What if the AK-47 had been designed in 1927?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Solomonson

Solomonson

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2017
Messages
765
Location
God's Country
What if a patriotic American had designed what later became the AK-47 in 1927 and had entered it in the testing trials against the Garand and Pedersen offerings? How would it have been received?

- The AK-47 would have been selected instead of the Garand.

- The AK-47 would have ultimately been selected in place of either the M1 Carbine, the Thompson submachine gun or the greaser.

- The AK-47 would have been rejected because it wasn't chambered in either .276 Pedersen or .30-06 Springfield.

- It would have been rejected with regard to its accuracy.

- It would have been rejected due to "politics."

- The US Military would have bought the design and then buried it, afraid the Axis would easily duplicate it.

- It would have been rejected for...?
 
Last edited:
Well we can eliminate keeping it from the axis because they where 10 years in the future. I think the military was still was going to use full size ammo in it's main battle weapon so it never had a chance against the garand. I can see it taking a M2. carbine roll however.
 
I think Jim's on the right track. I can't see it beating out the Garand for front line service, the brass was too fixated on range and accuracy. The Marines were initially mistrusting of the Garand just being semi-auto, thinking it would waste too much ammo. I can't imagine they would accept a 4-6 MOA full auto limited to about 300 yards.

At the outbreak of WWII, the AK probably would have filled the job of the spendy Thompson and nascent M1 carbine. From there, I think it would simply be too good to not force its way into standard-issue front line service.
 
Recall that the Garand (and all the self-loading rifles i nthe Army's original testing) were in .276pedersen, an intermediate caliber (of sorts). MacArthur nixed the .276 due to the US having something close to 10,000 million .30-06 rounds on hand, or planned to be in inventory. So, if a 7x51 did not make the cut, a 7.62x39 was hugely unlikely to, either. Doubly so given the 1000 yard marksmanship standard the old guard embraced through the 50s and 60s.

The stamping machinery available in the 50s was significantly more technologically advanced than in the mid 20s. Also "everybody knew" that firearms were machined, not bent. The machining steps for an AK (vice those of an AKM) would not have offered much of a cost savings.

Now, had the Garand been accepted in 1933 in 7x51, the US probably would not have even bothered with its 7.62x51 (e.g. .308) experiment. Which would then call into question as to whether the .222 would have been ever militarized into the 5.56x45.
 
I agree with Mosin , it wouldn't have replaced the Garand , but because of weight and cost it would have beat out the Thompson and M1 carbine .
 
IMHO it would have made the death tolls higher. mor e soldiers would have carried a AK type of weapon , probably on both sides


replace the garand..probably not. decrease its use in the filed--absolutely
 
I don't think it would even have been considered for a main battle rifle. The US military wasn't far off yet from the single shot mind set, if it hadn't been for the Mausers beating their butts in the Spanish-American War with magazine loaded rifles, they may have still been using Trapdoor Springfields. Those making the decisions thought rapid firing was just a waste of ammo.

Look at how long it took them to adapt to 1911's after the advent of semi-auto pistols.
 
CapnMac said:
Recall that the Garand (and all the self-loading rifles i nthe Army's original testing) were in .276pedersen, an intermediate caliber (of sorts). MacArthur nixed the .276 due to the US having something close to 10,000 million .30-06 rounds on hand, or planned to be in inventory. So, if a 7x51 did not make the cut, a 7.62x39 was hugely unlikely to, either. Doubly so given the 1000 yard marksmanship standard the old guard embraced through the 50s and 60s.

The stamping machinery available in the 50s was significantly more technologically advanced than in the mid 20s. Also "everybody knew" that firearms were machined, not bent. The machining steps for an AK (vice those of an AKM) would not have offered much of a cost savings.

Now, had the Garand been accepted in 1933 in 7x51, the US probably would not have even bothered with its 7.62x51 (e.g. .308) experiment. Which would then call into question as to whether the .222 would have been ever militarized into the 5.56x45.
Click to expand...

The AK-47 would have been easily and efficiently manufactured by 1920's sheetmetal fabrication processes.
 
boatdoc173 said:
IMHO it would have made the death tolls higher. mor e soldiers would have carried a AK type of weapon , probably on both sides


replace the garand..probably not. decrease its use in the filed--absolutely
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's a good point. Had the AK-47 taken the place of the M1 carbine/Thompson/greaser and been available, it's likely the troops would have noticed their true worth and sought them out for combat use.
 
jim in Anchorage said:
Well we can eliminate keeping it from the axis because they where 10 years in the future. I think the military was still was going to use full size ammo in it's main battle weapon so it never had a chance against the garand. I can see it taking a M2. carbine roll however.
Click to expand...

"10 years in the future"? Hardly. Ten times more complicated with no additional benefit? Yes. The Japanese would have especially benefited from having an AK-47.
 
Although this is an awfully contrived "what if" question the AK-47 would have be soundly rejected owing to (at a minimum) the 7.62 x 39 cartridge being under-powered and relatively inaccurate at ranges over 200 yards and the perceived expense of equipping individual soldiers with a magazine-fed, select-fire rifle. And of course it wouldn't eat the stockpiles of .30/06 that the M-1 was readily adapted to eat. Once more it would have been too far off the reservation of military doctrine for the time---not unlike the situation that developed in Germany with resistance from on high to the STG-44 in favor of the 8mm Mauser.
 
I allus thot Comrade Federov had the right idea in 1916. Most of his autorifles were made for 6.5 Jap. Unfortunately he was trapped in the Milling Machine Milieu so the gun itself was expensive. A stamped 6.5x50 would have answered a lot of questions that are still being asked today.
 
IF a SKS style of rifle had been presented between the Garand and the SKS and subsequently adopted by the US there might have been a reason to go to the AK. That MIGHT have bypassed the development of the 7.62X51 and negated the need for the M16 for a while.The biggest reason for failure as I see it was as stated about a zillion rounds of 3006 ammo committed to and in the supply lines already along with top brass not wanting to reduce effective range/accuracy.
 
Solomonson said:
"10 years in the future"? Hardly. Ten times more complicated with no additional benefit? Yes. The Japanese would have especially benefited from having an AK-47.
Click to expand...
The OP asked if the US would buy it to keep it from the axis. In 1927. The axis did not exist till 1937.
 
the government would reject it because the magazines cost more to make than the rifle.
 
It was. In 1915. By Vladimir G. Federov. Not quite an AK, but certainly closer than anything anyone else had in 1915, or 1927 for that matter. As Jim Watson said, it was made using traditional manufacturing methods, making it costly. OTOH, so was the AK, when first issued.
 
Last edited:
Neo-Luddite said:
Although this is an awfully contrived "what if" question the AK-47 would have be soundly rejected owing to (at a minimum) the 7.62 x 39 cartridge being under-powered and relatively inaccurate at ranges over 200 yards and the perceived expense of equipping individual soldiers with a magazine-fed, select-fire rifle. And of course it wouldn't eat the stockpiles of .30/06 that the M-1 was readily adapted to eat. Once more it would have been too far off the reservation of military doctrine for the time---not unlike the situation that developed in Germany with resistance from on high to the STG-44 in favor of the 8mm Mauser.
Click to expand...

"Although this is an awfully contrived "what if" question the AK-47." So says you. If you don't like it, pass over it.

Like it or not, the final version of the AK-47 or even the AK-74 (with wood furniture) would have been easily producible in 1927, so it's a legitimate hypothetical.
 
On the other hand if this patriotic inventor was wealthy and from a powerful state, I'm sure their US senators and representatives (and possibly even a few people on the executive branch) could have been HUGE help in having the AK-47 accepted.

Like the rifle, a hypothetical could be asked about the ammo as well. The AK could have been chambered in 5.45x39mm (as the AK-74 was) or the 5.56×45mm NATO or whatever is the hottest combat round these days.
 
CapnMac said:
Recall that the Garand (and all the self-loading rifles i nthe Army's original testing) were in .276pedersen, an intermediate caliber (of sorts). MacArthur nixed the .276 due to the US having something close to 10,000 million .30-06 rounds on hand, or planned to be in inventory. So, if a 7x51 did not make the cut, a 7.62x39 was hugely unlikely to, either. Doubly so given the 1000 yard marksmanship standard the old guard embraced through the 50s and 60s.
Click to expand...

Yet the .30 Carbine round (7.62×33mm) round was developed and implemented after this time period during the war.
 
I have wondered about the popular wisdom excuse that .30-06 ammo inventory was a main reason for not adopting the .276.
In the early 1930s it would have comprised leftover M1906 and new production M1.
WWI ammo was not of uniformly high quality and it was obsolete as to bullet jacket (cupronickel) and powder. M1 was a flop as range space and recoil became more important than long range performance.
.30 machine guns and .276 rifles would have been no worse than what we have now.
 
This hypothetical AK could have been chambered in 5.45x39mm (as the AK-74 later was), 5.56×45mm NATO or whatever is the hottest combat round these days. It's not as if any of these rounds took major scientific or manufacturing breakthroughs to be realized.
 
As a young soldier I proudly sported expert badges I got for the M16 Colt,1911 and the M3 grease gun. At present I dont own a 1911 ,AR15 or have a Grease gun. The Colt was too finicky for field use ,I never had to qualify or carry it after 1980 and bought a mini 14 in 223 as I found it much more reliable. There was a reason why we learned to tear down and put the M16 back together blindfolded. The rifle with the 3 round burst kit in it was very effective in clinical conditions. The 1911 was heavy to carry didnt feel good in my hand yet reliable and accurate enough at 45 meters. The M3 was a cheap bullet hose but effective. I think the M3 and 1911 were a 19F (tank driver) personal weapons until the 90 s. I would like to have one of those today. Times change though and too many of our people have came back from the sand box so the M16 must have improved. By the way a cheap Draco stays in the truck and I have 3 other AK variants that are all very reliable for close work ,cheap to shoot at present. That said my next weapon will be a 300 blackout on an AR platform. A weapon is no better than its optics and the person using it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Solomonson
  • Locked
What if an AK-47 chambered for the .223 Remington had existed in 1933?
2 3 4
Replies
89
Views
5K
Robert
Robert
J
  • Locked
AK-47 or AK-74 or any other gun
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
jackstinson
J
W
  • Locked
The AK-47 Ammo Crisis
Replies
21
Views
2K
hrgrisso
H
N
  • Locked
Thoughts on Gun Evolution
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
Brian Dale
B
T
  • Locked
Pistol vs AK-47 for accuracy
Replies
24
Views
1K
crunker
C
Back
Top