Flaws in the AK design: By an AK lover.
- Thread starter Hoplophile
- Start date
- Status
I really don't see the ergo problems on an AK, but that is probably because I'm left-handed. I really don't understand why a lefty would want a 'left-handed' gun for centerfires (bolt actions make sense though), because it seems much easier to me (and for me) to operate a 'right-handed gun' and not have to unshoulder or release the gun from my trigger-hand side.
With my normal AK, I drop the mag and insert a new one with my weak hand, then charge the gun with my weak hand without having to even take the gun off my shoulder or use my left hand at all. Maybe someone should really switch the layouts some.
and i agree with the comment about the AR handle being non-bidextrious. It is just as easy (and awkward) on any side. I guess that is a good strength, though; you won't see a difference in speed between any capable shooter in the loading process.
With my normal AK, I drop the mag and insert a new one with my weak hand, then charge the gun with my weak hand without having to even take the gun off my shoulder or use my left hand at all. Maybe someone should really switch the layouts some.
and i agree with the comment about the AR handle being non-bidextrious. It is just as easy (and awkward) on any side. I guess that is a good strength, though; you won't see a difference in speed between any capable shooter in the loading process.
JR47
Member
The AK47 was designed for a shorter person than the American average. It was also designed to be used differently then American soldiers.
The philosophy that requires everything to be regarded in American terms is faulty.
AKs that are sufficiently worn, and dirty, will fail. Then again, the American M16, even when new will fail when dirty, much less when worn. The AK will shoot much longer before failure with a minimum of maintenance.
Aimed fire at distance was relegated to the DMR position in Soviet squads, and he had a different rifle, or a selected AK. The Soviets weren't big on single combat. They believed in massed artillery, then armored strikes through the lines. The armor to be supported by dismounted infantry. They were to go around heavily defended areas, and continue deep into the rear echelon, allowing the defended position to "wither on the vine". The infantry kept anti-armor weapons away from the armor, which would then use their weapons to keep their infantry safe.
Nowhere was there any concept of lone soldiers operating by themselves. The AK was developed for those actions, and proved itself more capable of doing that than the M16 in the hands of our proxy troops.
Say what you want about it being obsolete, but there are an awful lot of armies, including the Finns, still using the AKM, in 7.62x39.
The philosophy that requires everything to be regarded in American terms is faulty.
AKs that are sufficiently worn, and dirty, will fail. Then again, the American M16, even when new will fail when dirty, much less when worn. The AK will shoot much longer before failure with a minimum of maintenance.
Aimed fire at distance was relegated to the DMR position in Soviet squads, and he had a different rifle, or a selected AK. The Soviets weren't big on single combat. They believed in massed artillery, then armored strikes through the lines. The armor to be supported by dismounted infantry. They were to go around heavily defended areas, and continue deep into the rear echelon, allowing the defended position to "wither on the vine". The infantry kept anti-armor weapons away from the armor, which would then use their weapons to keep their infantry safe.
Nowhere was there any concept of lone soldiers operating by themselves. The AK was developed for those actions, and proved itself more capable of doing that than the M16 in the hands of our proxy troops.
Say what you want about it being obsolete, but there are an awful lot of armies, including the Finns, still using the AKM, in 7.62x39.
For an illiterate conscript, or someone who otherwise doesn't have time to drill a lot, the AK's mag system is great. Yes, it may be slower and clumsier until you get used to it. But mag tensioning problems are basically nonexistant. With the AR-15, if it jams, you slap the magazine first, because most jams are caused by improper mag tension. That's also the real reason why you should download your mags by 1 or 2. With the AK, why bother hitting the mag? The magazine would flop out after your first shot, if it wasn't all the way in.
The rock-and-lock gives a huge amount of leverage, as well. I can easily seat a fully loaded magazine into an AK using just my pinkie finger. Totally impossible to do that with an AR. Once again, eliminates many mag insertion problems.
HorseSoldier
Member
If you're using a sling, we're no longer talking about combat marksmanship, so optimal design considerations are different. In terms of the current thread, it's definitely not relevant to how the AK is employed (or 99% of service rifle use in the last 100 years since people stopped advancing in line-abreast open order in 1914 or so)
It creates its own problems. I've watched a good number of competent shooters under self- or clock-induced stress simply keep missing the proper placement and motion to lock in an AK mag, resulting in slower mag changes due to fumbling. While I've seen some botched AR loads, it seems to be a bigger (and more protracted when it happens) issue with the AK pattern.
I will say this can speak to training -- more time on the AK meaning less fumbling, etc. -- but would also say the proper technique seems harder to master than the AR. This goes back to what I said earlier about "simple designs being more complicated for the operator."
Evil Monkey
member
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2006
- Messages
- 1,486
I notice that every time the AK is being criticized or glorified, it's often being compared to the AR15.
Do you guys forget that the world is filled with designs that put both the AK and AR15 in the metal scrap bin?
Since we're talking about the AK in this thread, try comparing it to some other modern rifle and see if the AK still stands tall.
Do you guys forget that the world is filled with designs that put both the AK and AR15 in the metal scrap bin?
Since we're talking about the AK in this thread, try comparing it to some other modern rifle and see if the AK still stands tall.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
By what criteria are there auto-loading rifles that are better than the AR?
Cost? Accuracy? Functionality? Ease of use?
I have to say, I'm hard pressed to think of a form of rifle competition that would be open to AR-pattern rifles which it doesn't utterly dominate.
camslam
Member
Me thinks our friend Justin might be drinking a bit too much AR Kool Aid on his birthday. The AR is great, and is enhanced by a choice of a stronger caliber than the .223, but let's not go overboard in regards to how great it is.
There are a number of people that would argue there are plenty of other rifles that are either equal to or better than the AR when it comes to Cost, Accuracy, Functionality, and Ease of use.
AK103K
member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2002
- Messages
- 7,610
The biggest flaw with the AK, or any of them for that matter, is most always the user.
With familiarization and practice, most all of the AK's supposed deficiencies go away. Same goes for most other platforms that are different than the M16/AR platforms that seem to be the guns everything else is judged by (hmmm, funny, I always hear nothing but bad things about them on the internet, except when it comes to the AK
). They all have their good and not so good points, but in every case, its still the user thats the weakest link. If you cant make the gun work or shoot it reasonably well, its not the guns fault.
With familiarization and practice, most all of the AK's supposed deficiencies go away. Same goes for most other platforms that are different than the M16/AR platforms that seem to be the guns everything else is judged by (hmmm, funny, I always hear nothing but bad things about them on the internet, except when it comes to the AK
). They all have their good and not so good points, but in every case, its still the user thats the weakest link. If you cant make the gun work or shoot it reasonably well, its not the guns fault.RockyMtnTactical
Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2006
- Messages
- 3,539
It easily has the worst ergonomics of any rifle I can think of. Still a decent rifle though.
HorseSoldier
Member
His statement wasn't speculative, if I'm not mistaken. The AR dominates in shooting sports where intermediate cartridges and service rifles compete.
There are very few that can rival it in terms of ease of use for the operator. It beats most for accuracy. Those designs which do give it a run for its money in these categories tend to be fairly recent ones which draw (sometimes very heavily) on its ergonomics.
Cost -- yeah, there are cheaper guns out there. Some that are more expensive also. Functionality, the AR gets the job done, despite internet ink spilled to the contrary, though there are weapons that deserve the nod they get for being more rugged and such (AK among them, of course).
AK103K
member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2002
- Messages
- 7,610
I think a lot of the problem with comments like this is, a lot of this depends on what you have experience with to judge everything else by. Even then, whats your experience level with anything you do know and is it a realistic comparison? Have you actually taken the time and effort to learn to properly use "any" of them, or are you just partial or familiar with one type or family and everything else is lacking?
If your comparing the M16/AR to the AK's, do you really have enough time on both to declare one truly better than the other?
Personally, I dont see them to be all that far apart, especially if both are equipped with a good red dot.
anymanusa
Member
A++ to you for including a nice video,.. . but you must admit that you are COMPENSATING for a factory deficiency. If you can reach ACCROSS the rifle that quickly, imagine how quickly you could charge it if the handle were on the right (left) side.
coondawg47
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2005
- Messages
- 41
Both the M-16 and Ak-47 are both great rifles, both for different reasons. If you like accuracy over reliability then you will probably like the AR better. I like the safety ergonomics of the AR-15 better but like the charging handle of the Ak better. Target accuracy of the AR is better but combat accuracy is the same with irons. I actually prefer the AK sights over the AR as I shot those types of sights long before peeps (I know the peeps are more accurate). But I also learned how to drive with a stick shift and still prefer a stick over automatics. So as usual it all boils down to what you prefer. I carried every version of the M-16 through the M-4 (over 25 years) and never felt under armed while carrying one. I did observe lots of malfunctions over the years, usually due to bad magazines or the mag not seated fully.
jerkface11
Member
I'm interested in which rifle is cheaper than, more accurate than, easier to use than, and more fuctional than an AR15. I'll be buying when when I find it.
I can't see any reason why you wouldn't use a sling in combat for a long shot that requires stability. It takes maybe half a second longer to do it and greatly improves accuracy. Sure, they're not ideal for CQB, but for a shot over 200 yards most people need all the help they can get.
Glock Glockler
Member
1) The selector lever. You can't operate it without removing your hand from the grip. This can be fixed by an aftermarket part
Some might say that if you're in Indian country your safety shouldn't be on in the first place, just keep your finger off the trigger.
2) No bolt-hold open. Perhaps this is for the better, as it adds complexity, but reduces reload time. I don't know. This can also be fixed by an aftermarket part.
Having it that way also keeps dirt and crud from entering the action, the more time it's open the greater your chances of that happening.
3) Charging handle is on the wrong side. I'd love to see an AK with the charging handle on the left, so I could charge it without taking my hand off the grip a la the FAL. Is this possible?
If you lie prone you can turn the gun on it's side to get extra low and the charging handle becomes a crude sighting tool, not great but better than nothing. Also, keep in mind that the AK was born from the experience on the Eastern front, where there was not always enough ammo to go around, the guns were used like lances and spears. The AK is great for that, it's a magnificent club to maul people with, but the way the Russkies are trained to do so involves balancing the side of the receiver on the left hand as the right one thrusts with the buttstock. If the charging handle was on the left side it'll destroy your left hand while doing that.
All that being said, working it with your left hand underneath the gun isn't such a big deal. Those things you mentioned aren't necessarily flaws, just differences that reflect the design philosophies of Soviets.
Some might say that if you're in Indian country your safety shouldn't be on in the first place, just keep your finger off the trigger.
2) No bolt-hold open. Perhaps this is for the better, as it adds complexity, but reduces reload time. I don't know. This can also be fixed by an aftermarket part.
Having it that way also keeps dirt and crud from entering the action, the more time it's open the greater your chances of that happening.
3) Charging handle is on the wrong side. I'd love to see an AK with the charging handle on the left, so I could charge it without taking my hand off the grip a la the FAL. Is this possible?
If you lie prone you can turn the gun on it's side to get extra low and the charging handle becomes a crude sighting tool, not great but better than nothing. Also, keep in mind that the AK was born from the experience on the Eastern front, where there was not always enough ammo to go around, the guns were used like lances and spears. The AK is great for that, it's a magnificent club to maul people with, but the way the Russkies are trained to do so involves balancing the side of the receiver on the left hand as the right one thrusts with the buttstock. If the charging handle was on the left side it'll destroy your left hand while doing that.
All that being said, working it with your left hand underneath the gun isn't such a big deal. Those things you mentioned aren't necessarily flaws, just differences that reflect the design philosophies of Soviets.
I am still waiting for someone to show me a fast reload-with-retention drill for the AK. As in, I just ripped off 10-12 rounds, I want to replace the on-board mag with a fresh one, but I do not want to smack my depleted mag in the butt with my fresh one and send it skittering across the deck, I'd rather place it in a pocket or dump pouch in case I need the rounds later.
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Face it. In the year 2008, the mag changes could be better, ergonomically speaking. That's a design flaw (despite the very valid excuses that it is not that huge of a deal, that the rifle is 61 years old, and the clunky system has some real advantages in the durability/reliability department).
Mike
Here's one way to do it. Grab your fresh mag. Hold it upside down near the bottom of the mag. Using the same hand, grab the empty mag that's still in the rifle, holding the two mags together, (just like they were taped together "jungle style" by an idiot). Using your thumb, release the empty mag, then rotate both the hand holding the mags and the rifle until things line up and insert the new mag. Then reach under the rifle and rack the charging handle.
It's not lightning fast, but it can be reasonably quick and you do retain the mag.
AK103K
member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2002
- Messages
- 7,610
I have to assume because your asking, that you have never really tried to do it yourself? It can easily be done if you take the time to figure it out. I can do it just about as fast as I can my AR's, and I never take my hand off the grip when I do it.
Again, it seems that most of the complaints are from people who havent bothered to actually take the time to try and learn the gun they are bitching about. If you dont spend some quality time with what your trying to learn, then you really dont have a true knowledge base to draw from when you try to compare it to something else. Ten or fifteen minutes at the range shooting your buddys gun and a couple of mags of ammo doesnt really qualify you to make the comparison either. Just because you struggle working the gun, doesnt mean you will after a short learning curve. It really helps though if you have someone who knows how to work it to help you along.
JR47
Member
Philosophy differs. Just like the comparison to American rifles over the years. The WWI comparison was that the Springfield was a great target rifle, but the Enfield was a great battle rifle. America has always tended towards accuracy in it's small-arms. That was fine when we actually expected soldiers to be marksmen.
Today, that's not so much the case. Look at the addition of the DMR to the platoons and squads. This was a prominently Soviet position, adopted after the AK. The use of the sling to steady shooting is also not a universal component of basic marksmanship training today.
More and more, the American Infantryman is moving away from individual marksmanship, and towards combined arms, al la the Soviet model.
As to the question of "better" rifles than the AR/M system. The HK 416, the Sig 556, and the Israeli Tavor designs are as accurate, and more reliable. Cheaper? Taking away the business side, and looking at the actual costs in materials and machining, they are easily the same, if not cheaper.
Today, that's not so much the case. Look at the addition of the DMR to the platoons and squads. This was a prominently Soviet position, adopted after the AK. The use of the sling to steady shooting is also not a universal component of basic marksmanship training today.
More and more, the American Infantryman is moving away from individual marksmanship, and towards combined arms, al la the Soviet model.
As to the question of "better" rifles than the AR/M system. The HK 416, the Sig 556, and the Israeli Tavor designs are as accurate, and more reliable. Cheaper? Taking away the business side, and looking at the actual costs in materials and machining, they are easily the same, if not cheaper.
- Status
