also loved the little M1 carbine - both sides - because of its size and I'm not sure it wasn't a more reliable man-stopper, weak as it was, than the then current 223 ammo issued for the M16. The early to mid-sixties were a bad time for the M16 and a can of WD40 was worth its weight in gold as was an assemblied, near to hand cleaning rod to clear jams from the M16. It is crimanal to send troops to battle with anything less than the very best and the M16 was not even close to the best. Finally, if the M16 was all it was cracked up to be it would have seen more use by the elete US forces that could and did use any weapon from any country they chose, and a lot of them highly favored the AK47. And I might add that if you have ever heard the very distinct "Pop-Pop-Pop-Pop-Pop-Pop" from in front of the AK you will never, ever forget that sound! Best regards, | ||
|
one of us |
Considering the design objectives for the Ak47 which were also well chosen. And the fact it met all of those objectives quite well. What could you call it but a combat masterpiece. However, I tend to believe the small fast bullet, aka, .223 is probably better for combat than the 7.62x39. Meaning the AK74 may be an even better weapon. Only thing that might have been better is if the Russians had the guts to simply build it to use NATO 5.56 ammo instead of their own version of it. | |||
|
| One of Us |
A relative of mine and his platoon were pinned down on a grassy sand bar one day. That was the day he was sold on the M16. By the time they made it out of there, it was clear they never could have carried in enough ammo to keep M14's running. H. C. | |||
|
| <KBGuns> |
quote:There are several designs based on the AK, that are made to better standards of fit and finish. The Isrealie Galil comes to mind first, and it was designed for 5.56mm. Which also helps it accuracy, as 5.56mm ammo is generally made to a higher standard then the 7.62x39mm. Galils look well made. There is the Finish Valmet, wich is a 7.62 generally but has been made in 5.56mm also. These also look very well made. South Africa makes a licensed copy of the Galil. I have not seen any of these, but I have no doubt they are the equal of the Galil, based on the quality of other SA made firearms I have seen. And now there is hte CZ2000 series of small arms. Which apear to be AK based and I believe cambered in 5.56mm. I would assume they are made to the Czech's normal high standards. I have only seen Valmets and Galils, and they were not cheep. Both are no doubt worth the money. Kristofer | ||
|
| <Eric> |
The Kalashnikov is an excellent firearm for what it was designed for. A fairly accurate, simple, utterly reliable, inexpensive battle rifle. I have three in different versions. Also have other stuff that does what they were designed for. Buy what you want and have fun. Oh yea. There have been over 70 million varients of the AK produced worldwide. And that figure is two years old. Regards, Eric | ||
|
| new member |
STOP . . . Listen up . . . The AK-47 is designed for combat. That's what it does. And it does one hell of a job. First off . . . I own an AK-47 (Romanian SAR1) AND a Bushmaster 16" H-Bar, floated, flat-top, 6x scoped, AR with a Jewell two stage trigger. Let's do some "compare and contrast" . . . .223 Win . . . even at the "heavy end" it's 70 gr. Yes it has velocity. Great for rodents, not so hot as a "man stopper." 7.62 X 39 . . . nominal 2250 fps. BUT, it's 122 gr. and 30 caliber. If it hits you, it's gonna kill you. Also, in the Viet Nam jungle the .223 was deflecting off the leaves. The AK ammo was ripping limbs and trunks, a rain of detritus. It did NOT deflect. It tore whatever it hit to pieces. Gas Tubes: The AR gas tube needs to be cleaned with an over-length pipe cleaner. The AK gas tube can be cleaned with with a wad of paper and a stick. But it doesn't need cleaning in the first place because it's so large that it wont clog. Bolts: AK bolt will jam up if it's dirty. AK bolt will function when full of mud. If it get full of mud, you remove the receiver cover, and wash the parts out in a creek. Put it back together WITHOUT lubricant and it works fine. It works fine when it's full of mud, blood, crud. Cost . . . inflated American dollars. AR-15 more or less like it's issued: $1200. AK, more or less like you get it "Clintonized" from TAPCO . . . $300 Capacity: I found some 30 rd. mags for the AR. I have a 75 rd. drum for the AK, 40 rd mags, 30 rd mags. Ammo: $80 . . . 1K rds. AK ammo. Wolf, JHP, 122 gr. Let's not talk about AR ammo. For a range with benches, sandbags, and a catering service, maybe a deli for lunch items . . . Absolutely the AR. For war . . . mud, blood, crud . . . The AK . . . Ten zillion Iraqi terrorists can't be wrong. | |||
|
| one of us |
Fact: Every time guys carrying M16s have fought guys carrying AKs, the guys carrying AKs have suffered humiliating losses. The US has *NEVER* lost a battle to AK-toting troops. AK-equiped nations have only ever won a war because they were willing suffer catastrophic losses. | |||
|
| new member |
Fact: Every time guys carrying M-16s do battle with guys carrying AKs, the M-16ers (God bless 'em) usually have, oh, a half billion dollars worth of weaponry at their disposal, either either in the form of aircraft or artillery. The majority of horrendous AK-toting casualites were most likely not inflicted by an M-16. | |||
|
One of Us |
I would liken the AK 47 to the Sherman tank. Niether are pretty nor stellar ballistic performers, but they werent meant to be. They were meant to be easily mass produced and reliable and they both were extremly succesfull in those respects. Panzers and Tigers kicked the hell out of Shermans, but nevertheless the Sherman was still dubbed as "the tank that won the war" simply because their sheer numbers overwhelmed the opposition. These weapons do not have the same criteria as sporting weapons. They were concieved with the idea of winning a war of attrition as their objective. Most arms are either cheap to produce or reliable, when in the development of military arms both of those aspects are in place, it is usually because of a commendable design. [ 04-10-2003, 09:07: Message edited by: Wstrnhuntr ] | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:Bang on witht he Sherman tanks. Compared to the Tigers, they didn't cut it. However, the US could put 3 or 4 Shermans in the field for every Tiger the Germans could produce. I still think that if any piece of machinery won WWII, though, it was the Landing Craft, even if they did have wooden hulls. ![[Wink]](images/icons/wink.gif){kind=icon} | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:I rather presume it was the Russian T34, the 7,62 mm PPsh machine pistol and the rocket launcher called Stalin Orgel, plus the sacrifice of millions of Russian soldiers who won the war against Fascism. When the allied forces landed in Brittany, Shukov�s army had already invaded the eastern provinces of Germany in Prussia. | |||
|
| <eldeguello> |
Most people seem to think that the 7.62X39mm Soviet cartridge is just a Russian copy of the 7.92X33 German StG 44 round. I believe these two rounds are examples of parallel development, rather than copying. Simonov, who designed the SKS, built a carbine between WWI and WWII that used the 6.5X50mm Japanese in order to have a short round that would function in his carbine and give light recoil. I think his design was one of the first steps on the way to an assault rifle, and that the 7.62X39mm is a result of this line of development, rather than a mere copy of something the Germans invented. Oops sorry!! It was Fedorov, not Simonov, who built the 6.5X55 Jap. carbine in Russia. And it was during, not after, WWI!! [ 04-14-2003, 23:44: Message edited by: eldeguello ] | ||
|
| one of us |
Supposedly, the maintenance corps troops that were captured had feeding problems with their 16s. Whether this is true or not, if they had 47s they'd still be shooting, or dead. Don't get me wrong, I like the 15/16 action and design very much, but it won't function under extreme conditions or lack of proper care as well as the 47 will, IMO. | |||
|
one of us |
Fox TV reported one of the troops said that the rifles would not work. I would guess they were not being kept clean or protected during sand storms. The Sgt was not checking?? CSS troops do not expect to be in combat?? I never was able to fire a full magazine out of the M-16 before I deployed to RVN in 1967. It just would not work. I have never had a warm feeling about them since, regardles of what fixes they made. It is just too cute and made of plastic. ![[Eek!]](images/icons/shocked.gif){kind=icon} | |||
|
| one of us |
I recently got a chance to fire a Vepyr in 7.62x39.I was thoroughly impressed! At 350 yds. I was popping spray paint cans with bulk Ruskie ammo. The fit and finish was excellent and the trigger was very nice. Same crappy safety though! | |||
|
| One of Us |
quote:Dont forget the lowly little swordfish that disabled the Bismark and changed the face of warfare as we have come to know it. [ 04-15-2003, 06:05: Message edited by: Wstrnhuntr ] | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:I would really like to find the details on what happened regarding these rifles. I have never been an AR/M-16 fan and it is beyond comprehension (if this actually happened) that there are still major malfunctions with these rifles app 40 years after their introduction. Particularly failures that are blamed on troops not keeping these things sqeaky clean in a combat zone. Someone else posted and made mention of the gas tube on an AR/M-16. The first time I saw this I couldn't believe my eyes. It reminds me of the slimmest part of a car radio antenna! Since this isn't the topic I'll leave it at that and mention that the AK-47 is marketing genuis made by by a communist that didn't get a nickel for his work. Yes it's true that many developers of 'products' even in a capitalistic environment often don't see any money for their designs but I still find the AK situation ironic. I also agree with the posts that point out that these are not competition or sporting rifles but are very effective at what they were designed to do. I'm not sure that will ever be said about the AR/M-16 outside of clean and/or high maintenance environments. I think the money and time thrown at the AR/M-16 development would have been much better spent on another design. Even a few bucks for a HBAR Mini-14 with a few adjustments and a Choate stock would be more reliable and just as effective. That would keep the Garand type action, which was never broken, in a main battle rifle that still fired the beloved, 'easy to carry' .223. ![[Roll Eyes]](images/icons/rolleyes.gif){kind=icon} XWind | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia
| View $GS_USERNAME's Public Profile |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Buddies |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Ignore List |
| Invite $GS_USERNAME to a Private Topic |
| View Recent Posts by $GS_USERNAME |
| Notify me of New Posts by $GS_USERNAME |