AK-47 vs. M-16

You know its funny to hear how much everyone "knows" about a subject until someone 'in the know' corrects them.

Case in point the cuts on the stock of the AK 74, The "untrained" automatic fire doctrine etc.

Thanks to Oris and Mr. Kalishnikov for shedding light on these subjects with actual experience.
 
Of course all this debate will be rendered meaningless once I have my 6mm PPC AK-esque weapon finished. THAT will be the assault rifle to end all assault rifles :)
 
Several people I met told me that in Russian basic training they seldom got to fire full auto. The training was done in semi, and then only those who scored high got to shoot a couple of mags of rock-n-roll.
 
Art, you posted:

"Kalashnikov worked at simplicity and reliability. Period. Stoner worked at a design which could, basically, not be produced in Russia's plants. Too precise tolerances, for instance; beyond Russia's ability for BOTH quality and quantity. The "looseness" inside the AK was deliberate."

Agree that Kalashnikov did work at simplicity and reliability and that "looseness" inside the AK was deliberate. BTW, it was not just loose fit of moving parts.
Everybody who owns AK knows that AK receiver is actually
EMPTY, there is a lot of room inside receiver for any kind of junk that can get inside the gun... mud, sand, snow or whatever can be pushed by moving parts out of the way,
deposited in "non-active" areas of receiver or just thrown out of the gun through numerous holes... This is
a great design feature, because it's in fact possible to pack the receiver with mud nearly up to the ears and AK will still work fine. Besides all, so called safety factor
used in AK design was probably close to 7-8, if not more, look at the "husky" fire-control group parts, receiver itself, bolt/carrier and other stuff. This makes AK mechanically very strong.

Now, I have no idea was Stoner wanted to design - something
that can not be duplicated or what. I question that as a main idea of his design, because defence industry in the USSR could surely duplicate such gizmo as M-16. I worked there 10 years and we had lots of first-class equipment (imported from the West) and very skilled labor. I think
M-16 is an interesting design but it's a poor combat weapon, easily breakable and not suited for use in
dirty conditions. It's O.K. for non-heavy duty applications. The only real war it has been used in (Vietnam), didn't prove it to be a stellar performer. There are lots of very good American-made firearms, but M-16 is not one of them.
 
Avtomat Kalashnikova Obrazets 1947. I'm thinking that I would very much like to get one now. The version that I am looking for will be a VEPR. The VEPR receivers are the same as used in the RPK machinegun. This is a heavier duty receiver that lends its self to better accuracy and reliability and life span than normal kalishnikov receivers. The VEPR AK variants are quite often sub-MOA accurate which really puts the pressure on the AR-15s big claim to fame. In fact - I'll take my VEPR when I finally buy it, and put it up against ANY AR-15. We will shoot targets out to 100 yards (Only because my eyes are getting bad again) for accuracy and reliability. Tightest groups win - but the first to JAM is disqualified. The AK-47 was designed by Mikhail Timofeyevich Kalashnikov, who only had a high school education. In 1938 Kalashnikov was drafted into the Soviet army. He became very interested in the operation of firearms and apparently a genius was awakened in him. In 1941 Kalashnikov was called to active duty and became a tank driver. He fought in the battle of Bryansk while the battle raged his tank was hit by a shell wounding Kalashnikov in the arm. During his hospital stay he studied all the firearms books he could get his hands on. Due to the seriousness of his would he was allowed to spend six months on leave in his home town of Alma-Ata. Kalashnikov spent his time designing a sub machine gun with his machinist friend Zhenya Kravchenko. In 1946 Kalashnikov sent off the drawling for a new gas operated rifle based on the m43 cartridge to the Main Artillery Commission in Moscow. The committee decided that his design had merit and gave him the go ahead to create several prototypes. From 1946-1948 work progressed on the Kalashnikov rifle, progress was slow with changes having to be made every step of the way. In 1949 one of Kalashnikovs rifles was accepted as the Soviet Army's AK-47 (Avtomat Kalashnikova Obrazets 1947) namely the AK-47 today. Kalashnikov then left the military and started work at a factory where he designed server different models of the AK-47 and other spin-offs of other machine guns.
 
took my .308 Vepr & the .223 AR to the range today

The AK is Klingon tech
The AR is Federation tech

Both put holes in paper in the Black

dZ
 
Comparing a VEPR to an AR - interesting concept indeed. I have one of each, a VEPR II in 7.62x39 and Bushy AR-15. Both have a 20" chrome-lined barrel. Both are very accurate. The question is, which one is more accurate. To answer that, I believe I need to top each with a similar scope and shoot under the same conditions. I know a purist would disagree with me on the scope, but I think using the iron sights only serves to measure the ability of the shooter, and the different sighting systems (the AK and AR are pretty different in this regard). If you want to measure the inherent accuracy of the gun, I would go with a scope. Now, I have a scope already on my AR that is perfect for this job, a ATN 5x33. Although it is designed specifically for the 55 gr. 5.56 mm round, there is no reason I can't use it on the VEPR. I just need a side rail. Any suggestions where I can pick up a good quality AK mount?

It just occurred to me that if I wanted to be completely consistent in this test and test accuracy of the GUN only, I would need a VEPR chambered in 5.56, not 7.62. However, maybe that is exactly the way it should be, you know, compare the original American gun AND round against the equivalent Russina version. What do you think?
 
Very interesting, learning a lot on this old thread. Well I have decided to add an AK to my stable, now the only problem is to decide which one to buy. I have seen the chinese peen hammers and in general age poorly, the MAADI seems to be put together with a crowbar and a worn out paintbrush, I have read posts about misaligned sight bases on some rifles ? I would welcome advise from someone with experience in the various renditions of this instrument of war/peace.
 
My personal favorites of the AK tribe are the Hungarian SLR series with milled receivers. I like the vietnam-era wood on the parts gun from Gordon Tech in the preban configuration.

Have heard good things about the two US companies that produce other variants of the AKs, but have never seen one.
 
Oris, Kalashnikov is the one who made the comments about the qualtiy of machining in production. In part, this was tied to rate of production--hence the stamped receivers, for instance, instead of machined receivers.

"Quality, time, cost: Pick two." You cannot have high quality, low time, and low cost. The U.S. has always been able to out-produce anybody--because we don't have to worry about low cost. This of course does not mean that our basic design will necessarily be better.

To digress a bit: I went through Basic Training with an M-1. Part of the deal was use of the bayonet and buttstock. You can imagine my raised eyebrow when I first saw the "New Army Rifle"! Can you imagine butt-stroking some joker with an M-16? :D

Having already rolled my own ammo for a number of years for a .22-250 and .220 Swift, I was not exactly whelmed by the .223 cartridge, either...

:), Art
 
Great thread.

I like the AK. IMHO it is reliable and at 100 yards it is good enough for government work. When the barrel heats up the groupings get rather large but stay on man sized target.
The ammo is really cheap.

The rifle really does not need any TLC. I like the Russian philosophy of make it work, make it simple, make lots of it!

As for the Russians not being able to make stuff similar to our stuff..........
They were the first to put a man in space and they had the Mir up in orbit quite a long time. Look at the MIG and Sukhoi jet designs; they are both outstanding. Don't ever sell the Russians short!

Anyone who has been on the recieving end of an AK has a very healthy respect for them.
By the by.......AKs' don't require a forward assist for the bolt.;)
 
Uh, about the Russian space and fighter programs

Yes, the Soviets put the first man in space. Yes, their fighter aircraft aren't anything to sneer at.

However....

Their latest fighter prototypes like the SU-37: ONE flying prototype. No orders. None being made.

Russian fighter community: averaging 20 flying hours a month. High ranking officers hog all the flying time so when they retire or leave the pilot's seat, the younger guys will have diddly squat for experience. They have about 2000 tactical aircraft with the support capacity for less than 500. (figures from Aviation Week)

Russian space program: I was just watching the History Channel tonight about Russian space failures, like the million lb thrust N-1 rocket, built to send something to the moon. First one launched in 1969 blew up 70 seconds after takeoff. Second one heeled over and impacted the launch site, blowing it to smithereens and setting back their moon project quite a bit. Then an unmanned probe was designed to retrieve some moon dirt and bring it back to earth before Neil Armstrong could set his boot on lunar dust. It actually was in space at the same time as Apollo 11 was approaching the moon. However, the unmanned Soviet probe went SMACK into the moon destroying itself.

Of course, they don't have a monopoly on space disasters. :(

Now back to some gun discussion: I'm almost finished a book about the Army JRTC at Ft Polk, where a 300 man OPFOR routinely thrashes whole regular Army brigades with smart fighting. It's called "The Battle For Hunger Hill" by Daniel Bolger. Very good stuff! Reading this book really reinforces to me that It's The Man, Not The Gun that counts.

Edmund
 
LOL
Uhm, Art, you might want to go back and change that part about butt-stroking some guy with an M-16. I know what you meant, but boy did it bring up some interesting visuals in my head.
ROTFL
 
Anyone with the slightest military knowledge knows exactly what a butt-stroke is... No funny mental images... Just the idea of a very large headache.


AK accuracy is under rated. The VEPR and SUPER VEPR will suprise you. Match accuracy that makes the gun more accurate than most who would shoot it.
The AK was designed from the ground up as a fighting gun. A gun for actual warfare. While the AR was designed for a police rifle - for standing guard at Air Force bases.
 
Whoops

I made a mistake in my figures for Russian air force flying. I checked the Aviation Week issue again:
Their pilots average about 25 hours a YEAR.

Edmund
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top