Blowing up an AK, for fun.
- Thread starter Sam Cade
- Start date
- Status
sixgunner455
Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2006
- Messages
- 3,052
Interesting experiment. Speculation is always interesting and all, but playing with blowing up stuff is a lot more fun!
The test shows the AK for what it is, an amazingly resilient and durable battle rifle. It shoots a decent round and is used all over the world for a reason. That doesn't preclude the AR from being a good reliable platform, though! The AR has more than proven itself as a durable and reliable battle rifle capable of withstanding lots of abuse.
Real world use of each of these firearms is far more important than the guns themselves. For example:
In tight quarters with barriers, the AK is a better system. If you are engaging targets with light barriers and at 200 yards plus, the AR is the better system. Ammo weight makes the AR the clear winner in number of rounds per weight, while the 7.62 has a little more punch per round fired. In terms of stopping power, there is no definitive answer to this question for either round. Ergonomically, I give the AR the advantage, but if you are small in frame, the AK may be just as comfortable. Modularity and sighting system clearly goes to the AR.
The point is, that a simple squib test is not the be all/end all on how good a battle rifle is. There is far more to consider here. What's wrong with having one of each? Why make it a battle over which is better?
Real world use of each of these firearms is far more important than the guns themselves. For example:
In tight quarters with barriers, the AK is a better system. If you are engaging targets with light barriers and at 200 yards plus, the AR is the better system. Ammo weight makes the AR the clear winner in number of rounds per weight, while the 7.62 has a little more punch per round fired. In terms of stopping power, there is no definitive answer to this question for either round. Ergonomically, I give the AR the advantage, but if you are small in frame, the AK may be just as comfortable. Modularity and sighting system clearly goes to the AR.
The point is, that a simple squib test is not the be all/end all on how good a battle rifle is. There is far more to consider here. What's wrong with having one of each? Why make it a battle over which is better?
The designs of the particular weapons can be summed up by looking at the military philosophy of the countries of origin. The AK is a product of Soviet military thinking. "Quantity has a quality all its own". The typical Soviet soldier was a conscript with little to no marksmanship training and almost no chance that he had grown up shooting. Quantity of fire was important for him to be effective because a single aimed shot was highly unlikely. Likewise as a conscript, expecting him to understand the importance of cleaning and maintaining a weapon was a pipe dream. Finally the weapon had to be cheap to produce in huge numbers. Against that backdrop the AK makes perfect sense. The lack of need for precision allowed for loose tolerances which allowed for cheap manufacturing. The loose tolerances also meant that a lot of gunk could build up in the mechanism, as would happen when a conscript soldier neglected their weapon over a long period of time, and still allow the weapon to function. If the AK had been designed and built to U.S. manufacturing standards, it would likely be a good bit more accurate, but it would not be nearly as "soldier proof."
Conversely the M16 was designed for a rifleman. Tolerances are tighter. Modern manufacturing methods are used. Quality, not quantity, was the focus of the design. We knew that we couldn't match the Soviets in manpower or volume of fire, so making each shot count was weighted more heavily. The soldier's training was an important part of this but giving him a weapon that would allow him to reap the benefits of that training. Similarly, a rifleman was expected to understand the importance of maintaining his weapon. Three factors converged at once that somewhat undid this paradigm and gave the M16 an early reputation as unreliable. First was handing the weapon to a force composed largely of conscripts, not rifleman. The second was deciding that cleaning kits for the rifles were un-needed, a decision made by logisticians, not armament experts. The final straw was then giving that same group of conscripts ammo that was dirty beyond words. These three factors combined to create the worst possible scenario for a weapon made with close tolerances. Conscripts don't see importance in maintaining a weapon that they don't want to have in their hands in the first place, and the lack of cleaning kits only reinforced that thought. Dirty ammo that quickly fouled the action only expedited the stoppage issue. With the return of the professional soldier and rifleman to the U.S. military and the understanding of the need to maintain the weapon and the procurement of quality ammo, reliability problems are now more anecdotal than systemic and almost never have anything to do with the design.
wally
Member
Speaking of pipe dreams, tell me again what was the average number of rounds expended per dead VC?
Wow, reading these "catastrophic failure" threads has been interesting. With the exception of the all out bashing one platform or another, good points have been made. While Helotaxi's statement about the INTENT of the AR platform was probably pretty accurate, Wally brings up the REAL LIFE question.
I tend to see it as both the AK and AR are good reliable weapons designed to accomplish different things.
There are so many differnt types of senarios and battlefields. While we can physically carry and fire both weapons at once, we can only effectively shoot one at a time. So when/if the SHTF, hopefully you've already made up your mind which you're going to use and use it to the best of your abilities.
I tend to see it as both the AK and AR are good reliable weapons designed to accomplish different things.
There are so many differnt types of senarios and battlefields. While we can physically carry and fire both weapons at once, we can only effectively shoot one at a time. So when/if the SHTF, hopefully you've already made up your mind which you're going to use and use it to the best of your abilities.
Did you read the rest of the post? Conscripts vs. riflemen. Compare that to more recent combat with an actual professional fighting force instead of a force of draftees. The M16 was not designed with Vietnam or the composition of the Army sent to fight it in mind, that's just where it happened to get it shakedown.
Ok first off, I should never post when I am tired. I reread my post and it is far more terse than what I intended.
And before someone starts thinking I own a top tier race gun, my AR is built from parts from about 8 different makers. Some of them, the barrel, are second hand.
When I said the tests proved nothing I meant it proved nothing more than you can blow up any weapon if it is subjected to enough stress. Neither the AR or the AK are and "better" than the other. One does some things better but falls short in others and vice versa.
This is what I always hear. The AK is the best weapon everz! And yet when I ask someone to bring their AK to a Tactical Rifle match and run it head to head against an AR there is always some reason they can't make it. For me a rifle match is the closest I will ever come, or ever hope to come, to combat. We shoot in the dirt and thick dust from some very strange and difficult positions that test not only the rifle but the shooter as well.
And before someone starts thinking I own a top tier race gun, my AR is built from parts from about 8 different makers. Some of them, the barrel, are second hand.
When I said the tests proved nothing I meant it proved nothing more than you can blow up any weapon if it is subjected to enough stress. Neither the AR or the AK are and "better" than the other. One does some things better but falls short in others and vice versa.
colt1911fan
Member
Ive seen both platforms in horrible shape
, most of the time I can thank the Iraqi police or Iraqi Army :banghead: for letting these weapon systems end up in such a horrid condition. It always surprises me when I see one of these Iraqi maintained M16 series rifles show up to one of of our ranges and it fires just fine, yet its covered in dust and rust and shouldn't even work
. But IMO it comes down to a preference thing as well as the application for what the weapon is being used for. Both are great platforms IMO. BTW interesting videos always fun to try break things
, most of the time I can thank the Iraqi police or Iraqi Army :banghead: for letting these weapon systems end up in such a horrid condition. It always surprises me when I see one of these Iraqi maintained M16 series rifles show up to one of of our ranges and it fires just fine, yet its covered in dust and rust and shouldn't even work. But IMO it comes down to a preference thing as well as the application for what the weapon is being used for. Both are great platforms IMO. BTW interesting videos always fun to try break things Joe Demko
Member
Where did the idea come from that Soviet soldiers didn't get marksmanship training? My in-laws, my wife, my BIL and his wife, and about a metric ton of other relatives and friends started getting instruction in shooting and other military skills in middle school. By the time they reported to do their 2 years mandatory service they already knew how to shoot and maintain an AK. In contrast, I knew lots of American military personnel who had never touched a gun before enlisting and a bunch more who had all manner of things they needed to unlearn WRT shooting. That doesn't even count the Air Force and Navy guys whose training consisted of little more than firing a magazine or two.
US and Soviet doctrines were different but do not kid yourself that Red Army soldiers couldn't put the bullets where they wanted them.
US and Soviet doctrines were different but do not kid yourself that Red Army soldiers couldn't put the bullets where they wanted them.
briansmithwins
Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2005
- Messages
- 4,631
Guess we don't go to the same rifle matches then. AK is what I have so that's what I shoot our local rifle match with. Mine have been pretty solid 4MOA rifles so I can hit the 12" steel out at 300 yards or so. Smaller or farther away does give me some problems, but hey, that's what I've got. I do generally clean up on the close range stuff as a AK, properly handled, can be very fast at close range with irons. BSW
Me at the local match:
Or maybe I am insane, as I've also shot the same match with this Yugo M48:
BADUNAME37
Member
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 4,434
Be careful if you end up enclosing an extremely high pressure between two projectiles within the barrel! Later, cutting into that high pressure zone could release the explosion that should have occurred at the time of firing. I read about a "test rifle" at one of the main gun manufacturers and they did this and set the gun aside for like a month. When they went to open it up, they had to be cautious as there was all this pressure still stored within the barrel, just waiting to escape!
Dreamcast270mhz
Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2010
- Messages
- 406
@briansmithwins
I'm drooling.
I'm drooling.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sam Cade
Member
If it ever quits raining I have half a dozen or so cartridges loaded with pistol powder to run through it. Hopefully we will get a more interesting failure out of it.
This morning I clamped the barrel down in that vise, weighted the table down with some lead ingots and a few sandbags and set up a target stand 25 yards away in front of the fixture.
Even jumping the inch or so gap where the barrel is bulged and split it managed to put an entire magazine into about a 3" group.
This morning I clamped the barrel down in that vise, weighted the table down with some lead ingots and a few sandbags and set up a target stand 25 yards away in front of the fixture.
Even jumping the inch or so gap where the barrel is bulged and split it managed to put an entire magazine into about a 3" group.
Wally wrote:
This is only a worthy question if you include misses as well. How many rounds did it actually take to hit a target as well as incapacitate it. I am willing to bet the rounds expended vs. hits on target is hugely lopsided in favor of expended. If this is the case, simple logistics dictate that being able to carry more ammo per soldier is a better investment than fewer, more powerful rounds. This is a definite advantage for the AR platform over the AK. Additionally, what ranges were engagements typically at? At closer ranges I'm sure the AK was better, but at distance, good hits with the AK become more a matter of luck than skill. Also, were the AR and AK actually designed to be the primary combat system? Mortars, grenades, air support and heavy guns were all parts of combat at that time and the AR and AK are both more than sufficient for laying down supressing fire for heavier artillery to do it's job.
I think it is a bit much to compare the AR of Vietnam fame to the AR of today. So much has been learned and tweaked, that it just isn't the same. The way battles are waged and soldiers are trained also have made a huge impact on performance of any weapon system. To top it all off, most of these debates are about civilian firearms that will never be used in combat or defense, making the debate theoretically fun, but practically meaningless.
This is only a worthy question if you include misses as well. How many rounds did it actually take to hit a target as well as incapacitate it. I am willing to bet the rounds expended vs. hits on target is hugely lopsided in favor of expended. If this is the case, simple logistics dictate that being able to carry more ammo per soldier is a better investment than fewer, more powerful rounds. This is a definite advantage for the AR platform over the AK. Additionally, what ranges were engagements typically at? At closer ranges I'm sure the AK was better, but at distance, good hits with the AK become more a matter of luck than skill. Also, were the AR and AK actually designed to be the primary combat system? Mortars, grenades, air support and heavy guns were all parts of combat at that time and the AR and AK are both more than sufficient for laying down supressing fire for heavier artillery to do it's job.
I think it is a bit much to compare the AR of Vietnam fame to the AR of today. So much has been learned and tweaked, that it just isn't the same. The way battles are waged and soldiers are trained also have made a huge impact on performance of any weapon system. To top it all off, most of these debates are about civilian firearms that will never be used in combat or defense, making the debate theoretically fun, but practically meaningless.
briansmithwins
Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2005
- Messages
- 4,631
Thanks!
Unfortunately, I'm more of a serial AK owner. The Arsenal SLR106FR went away because the price of 5.56 got too dear. But I turned it into the SR107FR.
The RPKlone went away because even though it was cool, the utility of a semi-auto squad support weapon was lacking. But it was a hoot.
BSW
Last edited by a moderator:
Dreamcast270mhz
Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2010
- Messages
- 406
No biggie. All I have is a shared Polytech AK/S with my pops. I'm gonna get a saiga, convert it and turn it into a wood and steel demon. Then I'll get an M76, as the PSL's pencil barrel turns me off, and 8mm Mauser kicks even .30-06's arse so I get a very good rifle hopefully, plus the milled receiver is a ++++!
After those two, I'll spend more time working on my bolt gun collection.
After those two, I'll spend more time working on my bolt gun collection.
Sam Cade
Member
Sam Cade
Member
OK. six cases full of blue dot, one case full of Triple 7 netted us 7 stuck cases and no additional damage.
Anyone have any suggestions?
Anyone have any suggestions?
Dreamcast270mhz
Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2010
- Messages
- 406
Sam,
How about cement just past the bulge, going inward and a 148gr bullet with twice the load strength?
In my experience, my G 98 in 8mm vs my rebarreled .30-06 mauser of comparable length, the 8mm typically has less drop at 500 yards. I'm using surplus ammo in both of 1950s vintage. Never pulled the bullets but on a jewelry scale they weigh about the same, the .30-06 a little heavier. Now, both are pretty accurate but my G98 war trophy consistently holds a 4 in grouping at 500 yards, the .30-06 has about 4.5 in. Just my personal experience.
How about cement just past the bulge, going inward and a 148gr bullet with twice the load strength?
In my experience, my G 98 in 8mm vs my rebarreled .30-06 mauser of comparable length, the 8mm typically has less drop at 500 yards. I'm using surplus ammo in both of 1950s vintage. Never pulled the bullets but on a jewelry scale they weigh about the same, the .30-06 a little heavier. Now, both are pretty accurate but my G98 war trophy consistently holds a 4 in grouping at 500 yards, the .30-06 has about 4.5 in. Just my personal experience.
Sam Cade
Member
M2 ball and 7.92x57 surplus should be within 2 inches of each other at 500 yards.
m2 ball is 152gr.
The standard military load for 7.92x57 is in the 200gr area.
You have the most accurate Gewehr 98 in the universe.
HorseSoldier
Member
A) The AR was designed for use by a conscript force with limited training in marksmanship. A selling point was that it was easier to train troops to make hits at realistic combat ranges than its predecessors.
B) The AR was designed to out gunfight the AK -- the intent was not to be more accurate. The intent was to allow an even larger basic load of ammunition to be carried on the individual and by the unit even compared to 7.62x39 (to say nothing of x51, 30-06, etc.). The driving finding was that training and marksmanship were simply irrelevant compared to volume of fire when people were under life and death stress. That was the US conclusion, not the Soviet.
C) Both US and Soviet designers grasped that number of potential kills, represented by the load of ammunition a troop could carry, able to influence events in the approximately 0-300 or 0-400 meter battle space was the decisive issue. Because troops in combat -- however well trained -- mostly miss.
D) It's really just the same old tired "America, nation of riflemen" mythology to claim that the AR/M16 was supposed to do anything the AK doesn't do. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses, but each was an adaptive strategy to basic failings of the infantryman/rifleman by giving him a weapon optimized for the limited range where he could hope to be effective and then giving him a means to get a very large number of potential engagements to the fight and then deliver them in a compressed timeframe.
The real difference between the AK and AR is not so much anything to do with deliberate design differences as it a reflection of what you get when you pour the same requirements into a relatively poor nation working with 1930s-ish technology on one hand and an extremely affluent nation working with 1960s technology on the other (late 50s AR design being cutting edge in materials, etc.). And some random quirks of history (Stalin purging or executing better gun designers, US Ordnance being the clownshoe commandos they were in the post WW2 time frame) and you still really just get two modest variations on the identical theme.
wally
Member
There is a guy on this forum named CLARK that grossly overloads even cheap handguns. The abuse they can take makes me not surprised that something designed for military use holds up amazingly well.
HorseSoldier, thanks for making my point way better than I ever could have!
HorseSoldier, thanks for making my point way better than I ever could have!
- Status
