Advanced AK

You can keep your traditional AK's, I prefer what Marc Krebs has done.

It is what it is. IMHO the AK has the virtue of simplicity and form fits function that is hard to beat. The 7.62x39 cartridge was designed as a compromise to fill the middle ground between full powers rifle rounds and pistol calibers. A pretty good do all round.

Last round bolt hold open - not that big of a deal on the rifle but the S12 is a biotch to load on a closed bolt. LRBHO has the virtue of saying HEY DUMMY you are empty instead of hearing a click instead of a bang when you REALLY need a bang. I use the yugo mags but don't like the bolt closes when you remove the mag.

mag well. rock and lock works but the manual dexterity to get it right is something of a skill. A mag well takes some of the thinking out of it and under stress thinking is not a given.

safety/dust cover - I really don't like the combination safety dust cover. I will get fussed at but the K scratch is ugly. An ambidexterous safety would be much better. Also the dust cover is too unstable to mount optics on.

quick bolt release.

accuracy. It has already been demonstrated with higher q/c AND very good ammo the AK design can be quite accurate. It kills me when folks expect bolt action sub MOA target rifle performance from every single firearm. 2 to 5 MOA is not an unreasonable parameter for an infantry man weapon.

weight. Not much you can do about it unless science finds something that can do what steel does.


Pretty much everything I listed is available for the AK now except the weight thing. Problem gets to be the quality versus quantity thing. I like taking mundane things and improving them beyond their design specs. I am ashamed to disclose how much money I have dumped into my mustang. Same with my guns. I could buy something fresh from the factory with the same performance but where is the fun in that?

.......

The only real improvement to an AK that I can see has having any real value would be to redesign the dust-cover so that it was a bit shorter, and then install a tall rear trunion on which a rear sight can be installed and remove the leaf from the gas block. I might also change the gas piston to a tappet (this can actually be done with existing gas block in place with an insert and a different piston, with the bolt-carrier mounted piston being shortened to where it enters the gas block) and so reduce the amount of weight moving.

Those, in my opinion, would be meaningful improvements to the design which would not increase cost by any significant amount. Accuracy could be increased in this way. If a design is so near becoming obsolete that the only thing that can save it is strapping things to the forend will save it, it is not worth playing with in the first place.

Of course, my concept of obsolescence is different.

Ash

It is my belief that the AK fills a slightly different niche.

Click to expand...

The Western citizen marksman soldier mindset can't seem to accept the AK for what it is....

A throwaway rifle for a throwaway soldier......

An economical (stamped sheet metal) stone cold reliable (almost unbreakable) combat rifle that is simple to deploy with illiterate troops who will receive neither marksmanship training nor armory support. Said rifle must reliably deliver rounds in full auto. for close quarters guerilla warfare typical of revolutions and insurgencies over a prolonged period of time with no more maintenance than a barrel swab with a torn rag soaked in used motor oil once a week.

It is what it is. And it is a beautiful thing. The only way to "evolve" an AK is to make it cheaper, simpler to operate, and more reliable.

Adding battery powered accessories, glass optics and "fluff" of any kind is counter to the mission of the AK and "devolves" the rifle into something it was never meant to be.

ak's

i always enjoy seeing the keep the crap off pics , but im sure if they had the tactical enhancements of today's weapons back then they would of used them .

TS2

The only thing that the AK needs, IMHO, is better sights. The Finns have an AK clone that has an apeture sight at the rear of the receiver and the front sight on the gas block. I don't know if that rear sight stays at zero or not.

More "western" sights and that would be it. Somehow overcome the whole "mounting on the cover loses zero" problem...so there'd be more sight options.

Other than that, there is nothing that I'd bother changing...caliber included.

My own list of "improvements" to the AK:

1. Rails. Easily added.

2. Sights. The stock sights suck. Period. The Krebs/Beryl rail design with integral rear sight seems to solve this problem nicely.

3. Lack of places to mount optics. The combloc side rail sits them too high, dustcover mounting is suboptimal. You can go Ultimak if you like forward red-dots, but it makes the rifle nose-heavy, and you can go with the Krebs/Beryl style rail and kill two birds with one stone if you don't. The only problem I can see, without actually owning one, with the latter setup is that your iron sights and optic will sit on a different plane. Hardly the end of the world.

4. Safety/Selector improvement:
You can easily add a switch that allows you to work the safety with your shooting hand.

Improvements like BHOs and bolt releases would be nice from the perspective of an AR shooter, but they would involve some pretty substantial redesigns of the action to make them work efficiently. As it is, the AK manual of arms has a nice KISS factor to it. It is not as fast as an AR's, and it requires more training to get the mechanics right, but it is dead dirt simple from a decision-making perspective and it works- smack mag release with fresh mag, insert, run bolt.

Mike

What would a similarly evolved Kalashnikov look like?

Click to expand...

I think the Russians, or at least some of them, would say that the AN-94 was their evolved rifle corresponding to the G36, XCR, SCAR, etc etc etc.

Sticking with a more AK specific platform, someone mentioned the Galil as a modernized and evolved AK. To an extent, but I'd say the Sig 550 series is a more evolved and more perfected version of the AK.

For improving on an existing AK, I'd personally pretty much limit it to a gas tube rail and an AimPoint Micro on it. Forward pistol grips on AKs can make mag changes even more complicated than they already are (under stress/on the clock), and you just don't really need them. Adjustable LOP stocks can be a good thing on a gun, but the normal Russian/Warsaw Pact length stock is pretty good for a CQB gun (which is what an infantry/service rifle/carbine is 95% of the time anyway).

HoosierQ,

You could redesign the rear trunion to act as a rear sight base, too. It would be permanently attached to the receiver and so would be a perfect mounting location for the rear sight. You would also have to redesign the dust cover and its attachment, but that would be easily accomplished as it already attaches to the rear trunion. You would also then have two solid locking points, the gas block and the rear trunion, on which a rail could be mounted for optics.

That would be very easy to do for a designer/producer. Much more tough for a home guy. However, it could be easily accomplished by some of these domestic manufacturers.

Ash

Those other calibers... 5.45, 5.56, 5.8, they all don't fit the character of the AK.

Click to expand...

I agree I don't support the idea of an AK in 5.56, why not just get an AR. However, 5.45 absolutely fits the character... especially given the history the Russians have had with using this round with success in Afghaninstan and Chechnya.


On some of the other notes, yes the safety could be improved. And I agree the sights aren't the best.

For my AK-105 (5.45) I put a Kobra on it and a rubber butt pad, but that is about it. I think tactical add-ons should be kept minimal. JMO

Nolo : However, I've been looking at the "next gen" weapons systems, like the SCAR, ACR, and XCR, and I've been wondering...
What would a similarly evolved Kalashnikov look like?
I realize this is a vague and even silly question, and that those rifles aren't straight evolutions of the M16/AR, but take features from many weapons.
However, they fundamentally are designed to fit the same niche as the AR.
It is my belief that the AK fills a slightly different niche.

Click to expand...

Good question.

Perhaps something like....

1) Rear peep sights: AR15 type peep and ghost ring rear sights that are adjustable for elevation and windage.

2) Rails: Rails for a lightweight dot sight and for maybe a fore grip or a light.


AK Rails

3) A Different Folding Stock: A folding stock that locks up well over a long period of time without becoming wobbly after excessive use (maybe like the one you'd see on a Galil or for Ace Stocks).



4) A Fold Down Cheek Piece: When using optics it might be nice to have a cheek piece that elevates your head so that it can rest against it instead of having the metal folding stock kind of hit your jaw.


Cheekpiece off an SVD

5) A Different Safety: An AR15 or Galil like safety that you could operate with either thumb instead of having to sweep it down with your right entire hand which takes your hand off the grip.



See the safety by the grip that's operated by the thumb?

6) Different Bolt Position: A bolt on the left hand side or one that stuck up Galil style so that the left hand could reach it with putting your arm underneath the entire weapon.


See the upright bolt handle?

7) A Different Caliber: One larger than the 5.45 and with better ballistics than the 7.62X39. Perhaps some kind of 6mm or 6.5mm.

Those would be what I'd add anyway.

Krebs did what most of us did, took a Saiga rifle and swapped out some parts, DPH and Stubby rail also make that beryl rail... I too have considered getting one for my Saiga. right now mine sports a Kobra.

Maaaaan. I really like the Micro on the Ultimak. It's a pity it costs more than the whole rest of the gun.

I assume it cowitnesses just fine? It doesn't block the irons?

Mike

Coronach
It's a pity it costs more than the whole rest of the gun.

Click to expand...

Not in this case...







Oh yeah, cowitness is perfect, I'll try and capture it with a picture later.

A throwaway rifle for a throwaway soldier......

Click to expand...

Spot on, I'd say.

Not in this case...

Click to expand...

Heh.

What is that cheek piece you have on that folding stock? I've seen them before, but can't seem to figure out who makes it.

Mike

You can go Ultimak if you like forward red-dots, but it makes the rifle nose-heavy

Click to expand...

I keep hearing this erroniously repeated, so it must have become a sort of cultural meme.

I therefore will repeat-- in the worst-case scenario, the mount adds less than one ounce to the rifle. It is not an add-on-- it instead replaces the steel gas tube assembly. In some cases it actually reduces the rifle's weight. OK? Get out your scales before you make that statement again, please.

Add a light weight optic like a Micro and you've increased the rifle's weight by less than four ounces, five tops. You'll never notice the weight, but instead you'll have a superior aiming system and will not have to use those so-called poor iron sights on the AK.

I've done mount/optic/stock installations many times that left the rifle lighter overall than when I started.

You want to really improve the so-called "muzzle heavy" properties of an AK(which I say is a myth-- ever pick up a Garand? How about an AR-15 HBAR?) get rid of that 74-style break, cleaning rod, and front sight block, then use a gas block front sight. You're losing what-- about .4 lb by my scale. With the UltiMAK mount and Aimpoint Micro you're still below the original total weight and it all came off the front end.

Look-- if you want an "original AK" (which is actually going to be a super rare and expensive NFA weapon in this counrty) I have absolutely no quarrel. That's totally cool. If you want to retain credibility, just don't try to rationalize it by saying anything other than, "I want it this way because I think it's cool."

OK? Then we can all stay friends.

Now, if you want a REALLY, REALLY original firearm, it would be a bronze hand cannon-- fixed breach, smooth bore, with no sights, no lock and no stock-- just a touch hole through which you poke a hot wire to ignite the loose black powder. THAT, my friends, was the only true, original, authentic firearm. Anything beyond that is just bells, whistles, complexity and room for failure, right? I mean, if the gun was meant to have locks, stocks, sights, and all that crap, it would have been built that way by its originators, right?

Oh, but some of those things, those bells and whistles, make shooting easier, faster and more accurate, you say. Exactly, I say.

I wish a manufacturer would come up with a handgun in the AK vein. Stamped, simple, extremely reliable, bombproof. Cheap.

BTW, you guys are killing me with all these Krebs sight rail pics. I want one, can't afford the $$$.

You can go Ultimak if you like forward red-dots, but it makes the rifle nose-heavy

Click to expand...

I keep hearing this erroniously repeated, so it must have become a sort of cultural meme.

I therefore will repeat-- in the worst-case scenario, the mount adds less than one ounce to the rifle. It is not an add-on-- it instead replaces the steel gas tube assembly. In some cases it actually reduces the rifle's weight. OK? Get out your scales before you make that statement again, please.

Click to expand...

No.

I won't, because it is true, unless you add a really lighweight optic. Sure, the mount itself is a wash, but the issue is how much weight is added from the mount AND THE OPTIC and where the optic is placed. Put a mount and optic near the fulcrum and it does not matter (within reason) how much it weighs. Put it out on the nose, and stuff starts to matter more.

Now, you're correct to say that the mount itself is not to blame. If a person wants to use a big honking boat-anchor of an optic, that's hardly Ultimak's fault. But the fact that the Ultimak system mandates putting the optic out on the nose of the rifle is a consideration that needs to be weighed (heh!) when people are deciding which optic and mount to use.

FWIW, I've been on record already as saying that the Ultimak rail is one of the best mounting systems for optics on the AK. The one thing I do not like about it, however, is the fact that you either need to use really really light optics (which are, generally, either chintzy or very spendy) or put up with a nose-heavy balance (how nose-heavy depends on the optic and how far forward it gets mounted). The only other option I see that could be better than the Ultimak is the new (and more than twice as expensive) Krebs rail.

Mike

Not my picture, but you get the picture.








All of my research for the lightest combination of mount and optic that offered
cowitness led me to the Aimpoint Micro UltiMAK comb. No regrets

You want to really improve the so-called "muzzle heavy" properties of an AK(which I say is a myth-- ever pick up a Garand? How about an AR-15 HBAR?) get rid of that 74-style break, cleaning rod, and front sight block, then use a gas block front sight. You're losing what-- about .4 lb by my scale. With the UltiMAK mount and Aimpoint Micro you're still below the original total weight and it all came off the front end.

Click to expand...

Or you could just not be a sissy. If you have trouble with an AK with a forward mounted optic, you have problems beyond your rifle and optic. Your concern should be hitting the gym. I am a tall, skinny, SOB. I am not a weightlifter and haven't in a long time. But I can still hump an M1A and a half dozen spare mags around a mountain with a pack, and have before. If you have problems with a 9 pounds of carbine and optic, it isn't the arrow, buddy, it's the indian.

Run, don't walk, run, to the nearest "Golds Gym."

It's not a question of being able to lift something, it's a question of whether or not you want the additional weight there. No one questions whether or not the AK with an Ultimak and a "heavy" optic is usable- it is. The question is whether or not the rifle is as handy as it once was- it isn't, unless you go with a very lightweight optic. The cost/benefits analysis just needs to keep these two things in mind.

FWIW, I run a SAR-1 with an Ultimak and a Kvant-23. I had a Aimpoint Comp2 on there and I disliked having an optic that was worth more than the gun (and, I had another, more pressing, use for the Aimpoint). I find that having the dot, even with the different balance of the weapon, is better than not having the dot, or putting the dot on some half-arsed mount like a dustcover rail (obvious problems) or the combloc side rail (too high).

I'm not saying the Ultimak is a bad mount. I'm just keenly aware that it does have a drawback, just like everything else.

Mike

Coronach ... I disliked having an optic that was worth more than the gun ...

Click to expand...

Buy more expensive guns