Don't know what is the fascination is with Russian firearms?


PDA






hinton03
July 28, 2009, 04:58 AM
All I see is Makarov this, AK that, how about that Mosin-Nagant. They are like everything the Russians make--throw aways. They are made a fast and as cheaply as possible.

The ones I saw and used in Afghanistan and Kyrgyzstan were scary to shoot they were so poorly make.

If you enjoyed reading about "Don't know what is the fascination is with Russian firearms?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
bensdad
July 28, 2009, 05:37 AM
Are you o.k.?

The Makarov is one of the more reliable pistols around.
The AK is almost certainly the most reliable semiauto/auto ever made.
The Mosin has killed more people than smallpox.

You listed three of the great firearms of modern history - and called them throw-aways.

Mr.510
July 28, 2009, 05:42 AM
I would say if they were so poorly made they were scary to shoot they were probably not Russian made guns. Copies of Russian guns, sure. There's some real junk out there that was made in caves (literally). I think there are many cool Russian made guns. My personal favorites are the Saiga Kalashnikov rifles. They are the only completely Russian made AKs that are available and (pre-hysteria) many people that don't like the AK platform conceded they were by far the best value in rifles. I remember when a Saiga .308 was under $300 brand new! Sure, it's a 2 MOA battle rifle, but there's almost nothing you can do to it that will make it stop working. If I ever have to bug out my Saiga is going with me. :evil:

armoredman
July 28, 2009, 06:09 AM
Mosins made prior to WWII are of excellent worksmanship, and most of the WWII rifles aren't too bad. The Makarov is a decent little gun. The AK is ledgendary for reliabilty, not stellar accuracy, good carbine. I agree, most Russian made small arms I have run into are pretty darn good. One of the BIG attractions to the current run of Russian imports is price, Maks are still relatively cheap, and Mosins can be had for under $100 mostly. AKs also can be much cheaper than ARs.
Of course, I am partial to Czech made guns... :)

Deus Machina
July 28, 2009, 07:04 AM
Well, I'll agree here--the ones you encountered were probably not Russian, going by the evidence ('scary to shoot') and the numbers of Russian guns out there and locations. Probably manufactured right around that area. And/or, to judge by my hand-me-down info, probably getting on fifty years old.

I think what the big deal is, is that Russian guns and the designs themselves 1) are hard to break and 2) work just as well (usually better) as any other country's guns of the era (I'm including America's) and are a heck of a lot cheaper.

Just tell me where you can get any other rifle chambered in something near .308 or .30-06, made in 1944 or before, that will shoot 2-inch groups at a hundred yard with 50-year-old surplus ammo, for $70.

And my personal AK (a converted Saiga) may not feel as nice, but shoots just as well as the 'low-end' 7.62x39 AR's I've seen at the range, that still cost at least twice as much.

I propose that Russian designs are great, but in many cases--usually the non-Russian manufacturers'--the manufacturing can often leave a bit to be desired. In fact, most Russian guns I've handled, while maybe not old Winchester and S&W quality on the fit and finish, are just as tough. Most are certainly better than a lot of modern Taurus', and a lot of people still swear by those.

Russian designs are wonderful and, from an engineering student's standpoint, a godsend to firearms design. They're so wonderful, in fact, that people can put one together in a tent with chewing gum and baling wire and, even if it's frightening to shoot the thing, that gun will run well after the rifling wears away.

Davek1977
July 28, 2009, 07:06 AM
Some people have a natural tendency to not like guns they had shot at them at some point. Could that be possibly whats going on here? Theres a reason the weapons you mentioned are popular. Dollar for dollar, they are awesome values typically, reliable to a fault. They certainly aren't "throw-aways" but if you have several you'd like to dispose of, please feel free to contact me. I'd gladly take any of the "junk" guns you mentioned. I think its rather entertaining that you've dismissed the most popular battle rifle of the 20th centry as "junk" though. I guess it was a pretty popular piece of junk if its use is so widespread nand still being currently produced in numbers incomprable to that of most firearms.

#shooter
July 28, 2009, 10:34 AM
1. They are cheap to buy and cheap to shoot. A box of .308 is $25 7.62x54r is $5.

2. They may not be pretty and will not win any matches, but they are reliable. You can get one for your trunk, home, RV, boat, or bury it- when you need it it will work.

3. History. Not everyone can shell out $1k for a US WW2 Rifle. you can geta decent looking Mosin for 1/10 the price of a Springfield.

4. They are fun to shoot. The blast of the M38 or M44 will light the range.

THE DARK KNIGHT
July 28, 2009, 10:43 AM
Cheaply made? Throw aways?

I love the russian firearms, AKs, SKSs, Mosins, Makarovs, oh you forgot Tokarevs too. They are great guns. They are simple, inexpensive, and built to last. You can beat the heck out of those guns and they'll go boom every time. "They're so simple a 12 year old can use it...and they do." Are they sub MOA bench rifles? No.

I like the russian guns not only cause they're cheap and good, BUT they're much better than the call of duty kids M4geries covered in rails and lazers that all you see nowadays. They're utilitarian guns. They're a different mindset from a different era.

Joe Demko
July 28, 2009, 10:58 AM
They're cheap right now. They won't stay that way. Krags, Mausers, Springfields, etc. used to be cheap too. At one time, not all that long ago, you could buy a Chinese or Russian SKS and get change back from a C-note. When I was a kid, Lugers_for the most part_were plentiful and cheaper than a new US made pistol.
Let's not even think about 19th century stuff that Bannerman's sold by the ton.

DHJenkins
July 28, 2009, 11:01 AM
I would expect no other opinion from someone in Germany.

trickyasafox
July 28, 2009, 11:04 AM
Price has a lot to do with it. A new shooter can get a powerful, reasonably accurate rifle capable of hunting anything in the lower 48 for 100 dollars in the form of a mosin nagant. Surprisingly, they also resell for about the same value too.

BunnyPuncher
July 28, 2009, 11:08 AM
I'm of the "Last Cold War Generation", the last kids who grew up thinking the big one was coming, I was 9 years old when Red Dawn hit theaters, I was the son of an army Sarge. The Soviets were the big bad menace, I had a "better dead than red" t-shirt. And like all dread enemies there was a desire to understand them... Some of my interest comes from that era of my childhood.

As I got older, and as the Soviet Union dissolved things changed. My understanding of Russia and the history of the soviet empire became nuanced and I developed an interest in the major conflicts of this century and the cold war that followed. When I developed an interest in using firearms it was only natural that an interest in surplus firearms came along with it. The Soviet era is an important part of world history and I love the aesthetics of the old battle rifles.

BunnyPuncher
July 28, 2009, 11:11 AM
I would expect no other opinion from someone in Germany.

I'm assuming from the "Afghanistan" comments that he is one of the many US soldiers occupying... erm... based in Germany and not a native German.

TheDriver
July 28, 2009, 11:42 AM
They are cheap, reliable, cheap, available, cheap, etc.

benEzra
July 28, 2009, 12:06 PM
Reliability, durability, and value, generally speaking. That is true of a lot of Russian designs, whether the topic is an AK or a spacecraft.

sniper5
July 28, 2009, 12:41 PM
They are probably one of the more elegant designs out there. That's "elegant" in an engineering sense: The simplest, cheapest, most straight forward means to achieve a solution. They were designed to be cheap and easy to manufacture and maintain, toss to a conscript and say: "Go kill some Germans!" And then have the weapon survive the conscript to be used again. In the words of Lenin: "Quantity IS it's own quality." They are 'nuff: Good 'nuff, cheap 'nuff, accurate 'nuff, strong 'nuff, simple 'nuff. . . Don't compare them to things like H-K or Swedish Mausers, or Swiss K-31 or even American M-14's or M-1s that were made under basically peacetime conditions (I know about WW2, but how many of our factories were bombed during WW2? The Russians were making tanks and arms in factories that were in many cases under direct attack-like in Stalingrad). Compare them more to things like Sten guns, M3 grease-guns, etc. Keep in mind also that many Mosin Nagants have been arsenal refurbished several times, and some were even made in America under contract during WW1. And they are still here and work well. I have examples of virtually every bolt rifle design made and still admire the M-N's. It is very hard to make a rifle that is stronger, with fewer parts, and have it be more accurate, more durable, and more reliable. And the magazine design is the most brilliantly simple way of dealing with rimmed ammo in a vertical magazine I have seen yet.

Ken65
July 28, 2009, 12:42 PM
Every post in this thread is repeating the same things. Do we have a Russian on this board who can start an anti HK thread :D

Deckard
July 28, 2009, 12:49 PM
I like the Makarov as a cheap, reliable, and light pistol for a ccw. I'm rather indifferent to AKs, its not that I wouldn't buy one I just wouldn't be excited about the purchase. But I'm not a fan of Mosins, the fit and finish are just too atrocious and I haven't seen an example that was a good shooter. I saw someone describe them here at THR as "reusable fireworks", pretty apt description.

jnyork
July 28, 2009, 12:50 PM
Not to forget the US Army issued Nagants to the units fighting in Russia just after WW1, also they wound up owning 500,000 Nagants in 1916 made by Remington and Westinghouse, these were issued to National Guards and cadet units for many years, were finally sold off by the DCM in the 1920's. If you can get hold of one of those rifles, or a Russian model from the 1920's to 1940, you might change your mind. The Nagants captured by the Finns and overhauled in their arsenals are particularly good shooters.

Gryffydd
July 28, 2009, 12:56 PM
ut I'm not a fan of Mosins, the fit and finish are just too atrocious and I haven't seen an example that was a good shooter.
Seriously? They sure aren't pretty and they sure aren't smooth, but they'll definitely shoot. What exactly is a good shooter? 1 MOA?

CoRoMo
July 28, 2009, 01:02 PM
Who'd pass up a chance to own the read deal Kalashnikov? Not me, I'd love to have one.

I'm not into Nagants, but I'd like to have a Saiga.

Cosmoline
July 28, 2009, 01:03 PM
He was probably seeing Khyber pass specials made from scrap metal by blind men in caves. They produce low grade copies of everything in there. A true Russian made AK is not a cheap throw away. It's incredibly reliable and will last through multiple world wars. Same with the Mosins. I've seen Mosins that started life in the Russo-Japanese war then went on to fight through both world wars on various sides and are still in fighting form.

christcorp
July 28, 2009, 01:20 PM
The key here; and most do agree; is that if it's a "True" Russian or Czech gun; and I would even include Romanian; then they are very good quality made guns. I personally like them because I am a military history buff. I myself spent 21 years in the military. Traveling/living/working in 14 countries, I've come to appreciate military weapons. There is no doubt that for modern times; the AK-47 is about the most reliable carbine/military rifle known to mankind. They can be thrown in mud, sand, water, etc... and keep on shooting. Granted, some of the chinese type imitations might be junk, but that's not a Russian, Romanian, Czech, etc... model. In the WWII era; the M1 Garand is without doubt, the gun of guns. Nothing can compare. However, the mosin can not be laughed at. It too is one of the finest weapons, for it's time. I have original Springfield Armory 1911A1 45acp (Also, the best handgun of it's time). I have an M1 Garand and Carbine. I also have a mosin rifle and a pistol. In more modern day weapons, I have a Romanian Ak style, Czech CZ-82, russian Tokarev, Romanian PA-63 and AP-MBP. These are all some of the finest military/police weapons of their time.

Don't get me wrong. I love my SigSauer P220 45acp. I also love my S&W model 13-1 357magnum. And I love my remington 870 and savage 7mm mag. And actually; I don't currently have a gun I don't like. But to say that Russian/Eastern Block military weapons are junk, is NOT even up for a debate. A person can definitely have an opinion, but that is a very uneducated opinion. You might not like the looks. Might not like the weight. Might not like the style. Might not like a lot of things. That's the same with cars, trucks, electronics, etc... But saying that an AK, CZ-82, Mosin, etc... are junk, poorly made, etc...; is like saying a lexus, volvo, or Cadillac are poorly made. You might not like the price or looks, but don't even try and say it's poorly made.

Top all of this off with the fact that you can currently get these weapons cheap, as well as the ammo, and it's a no brainer. I feel 100% confident carrying my CZ-82 as a concealed weapon. Basically the same effectiveness as my 38spl, yet smaller and easier to carry. I feel just as confident with my AK, PA, AP, and other military eastern block weapons.

Deckard
July 28, 2009, 01:48 PM
Seriously? They sure aren't pretty and they sure aren't smooth, but they'll definitely shoot. What exactly is a good shooter? 1 MOA? Yes they'll shoot. They'll probably shoot long after you and I are dead. The action is tough as nails, but I want a little better than pie plate accuracy at 100 yards. A serviceable old battle rifle for under $100 bucks is great, but I'd rather save that money for a better rifle or ammo for the ones I already have. That's just personal preference, if Mosins float your boat more power to you.

Gryffydd
July 28, 2009, 01:49 PM
I want a little better than pie plate accuracy at 100 yards.
So you're saying the Mosins you've shot have been 8-10 MOA or more? My AK is twice that accurate at least. Did you try more than one kind of ammo?

wojownik
July 28, 2009, 02:19 PM
Honestly, every country has come out with winners, losers and "what the heck were you thinking" in their rifle and pistol designs. One could also take a poke at the fetish some folks have for all things German.

Russia has had some winners, considering their requirements and manufacturing capabilities at various points in time. The Mosins, AK's, Makarovs have all been time time-tested, reliable, low-cost products.

Joe Demko
July 28, 2009, 02:37 PM
That "low cost" thing is a fallacy. They were produced by what amounted to a captive labor force. They are cheap for us now because they are being sold as surplus. I assure you that a new manufacture M-N rifle, Makarov pistol, Nagant revolver, or AK rifle would absolutely NOT be inexpensive if produced in a western industrialized nation. Just imagine what an M-N would cost if newly produced by FN or Remington for the consumer market. Imagine the cost of a newly produced Nagant revolver from S&W.
I repeat: these things are cheap surplus NOW. They, like other vintage arms, won't stay that way.

DHJenkins
July 28, 2009, 03:31 PM
I'm assuming from the "Afghanistan" comments that he is one of the many US soldiers occupying... erm... based in Germany and not a native German.

I thought that at first, but the grammatical/spelling mistakes made me think otherwise.

OLD208X3A
July 28, 2009, 03:35 PM
The Soviet/Russian philosophy has always been; if it ain't broke - don't fix it. They like simple designs that function and don't look to upgrade unless it's for a VERY good reason. The only exceptions were the Cold War arms race where bigger was better (AN-226, TYPHOON Class subs, BLACKJACK bombers, etc. that were more style than function). They're great weapons, but the Russians aren't into bells and whistles with the possible exception of covert listening devices :eek:. I don't look at them as an either/or proposition. I've got Western stuff and Russian/Soviet too. So far there hasn't been a fight in the safe yet...:)

TheFallGuy
July 28, 2009, 04:30 PM
The only problem with a mosin is its safety. I hate it. But that gun has put food on my table quite often. For folks that can't afford a $2000 for a scoped 3/4 moa rifle, there is no better option. Yes, there are better guns but they cost a lot more.

wojownik
July 28, 2009, 04:45 PM
Well, they haven't been slave labor since the fall of communism, and they've still been building many of the same goods on the same gear now in privatized and semi-privatized firms. One could also argue the point about slave labor at all - definitely oppressed workers in an artificial economy.

And they weren't slave labor building Mosins in private companies from 1891 through 1917. And, those private companies included Remington and Westinghouse here in the U.S. - still cheaper to build per unit. than the Springfield 1903 or Model 1917.

KSCCHTrainer
July 28, 2009, 04:47 PM
The only problem with a mosin is its safety. I hate it. But that gun has put food on my table quite often. For folks that can't afford a $2000 for a scoped 3/4 moa rifle, there is no better option. Yes, there are better guns but they cost a lot more.

Funny thing about 2 grand 3/4 moa rifles, I have a Mosin Nagant 91/30 that I bought for $100 (with a full year warranty, no less) from Gander Mountain when they were available locally. I hand picked it myself. Spent another hundred on a decent scope mount and mediocre BSA scope.

It will shoot an honest 3/4 MOA with 174 grain Sierra MatchKing bullets in handloads. for $200 bucks and a little elbow grease to clean it up I have a rifle that I wouldn't trade for one of those 1 to 2K hunting rifles. Besides, if I bang this one up, in the brush, I don't have to feel guilty about it. Spend more time putting food on the table than worrying about damaging the "food getter".

DMK
July 28, 2009, 04:47 PM
I have a German made Makarov. Where does that fit in the picture? :D

CYANIDEGENOCIDE
July 28, 2009, 05:07 PM
for the materials and tooling available russian arms are an inventive solution. almost assuredly there are more accurate weapons for each class of russian arm, but are there more reliable? bottom line russian arms just work

Snake.Doctor
July 28, 2009, 05:24 PM
Hey my fellow european, don't know what you tried in your life, but if you come close to me I will let you try REAL russian weapons manufactured in Russia, and you won't dare calling them "throw-away" again.

I have the chance to own a real AKS-74U manufactured in Tula in 1989, along with a genuine Russian Makarov from 1979 and a Mosin Nagant M44. Try them, and change your mind.

http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m189/jack_bauer_ch/Armes/DSC_0962.jpg

bigalexe
July 28, 2009, 06:06 PM
The Mosin has killed more people than smallpox.
I'd like to see a statistic on that, not that i'm trying to disprove you but I want some evidence to back that up next time I use that quote to someone's face.

I think RFFS (Russian Firearm Fascination Syndrome) has to do with the fact they honestly they have made some good guns, provided that you inspect them before purchase because honestly the best gun design in the world mass produced will turn out a few lemons. On the other hand I personally think Russian names sound awesome and on occasion you probably get to educate people on the history of Mosin-Nagant rifles, since at some times it seems everyone in America thinks they can tell you everything about the Colt or Smith & Wesson names.

hinton03
July 28, 2009, 06:08 PM
Snake Doc that picture does nothing for me but remind me that the AK is made of stamped beer cans. Just because it goes bang and is cheap doesn't make it a quality weapon. This rifle was designed for a peasant army that didn't have any marksmanship skills and couldn't be counted on to maintain it.

I can't imagine a western arms manufacturer trying to pass off a similar design as a quality firearm; they would be laughed at in these forums.

By the way I am not German. I am a retired US Army Officer working under a DOD contract in Germany.

Don Gwinn
July 28, 2009, 06:13 PM
Spoils of war, buddy. They lost the cold war and now we get their guns.

It's only fair.

AirplaneDoc
July 28, 2009, 06:13 PM
Im with you, I never saw the draw to them either

AD

Gryffydd
July 28, 2009, 06:15 PM
Just because it goes bang and is cheap doesn't make it a quality weapon.
OK, How about because it goes bang every single time you pull the trigger no matter what, does so with more than acceptable accuracy (in quality variants), and has proven itself a remarkable weapon in every single war its been in, which is pretty much all of them for quite some time now.
Just because the M4 looks nice and is elegantly constructed, and is quite acurate doesn't make it a quality weapon. It takes more than 5 stars in just one or two columns.
I can't imagine a western arms manufacturer trying to pass off a similar design as a quality firearm; they would be laughed at in these forums.
Gun design is not a beauty contest. From an objective standpoint the AK-47 has a track record that is the envy of every single other intermediate caliber weapon ever designed.

84B20
July 28, 2009, 06:33 PM
Well how about this one, and it is Chinese made at that! It may be stamped but it will "take a beating and keep on ticking."

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=96485&d=1240092836

woad_yurt
July 28, 2009, 07:15 PM
Com Bloc guns are like old Plymouth Valiants. Nothing fancy at all but they will do what they're supposed to do. I have a Makarov and a Tokarev. They are definitely not junk; they're the most reliable things I own. The Makarov is an absolute marvel.

hinton03:
I don't own an AK but the rest of the planet seems to use 'em to good effect. Makarovs and AKs are "throwaways?" They're known as just the opposite. Are you just trying to get folks to start loudly buzzing?

Kernel
July 28, 2009, 09:34 PM
Hate, I mean HATE, Russian guns. Maybe, it was growing up a military brat during the Cold War. Maybe, it was the way the DIs brainwashed us (literally) in basic. Maybe, it's the way they all look like something you'd find abandoned in a dumpster after a farm sale.

I know it's semi-irrational, but for what ever the reason, you couldn't pay me to own one. It's just me. Other than a little friendly teasing, I don't dis anyone who likes them. I understand all the reasons, advantages, and history that makes them significant.

Fact is there's not single Russian military item that would past mustard with the US Milatary. Now, or in the past. Not one single gun, tank, airplane, or ship.

Russian people are cool. Russian history, fascinating. Kicked Germany's ass for us in WWII, thank you very much. First man in space, Russian. Vodka, yes please. Russian arts & culture... okay, who am I kidding?. What do I know about the arts & culture? I'm told, and I believe, it's very high brow. Still, Russian guns.... yuck!

conw
July 28, 2009, 10:08 PM
Don't know what is the fascination with trolling THR?

Kino74
July 28, 2009, 10:58 PM
Warsaw Pact and Russian firearms are built to last. They do have some shortcomings but the Russians value reliability, dependability and durability over ergonomics and accuracy. Russians expect their rifles to fire when the trigger is squeezed.

AKs in particular have earned its reputation time and time again for superior reliability. You can dig them up and shoot them or watch an armored vehicle drag one through the mud then fire it. You can fire it with half pound of sand in the reciever. The bolts don't break like some western rifles ala Ar15 after a few thousand rounds. Gas Keys don't sheer off and disable your rifle. You don't even have to get all the comsoline off to shoot reliably.

mudriver
July 28, 2009, 10:59 PM
I'm a gun snob (50+ high end German weapons) and a retired Army officer that used Western and Combloc weapons in combat and my personal opinion (n=1 for those statisticians) is:
- My makarov is one of my favorite pistols and a far better pistol than my Walther PP (100% reliable and 1 hole groups at 10 yards)
- My Mosins are simple, but great shooters. We have a ball with them.
- My Russian SKS is one of my favorite rifles (up there with my G3)
- AK's are great lead sprayers and lots of fun. Insanely reliable (better than any AR I've ever touched)
- If you don't get Russian guns then you just don't get it : )

crazy-mp
July 28, 2009, 11:43 PM
Fact is there's not single Russian military item that would past mustard with the US Milatary. Now, or in the past. Not one single gun, tank, airplane, or ship.

What about the the Vietnam era M16?

The M16 was billed as self-cleaning when it was in fact not.

The rifle was issued to troops without cleaning kits or instruction on how to clean the rifle.

The rifle was tested and approved with the use of a Dupont IMR powder that was switched to a ball powder that increased both wear and fouling.

The lack of a chrome liner for the barrel and chamber created a corrosion problem and contributed to brass case swelling and extraction problems.

Lack of a forward assist rendered the rifle inoperable in combat when it jammed.


While your Russian AK that would not pass mustard is built to move the gas away from the operating system, and built with generous tolerances.

Oh and I own both, weapon systems, in the military I depended on one and feared the other.

Savage99
July 29, 2009, 12:05 AM
hinton,

The Russian guns and I have seen are junk. Here in the USA many are paying high prices for military guns. Its a passion that I have avoided.

I have picked up a nice Brno 22F a year ago. Now thats a nice rifle.

Dr_2_B
July 29, 2009, 12:18 AM
Some people have a natural tendency to not like guns they had shot at them at some point

I agree... that's mighty hard to overlook.

Dr_2_B
July 29, 2009, 12:21 AM
Oh, and I love my Makarov

ChCx2744
July 29, 2009, 01:10 AM
AUTHENTIC Russian made Mosin Nagants and AK-47's are near-perfect machines...On terms of quality and reliability, those 2 weapons are LEGENDARY. Need I add links? No, because you simply "Google" either one, and you will get more than an eye-full.

Gryffydd
July 29, 2009, 01:19 AM
The Russian guns and I have seen are junk.
Define junk then. So far the worst that has been said is that they're ugly.

Fact is there's not single Russian military item that would past mustard with the US Milatary.
On what grounds would they not "past mustard (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pass%20muster)"?

Prince Yamato
July 29, 2009, 02:12 AM
They're comparatively cheap compared to US made guns and they almost always work. You really have to beat the hell out of a Russian gun before it gives you a problem. Are they accurate? They're good enough for what most people need a gun to do.

Here's how I look at it by means of personification:

An AR and an AK are looking at two badguys at 200 yards

AR: I can hit that guy in the chest.
AK: So can I.
(both guns shoot)
AR: I hit mine in the heart, he's dead. Yours is still breathing
(AK shoots again)
AK: He's dead now.
AR: You took two shots!
AK: So what? Why so picky? That's why I come with a 30 round magazine.

hinton03
July 29, 2009, 02:15 AM
OK, I get the history and the spoils of war thing, hell I have a Russian wife, but quality, give me a break. The AK is so prolific because it is cheap to make and can be handed to any knucklehead around the world and he can put lead in the air.

The AK vs the AR is like comparing an RG revolver to a Colt Python; yes the RG goes bang every time but quality it is not.

fireman 9731
July 29, 2009, 02:22 AM
Russians build things for function, not for looks.

Deus Machina
July 29, 2009, 02:44 AM
OK, I get the history and the spoils of war thing, hell I have a Russian wife, but quality, give me a break. The AK is so prolific because it is cheap to make and can be handed to any knucklehead around the world and he can put lead in the air.

Pretty much, yeah.

Which speaks a lot about the design when it will still hit man-sized targets at four and five hundred yards, doesn't it? Two and three times that, with a Nagant that's still in good shape.

Snake.Doctor
July 29, 2009, 04:34 AM
OK, I get the history and the spoils of war thing, hell I have a Russian wife, but quality, give me a break. The AK is so prolific because it is cheap to make and can be handed to any knucklehead around the world and he can put lead in the air.

The AK vs the AR is like comparing an RG revolver to a Colt Python; yes the RG goes bang every time but quality it is not.

So I think you should define "Quality" for you.

Personally, a quality weapon is a weapon I can use anywhere in the world, under the worst conditions and which would keep me alive while killing the BD.

So you can pay a lot more for a nicely designed gun, with a beautiful finish, made of the purest metal available out there... but what's the point to have a beautiful gun in your hands if you can't shoot it because it jams every time you squeeze the trigger ?

In our army we are issued Sig 550 rifles, which are not a junk... still I would go with an AK-47 in the field...

Don't be upset because the "cheap" AK-47 will beat any of your "high end custom" guns hands down when you put your life on the line...

Just know to make the difference between a weapon designed for the week-end when your comfortably installed in front of your target with a soda and your toolbox near you, and a gun made to resist a nuclear war in the field.

Davek1977
July 29, 2009, 06:42 AM
Fact is there's not single Russian military item that would past mustard with the US Milatary.

Why, then, was the AK-47 a perferred infantry weapon in the Vietnam conflict. I've read time and again of soldiers trading their M-16 for an AK-47 at the first opprotunity they had to grab one. Hell, using captured weapons instead of US Issue still happens today in Iraq and Afghanistan. If the M4/M16 platform is in every way superior, as you've basically been stating, why does this happen so frequently? Maybe, jst maybe, some of those soldiers feel as if the AK is more than suitable for the purpose they are using them for, and MORE suitable than the weapons they were orignally issued, prehaps? The AK has remained a production fireamr for all these generations for reasons other than cheapness. If it ain't broke.......

loop
July 29, 2009, 07:23 AM
I have a Mosin that will ring a 24-inch gong at 500 meters all day long.

I have an AK that I enjoy popping rows of beer bottles rapid fire at 100 yards.

I have a Mak that groups about an inch at 25 yards.

None of them has ever failed in anyway.

At a recent three-gun shoot there were more than 40 AR variants and one SKS and one AK. The winner in the rifle phase was an SKS that was fed from stripper clips. Of the top five places two were won by cheap Russian "throw aways."

In combat it is desirable to use an AK if you are fighting troops armed with AKs. The sound is quite distinctive. An M16/4 is also quite distinctive and it is a call to arms for those who carry AKs.

Reliable? I'll take an AK over an AR.

Accurate? It ain't a target match.

Ease of maintenance? Um, I found this AK/Mosin laying in the mud and it still works just fine...

Maks? I have a box full. None of them have ever jammed. Some are more accurate than others, but they always go bang.

The short answer - Russia never lost anything because of inferior weaponry.

hinton03
July 29, 2009, 08:15 AM
Price Yamoto - When you say as compared to US made weapons the AK is more reliable that is a myth that I can dispel since I carried one for 22 years; all weapons malfunction in the harsh conditions of combat, but a properly maintained M-16 is superbly reliable. As for your accuracy claim I suggest you view the testing at the link provided. The AK is about a 5 MOA weapon where the m-16 in 1 MOA weapon; this translates into a 3" group at 300 yards for an M-16 and a 15" group for the AK. Even if the AK is properly aimed (hard to do with the poorly designed sights) that is a clean miss at 300 yards.

http://splodetv.com/ak-47-vs-m16

Snake Doc - if you say you would choose the AK over the 550 in combat that is almost silly enough not to warrant response; by the way, when was it that the Swiss Army was last in combat?

bgrav321
July 29, 2009, 09:20 AM
i have a mosin and a tokarev. Both excellent weapons.

I don't like black or plastic guns. I like wood and steel. You've got to remember that quality of manufacturing, accuracy, and looks are not the the sole criteria for weapons. The reason that Russian weapons have been present in (i think i can safely say) every conflict since WWII...you are disagreeing with history. In Africa...where people don't know how to clean guns...you don't see any ARs. You have to understand that the ability to run on no cleaning and crappy ammo is a virtue. It's not degrading to a design.

Kwanger
July 29, 2009, 09:25 AM
This sure is a bizarre thread. I've personally got no great love of Russian weapons either, but I'm not bothered by people who do.

I'm not really sure what the argument is about....seems everyone is all agreed that your Russian weapons are generally cheap, reliable and good enough for your average (or more to the point, distinctly below average, in a lot of cases) soldier worldwide, which is what they are designed for.

The only comment thus far that I wouldn't agree with is carrying an AK into battle over a Sig 550....while I admit Russian weapons have their place around the world, I'd suspect you wouldn't find many AK users who'd agree with that either, if they were given a choice! :)

DMK
July 29, 2009, 09:57 AM
I have quite a collection of Russian arms (or Combloc copies). I like them for the interesting history and a curiosity for weapons designs. And they are fun to shoot.

However,

There is no way that I would give up my M1 Carbine before any of my SKS

There is no way I would give up any of my ARs before my AK

There is no way I would give up my Finn M39s or Swiss K31s before my Russian 91/30s

There is no way I would give up my 1911 before my Tokarev

There is no way I would give up Garand before my SVT40

The only preferred gun I have is my Makarov. I like it better than my PP. But the Mak is an East German.

Gryffydd
July 29, 2009, 10:54 AM
The AK is about a 5 MOA weapon where the m-16 in 1 MOA weapon
there are many, many M16s that are worse than 1 MOA, and there are many, many AKs that are better than 5 MOA.

Tomahawk674
July 29, 2009, 10:56 AM
I shot a tokarev for the first time on the 4th of July. Simple and rugged, and was as accurate as any other pistol I've ever shot from 10 yards. Didn't feel like junk to me.

BHP FAN
July 29, 2009, 11:06 AM
The Tokarev is probably the most under rated pistol in history. Hated and reviled as a bastard cousin of the 1911,it's actually a reliable all steel pistol that I'd pick over the tupperware available today,anytime.

hinton03
July 29, 2009, 11:07 AM
Kwanger - Excellent point, I am not really bothered by people that like them, I was just commenting on the almost cult like following on this forum for them. The proportion of threads that are generated about these weapons tauting there super human capabilities would seem to be way out of proportion to their actual status as a quality firearm (totally unscientific, I have no actual idea what the ratio of created threads is.)

Joe Demko
July 29, 2009, 11:21 AM
There's a fair number of members here who collect and enjoy Eastern Bloc arms. I'd be obliged, though, if you could quote just a few posts attributing them "superhuman capabilities."

benEzra
July 29, 2009, 12:06 PM
This rifle was designed for a peasant army that didn't have any marksmanship skills and couldn't be counted on to maintain it.
Not the case, actually. It was designed for a trained, well educated, and professional army with recent combat experience. BUT, it was also designed with the lessons of the siege of Stalingrad in mind; the Russians realized that you may not always have ready access to cleaning supplies and an armorer.

I can't imagine a western arms manufacturer trying to pass off a similar design as a quality firearm; they would be laughed at in these forums.
You mean like Israel Military Industries tried to pass off the Galil as a quality firearm? Or the Finns tried to pass off the Valmet? :D

Fact is there's not single Russian military item that would past mustard with the US Milatary. Now, or in the past. Not one single gun, tank, airplane, or ship.
Which was the superior tank, the Sherman or the T-34?

The Lavochkin La-5FN and the Yakovlev Yak-3 are widely regarded as two of the best fighters of World War II. Don't forget, the Russians gained air superiority over the Germans on the Eastern Front, and they didn't do it with crap equipment. We probably didn't field any land-based fighters that good until the P-51.

The Sukhoi SU-27 family (Su-27/30/33/35/37) are all first-rate by American and European standards.

And we still depend on Russian spacecraft to carry supplies and people to/from the International Space Station, because they are more reliable, safer, and more robust than our systems (and far cheaper).

The AK is so prolific because it is cheap to make and can be handed to any knucklehead around the world and he can put lead in the air.
It's so prolific because the Warsaw Pact handed out AK's and AK factories as part of diplomacy. Had the Soviets fielded the M16, they'd have done the same.

The AK's ease of manufacture and reliability does make it well suited to Third World conditions, but it was not originally designed for Third World use.

The AK is about a 5 MOA weapon where the m-16 in 1 MOA weapon
Not when comparing apples to apples. Rack grade M16's shooting rack grade ammo are not 1 MOA weapons, and most Russian AK's will do better than 5 MOA. Yes, the M16 has a bit of an accuracy edge, but not a fivefold one.

The proportion of threads that are generated about these weapons tauting there super human capabilities would seem to be way out of proportion to their actual status as a quality firearm
There seem to be more threads bashing them than ascribing "superhuman capabilities" to them, IMO. They are good, and have their own advantages and disadvantages compared to various Western designs.

wojownik
July 29, 2009, 12:19 PM
Part of the challenge with this thread is perhaps that the assertions are too broad, covering the whole panorama of Russian arms. Each weapon could be debated on its own merits.

The Mosin 1891 - rugged, reliable and accurate build, certainly excellent for its time (late 19th century), improved even further by the Finns (with improved sights and new barrels).

M38/M44 - same positive attributes as above, but the recoil and the muzzle flash from this carbine are negatives to some (including someone I knew who used one during the war - he was a little guy, and said it just about knocked him down every time he fired).

SVT-40 - err, not as great a design for combat conditions. Can't give a thumbs up for this one, though I love the looks of the weapon.

AK-47 - rugged and reliable, the genius is in its simplicity (first time I took one apart I was left thinking "there's just gotta be more parts"). Quality is arguable (again, semantics) but there is a method (or kind of genius) behind the madness.

Makarov pistol - I love it, but a friend of mine hates them. Why - he served as an NCO a Soviet armored crew in the 80s. A drunk Lt. tried to tease him by aiming between his legs and decocking. Pistol went off, but missed his "bubenchiki" by an inch. He blames the quality of the pistol, but I would tend to tag the quality of the user ...

Dr.Rob
July 30, 2009, 01:40 AM
Call me crazy, I'd love a Bizon and a Grach please.

Russians have a totally different mindset to design. "Sharp where it needs to be, rough where it doesn't." "Our rifle is also a club"! "Yes this will run on yak urine or whale oil, it was made for use on sakhalin island." "Yes two plus two is four, but we only need 3.5."

Thier 'do more with less' attitude has made them pretty darn great maccguyvers... hell they dressed up in FUR suits and repaired not one but 3 space stations.

Also look at the crazy Russian weapons.. underwater rifles, planet of the apes looking bullpups.. the stuff is just brilliantly strange.

USAFRetired
July 30, 2009, 01:51 AM
I was stationed in Germany when the wall came down. You wouldn't believe the stuff that was floating around. For fear of being courts-marshaled I didn't buy any weaponry, but things like watches, binoculars, uniforms, it was all over the place.

They made everything to withstand a Soviet Bloc solder's use in the dead of a Russian winter.

It was just cool stuff. (Still is)

dobrzemetal
July 30, 2009, 02:44 AM
Awesome Pics snake Doc, Here's my makarov.

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g12/p0lice1234/100B0510.jpg
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g12/p0lice1234/100_0537.jpg

Mr.510
July 30, 2009, 04:16 AM
I'm generally entertained by the endless AK vs. AR debate but.... it really bugs me that 99% of the time it's an apples/oranges comparison. If you're going to compare an AR and an AK please use the comparable caliber AK, the AK-74! The Russians replaced the 7.62x39 round in 19 friggin' 74! A rack grade AK-74 and a rack grade M16 shooting the same ammunition are much closer in accuracy and capability. Supposedly the AK-74 is even more reliable than the AK-47 or AKM, if that's even possible.

Also, if you're going to compare something to an M4 that was adopted in 1994, why not compare it to the Russian AN-94, adopted the same year? The AN-94 Abakan replaced the Kalashnikov in Russia's "elite" units. It's coolest feature is it's two-shot burst where it fires two rounds in 0.033 seconds. (That's one-third of one-tenth of one second.) Both bullets leave the barrel before recoil is felt by the shooter. This thing is wicked cool and I wish I could buy one! It makes all body armor for the foreseeable future obsolete. It defeats a lot of vehicle armor as well using standard FMJ. Two rounds hitting the same spot almost simultaneously is pure brilliance no matter who thought of it!

:evil:

kansas coyote
July 30, 2009, 07:02 AM
Bunnypuncher , I beleive we may have grownup in a parallel universe . Our storys are the same . Kids just don't understand the history or the respect given to a rifle that has been around the world and ended up in your hands giving you the pleasure of owning it and shooting it . Life is short learn your history and respect the men and women who made it .2 cents

max popenker
July 30, 2009, 07:18 AM
Also, if you're going to compare something to an M4 that was adopted in 1994, why not compare it to the Russian AN-94, adopted the same year? The AN-94 Abakan replaced the Kalashnikov in Russia's "elite" units. It's coolest feature is it's two-shot burst where it fires two rounds in 0.033 seconds. (That's one-third of one-tenth of one second.) Both bullets leave the barrel before recoil is felt by the shooter. This thing is wicked cool and I wish I could buy one!

The AN-94 is also one of the most ergonomically-challenged designs that I ever saw and held in my hands, overly complicated, and, above all, generally a dead end.
Apparently, Russian army stopped buying it back in 2005 and no one regretted it (except probably the manufacturer, but still not sure about it ;))

Mr. Bojangles
July 30, 2009, 07:32 AM
Someone really opened up a can of worms with this thread. :uhoh:

The_Shootist
July 30, 2009, 11:23 AM
'Cause they work?

The_Shootist
July 30, 2009, 11:31 AM
Russians build things for function, not for looks.



A nicely blued Mak is an attractive pistol. I've had mine for 4-5 years, carried/shot it frequently and the bluing is still sound (unlike my M85 which is starting to show some wear after less than a year).

Another cool looking pistol is their version of the 9mm, which replaced the Mak(not sure what the name is). Saw a pic on this board of Putin at the range with one and instantly wanted one. :evil:


__________________

max popenker
July 31, 2009, 04:33 AM
Another cool looking pistol is their version of the 9mm, which replaced the Mak(not sure what the name is)

That's Yarygin PYa (http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg50-e.htm)

rbernie
July 31, 2009, 10:41 AM
Honestly, every country has come out with winners, losers and "what the heck were you thinking" in their rifle and pistol designs. One could also take a poke at the fetish some folks have for all things German.
Pretty much spot on.

Russian firearms are not magic. They are tools that are indicative of their heritage. Their principal attributes seem to be ruggedness, suitability for cold climates, and a 'just enough to make it work' focus on non-critical finish. Given their lineage, that's not unexpected.

Many of them are ergonomically unfriendly. Some are not. Many were class-leading for a generation or better. Some were clearly outdated when fielded - the 1895 Nagant revolver leaps to mind as a design that was mechanically kinda neat but pitifully slow to reload when compared to rival service sidearm designs and not nearly as handy to fire.

There is no reason to suggest that the Russians are any less capable than any other industrialized country at designing and fielding effective weapons systems. There is also no reason to idolize the weapons as somehow befitting some mythological standing.

bgrav321
July 31, 2009, 12:52 PM
One should also remember that the AK 47 was groundbreaking for its time. While the western countries were still working with bolt actions, the Russians were the quickest to capitalize on the advances the Germans had made in the development of the assault rifle with the MP/Stg 44. Most western nations didn't adopt a self loading or full auto rifle until the 50s.

mister2
July 31, 2009, 05:58 PM
To the original OP's point:

This is not really about any Russian (or fill in the blank) hardware, but a combination of :

1. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You pays your money and takes your pick. And,

2. the ability (and forever may it last) of most of the people on this board to exercise their preferences.

Shadow 7D
July 31, 2009, 06:22 PM
I can afford them, and the rounds I need to shoot them, Oh, and if I screw one up dicking with it, I can afford to buy another if I can't fix it, and it would still be cheaper than buying that nice 1911 or tacticool m-4 and the pieces to make it work ok.

Shadow 7D
July 31, 2009, 06:25 PM
Oh, almost forgot, the rifle I think is really cool and would love to get, only cost $1600, match M1A, so...

I'll just have fun working with a surplus rifle while saving my pennies.

sniper5
July 31, 2009, 08:57 PM
And since the apples to apples comparison came up, what rifle were we using in 1891 when the Mosin-Nagant rifle was first adopted? I don't thing it was the Springfield. My memory is getting old but more like the Krag IIRC. Ever try reloading a Krag in a hurry?

slzy
July 31, 2009, 10:39 PM
ussr did build some great airplanes,but,kozedub their greatest ace got most of his victories in a p-39.

there were over 120 soviet aces flying the p-39,and some sources say the p-39 has the most victories of any US built fighter.

the russians did not use them for ground attack,rather they flew close cover for the IL-2s,an airplane who had no real western parralell,from the ground up till the A-10.

wojownik
August 1, 2009, 12:34 AM
And since the apples to apples comparison came up, what rifle were we using in 1891 when the Mosin-Nagant rifle was first adopted? I don't thing it was the Springfield. My memory is getting old but more like the Krag IIRC. Ever try reloading a Krag in a hurry?

The Krags were put into service in 1894. Until then, the main regular army rifle was still the good old single shot trapdoor Springfield.

The Krags were phased out in favor of the 1903 Sprinfield in, well, 1903 :D

The Navy adopted a limited number of the M1885 Remington-Lee, so those would have been in service in small numbers in 1891.

So, apples to apples, some of the great powers had the following in service around 1891:

US - Trapdoor Springfield Mod. 1873
Russia - Mosin-Nagant 1891
France - Lebel 1886
Gerrmany - Gew. 1888
UK - Lee-Metford (with Martini-Henry and Martini-Enfields still in service)

sniper5
August 1, 2009, 10:17 AM
wojownik, thanks for the info. I wasn't exactly sure about the date, but it makes the point even better. Military technology tends to leapfrog. One country tries to outdo the other. The Vetterli was cutting edge when it was introduced by Switzerland as a bolt action, then France started using smokeless powder in the Lebel, Mannlicher figured out how to stack rimmed cartridges. MN dealt with it in a way that didn't rely on enbloc loading and using the bottom of the mag to shovel dirt into the action. Then came Enfield with a shorter throw to speed firing. Then Mauser using rimless cartridges to get rid of the rim problem. And the list goes on and on. Each was revolutionary in it's day and now is regarded as obsolete, flawed, outmoded, and by many, junk. Some day in the future the M4 and Barrett will fall into that group and people will wonder how we ever fought wars with such "trash".

Zoogster
August 1, 2009, 01:25 PM
Some day in the future the M4 and Barrett will fall into that group and people will wonder how we ever fought wars with such "trash".

Of course. When you (and I mean you if you are a cleared government agent) can use a plasma rail gun combo to fire rounds in full auto with the destructive capability of a 20mm, and the recoil of a .22, who would use those antiques?
That just being a backup weapon.
When the really big weapon plasma weapon has the power of a modern main tank gun, and bolts onto soldiers' exoskeletons which absorb most of the recoil. Of course the use of such exoskeletons by forces allows the use of advanced future body armor weighing more than any regular human being could carry. Which in turn requires such weapons just to combat. Exoskeletons powered by the latest in energy technology which allows them to run for days at a time.
That program is already in its infancy:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=109_1195663753
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8e8_1236727945
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b4a_1176211044
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bfc_1211072259

When the United Tyrants of Nations has created world peace among nations, and work as a unified force to stop all peasants who resist, I mean terrorists. Fortunately they will crush those terrorists beneath thier heel and our great great grandchildren can continue to work producing taxes in thier freedomless society. There will be so many more people on earth, and no more land than today that an apartment 10% as big as most today will take the average person a lifetime of servitude to pay for, while homes will have ceased to be practical taking up too much space per capita. Most of thier life will be spent working to pay for thier tiny boxlike living quarters. Living quarters which are little more than where they sleep between the hours working to pay for it. Which they might manage to pay off just in time to retire and die, but not before making (not raising, raising will be done from pre-pre-school until adulthood in schools with a strict government curriculum, while they merely do homework and sleep at home) the next generation of workers.
Occasionally the United Tyrants of Nations may agree to small scale wars between thier nation states (in secret) to ease the constant burden of the population growth problem. Which is then when an average person may find themselves on a battlefield able to use such weapons against the "enemy".
Oh joy!

I think I will just enjoy the modern world rather than the improvements of the future.
:neener:

chuckusaret
August 1, 2009, 02:17 PM
I have several Russian weapons, both are well made, relieable and very accurate. A Mosin Nagant 91/30 ($65.00) and a M39 ($95.00)that will out shoot a Mini 14 ($650).

Zoogster
August 1, 2009, 04:17 PM
Russian weapons are known for being built very robust. At least those produced for government use.
With little concern for cosmetics, and only moderate concern for precise MOA accuracy.

Several designs have worked and continue to work with very minimal maintenance in third world nations for generations. Dirt, carbon build-up, dust, and not being taken apart and cleaned after use.
Yet they keep working, rarely requiring new components to replace those broken or worn from neglect.
They still wear from use, having a lifespan like other firearms, but they are neglect friendly firearms.

Part of being so robust with poor care on automatic firearms is looser tolerances. Tolerances that reduce accuracy slightly. The older bolt action firearms were robust even with decent accuracy not needing to self-cycle.


The Russians are known for slapping some heavy wood onto some heavy metal on a large production scale. Getting something into the field that will work, and keep working with poor logistical support.

This lack of cosmetics and fit and finish details, plus the massive scale of thier production, combined with the platforms becoming obsolete or replaced by the government and then entering the civilian market accounts for thier price. A price for a level of performance that leaves them well liked by many.

The complete lack of refinement leaves a durable weapon that works but is of low monetary value.
Which then means great deals for us Americans who still have the freedom to buy them.


That will not longer be the case in the future though. Now there is trade restrictions in the United States on such weapons, and most weapons produced since the 50s are select fire. A great deal of import and export restrictions. Laws like the NFA, GCA etc
So the next batch of weapons to become obsolete and replaced will not be surplus that American civilian can purchase.
So enjoy it, it is a relic of an age when armies used weapons the average American could purchase when they were done.
As they have replaced thier AK-47's and AKMs, and they replace thier AK-74s in the future they will not be available for purchase.

Just as the Garand was the last American service rifle that most mere peasant civilians could purchase once they were replaced. Even our own government made sure to destroy hundreds of thousands of 1911 pistols that were civilian legal rather than let them go to civilians as cheap surplus.
The end of an era when surplus went to civilians. When citizens got what thier taxes paid for when thier government was done using them.

ThrottleJockey72
August 1, 2009, 04:36 PM
I can't believe someone had the audacity to open fire on some of the most famous and reliable guns ever built! Sure, by todays standards, you can do better. But let's consider that these were designed well over 60 years ago and are STILL heavily used and highly regarded to this very day! These guns shaped history and the world we live in.

CornCod
August 1, 2009, 04:37 PM
I really have to take issue with DMK's opinion that an M-1 Carbine is better than an SKS. I have owned both. Nothing wrong with an M-1 Carbine for arming semi-combatant troops in rear areas. It is nothing more than a handy PDW. The SKS has better range and it's harder hitting against targets. SKS is easier to field strip as well. I would feel a lot better going into harms way with an SKS than an M-1 Carbine.

rogertc1
August 1, 2009, 04:49 PM
The Russian guns are cheap and plentiful right now. People with limited incomes can compile a respectable big collection for less bucks....it is FUN..

CornCod
August 1, 2009, 04:54 PM
I think a lot (but not all) of the people that really hate old east-bloc weapons have a visceral hatred of them because they hate Communism so much. Even though I am an old cold warrior, I never picked up that bias against so-called "commie guns.". I joined the Army Reserve back in the eighties and religiously showed up at all anti-Soviet demonstrations in New York City outside the Soviet Mission to the UN every year. I even demonstated against the visit of the Mozambiquan Ambassador to East Orange, NJ!. Me and two other guys on the sidewalk with signs! However, don't let ANYBODY try to take my AK's, SKS's Maks and CZ-52's away! They are fun AND effective!

akodo
August 1, 2009, 05:15 PM
Part of the reason is price.

It is a heck of a lot easier to own a Mosin than a Springfield 1903 on your budget, and you still have a nice bit of history.

As far as hatting commie red b_____, just remember, the Mosin-Nagant was around before the Soviet Union.

Acera
August 1, 2009, 05:27 PM
Is this thread still going on? It's funny because the same stuff is being said over and over.

For 4 pages we have heard they are cheap, and a peasant with no more than a kindergarten education can use it.

Can we go at least a couple of posts without that being brought up again??

jdc1244
August 1, 2009, 05:38 PM
I think a lot (but not all) of the people that really hate old east-bloc weapons have a visceral hatred of them because they hate Communism so much.

True. Also a Soviet/communist/socialist/command economy wasn’t supposed to be able to produce quality goods.

Can we go at least a couple of posts without that being brought up again??

Never happen – that would require folks to read the entire thread.

jeff-10
August 1, 2009, 06:18 PM
I am kind of in hinton03's camp. I have never had an interest in Russian firearms or firearms based on Russian designs. The things that pass for AKs in this country as almost laughable most of the time. They are some kind of Frankenstein contraption put together with either former Iron Curtain or North African parts. They are cheap though and their are tons of cheap gun owners out there.

I love milsurp rifles and have had a few. I prefer the K98 as it is a work of art, as long as it wasn't put together with slave labor. You may pay 2 or 3 times what a MN costs but it is worth it IMO. The Makarov is probably my favorite Russian based firearm, that can be readily purchased in the US, and even those are rarely actually Russian. The East German ones however seem to be quality.

Now if I could drop a couple of grand and get a bonafide Russian made AK-74U like the Swiss poster has I would be all over it. :D However thats not something that is likely to happen in my lifetime in the US so I don't worry about it. Also if real Russian SVDs were more common and sold for a grand or so I would also probably pick one up.

I have a feeling the AK clone things that people love to buy now are more popular with the guys who started buying guns after the wall came down than the guys who have been shooting for decades. Same with the Mosin Nagant.

30mag
August 1, 2009, 06:24 PM
don't know what is the fascination is with russian firearms?
cheap.

Bill B.
August 1, 2009, 09:43 PM
how about that Mosin-Nagant. They are like everything the Russians make--throw aways.

Hope they get threw my way! I could use a few more ....................!

ThrottleJockey72
August 1, 2009, 10:45 PM
Hope they get threw my way! I could use a few more ....................!

I don't want more, I just want the value of mine to go up!!! So please, throw them away!

5knives
August 2, 2009, 02:45 AM
Hmmm,

OP in Germany, ever go hunting in the winter time? In sub-zero weather?

Ever notice you can wear gloves (nice warm gloves) and still use any of the Comblock firearms? How many U.S made firearms (military or sporting) can you do that with?

Ever ask yourself what the Russians were using when they regularly cleaned our clocks in virtually every international rifle match? All through the forties, fifties and most of the sixties. they weren't buying Remchesters and tweaking them.

My Makarov will feed empty cases from the magazines, much as i love the 1911's I've never seen one that could do that, and in over fifty years playing with them I've seen a few.

Issue accuraccy, acceptance criteria for the AKM was prox 12" at 300 meters for 50% hits on human size target, Acceptance for the M-16 was 6" at 100 yds, prox the same as the AK, Mosins and SKS did better, Acceptance for the M14 was ... 6" at 100 yards.

My VEPR in .308 , from the bench w/4 power scope and radway green will shoot 1-1 1/4 moa all day long at 100, 200 and 300 I haven't had a 500 yard range for many years.

Lots of reasons to respect and/or value the Russian firearms.

Don't believe I've repeated any of the (accurate) comments made before me.

I remember during WWII the armchair 'Experts' were guffawing at the little Jap soldiers with their cheap, ugly "little" 6.5 mm rifles, "hardly more than a .22" was one I still remember.

My Dad didn't think they were 'pip-squeak' cartridges, nor did my uncles, my later step-father, and the Guys I served with later, veterans from Guadalcanal on through Korea, didn't laugh at them either. Nor at the Chicom and Russian weapons used in Korea.

That experience helped convince me that the reason we so often find arrogance combined with ignorance is that they are in fact two sides of the same coin.

The Combloc weapons can have a lot going for them, but 'throwaways' they are not.

People that like them should buy, shoot and collect them, people that don't ... shouldn't.

All JMHO, as always, Others MMV, that's fine too!

Regards,
:)

hinton03
August 2, 2009, 08:04 AM
5knives:

"Ever notice you can wear gloves (nice warm gloves) and still use any of the Comblock firearms? How many U.S made firearms (military or sporting) can you do that with?"

I don't see your point; are you saying that the AK should be revered as a wonder gun because it has a large trigger guard? First Com block firearms are not hunting rifles and yes in my 4 years in the 6th Infantry Division in Fairbanks Alaska I hunted in the winter and carried an M16 in the winter. I had no problem accessing the trigger on the M-16 with trigger finger mittens on.

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/weekly/images/m16a2rifle.gif

"Issue accuracy, acceptance criteria for the AKM was prox 12" at 300 meters for 50% hits on human size target, Acceptance for the M-16 was 6" at 100 yds, prox the same as the AK"

I have never fired and M-16 variant that could not shoot 2 MOA and most were closer to MOA, conversely I have never seen AK that could shoot the 4 MOA you describe as acceptance criteria for the AKM.

Tomahawk
August 2, 2009, 08:58 AM
I 'll take the reliability of the Com Bloc weapons, particularly the makarov and the AK 74. Having carried both I have never been disappointed.

wally
August 2, 2009, 10:03 AM
The AK is about a 5 MOA weapon

True.

where the m-16 in 1 MOA weapon

In your dreams for anything in "issue" configuration. You've confused the tweaked free floated bull barrel match guns with the M16.

15" group at 300 yards is more than good enough to inflict causalities.

--wally.

30mag
August 2, 2009, 11:07 AM
I remember during WWII the armchair 'Experts' were guffawing at the little Jap soldiers with their cheap, ugly "little" 6.5 mm rifles, "hardly more than a .22" was one I still remember.

Few people laugh at a gun that is pointed at them.

bottom shelf
August 3, 2009, 11:02 PM
They are like everything the Russians make--throw aways.

I just returned from 2 weeks n Siberia. From what I saw, this is definitely not true.

Acera
August 4, 2009, 12:40 AM
Actually for winter shooting, in full mittens (no trigger finger exposed) you can shoot the M-16 where you can't shoot the AK.

Take a tip of a bullet, depress the latch on the trigger guard and swivel it down onto the front of the pistol grip. There you go, easy access to the trigger even with bandaged hands. Pretty clever design.

ojh
August 4, 2009, 11:30 AM
I have several Russian weapons, both are well made, relieable and very accurate. A Mosin Nagant 91/30 ($65.00) and a M39 ($95.00)that will out shoot a Mini 14 ($650).

An M39 is a Finnish rifle, although its receiver and bolt are of Russian origin.

I own more than a dozen Russian weapons, long and short, military, hunting and target guns. None of them is junk. Some, like the Saiga M3 and the Mosin-Nagant M44, are not very accurate, but they have other virtues, already stated above. Some are extremely accurate, like the TOZ 35 free pistol. I have shot traditional military pistol matches with a Nagant M95 and a Tokarev TT-33, against Lugers and Lahtis, and won.

Restorer
August 4, 2009, 12:56 PM
hinton03, one question I haven't seen asked yet is what specifically were your negative experiences with Russian weapons. For example, my Yugo 59/66 had a failure to feed problem; I fixed it with a $1.00 stainless washer on the gas valve...no problems since then. Were they problems of fit and finish or functional problems?

psyfly
August 4, 2009, 05:10 PM
Just found this thread.

Many shooters here seem to think that most Russian guns are ugly.

I don't happen to agree and I've read the whole thread and wondered why no one has mentioned the TOZ (thanks, finally, ojh) or the Baikal, both of which are scary accurate and responsible for Russians having taken home a respectable number of international medals, including some olympics.

Love my SKS (even though it was made in PRC, it was designed in Russia) and I just acquired a Baikal and expect to love it, too.

Functional, yes, ugly, no way:)!

w

If you enjoyed reading about "Don't know what is the fascination is with Russian firearms?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!