The old AK47 still viable

J

JJ45

New member
I noticed looking at some of the clips of the Russian/Ukraine conflict that the old war horse, either 47 or 74 is still in operation by both sides' And some by supposedly elite units.

It might have something to do with frugality and keeping things simple as obviously both sides have a stockpile.

But IMO, the weapon has not lost it's effectiveness and utility on the battlefield in over 70 years of it's existence.

I'm not at all familiar with the military's new 6.8 but wonder how it compares
 
AK

Availability and abundance are certainly factors, in Ukraine and elsewhere. I have read where there could be as many as 100 MILLION AK rifles of all types worldwide produced in the design's 70 year history. Since Ukraine and Russia have a long standing connection (good and bad) since the AK rifle's inception post WWII, there are bound to be many AK's of varying pattern in both countries. Relevant? In simple terms, if you're being shot at by one of the things, it's immediately relevant!

Contemporary is another matter. The rifle is as reliable and durable as it has ever been. For laying down a volume of fire out to say hmm (?) 500 yds, it still performs that task as before. As I see it, the AK's short coming (disregarding the cartridge issue for now) is connected to the platform itself. There are not a lot of options regards accessory attachment on the AK. The side rail addressed optics, sort of, but lights, laser designators and other gear associated with a modern battle rifle have trouble finding a place on an AK or AKM.

Are such attachments necessary.....I dunno, might depend on the type of conflict? I would want a light if I was doing much house to house stuff. If my comrades had night vision, I would want some type of designator and would want them to have one too. Woodline to woodline...I can't say if all that hardware matters. An M4 can adapt, the AK family not so much.

Now, the cartridge......
The US Army's new 6.8 cartridge is at another level when compared to the NATO 5.56 or the Soviet 7.62x39 or later 5.45x39mm. At 6.8x51mm it is a full power round, as compared to what I would term the intermediate power M16/M4/ & AK/AKM cartridges. Consequently, equal amounts ofthe ammo and the weapons that fire it will weigh more than 5.56/M4 combos. There is talk and limited examples of a poly cased cartridge that will offset the the ammunition weight issue.....we will see. The 6.8x51 will have a decidedly flatter trajectory past 500 yds than any of its competitors. Does flatter trajectory and increased range matter, especially versus the load a a US fighter humps these days, I dunno.....?
 
Last edited:
Is the AK still viable? It goes bang very reliably, kills well, and there are literally millions of them and millions of rounds of ammunition in the former Soviet republics. Troops on both sides are familiar with them and if it breaks you just pick up another one. Is it the best thing available? Maybe not, but millions have been killed by "good enough" without being "ideal".
 
It seems that most rifle rounds fired off are suppressive fire. The AK will do just fine at that role. I think most casualties over there are coming from artillery, bombs, or much larger weapons than small arms.
 
If you were paying attention they are using mosins and ww1 era maxim machine guns too. Its about what you have or can get, both gun and ammo wise. Hopefully you have a lot of whats the best and can get more.
 
I think the AK platform excels in conditions where:

1. Shooting distance is under 300 meters
2. Minimal training is available
3. Minimal maintenance is expected

Small arms aren't some kind of magical device. They are useful in support roles for larger weapons systems to keep other intantry at bay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top