[Badger Arms]

I have never been a believer in the AK-47. It's no secret to those who have read my posts that I'm not a big fan of the M-16 either, but that's a whole different can of worms.

What got me started was watching that Discovery Channel "AK vs. M16" show that was talked about in an earlier thread. I was enthralled by watching high-speed video of the AK-47 firing. You could SEE everything shaking and rattling with the recoil. There were numerous harmonics, shakes, torques, rattles, jumps, clanks, etc. Each and every one of these little jolts jumps the rifle off of target and beats the crap out of different assemblies in the gun. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the AK will shoot itself apart. I'm saying that this is NOT the way to design a gun.

The reason? The AK-47 allows the recoil forces to be transferred in several stages and in different directions.

Watch this video first: http://www.bsg-dornier.de/schiessen/filme/hsp/kalashnikov.mpg

1) the recoil of the bullet firing is transferred in a direct line through the bore axis and above the shooters shoulder pushing back.
2) the counter-recoil of the propellant gas pushing the bolt carrier group back this motion being in a line slightly above bore line pushing forward
3) the bolt carrier smacks the rear trunion on the receiver (SOMETIMES!) again transferring its energy in the opposite direction of (2).
4) the bolt carrier jumps up striking the top of the rear sight housing twisting the muzzle up.
5) the action spring accelerates the bolt carrier forward.
6) the bolt carrier assembly smacks into the forward end of the receiver pushing the gun forward in the same axis as (2) again.

Now, things happen too. The rear sight jumps around, the magazine jumps back and forth, the weak hand slips back and forth, etc. That's just the action. These forces torque the barrel, gas block, front sight, and all of the loose rattling parts all over the place. There is NO WAY we can attain accuracy. I’m speaking of accuracy not only in terms of single shots but controllable, predictable bursts that one can effectively keep on target.

What are the solutions? There have been three approaches to minimizing adverse kinetics of full-auto weapons.

1) The M-16 addressed the off-bore-axis problems by utilizing an in-line stock and in-line recoiling. It also addressed the problem of the bolt carrier striking the rear of the receiver through an [eventually] successful buffer system in the stock.

2) Prior to this, the MP43 (Do I have the model right?) solved the problem through the Constant-recoil principle where the bolt carrier doesn't smack anything at the rear. This allowed for a constant force on the shooters shoulder instead of the herky-jerky movement of the subsequent AK-47.

3) Even earlier, many designs utilized the recoiling barrel to spread the forces out over a longer period of time. The M-2 50 caliber and Johnson automatic come to mind.

4) The Russians now have a gun that has a counter-weight system that is very complicated but seems to work.

Some ideas. Why not have the entire action connected loosely to the buttstock. Have two recoil springs. The primary one acting much like the AK-47 return spring except utilizing the constant-recoil principle. The second spring to allow the operating system of the gun to recoil free of the shooters shoulder. This second spring should be stronger and only needs to soften the peak recoil forces. It only needs to travel about an inch at most. Add to this an in-line recoil system and recoiling barrel to minimize disturbance.

The end result is a gun that will stay on target during full-automatic bursts. Rather than a gun that jumps and scatters bullets, we would have a rifle that acted like a laser-beam cutting whatever it was pointing at to shreds. Rather than pointing the burst, we can aim the burst and/or walk the fire onto the target without the gun working against us. What do you think?

[Gabe]

What's the MP43?

The Beretta AR70 and Sig 550 all have the return spring around the op rod. This would make room for some sort of recoil buffer behind the bolt carrier. However, those two rifles have nothing but empty space back there. I wonder why they changed the return spring in the first place.

Here's a relevant article on the "counterpoise" system for ARs. Interesting that it says "constant recoil" only works for open-bolt firing.



http://www.ccfa.com/article.htm

[goalie]

I didn't have any trouble keeping rounds where I wanted them with crappy combat pickups in Kuwait. It's not like you are trying to shoot the National Match course for leg points on full-auto. :rolleyes:

[max popenker]

good points, Badger

but remember, all those features of AK did'n appered for nothing.

the notorious smack of the bolt group against the receiver is the result of over-povered gas drive, required to attain extreme reliability when gun is fouled inside. For some reasons top brass in the russian army didn't liked the SVT/FAL type gas regulators in the hands of the recruit, who sometimes hardly speaks russian and spent most of his 18 years life in the high mountains, watching goats.

the amortisatored butt is a funny thing in the hand-to-hand combat, which is a must requirement for any russian weapon - i can imagine such a gun bouncing off the enemy's head into your own face after the buttsroke (note that soviet field manual officially stated that AK intended to fight enemies "with fire, bayonet and buttstock").

the constant recoil will require a longer receiver (heavier gun), and a spring in the butt (as in case with M16 or MP43/Stg.44 (http://world.guns.ru/assault/as51-e.htm) ) will disallow the side-folding butt versions, required for paras.

the balanced designs, like the AEK-971 (http://world.guns.ru/assault/as34-e.htm) and AK-107/108 (http://world.guns.ru/assault/as07-e.htm) , aren't too complicated, just 3 or 4 details more, than in AK, especially when compared to the gem of the over-engineering, the Nikonov AN-94 (http://world.guns.ru/assault/as08-e.htm).

In general, what i'd like to see is an AK-74M (http://world.guns.ru/assault/as02-e.htm) with polymer recoil buffer and improved safety (Galil style), as well as better ammo tolerances (Russian GI ammo is known for somewhat loose tolerances, resulting in not too good accuracy)

[Nando Aqui]

Badger -

THANK YOU for the information and superb video!

Did you shoot the video?

Alex

[dbshabo]

Mr. Kalashnikov was every bit a design genius as Eugene Stoner. The AK-47 does everything it was desingned to do for the Russian military. It's cheap and easy to manufacture, it is easy to opereate, it will take more abuse than probabally any other standard issue military weapon and still function, and it kills and wounds humans. If you use these weapons in the environment for which they are intended they are quite effective.

Many I have heard say the ergonomics of the weapon suck. If you consider this is a Russian design used by Russian soldiers who would be required to fight in the Russian environment the 'design flaws' aren't flaws at all. The two most common stated flaws I have heard are the short buttstock and the narrow grip. Well if you consider a Russian soldier would be in a heavy coat and wearing thick gloves during the winter time the short stock and narrow grip make perfect sense to me.

I agree with you Badger that the weapon has many design flaws in the perfect world, but this thing wasn't designed for the perfect world but rather the real world. I'm not a fan of these weapons either but I will give credit where credit is due.

Shabo

[Hkmp5sd]

The only thing wrong with *my* AK-47 is it isn't select fire. :)

The problem I have is the metal stock on the Ak and even on my Uzi is they are angled down, instead of in-line as mentioned on the AR as well as the MP5. Regardless of how the gun cycles, not having everything in the frame and stock tranfer the energy horizontally into the shooters shoulder is going to cause muzzle climb on full auto.

[Tamara]

Add to this an ... recoiling barrel to minimize disturbance.

Y'know, I firmly believe that there's a reason that every successful military self-loader on the planet has been gas-operated (with a couple delayed-blowback mutants thrown in...)

[hillbilly]

Oh yes, of course.....it all makes sense now....the AK simply can't be the world's most successful military small arm in the history of military small arms.....

Got it......and Bumblebees cannot fly either, at least according to the laws of physics and all the principles of engineering and aerodynamics........

hillbilly

[kotengu]

Man - that is a GREAT video! I don't suppose anybody has any others like that of other guns in action with the topcovers removed - like an FAL, AR (well - hard to remove the topcover), etc?

[boss_spearman]

we were asked what we thought......i think people get the drizzles at times trying to find \ fix a problem that doesnt exist .

[Kurt]

WHEW!!!!!

The combination of that livin' large title, and subsequent "explanation" sent me scurrying for something stronger than my coffee this fine AM. Of course I gave up that sort of thing up years ago....

:)

[The Silver Bullet 1719]

Solution to the problem? Shoot for combat accuracy, or use the AK-74.

[Kaylee]

Well, first off... we don't get anywhere sticking stubbornly to sixty-year old designs and not listening to new ideas. The Mauser was also the most successful military small arm of its day. But it's day passed. Eventually the AK's will to. No harm in wondering what will replace it. (Getting another superpower to hand 'em out like candy in every third world heckhole might be another story though.) :)

Anyhow.. I tend to think that most of Badger's flaws are indeed problems -- but they were relatively minor problems given Soviet doctrine, and I expect they were consciously accepted to meet the more important --to them-- goal of cheap, easy manufacture. Remember the weapon came right out of WWII, where everyone was hollering "Production, Production" for half a decade. The ability to stamp out three AKs for every M1 or so likely was a contributing factor to the Soviet brass to go with the design as it was.

One last thing.... don't a recoiling barrel make it a PITA to mount a bayonet, due to changing the weight of the bbl? The local museum has a Johnson "tent peg" bayo marking that problem. Solvable problem, of course -- have a full-length barrel sleeve and mount the bayo on that. Of course, THAT leads to the problem of getting mud and crud stuck inside the bbl sleeve during use in dbshabo's Real World. Of course, you could always argue an army doesn't need a bayonet anymore, though I'd bet a next century's TR would come along at the last minute and say "yes you do, kluge on one there." :)

[gun-fucious]

more videos of gun systems in high spped are back up one directory:
http://www.bsg-dornier.de/schiessen/filme/hsp/

i think they all come from a web site i posted earlier for a german high speed camera system

let me look...

[iamkris]

I have to agree with dbshabo above...

I personally don't like the AK but that's more from aesthetics than anything else. Just doesn't do anything for me (now a good FAL, M1, even an SKS is different...personal tastes)

Badger -- Speaking as a former engineer (then I got into a line of work that I could actually make money at), your analysis just doesn't hold up. Not the technical part...that was good...but the design tradeoffs part.

Every good design, prior to actually putting pen to drafting paper, goes through a "What am I trying to achieve" analysis. From what I've read, Kalishnakov was NOT trying to create a weapon that is the highest in accuracy, best in durability and reliability, lowest cost to manufacture, simplest to operate, ease of maintenance, highest rate of fire, etc, etc. In fact, those things are often polar opposites.

I'll just betcha that durability, reliability, cost and maintenance were preferenced over everything else. With that, you make your choices and everything else is what it is. End of story. It's called practical product development.

Cool video and analysis though. You obviously know your stuff.

[Bostonterrier97]

That was a very interesting video. Prior to watching the video..I thought that one of the main reasons for the lack of accuracy in the AK was the thin barrel, poor trigger, and short sight radius.

Clearly the Gas system is overpowered and could use a gas regulator.

As far as the rear sight jumping upwards...it appears to me that this is caused by an large wave impulse traveling through the gas tube and then transferring to the rear sight.

By moving the rear sight to the rear of the receiver (as on the Galil and Valmet) this problem could be alieviated.

The Bolt Carrier does indeed appear to have some vertical motion however the upward motion of the bolt carrier doesn't coincide with the rear sight's upward motion.

[Keith]

Interesting discussion.

I'll have to side with the folks who are defending the AK. You can't lose sight of the goal when designing a firearm (or any product!). The goals here were (apparently); reliability, cheap manufacture, reliability and... reliability. No gun is worth a damnif it won't run in muck and sand and the freezing winters of Russia.
Kalashnikof was a combat veteran and a mechanic, not some ordnance department theorist with a wall full of university degrees. He knew what he wanted.
You don't need durability if the rifle is cheap to manufacture (hence the metal stampings).
You don't need extreme accuracy either. Combat ranges are generally well under 200 yards, and any AK will hit a man-size target at that range. If you want to kill someone further away, you call over a sniper, a heavy machine gun or the artillery.

If you "tighten" the rifle up, the costs rise accordingly. And those tighter specs mean it won't run in combant - read that Miller/Lynch thread about M16's that wouldn't function in Iraq. I don't think the average Iraqi soldier is overly fussy about cleaning his weapon, but he doesn't have to be. His weapon will function in combat conditions and that single fact makes it a great design!


Keith

[boss_spearman]

keith..pretty well said. about the only thing i disagree with is that while you may not need durability out of the AK..you get it anyway.

[Andrew Wyatt]

I tend to think the almost nonexistent sights and horribly placed safety are the major flaws with the gun.

[Badger Arms]

Mr. Kalashnikov was every bit a design genius as Eugene Stoner.BAH! I’ve heard this too many times. I’m of the opinion that Kalashnikov was a Soviet fabrication. They took a war hero with mechanical and organizational skills and put him in charge of a project. That project merely refined and redesigned an existing German design with elements from other existing weapons most notably the M-1 CARBINE! The AK-47 is nothing more than the StG-44 reworked and refined with a larger cartridge. It’s painfully obvious when you look at the two and examine the history behind the AK’s development. The AK is a prolific weapon that deserves a place in history but let’s give credit where it’s due. The bolt system is nearly pure Garand. The bolt carrier itself appears to be a reworked StG-44 carrier. The layout of the weapon is pure StG-45 as is the shape and location of the sights, the geometry of the gas piston. Heck even the reinforcement ribs on the magazine are similar.

The Soviet team went so far as to copy the design concept of the 7.92x33 cartridge as they did with the 30 Mauser (now 30 Tokarev), the 9mm Ultra (reborn as the 9x18 Makarov), the .223, 50BMG, and probably others. Well there's nothing wrong with that and the Genius was in the execution, sure. The Russians were on the Receiving end of the original assault rifle and saw its effectiveness. Of course they'd want a gun just like it.

Y'know, I firmly believe that there's a reason that every successful military self-loader on the planet has been gas-operated (with a couple delayed-blowback mutants thrown in...)Not true. I’ll list several: M-9 Beretta, M-1911, M-11 Sig, the M-2 BMG, and that’s just current issue American stuff. Going back we see the other successful Browning Machineguns as well as the Johnson 1941 which was ‘almost’ as good as the Garand. The reason more of these haven’t been designed is because there are workable systems out there that dominate the market and are, frankly, better weapons than what recoiling barrels have offered us. I’d like to see the better mousetrap built and ignoring a concept because it hasn’t been fielded that many times lately is counterproductive.

Oh yes, of course.....it all makes sense now....the AK simply can't be the world's most successful military small arm in the history of military small arms.....If you read my initial post, you will note that I didn’t say that the AK is a bad weapon, only that there is something wrong with it and that problem has solutions. I’m exploring options and alternatives here, not fishing for sarcasm.

Well, first off... we don't get anywhere sticking stubbornly to sixty-year old designs and not listening to new ideas… don't a recoiling barrel make it a PITA to mount a bayonetWell, now, the bayonet is a concept older than 60 years. I think it’s time came and went with the last bayonet charge around 50 years ago in Korea. I’ll admit that butt-stroking still has its place though.

From what I've read, Kalishnakov was NOT trying to create a weapon that is the highest in accuracy, best in durability and reliability, lowest cost to manufacture, simplest to operate, ease of maintenance, highest rate of fire, etc, etc.True, and I agree with you. These things are indeed difficult to accomplish and the Kalashnikov TEAM did a great job of ADAPTING the German and American designs to their own excellent battle rifle.

Alright, everybody, read my next post for some morning-clarity background.

Note: Edited to replace "StG-45" with "StG-44" and to replace "Luger" with "Mauser"

[Nando Aqui]

I don't like the AK's; I like the HK90's.

With that off of my chest, I do give credit where credit is due: Whether we may agree on how good or not-so-good the AK is in concept and execution, it most definitely got the job done, efficiently and inexpensively.

And as I submitted earlier this morning, the video is excellent...and makes me wonder:

If Kalishnakov had been able to see such a video, don't you think he would have recognized a few flaws and made a few changes to improve his design?

Alex

[Badger Arms]

Why should anybody try to build a better gun? Well, because one frankly doesn’t exist and hasn’t for years. The balanced recoiling automatic rifle exists in only two current examples I’m aware of. There’s the Russian design that is said to be too complicated – and I tend to agree with that statement. There’s also the Ultimax 100 light machinegun.

The concept is the same as the fire hose. You point a fire hose at something, pull the lever, and water comes out. Initially, that water pushes you back and the front of hose up therefore shifting the spray all over the place. The AK-47 and, to a lesser degree, most other modern designs operate on the principle of opening and closing the lever hundreds of times a minute therefore the hose is in a constant state of jumping around. You just can’t hit what you’re aiming at that way. I chose the AK-47 because I saw the video and it illustrated my points, not because I wanted to pick it apart.

Wouldn’t it be better to have a bullet hose that operated in the balanced stage of the fire hose? That is, if you could point the stream of bullets at individual leaves on a tree, soldiers in a distant formation, or shadows in a grove you think might hide the enemy? You could have the advantages of the accuracy and firepower in one package. The German MG-42 (also with a recoiling barrel) had such accuracy and wreaked havoc on American and British troops.

What I listed were possible solutions and ones that had already been tried and tested.

BTW: Garand had access to high-speed video of his rifles and was able to examine them in detail and use this information to refine his design to the point they were refined when they entered production.

[Kaylee]

First -- I really like where you're coming from. The goal you're shooting for makes perfect sense.


However, I have to admit I think it's a little disingenuous to compare pistols and heavy support weapons to issue rifles on the recoiling barrel thing. The manner in which they're used are entirely different, and some of the potential disadvatages of a recoiling barrel -- mostly durability/reliability concerns when 19 year olds are rolling in the mud -- don't come in to play. An M2 stays mounted on a rig. A pistol doesn't have a long barrel sticking out that can act as a lever to bugger up the action if it's torqued.. which it will be. Or partially cycle the action and cause a misfeed at a Very Bad Time if it bangs muzzle first into the ground.. which it will. Or be subject to stoppages with a barrel recoiling inside a forearm sleeve if said sleeve gets filled with gunk... which it will.

Not that these aren't solveable problems, again.. just that saying an idea will work on a rifle 'cause it works on a 1911 or M2 is apples and oranges.

On the bayonet thing... no argument that it's an old concept. If you want to argue that it's totally irrelevent anymore, I might even be persuaded to agree with you. Doesn't change the fact that old habits die hard, and it's gonna be a tough sell to the folks actually putting up the money for production. Heck, folks have been making the "bayonets are obselete" argument since the original '03, right? :)

besides, if we peon civilians can't have bayo lugs on our rifles anymore, it *must* mean they're good for something delightfully dangerous :neener:

All that said... I'm curious to see what alternatives you come up with. I know another guy doing R&D who's considering similar principles -- might well result in a great design! :)

-K

[mrming]

Hate to interrupt.

Ok, so the ak series has a overpowered gas system which beats the devil out of the bolt & carrier.

So, why hasn't anyone created a aftermarket gas regulator/tube thats just a drop in replacement? Not saying it'd fix the basic design assumptions of the AK series, but I bet some people would rather like not feeling the impact.

[gun-fucious]

ding!
http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=382850
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31564

[Keith]

Well, I certainly didn't suggest that Kalashnikof was a genius! He was better than a genius - he was a pragmatist!

He (and his team, if you wish) took the best ideas around and incorporated them in one rifle. It's a mistake not to give Kalashnikof his due. He was a combat vet and he KNEW what was needed.
He didn't have any illusions about the need for pinpoint accuracy or elegant and clever design innovations.
If "X" amount of force was required to drive the bolt rearward - double it.
If a milled part had to be "X" thick and required "X" amount of hours to machine - substitute a stamped metal part twice as thick.
If close tolerances were difficult and expensive to achieve in mass production - loosen the tolerances, and reap the rewards of a more reliable rifle.

And when you think about it, there isn't a whole lot of USEFUL innovations you can apply to a self-loading rifle. It's all been done, and that was true in 1945 as well. You can change things simply for the sake of change, but you can't really improve on an aspect of the design unless you are willing to sacrifice some other aspect. More moving parts means more things to fail. Tighter tolerances means a loss of reliability when the rifle gets dirty - and it will get dirty!

I'd trade a dozen Stoners for one Kalashnikof!

Keith

[Correia]

Badger, I agree in theory. Take a look at the links Max provided, the AK 100 system takes into account some of the things you talked about, and it is not as complicated as the AN94. It uses a balanced system that pushes a weight forward over the gas system during recoil. Simple and elegant. I would love to try on out, it seems like a pretty good compromise to controllability with out having to deal with the problems related to a recoiling barrel.

However in practice, for all of us non full-auto types, a high quality AK can be extreamly effective under rapid fire, and very accurate and controlable out to 200 yards. I shoot my Vepr K in 3 gun matches all of the time, and I'll hold my own against anybody. All of that fish flopping in the high speed video really isn't noticeable when you are actually using the gun.

I would still love to see Saiga import a sporterized AK100 series gun. I would snatch it up in a heart beat just to see if it really did work better. :)

[BigG]

:eek: I'd trade a dozen Stoners for one Kalashnikof! :eek:

I'm a pragmatist, too. I'd SELL the dozen Stoners, buy 1 Kalashnikov, and keep the change. ;)

[NevadaPistolero]

I dont think Ive ever heard of anyones AK falling apart from being "shot to death" or having to replace the internals for being "beat to death". I think you can find fault with every FA gun ever made....give me an AK anyday and at least I know it will go bang each and every trigger pull. Some of what you said about the AK might be applicable only on full auto weapons...we only get semis here so I dont think there really is a problem, and if they were FA it still wouldnt worry me.

[Hazwaste]

It's too inexpensive: Allows low-income folks to have an effective homeland defense rifle.

It's too reliable: Always works, doesn't break. Forces me to shoot too much ammo and to have too much fun, instead of waiting for it to come back from the shop.

Ammo's too cheap: Gives me a bruise in the shoulder when I shoot 300 rounds per day.

We can nitpick the AK until the cows come home, but let's face it, it's a 50+ year old design that's still in active use with a large portion of the world's armed forces. Can't be that bad, right? :rolleyes:

[Badger Arms]

I'm thinking that some of you are missing the point. I agree that the AK is reliable. I agree that looser tolerances will result in a more reliable mechanism. I'm aware that brow-beating a mechanism into working and then overbuilding it results in a gun that can withstand a nuclear blast at ground zero. The problem is, once you get it there, will it hit what you want it to hit? My criticism of the AK lies completely with its ability to hit what it's shooting at on full-auto.

I believe that a reliable gun can be made that is much more effective than anything available today. A full-auto weapon with a balanced recoil system will allow infantry to AIM their bursts and HIT what they are aiming at. I'll admit that the subject line was merely a hook and using the AK-47 as an example was partially a ploy to get people to read the thread. Don't read into what I've said and think that I'm advocating a clockwork mechanism that you can't pick up without breaking.

Kalashnikov's team took working principles from at least two weapons and combined them with Russian loose-tolerance, loose fit philosophies to come up with cheap and reliable bullet hose. In Soviet mass-armor attack philosophy, this was a perfect gun.

There are workable, simple, and reliable concepts out there that can be combined into a weapon that can match the AK's reliability and yet can hit with the accuracy of the MG-42 on full-auto. What's wrong with boiling these down to an optimized weapon? Wouldn't you like a full-auto rifle that you can aim with a scope and carry on your shoulder all day long?

The Advanced Combat Rifle trials of the late 80's attempted to better a principle of hit probability. The goal was to double the probability of a soldier hitting his target over the control weapon, the M-16. My opinion is that they did this the wrong way. The four designs used duplex ammunition, caseless ammo fired in three-round bursts, and flechette ammo. None of the concepts utilized the constant recoil principle. The HK G11 is close, but misses the point. They attempted to lower recoil, they attempted to delay it, or shoot more projectiles with the same recoil impulse. Why not just live with the recoil and tune it like a musical instrument?

Here's the G-11 in full-auto: http://www.hkpro.com/video/g11-1-150.rm

I spent 10 years as an Aircraft Structures mechanic. One thing I noticed when riveting might help some understand. Riveters use bursts of about 10 to 15 hits on the air-hammer (rivet gun) to shoot a proper rivet. The first two or three hits allow the riveter to get into a tempo and finalize the position of the bucking bar. No riveter will be successful unless he uses the art of tuning the bucking bar with the rivet gun to attain a comfortable rhythm. The same is true of a gun that shoots bullets. The smoother the hammering cycle, the better the rivet. The smoother the firing cycle of a gun, the more accurate it will be.

Rifles are often 'tuned' with weights on the muzzle to attain a 'sweet spot' where the rifle bullet will leave the barrel at the same point with each shot. The same can be done with a full-auto firing cycle. The bullets can be made to leave the barrel at the same point in the recoil cycle with little effort.

Again, the bolt will recoil and, instead of striking the rear of the receiver, it will be gradually slowed by a long recoil spring that never fully compresses but rather halts and is gradually pushed forward. The carrier stops on the forward end as the gun is fired thus partially attenuating the recoil. The sharp spike in recoil can be counter-acted by the secondary spring buffer and the bolt carrier again gets gradually slowed and its course reversed to fire another shot. It seems somewhat difficult to get across what is happening in the cycle, but in my head it works beautifully. Not just in my head either, production infantry weapons have used these principles, but the idea has never taken off.

[JackStraw]

Don't believe everything you see on TV.

You really need to shoot more and see which one works for you.

It's not the gun it's the guidance sys that is the true variable.

Start shooting 3 gun comps and you will find that the most iportant thing with any rifle is that it works 100% and that particular rifle works for you as far as ergonomics, reloads, weight and swing. etc.

I like a 20in ar HBAR turned dowm under the handguards to a2 specs with a full stock and a2 rear sight with a a1 front. It works for me and that is what counts.

Realistically most domestic rifle fights are within 100yrd. Try shooting out to 300 yrd sometime with iron sights. The most important factors in a rifle then are trigger and sights.

"There are the experienced riflemen and then there are the armchair commandos." -Anon

[Keith]

Hmmm, your concept might actually work (what do I know?) in an engineering sense, but I don't think you're grasping the tactical and practical realities fully.

Battle rifles are not meant to be "bullet hoses" like squad machine guns. Your MG 42 (for example) had to have the barrel changed every 300 rounds - that's about every 20 seconds at the 900 rpm rate of fire, and required a crew of at least two, and usually three men to handle the ammo and extra barrels. etc.
A battle rifle is meant to be fired in two or three round bursts and any attempt to turn it into a bullet hose would find a man out of ammo or with a ruined rifle in very short order.

No doubt, you could overcome many of the engineering obstacles in some fashion, but what would the cost be? How heavy would such a rifle have to be for a man to control it in extended full auto fire? How much ammo could a man carry? How many extra barrels?

And why? The current small unit doctrine calls for a heavy gun as a base to fire on the enemy position, while the men with light weapons to manuever to the flanks of the enemy. Now you've got everyone weighted down with ammo, barrels and heavier weapons - how do they maneuver?

Keith

[Badger Arms]

Keith:

Getting a little more realistic, the rate of fire can be under 500rpm. The MG-42 was a sustained base-of fire weapon, not an assault rifle. By way of comparrison, it's about the most accurate full-auto weapon out there being capable of firing decent 'groups' on full-auto. The barrel and gas mechanism heats up quickly on this gun because of the rate of fire, not because of controlability.

And I doubt that the current doctrine is the correct or best doctrine. If every infantryman were to have an M-249, the squad would be much more effective, much less mobile, correct? Full-auto has its place in the M-16 now, but this is limited to ambushes, suppressive fire, and they like. The reason? The M-16 isn't controllable enough in full auto to reliably engage point targets. If an infantryman can be assured of a hit on a point target at 300 yards with full-auto, he'd better darned well be shooting full-auto. Semi-auto engagement would require several aimed shots. Why not use the first few rounds to get in a rhythm and then walk the rounds onto the target like an machinegunner does? Sure, we can't expect the assault rifle to take the place of a machinegun, but we can expect it to perform short-burst engagements of, say, 10-15 rounds at a time. An effective ballanced recoil weapon will allow him to engage whereas he'd need a SAW under current doctrine to accomplish the same task.

There is a paradigm shift that must occur. Conventional wisdom would tell us that the infantryman will be overburdoned by ammo and it's wasteful to shoot full-auto. I've heard this before. It delayed adoption of the rifle repeating rifle, of the semi-automatic rifle, of the M-16, of the 30 round magazine for the M-16. At every step of the way, nay-sayers were complaining that conservation of ammo was important. In the end, they were right when it came to spray-and-pray tactics used with the AK-47 and M-16. The Germans, however, utilized a squad concept where the light machinegun (MG-34 and later MG-42) formed the backbone of a squad with the other infantry there to carry ammo and support the LMG. Their effectiveness casued a switch in thinking where firepower was thought to be the answer. I'd argue that it's not firepower alone, but concentrated, accurate bursts. Later in the war, the Assault Rifle was born of the desire to make every infantry soldier a Machinegunner. Their FIRST EFFORT was a ballanced recoil weapon. In fact, the reputation it got for controllability was as much due to it's constant recoil bolt-carrier as it was due to the weight of the rifle.

Thinking in modern Western and Eastern tactical terms limits us to the weapons we have today. We can, however, restructure the infantry to be more effective. My vision is that roughly two out of every three soldiers carry an assault rifle. The third should be a Grenadier (equiped with a grenade launcher or launching attachment), a Machinegunner, or a designated marksman. My optimum squad would be six riflemen (with ballanced-recoil guns of course:)), two grenadiers, one machinegunner, one designated marksman, and a squad leader who also carries a Balanced assault rifle. All of the weapons can be versions of the same gun. Yeah, Gene Stoner thought the same thing and look where it got him! Use a heavy barrel for the LMG and Marksman rifles and just strap a launcher to the Grenadier's standard rifle. All guns fire the same ammo from the same gun and magazines interchange. What a concept.

There is no logistical reason why we cannot do this. The Russians even have a similar squad concept with light automatic rifles taking the same magazines and essentially a heavier AK design.

One final note: You say battle rifles are not meant to be bullet hoses. Why not? If we can do it logistically, and heck, the Nazi's did, then what is keeping us from doing it?

[Tamara]

Not true. I’ll list several: M-9 Beretta, M-1911, M-11 Sig, the M-2 BMG, and that’s just current issue American stuff.

To echo what Kaylee said, we're talking about rifles, not pistols or tripod-mounted LMG's. ;)

[Correia]

Well I don't want to be a naysayer. If it works better than everything else then it should be a big hit.

Now the hard part is building it. :) Go for it! :D

[Keith]

You say battle rifles are not meant to be bullet hoses. Why not?

Well, to grasp the most important reason (among several); weight. An infantryman could simply not carry enough ammo to sustain a firefight of more than a few minutes. And remember, he'd also have to carry a heavier weapon, along with the extra barrels that any sustained fire weapon would have to employ. Even at a rate of 500 rounds per minute, you'd still need to swap barrels before very long. And all that weight along with his regular kit - I don't think so!

It isn't conservation of ammo, it's about still having ammo five minutes after the fight breaks out!

Now, I can envision special groups operating out of Bradley's or something like that. The vehicles could carry all the spam and beans, and leave the trooper free to just worry about his ammo and weapons. So... maybe it would work in a fully mechanized recon outfit or something. The troopers could dump out and become a very formidable base, while the vehicles did the end run... I'm no infantryman, but that strikes me as a workable tactic - and probably a very formidable one since the vehicles have considerably more speed than a squad of foot soldiers, not to mention firepower and armor! That would be a pretty scary combination - a hundred or so soldiers dumped in your lap, all armed with accurate sustained fire weapons, while a dozen Bradleys spin out on each of your flanks...

Keith

Keith

[AK103K]

Until Badger Arms gets his up and running and accepted, perhaps we should just learn how to work what we have now instead of bitching about them. Its been my experience, its usually not the weapon thats lacking, reguardless of who makes it. :)

[Gabe]

One issue I have with recoiling barrels is the possible degradation of accuracy in semiauto fire. Otherwise, I'm all for reducing felt recoil. There are quite a number of solutions that don't require major rework. Look at the aftermarket Counterpoise kit for AR-15, I remember it was designed by the same guys that did the Ultimax 100 constant recoil machinegun.

Also, the Japanese have a low initial impluse piston on their Type-89 rifles. The front part of the piston is smaller in diameter. The idea being by the time gas makes its way down the tube, it has already exerted some force on the front, starting it in motion.

So far as ammo weight is concerned. We should really lobby for aluminium alloy casing like what they use on aircraft guns. Expensive, but if you really want to save weight. . .

[OEF_VET]

Yep, the AK is inaccurate when fired full-auto. However, full-auto isn't used for anything near accurate fire. Fully automatic fire is properly used for grazing fire or spraying a beaten zone. It's also great for causing an enemy gunner to take cover, such as when you're reacting to a close-contact ambush or trying to break contact with a superior force. As long as the AK can spray hundreds of rounds per minute in the general vicinity of where it's aimed, then it's achieving the purpose of firing it on full-auto. If you want sub-MOA accuracy, try a designated sniper rifle. If you want to accomplish 'one-shot, one-kill', an AK will do so, within its' range limitations.

Anyone who expects accuracy when firing full-auto, out of a combat weapon, in a combat environment, is in the midst of a pipe-dream. It's an unnecessary waste of ammo. If you're shooting accurately, one or two rounds should be sufficient. There is no need to fire full-auto at a single, man-sized target.

Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[Marko Kloos]

By way of comparrison, it's about the most accurate full-auto weapon out there being capable of firing decent 'groups' on full-auto. The barrel and gas mechanism heats up quickly on this gun because of the rate of fire, not because of controlability.

Uh, the MG42 and MG3 do not have a gas mechanism. They utilize the roller-delayed blowback principle.

[Dr.Rob]

Stg 44 and Ak the same rifle?Now way a german would design a rifle with 4 moving parts held toegther with wire springs and rivets. It's far too uncomplicated.

Neat video though.. you'll also notice with all thet flopping around of bolt carrier and rear sight the operator is holding the rifle pretty much in the same place.

[jrhead75]

will it hit what you want it to hit? If you are talking about a human sized target at 200 meters or so...yes.

It unerringly does what it was designed to do...always!

[Badger Arms]

Uh, the MG42 and MG3 do not have a gas mechanism. They utilize the roller-delayed blowback principle.Speaking on the MG42, it does have a gas-assist cup at the muzzle which will overrheat to the point of glowing before the barrel will overheat. It's fun to watch. While not a gas piston in the traditional sense, the Germans felt it necessary to increase the reliability of the weapon under adverse conditions. Also because they didn't so much trust the roller lock system to completely do the job. The end result is that the entire system had a much higher rate of fire on the order of 900-1200rpm depending on many factors.

Either this is true, or I'm slipping. Haven't been that wrong in years.

OEF_VET:

You are right on with current doctrine. Current doctrine is wrong though, guaranteed. Something can and will replace it. In fact, machinegun doctrine is nearly a century old and still evolves. What would be wrong with a gun that can shoot 3MOA groups on full-auto? How about putting half of a magazine into a pie plate at 300 meters? The quantum leap in firepower is possible.

To echo what Kaylee said, we're talking about rifles, not pistols or tripod-mounted LMG's.The Johnson 1941 rifle comes to mind. While not as good overall as the Garand, it was a substitute standard and was fielded by the Marines, I believe. Some still swear by the Johnson. The LMG version was highly controllable. It fired from closed-bolt semi or open bolt on full-auto and was reputed to have excellent controlability.

Keith:

Yes, the gun will heat up, but in practice, they heat up rather quickly anyhow with bursts and full-auto strings. The same argument was made against full-auto fire for the M-14 and M-16. In practice, soldiers tend to swing the selector to full-auto anyways. Why not give them what they want?

Now the hard part is building it.Well, now, I'm not FN here! But know that the gun has already been made. The FG-42 had the recoiling stock, Melvin Johnson had a workable recoiling barrel, the Ultimax 100 has a constant-recoiling spring, and we can get Jimmy Carter in to negotiate a peace with all of the died-in-the-wool defenders of the AK and AR weapons. What we need is a hacksaw, some super glue, a few host weapons, a case of beer, and maybe a rubber band or two and we'll have this thing built tonight!;)

[bad_dad_brad]

My favorite THR catagory is the Rifle Country. Most eclectic and interesting as the rifle is the ultimate in hand held weapons sans a 40mm grenade launcher or Cap't Kirk's phaser.

That video was really interesting by the way.

This subject certainly has been discussed many times at great lengths.

I have an AK a SAR1 - love it, kick it around, have fun, seems to always shoot, and I never seem to have to clean that Romanian b*tch.

I have a Mini-14 Ranch type. Well, I can't say I love her, but she is a capable and accurate weapon as long as you don't shoot too much too fast. And for god's sake you better clean the thing after every shooting or that carbon build up will really start to affect accuracy.

But I really am in love with my AR15, a Bushy 16" A2 Shorty. She handles wonderfuly, is quite amazingly accurate for a semi-auto, or bolt action for that matter, and as long as you maintain her, she is very reliable. Heck, what women worth her salt isn't high maintenance? Charlene is my AR15's name.

But seriously ladies and germs. The AK47 is a highly effective third world rifle. She is ugly, low maintenance, fat, and squirms around. Sure she does not satisfy in the looks department, but she is always willing.

I have oft read that the evolution of the assault rifle has reached it's pinnacle with the current breed, AR, VEPR, GALIL, H&K caseless, etc. I believe that is true, and so our debates sometimes seem silly as todays weapons are quite good. Whatever our soldiers will carry in the future, if indeed we field soldiers instead of robots, will be a quantum leap in technology.

[goon]

The AK is definitely not a match peice.
Factor in the slop in the action, the loose tolerances and the less than perfect ammo that you generally shoot out of them, and you have a gun that is only really good out to around 250 meters.
Yes, you might have a good one, or be a good shot, or be lucky and be able to hit something farther away than that, but for practical purposes, that is what you have.
But you do have reliability.
You can slather the thing with mud, dirt, sand, fouling and rust, and it will keep on shooting.
That is what makes it a good weapon.

BTW- Anyone who has ever shot a VEPR with good ammo can tell you that an AK can be accurate.

[clint1911a1]

I think that all the AK spinoffs and derivatives is something of a testament to its sound design, i.e.; Israeli Galil, Finnish Valmet, South African R-4,
Czech CZ-2000, Hungarian AMD-65, Indian Insas, Iraqi Tabuk, Polish Tantal, Swedish FFV-890C, and Chinese Type-56 just to name a few.:cool:

[jrhead75]

Bad_dad...I'm a SAR-1 owner myself. It's my SHTF weapon, and a good shooter. Imagine that...an assault weapon that's good from 300 meters in... who'da thunkit? ;)

20 million or so angry commies can't be wrong...can they? :D :D :neener:

[Kaylee]

20 million or so angry commies can't be wrong...can they?


You mean... aside from buying Communism in the first place, right? ;)

[Destructo6]

It's clearances that M. Kalashnikov increased, not necessarily tolerances.

Clearance is the amount of space between two mating parts.

Tolerances is how close those parts are made to the print's specs.

For instance, a punch going through a die may have a width of .9950" +0" -.005" because it needs .005" clearance minimum to make it through the 1.000" die.

It is not an oxymoron to say you have tight tolerances and increased clearances.

[Badger Arms]

Actually, that's what I said and that's what I meant:Kalashnikov's team took working principles from at least two weapons and combined them with Russian loose-tolerance, loose fit philosophies to come up with cheap and reliable bullet hose.The tolerances had to be loose because peasants were expected to build the thing. The fit had to be loose to allow for reliability. You can't have third-world slave labor meeting 1/1,000" tolerances on batches of hundreds-of-thousands of weapons and expect to be successful.

[max popenker]

Badger, what ya smoked when wrote that?
AK-47 is nothing more than the StG-45 reworked and refined with a larger cartridge
the StG-45 has NOTHING to do with AK! AT ALL! It was the Mauser late-war design, that latter evolved into the CETME and Heckler-Koch family of rifles, with roller-delayed blowback system, developed by Ludvig Vorglimler

If you meant StG-44, how in the hell you can convert this into AK? see.
a) The receiver designs are completely different: StG-44 receiver is open from the rear and below, with separate trigger unit, with pistol grip, hinged to the receiver. AK receiver is open from the top, with trigger unit mounted directly into receiver
b) gas system. long piston stroke both (at keast, found something similar :cool: ).
c) locking system - tilting bolt in StG-44, severely modified Garand-type bolt in AK. Nothing similar at all.
d) return spring: in the detachable butt in StG-44, inside the receiver and hollowed-out rear part of the gas piston in AK. Spring unit design also entirely different
e) magazine housing: MP-40 style in StG-44 (latter copied to M16 =), totally different on AK.

AK is indeed an amalgam of previously known designs, but none of those came from herr Hugo Schmeisser, the author of StG-44

Some other mistake, also:
30 Luger (now 30 Tokarev)
The 7.62x25mm Tokarev is a copy of .30 Mauser, not .30 Luger (7.62x22mm). Soviets bought large numbers of C96 "Bolo" Mausers in 1920s, and were so impressed with its properties, so retained this decent cartridge for TT and latter submachine guns.

[Badger Arms]

If you meant StG-44Well, no. I didn't have the books in front of me and I was just trying to wing the points from memory. Memory didn't serve me that well this time. I meant neither the MP43/StG-44 nor did I mean the StG-45(m). The gun that I pictured was the MKb42(H). The constant recoil system in this gun was dropped in favor or a more conventional system and a bow to semi-automatic capability. Strange move in my opinion.
The receiver designs are completely different: StG-44 receiver is open from the rear and below, with separate trigger unit, with pistol grip, hinged to the receiver. AK receiver is open from the top, with trigger unit mounted directly into receiverIn reality, the AK-47 (prototype) and AKM rifles have receivers that are opened at the rear and then closed off with a trunion. The internals were moved inside the larger receiver of the AK-47 due to simplification of tooling. It's much quicker and easier to mill dies for the AK-47 than it would have been with the overcomplicated StG-44 from which it was based. I'd have to see the internals. Do you have any pictures of the internals of the StG-44? Anyhow, the redesign involved unifying many the assemblies and therefore simplifying design and manufacture drastically
locking system - tilting bolt in StG-44, severely modified Garand-type bolt in AK. Nothing similar at all.Yep, that's the Garand/M-1 Carbine influence I was speaking about.
magazine housing: MP-40 style in StG-44 (latter copied to M16 =), totally different on AK.This, too, was part of the receiver unification. Take three major subassemblies and make them into one very simple assembly and a receiver cover.
The 7.62x25mm Tokarev is a copy of .30 Mauser, not .30 Luger (7.62x22mm). Yep, got me on that one. I get the 30 Mauser and 30 Luger confused all the time.

I'm of the opinion that the firm denials from Kalashnikov and other Soviets is a direct result of nationalist pride. I don't think that anybody would argue that the StG-44 was at the very least the inspiration for the AK-47 and the 7.62x39 was inspired by the 8mm K. Why is it that some would deny the obvious lineage of the StG-44 when speaking about the AK-47? There's nothing wrong with that. The US freely admits it's M-60 was directly descended from the MG-42 and FG-42 along with influences from other existing weapons. Heck, both the Soviet and US space programs were deeply rooted in German research and, later, expatriated German research. When I read and listen to Kalashnikov, it was HIS design and HIS ideas. Bah. I'd be more than happy to be proven wrong, but Soviet history is on my side of this argument. There is a long history of deifying politicaly correct individuals without regard to their acutal accomplishments for the purposes of role-modeling. Heroes of the Soviet Union seem to me to be very important... more important than truth and reality. Unfortunately, we'll never know.
Badger, what ya smoked when wrote that?Hellfire... I only smoke hellfire.:evil: Filtered, of course with a touch of menthol. ;)

[Badger Arms]

Oh, crap. I've been proven right by none other than the VPC:

http://www.vpc.org/studies/hosefive.htm

I'm about to get violently ill.

[Destructo6]

Here's the closest I could find on a strip-down STG44:

http://world.guns.ru/assault/mp43_strip.jpg

Wasn't the AK's cartridge, the M43, adopted in 1943? That would place it in use a year before the debut of the STG's 7.92x33 cartridge, making the argument that the former was based on the later somewhat anachronistic.

BTW, Badger, that last post wasn't necessarily directed at you. It's not uncommon for some to use "clearance" and "tolerance" interchangeably.

[max popenker]

Well, forgive my far from ideal English, but i see a distinctive difference between "Inspired by" and "copied from".

AK was by some part INSPIRED by the sucess of the Mkb/Stg idea (by the way, i think that MKb - Mashinenkarabiner - Machine Carbine is a more correct term, than a Styurmgewehr/Assault rifle, devised by not less than the Hitler itself.)

But it is no way that AK was COPIED from Stg.44, as well as Makarow PM was not copied after the Walther PP. Inspired - yes, copied - no way.

As for intermediate cartridges. Many countries worked on this concept before WW2. First version of the Soviet intermediate cartridge was made in 1943, but it gradually evolved into its present shape by 1947.

I suggest anyone interested to read excellent article by Anthony Williams, ASSAULT RIFLES AND THEIR AMMUNITION: HISTORY AND PROSPECTS (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm)

And about Mikhail Kalashnikov itself. Of cause, he was propaganda-made man. AK-47 was designed and especially refined into its AKM form by many and many people, with hundreds improvements suggested by others than MTK.
The worst thiong about M.T.K. is that he became the "authority" in small arms, forming some sort of "Kalashnikov lobby", that tried to block anything that went out of factory/design bueau other than IzhMash, M.T.K. and AK-47 "home".

There were plenty of much better designs, especially in 1959 and 1974 trials, when AKM and Ak-74 were respectively adopted. But, in both cases, Kalashnikov designs were preferred by the army top brass on the basis of familiarity (almost the same as with M14 vs FAL in US trials, i believe)

[Badger Arms]

Gotcha. The adoption dates for the 7.92x33mm Kurz and 7.62x39mm were 1941 and 1943 respectively. The Russians had been on the receiving end of early MKb-42 rifles and their devastating, portable fire. I'm not entirely sure the Russians were able to field any rifles in that caliber during the war, though.

[Badger Arms]

I never said copied, but that is a semantics issue. I said reworked. It's clear to me from the layout of the weapon that it is derivative... that is when the Kalashnikov team designed their weapon, they used the StG-44 as a model. They ditched those things that didn't work well like the tilting bolt and modular receiber. They added things from other Russian guns like the SVT-40 (Recoil spring, sight, etc.) and the SKS and built this around an innovation (rework) of the Garand twin-lug bolt, locking extension, and cam raceway.

I apologize for arguing about English and proper word use. The AK-47 was, as I have stated earlier, DERIVED from the MP-43/StG-44 with elements of other weapons and a distinctly Soviet flare of simplicity and economy of manufacture. I am sorry if I implied that it was copied, it was not.

While this isn't a pistol discussion, I will agree with you that the Makarov is most definitely NOT a copy of the Walther PPK. I much prefer the Russian design and the 9mm Ultra / 9x18 concept is perfection in a military sidearm if you ask me. The only complaint I have with the Makarov is the tiny sights, but these were common when the gun was adopted.

[Badger Arms]

There were plenty of much better designs, especially in 1959 and 1974 trials, when AKM and Ak-74 were respectively adopted. But, in both cases, Kalashnikov designs were preferred by the army top brass on the basis of familiarity (almost the same as with M14 vs FAL in US trials, i believe)Well said. I think we'd be able to settle our differences and make a working firearm in about a year whereas governments may never get it right.

[max popenker]

I'm not entirely sure the Russians were able to field any rifles in that caliber during the war, though.

Soviet Army fielded at least several thousands SKS carbines during early 1945 against Germans as a troops live trials.

By the way, Yugoslavs officially used Stg.44 as a paratrooper weapons until 1981 or so, then replacet it with M.64 and M.70 AK clones.

[Kaylee]

So... why the change from the tilting to the rotating bolt? What did they gain?

[Badger Arms]

Tilting vs. Rotating bolts. One you make on lathes and screw machines, the other requires precision milling. It's cheaper working with round stuff. Also, the tilting bolt locks in the rear requiring a sttronger, heavier receiver between the rear of the bolt and the breech of the barrel. A tilting bolt also needs to be supported from both sides and from the bottom and is very loosely connected to the carrier assembly. This makes it necessary to build a more complex receiver and tends to make the overall design less reliable. The Kalashnikov uses this as a tradeoff allowing the magazine to flop all around while the bolt stays in nearly the same place through each cycle. Can't have them both flopping around. Remember that the AK-47 was designed with knowledge of many tilting bolt firearms including the SKS

[Sunray]

"...I'm saying that this is NOT the way to design a gun...." This is precisely why it works every time in Ivan/Chang/Ho/Ahab/Cetswayo's hand. It's not a target rifle. It's not precisely machined. It's not designed for one shot-one kill shooting. It's made for illiterate peasant draftees to use with minimum training. The calibre and when it was or was not introduced is irrelevant.

[Badger Arms]

Once again, if we can design a gun that is as reliable as the AK (which is not 100% reliable BTW) and yet is also accurate and ballanced so that full-auto bursts will be orders of magnitude more precise, why shouldn't we? If you design a rifle that's super-accurate and yet breaks every third shot, that's not a good design. If you design a rifle that you can run over with a tank and fire yet it can't hit the side of a barn, that is not a good rifle. If you build a reliable, accurate rifle that is uncontrollable on full-auto (read the M-14) then that's not the way to design a rifle. The M-16 is about as close to a reliable and controlable full-auto gun and they NEUTERED it with the 3-round-burst system. We can, however, design a gun that will be as accurate as the M-16, as reliable as the AK, and as controllable as the MG-42 was without any design or engineering voodoo using off the shelf technology.

The counter-argument seems to be, "Well, the AK-47 is reliable and they made lots of copies and it wasn't designed to be accurate." Fair enough, then why wouldn't you be interested in an AK-47 that was not only accurate but would hold a full-auto burst on target like a heavy machinegun does? It defies logic that nobody would be interested.

Why replace what works? If it works, don't fix it? Well, we have to replace the guns anyhow and we are replacing one Pretty Good design with another design (the XM-8) that is merely "Pretty Gooder" instead. The XM-8 is innovative, probably more reliable, and perhaps cheaper to build, but if we're doing the replacement anyhow, why not get it right?

I've never understood why there is so much resistance to change at the academic level. I can understand that, logistically at least, an Army would want to stick with what it has in terms of both tactical doctrine and machinery. But from a purely academic angle, why not explore improving what's there to make it better? Perhaps I just get too worked up over these things. I need to start taking Kava-Kava or Ginsing or something like that. :uhoh:

[Badger Arms]

BTW, there seems to be a misconception that a Balanced-recoil system has to be complicated. In reality, all you have to do is have a longer recoil spring and bolt carrier travel. This allows the bolt to overtravel what is needed to reliably feed the next round and the recoil spring then completely arrests the recoil energy without being fully compressed and resulting jolt when the bolt hits the rear of the receiver. In fact, the AK-47 with the receiver lengthened a few inches in the rear would seem to fit the bill nicely. While still as inaccurate on semi as the current AK-47ish weapons, it would greatly increase the full-auto reliability of the gun IMHO.

[Keith]

After you take that kava kava (and wash that down with three fingers of bourbon...), go back and look at the practical side of the issue. Again.

I'd love to have a controllable shoulder-fired full auto weapon, IF I was a soldier in a defensive position or working out of a big vehicle of some kind.

I just don't see how it would work for the average ground pounding infantryman. If you train those guys to shoot extended full auto bursts, they'll be out of ammo in minutes.
And it's physically impossible to carry enough ammo to feed that sort of tactical weapon in a sustained fight. And even an infantry division has to be mobile - how fast can they move if you increase the weight they must carry, and what kind of shape will they be in when they arrive at their destination?
You live in Anchorage, strap a 150 pound pack on and walk to Seward. And then when you get there, start a gun fight with the locals - maybe point out how fat some of those gals down there are... You'll be too tired, if you haven't stroked out somewhere on the way up Moose Pass!

That doesn't mean you shouldn't work on this as a project, or that it couldn't be a specialty weapon of some kind. I just think you may be missing the tactical side of things. The "muscle" of a modern army is in air and artillery, not small arms. Men on the ground are just there to contact the enemy long enough to call in the big muscle. If your foot soldiers can't get there quickly enough, or aren't mobile enough to feel out the enemy position, they're wasted.

Keith

[goon]

The guy may be on to something...
Don't get me wrong. I like the AK, and I like to be able to hit stuff. I have found that you often can't have both.
But lets look at something like a VEPR .223.
Keep the basic design with the heavy barrel, but stick a lighter forearm on the damn thing so you could actually use it for something other than a bench gun. It needs better balance.
Add an efficient compensator and some sort of buffer. Maybe make the recoil spring captive like the ones in some semi-auto pistols. The first spring would absorb the initial shock, and the rear spring would slow and stop the carrier before it hit the back of the reciever.
Issue a detachable bipod.
Make it select fire.
Train the troops to use semi-auto most of the time, using the FA fire only when warranted.
I have heard of "burst sniping" that was done back in the day with machine guns, so why not now?
Yes, FA fire would mean more heat and ammo, but not if your guys got enough trigger time to not just spray out a cloud of lead.

[Jim K]

The answer appears to me to be simple. Since apparently no current designs are good, and the folks posting all seem to know what is wrong, just design a better weapon and submit it for military testing. True, you might not succeed at first, but quality should win out. And you will not only have the satisfaction of providing your country with the best possible weapon, but will make a bunch of money to boot.

Jim

[Gabe]

If controllability is a primary goal, there's no reason to use bolts at all. Your main problem is the bolt carrier swinging back and forth. Instead of making spring contraptions for it, use a fixed bolt.

On top of my head I can think of the old Maxim machingun action, and revolver guns common on European fighter jets. With a revolver gun you could potentially fire a burst at 2000+ rpm, kinda like the HK G11.

[Badger Arms]

What you're suggesting is another way of tackling the problem of hit probability. What a balanced-recoil system does is allow you to aim your burst... kinda like "Burst Sniping" if you will like Goon suggested. The first few rounds allow you go get into the rhythm and compensate for the constant recoil and then you can direct the stream of bullets onto a target by observing them striking the target and/or through the use of tracers. A gun like this doesn't even need sights for this type of shooting. A lower rate of fire assures you that you'll have enough burst to kill the target once you get onto him. I'm thinking an average of a 10 round burst.

Here's a little inspiration. Has anybody ever shot them full-auto gallery guns? You know, the kind where you shoot BB's at a star and try to cut the star completely out of the target? Once you get the thing rolling, it's fairly simple to aim the burst where you want it to go, right? BTW, the way to win that is to shoot from point to point in one constant burst. The reason being that the first few rounds of the next burst will be off-target, just like my balanced recoil gun. In a situation where you have multiple targets, you can probably switch rapidly from one to the other and walk the fire across a formation before they have the ability to react.

[Glock Glockler]

Keith,

Just to play Devil's advocate, did the Germanrun out of ammo after 5 minutes by feeding a beast like the MG-42? It seems that what they did do was mop the floor with Ivan.

[CZ52GUY]

Too much fun.

Too simple to work on and customize.

Too reliable.

Too cheap.

Too tempting to have just one (bought one, now have three).

This is interesting discussion, but I think you gotta' give some credit where credit is due.

What is the criteria for success, box office or critical reviews?

I guess it depends on your perspective.

For me, my perspective is the Homeland Security angle for one, and the sheer joy of getting out on the range and unloading 30 rounds at a target. I've added red-dots to two out of three, a new FCG to one, and plenty of full capacity mag's from various countries of origin (both polymer and steel).

If you're looking for the perfect engineering marvel...you might look elsewhere.

If you're looking for a terrific piece of equipment, look no further than the AK...

Best wishes,

CZ52'

[Keith]

Just to play Devil's advocate, did the Germanrun out of ammo after 5 minutes by feeding a beast like the MG-42? It seems that what they did do was mop the floor with Ivan.

No, but that was a team of three men! If you want to turn foot troops into three man teams - a gunner and two ammo bearers - you'd have a big job selling that to the army!

Keith

[Wanderer]

AK works, everytime. If it works, don't fix it.

[Glock Glockler]

Wanderer,

Who's talking about match rifles, I don't know if they were discussed even once on this thread? We are talking about combat rifles, and the purpose of which is to assist in creating causalties among the enemy, and would that objective be better performed in a rifle that was smoother and more balanced during firing?

The AK 103 is a step in this direction, yet it does not sacrifice the excellent Kalashnikov reliability.

Keith,

From all accounts that I've read, the German Stg44 had a very balanced recoil that allowed it to be extremely controllable during full-auto fire, and they were not supporting those rifles like they were the MG42, yet those on the recieving end of the Stg44 quickly learned to respect it. I don't have the detailed accounts at my fingertips but it was given a baptism by fire, airdropped to Germans who were completely enveloped by Soviets and the Germans then cut through the Soviets back o their own lines.

The Ultimax light machinegun is also supposed to be extremely controllable on full-auto, and it was developed by Jim Sullivan, who was one of the architects of the Counterpoise system (supposedly reducing recoil on semi-auto by 50% and full auto by 80%). Sullivan apparently rediscovered the formula used on the Stg to create the balanced recoil mechanism.

From what I can tell the empirical data, limited as it is, supports a controllable mechanism for delivering fire.

[Wanderer]

I'm confused, I woke up too early, sorry for bein stupid.

[MAKOwner]

Couple pictures of the MKb-42 at the site below, as well as a video down at the bottom of a Stg-44 firing a couple shots... Hadn't seen that before. http://web.freebooters.org/zetazot/mkb42.html


I think alot of this argument is fairly moot as we have no other high speed, open action videos of other current rifles being fired to directly compare it to. The AK is probably a little more sloppy than most but I don't think most other guns are completely without any magazine wobble and the such either... The AKs sight movement seems to be caused just by the initial shock of the round going off, the sight design is not unique, any rifle with a flip up sliding adjustable sight would probably see similar movement. If you watch most of the videos of pistols you'll notice the slides flopping around pretty good (along with the barrel...), the slide "smacking" when it reaches it's rearmost travel, etc... I would love to see some similar videos to see directly how the FAL, G3, AR, etc behaved.

I personally don't think the AK is that much more inaccurate than any other 16ish inch barrelled rifle shooting similar cheap ammo... Or should I say it doesn't HAVE to be. It needs some tweaks with the sights and good ammo and it would shoot pretty well. And that ammo is the half the problem, 7.62x39 was never great, even good loads are marginal, but that shouldn't be a slam on the AK action, it could use just about anything with very little changing. I mean you put a AK74 up against a M4 and the difference isn't huge, and that is with a better sighting system on the M4 with better ammo, even milsurp US .223 is better than the cheap commie 5.45... No reason why someone couldn't take an AK, and make very few design changes and come up with a dead nuts reliable rifle that competed well with similarly priced short barreled carbines when ammo quality was equal... Does not the Sig 550 series compare well with pretty much anything out there? Some of the changes they made I don't think are necessarily must-do changes either...

[Badger Arms]

Once more, this thread has focused on controlable full auto which is a result of how well the rifle places a second shot. The video clearly illustrates that the gun jumps all over the place in a seemingly random way which tends to put each bullet on its own path instead of the path that the shooter intends.

If you want to talk single-round accuracy of civilian versions of the AK, that's a completely different thread. For some reason, people have looked at the thread title and just rattled off a response. Feel free to be critical of dubious opinions, but my beef with the AK lies almost completely with kinetics and controlability of full-automatic bursts. This is a machinegun, rihgt?

[CaesarI]

The best thread EVER that everyone desiring to discuss this topic ought to read is here:
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=62148

You get intelligent discourse, and discourse from a man who served in the Russian military. Rather a lot of information on the AK.

-Morgan

[AK103K]

Once more, this thread has focused on controlable full auto which is a result of how well the rifle places a second shot. The video clearly illustrates that the gun jumps all over the place in a seemingly random way which tends to put each bullet on its own path instead of the path that the shooter intends.
Are you basing this on a gun being held to be filmed as the clip shows, or on someone who has been taught to shoot one properly and is also holding it properly? Any rifle, semi or full will "jump all over the place" if not shot properly, just look at all the knuckeheads "bump" firing their guns. With proper tecnique, most, hand held full auto guns, are easily controled and are easy to make good hits with. If you cant do it, your doing something wrong. Its not the guns fault if you cant shoot them. Knowing how to shoot them also means knowing when to use what they offer. Just because it offers full auto capability doesnt mean you use it all the time. I dont think it will matter if you get them to a point of no recoil in full auto, if you still dont teach your people how to shoot them and when to use it, nothing will change, except maybe your ammo expenditures.

[Badger Arms]

Until Badger Arms gets his up and running and accepted, perhaps we should just learn how to work what we have now instead of bitching about them. Its been my experience, its usually not the weapon thats lacking, reguardless of who makes it.Let me take a deep breath before responding to your posts. I'm not BITCHING about it, I'm pointing out a serious area for improvement. Training will NOT cause the AK-47 to shoot bursts that are as small as an M-16. No amount of training will allow an M-16 to shoot groups like a proper crew-served MachineGun will. However, a balanced system such as the MKb42(h), the Ultimax, the Counterpoise system for the M-16, or one of a few Russian designs will make bursts more accurate by evening out the jarring of the rifle during recoil.

AGAIN, WE HAVE THESE SYSTEMS ALREADY, RETROFITING THEM TO EXISTING DESIGNS IS SIMPLE, AND IT IS the guns fault if it jumps around on full-auto because it wasn't designed to be smooth.

If you cant do it, your doing something wrong. Its not the guns fault if you cant shoot them. Knowing how to shoot them also means knowing when to use what they offer.Your argument is flawed. Obviously a 10 pound gun firing 50 caliber is going to be impossible to control. A 100 pound gun firing 22 short will be a breeze to control. Somewhere within this range, there should be a medium where a balanced system would be unnecessary. If you opine that the AK-47 is not in need of some sort of mechanical device to make it more controlable, then you are about the only one out there who does. This includes the Russian Army who replaced the AK-47 with the AKM which had a slant muzzle 'brake' and subsequently with the AK-74. The AK-74 solved most of the problems by essentially taking most of the recoil out of the equation.

What is obvious in the design of the AK is that it amplifies off-axis recoil for several reasons. Even the strongest of holds will still have downward velocity on the muzzle and mechanical variations shot-to-shot which will struing the bullet vertically.

[Glock Glockler]

Badger and Max,

From what I read on Valery Shilin's page, the Ak-103 was designed with this concept in mind, to balance the recoil mechanism to make the gun far more controllable in full auto, who well does it do it? Would a gun being a bull-pup make any difference in the effort to achieve balanced recoil?

I've heard about several "better" designs that have come from Russia/USSR but have not taken off for a variety of reasons, including a bull-pup that had a bottom eject. Any info on these girls?

Thanks, Gentlemen

[max popenker]

The "Abakan" trials, that resulted in adoption of AN-94 in 1994, are somewhat mystery thing. The actual trial results are still classified, as far as i know, which is a real pity for me.

The balanced recoil system can be easily adopted for bullpup layout, but russian army top brass apparently does not likes the bullpups at all. There was at least one bullpup, designed by Stechkin, which competed with Nikonow at "Abakan" trials but failed. It uses dome sort of lafetted design, with barrel/receiver group recoiling inside the housing (like the AN-94 or HK G11) and dual hi/lo rate of fire, and, being a bullpup, also featured an "ambidextrous" forward ejection. From what i know, it wasn't reliable enough.

the balanced guns are AK-107/108 (not -103, which is essentialy the same old AK-74 inside), and the AEK-971. I plan to attend a large Russian arms expo mid-november this year, and so i'll be able to report the latest state of such designs.

[Badger Arms]

Max. Thanks for that info. Do we get pictures after the expo?

[max popenker]

Do we get pictures after the expo?

of cause. that's i bought my Olympus C350 digicam for :cool: