Flaws in the AK design: By an AK lover.

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Austrian Army has/had a requirement for pistols that the magazine NOT be free-dropping. Guess why? The Finns also have that requirement in their rifles. Several European Armies require that their rifles work at extreme low temps, without special lubricants.

So, the idea that mags would be kept if they didn't fall free is quite alive.
 
The Austrian Army has/had a requirement for pistols that the magazine NOT be free-dropping.

I wasn't arguing for or against "free-dropping".

What the hell is happening to this thread? ":confused:
 
I like the AK for its practical simplicity and I'm not worried about it's so called short comings.
The platform can be enhanced and modernized a little and that's not a bad thing.
 
I like the AK for its practical simplicity and I'm not worried about it's so called short comings.

That's a great answer, and no sarcasm intended. You like it the way it is and will not go forth and bring up silly little irrelevant defensive arguments.

I wonder what would happen if the title of this thread read out "Flaws in the M14 design" :evil:
 
That's a great answer, and no sarcasm intended. You like it the way it is and will not go forth and bring up silly little irrelevant defensive arguments.

It's not that us AK fans don't think it has flaws, we just disagree on what they are.

IMO, the flaws are.

1) Sights/dust cover/stock design. I include this all as one flaw because they are closely tied together. This is one area where the AR was truly visionary and got everything right. To see what's wrong with the AK, first let me explain why the AR setup is so good. You have high mounted sights and the stock irons are very good. With the flat top, the iron sights cowitness perfectly with a scope or red dot and this means that you don't need any extra cheek pieces in order to get a proper cheek weld.
Now the AK doesn't have any of that. The stock sights aren't as bad as some say, (with practice they can be used effectively), but they aren't very good either. The dust cover makes it difficult to improve things. You can't mount a solid rail to it. You have to be able to remove it to clean the rifle and any optics will sit up higher than the iron sights so you need some sort of cheek piece to get a proper cheek weld if you use optics.
All in all, it's a serious flaw in the design with no easy or good solution.

2) The safety. It's awkward and noisy. A safety should be easy and quick to disengage and when you do so it shouldn't be audible.
This should be fixable. Adding a secondary safety to the side of the rifle that rotates in the correct direction, (unlike the Galil), shouldn't be rocket science.

Everything else I view as just part of the AK design. Some parts of it might be somewhat slower or more awkward than other designs, but you can learn to live with them and they have strengths that make up for their weaknesses. No LRBHO for example makes the gun simpler and cheaper and helps keep dirt out of it. The charging handle on the right side is easier to work from the prone. The rock and lock mags are built like tanks and lock up very positively.
 
I wonder what would happen if the title of this thread read out "Flaws in the M14 design"
The charging handle location and rock in mag would be OK then. :)
 
I have an Arsenal AK and a Bushie M4gery.On the AK,I mounted a Krebs forend on it.Both have Eotech's on it.The AK will eat anything however the Bush will not feed steel cased ammo.For me the Bush is more accurate @ 100 yds(no surprise)My only complaint with the AK is the stock is too short.
 
I frankly don't consider the dust cover a flaw, or the sights. A flaw indicates a defect in design. The dust cover is just fine because nobody was issuing optics on any rifle other than a sniper's rifle in 1949. The design was not intended to be used with optics.

The sights are fundamentally no different than the Mosin-Nagant or M98 Mauser. They may not be as good, say, as the Garand, but they are not really any different than what is mounted on the majority of combat rifles at the time (rifles, I might add, which were bolt-action and really needed to have good round placement). For a relatively short-range weapon, they were fine for their time.

The safety is noisy and seems clumsy, but remember it is also designed to reduce the amount of debris getting into the action when not in combat. And, given that the concept was a Red Wave crossing the battlefield supporting tremendous armor, noise was of little consequence.

The AK does not compare favorably with newer designs in many ways. But it is, as has been said by others, a design that does exactly what it was intended to do.

Folks may have come up with new concepts and pigeon holes which the AK does not fit nicely into, but calling its failure to fit into those holes flaws doesn't fit.

I can point out poor ground clearance, bad tire arrangement, and completely improper gear ratio on a Corvette and that it cannot compare in any way to my Cherokee. But those are not flaws. The Corvette was never intended to go off road. Ditto for the Cherokee.

If I want to try to make the Cherokee into a street racer I can try, but it would be silly to say it is flawed. Just not designed for that purpose.

And that is from a guy who no longer owns any AK (save for a PSL).

Ash
 
One bona fide flaw is the vulnerability of the gas/cylinder-tube to obstruction by denting. The Yugo model addressed this with those bigger handguards they have.
 
The AK is my favorite mil-pattern rifle. Then again, I'm a southpaw. I like the M1A, Garand, and Mini-14 better than the standard AR, FAL, CETME/HK rifles too.

The arguments against the AK's "bad ergonomics" sound like my complaint list against the strongly right-handed FAL, or having to buy ambi selectors or mag catches for ARs.

It always amuses me that one person's perfect ergonomics just require "workarounds" or extra cash spent by those who disagree.

The "perfect" mil-pattern rifle would be completely operable by either hand with equal facility. It seems that it as things stand, not too much thought was ever given to taking damage or loss of use to the "dominant hand" during battle.

Most of us are born with two hands. Well designed firearms should reflect this symmetry. Thankfully, design concern has been trending that way with designs newer than the current crop of favorites.
 
I find it strange that people say the AK's charging handle is badly placed and then hold up the AR as a masterpiece of ergonomic design. Left or right side doesn't bother me one bit. Up against my nose while I shoulder my rifle doesn't make any sense at all. So then they'll tell you that there's no need to worry about the AR's goofy charging handle because you can just hit the bolt release when you change a mag. Fine, but you wouldn't have needed a bolt release in the first place if the charging handle wasn't in a goofy location. Then they'll tell you that you have to have a bolt hold open so you know when you're out of ammo. Nonsense, go to any firing line anywhere in the world and see if that's how it really works out in actual practice. But everybody's a ninja, of course. So then I point out that the AR's charging handle is useless as a forward assist and they show me the one built into the side of their reciever. So now we're up to two unnecessary components because of the goofy location of the charging handle.

People complaining about the safety is only slightly more bizarre. How are you going to fight anybody with your safety on, with the bayonet??? If you're fighting take it off and leave it off, if you're not then put it on. It's not rocket science, the Russians understood this ages ago as is evidenced by the design of the old Mosin Nagant rifles and TT-33 pistols. The Makarov doesn't even have a safety, neither did the Nagant revolver. But Gaston Glock was a real revolutionary when he designed a gun without a safety. :confused: Along those lines the AK's safety is too noisy but racking the slide on a shotgun makes badguys soil themselves. And here I thought the best course of action was just to shoot the enemy and not worry about his state of emotional being?

The sights, well, what's wrong with those? It's the same exact sight picture I have on my pistol and I don't have a problem hitting quickly or accurately with either. If anything it makes transitioning easier. Heck, if anything it's a plus that that the AK's rear sight is a breeze to adjust for drop at various ranges and the designer was even so thoughtful as to include a battle sight zero that effectively covers all ranges up to 300 meters. Peep sights are ok too though some obscure more of your field of view than others.

I can't figure out why anybody tries to mount optics to the dust cover when there are two military AK rail systems to choose from, either the Beryl style or the ubiquitous side rail. The side rail has the advantage of holding zero when you remove and reinstall the optic. The flat top on some AR's is a nice feature, it's also a relatively recent modification. You could achieve the same thing on the AK by simply making a railed rear sight block.

As for the dented gas tube "design flaw," well, spare gas tubes are cheap. Buy one and see what it really takes to dent it enough to kill the gun. I have. Good luck.

Two other weird ideas are related. Some folks try to say the AK was designed for untrained peasants which is why it works reliably without complain while the AR may require more maintenance from the user it gives advantages to a trained professional. I say horse hockey to that. The AR doesn't do anything special the AK doesn't do too. It's not like the AR shoots around corners or anything. As for who designed it or why, it was designed by an educated soldier with combat experience to defend his country.

Some people want to talk about accuracy, ok, I'll go there. There is nothing inherently inaccurate about the Kalashnikov action. I've seen Veprs in .308 and .223 that shoot teeny tiny groups with quality ammo. There are only three variables in AK accuracy and they are, in order of importance,

1 Shooter Ability
2 Quality Of Ammo
3 Quality Of Rifle Build

My SA M7 A1R will hold three inches or under at 100 yards with Russian commercial 7.62x39, the least consistent ammo available in that caliber. If I can see it I can hit it.

Other people object that the AK is some kind of "commie" or "enemy" weapon. I don't understand that either. Mine was made in Las Vegas after a pattern developed by Bulgaria, an allied nation. Many other people own AK's made in another ally nation, Romania, which forcefully overthrew its communist rulers. As far as I'm concerned AK's are natural born freedom fighting defensive rifles that have been known to take quite a bit of game and be a lot of fun on the range too.

I've given a lot of thought to what I would like to change on the AK, especially at the beginning of my involvement with them. I was trained on the M-16, the AK is very different from that rifle. At first I tried to make the AK more like an AR but that resulted in bolting on a lot of stuff that just didn't need to be there. Then I had a Matrix moment. I realized there was no spoon so it wasn't the spoon that needed to bend, but me. Or something like that. Right around then the AK started making sense. I thought it was hilarious when I found what Gabe Suarez was teaching because I came to just about all the same conclusions independently though in much the same way. When all is said and done I feel the rifle is fine the way it is set up right now and if there's some special feature like an optic or folding stock I want to add there's already a good, solid AK solution for it. The one major modification I'd like to see is a rear sight block with rails instead of a sight, the AK's version of a flat top. It would also be nice if the mag release was a bit more rounded off on the edges from the factory. Voila! 21st century AK-47!
 
I like my saiga but I agree the AK system has some flaws. IMO they are:

1) The Sights/Dustcover Design
I would prefer an aperture type rear sight, but it's not possible, or at least very difficult because of the way the dustcover is set up. Optics mounting is slightly more complex too. The side mount works, but it's usually either too high, or offset to the side slightly. Over all I would say it's not that big of a deal.
2) The Safety.
To operate the safety you pretty much have to take your hand off the grip. It's also impossible to charge the rifle with the safety on. An upside to this is that it's very easy to check the chamber without ejecting a round when the safety is on. Of course you could do the same thing with the safety off, just don't pull the charging handle back all the way.
3) The Charging Handle
You have to reach over or under the rifle with your left hand or take your right hand off the grip. Yeah it's doable, but it's not as easy as a lot of other rifles.
4) The Magwell
Changing magazines can be a bit slow because you need to guide the magazine into the magwell, then rock it in. The learning curve is a bit steeper, and even after you've learned it's a bit slower. I'd prefer a magwell that helped guide the magazine in (I understand the saiga-12 has something similar to this) and straight magazine insertion and removal, even if the mags weren't drop free.

Honestly I really like the simplicity of the design overall, and it has a lot of other strengths. I just think there are just a few improvements that wouldn't compromise the simplicity and reliability of the rifle. And for 99.9% of us the weaknesses don't really matter, because we aren't using our rifles in combat.
 
The AR15 is predominantly the choice of competitive shooters in both High Power Service Rifle matches as well as for National Match guns. These are iron-sighted or peep-sighted rifles that are shot out to 600 yards.

True, but that is because you HAVE to use them for service rifle... that's what makes it a SERVICE rifle match..... If you use an AR in a match rifle match, it's because you don't have the money for a match gun or confident that staying consistent is better. Tube Guns rule because they feel like AR's but aren't even close to being one. .223 isn't the best when you can use something else.

The AK is great for what it is intended to do, fight in urban environments out to 300 yards. The M-16 is good for the well practiced American soldier with ample support behind him.

P.S. Mag change times are vastly over blown, When was the last time you've seen a SOLDIER hammer off 30 rounds and quickly put in a new mag? A lot of combat shooting is pop your head up/gun up and shoot a few rounds without staying up for too long. Change your mag behind your cover and take as long as you need.

The AR is the better gun for competition but in most scenarios, the AK wins in war.
 
True, but that is because you HAVE to use them for service rifle... that's what makes it a SERVICE rifle match.....

not true. Garands, M14s and others also qualify as service rifles.

even if the AK was permitted, no one would use them. you know why? of course you do. find me some 7.62x39 Match ammo. heh.

here's some http://www.the-armory.com/shopsite_sc/store/html/762x39_ammo.html

check the accuracy expectations on it too... "Most of our customers report high group to group consistency often sub-3", which is outstanding for most AK's"
 
All those here who are criticizing the AK for having a big, clunky, noisy safety that you have to take your firing hand off the grip to manipulate are not realizing something, and I'm surprised no one here seems to have mentioned it yet. It's big and noisy for a reason. This rifle was meant to be used by troops who would commonly have to operate in extreme winter conditions -- remember, this is the Russian army whose weapon we're talking about. It's hard to manipulate a small, AR-type thumb safety with heavy gloves or mittens on. Moreover, when you have those heavy gloves on, and your hands are numb with cold, you'll have very little sensation in your hands, so relying tactile feedback to tell you you've moved the lever to the correct position for full or semi-auto, depending on which you want, is not going to work. That very audible click will serve as a signal to you that the safety lever has moved like you want it to, without you having to look at it in order to verify this.
 
The only gun I ever found uncomfortable to shoot was a full auto AK (it's also the only AK I've ever shot). It was a converted (I believe) Norinco with an AKM stock. The stock was too short and it felt awkward.
 
mp510 said:
The only gun I ever found uncomfortable to shoot was a full auto AK (it's also the only AK I've ever shot). It was a converted (I believe) Norinco with an AKM stock. The stock was too short and it felt awkward.
That's because you've not been trained in how to use it.

They are quite comfortable when used as designed.
 
The AR is the better gun for competition but in most scenarios, the AK wins in war.

ummm...no?

both guns work in different mindsets. The M16/AR15 was made to excel at being an accurate and precise platform, that then evolved into a modular platform that could be made to do anything. The AK was simply made to work in what was perceived by the Russians to be the realistic and expected conditions, range, etc. one would meet in combat.

Apples and oranges. Both taste good.
 
I love AK's

I have a WASR 10, A Romack 1 and another Romanian RPK.

I also have a highly refined AK. The Sig 556. :D
 
1) The Sights/Dustcover Design
I would prefer an aperture type rear sight, but it's not possible, or at least very difficult because of the way the dustcover is set up. Optics mounting is slightly more complex too. The side mount works, but it's usually either too high, or offset to the side slightly. Over all I would say it's not that big of a deal.

I can help you with that. The side mount you want is the BP-02. It is centered, very low and compatible with anything that will go on weaver rails.

Even then high or offset sights aren't a design flaw, they're an ergonomic feature. These mounts and optics were made for military customers. Most people wouldn't have any reason to even know but if you're familiar with modern Russian combat helmets you know they're designed to offer considerably more coverage than ours. This makes sense, you can't shoot badguys unless you can see them and you can't see them unless you stick your head up to look and you really can't live without your brains intact. The down side is increased coverage results in interference with a traditional cheek weld. By moving the optic higher or over to the side you can compensate. This can also give you access to the iron sights without dismounting the optic.
 
NC-Mike said:
I also have a highly refined AK. The Sig 556. :D
I think you're stretching a bit far there. The Sig-556 uses features found in a lot of different weapons.

An example of a "highly refined" AK would be the Valmet Rk95

sakork95clonebar2.jpg
 
Look at what red stick firearms are producing in 5.56, 7.62x39, and I beleive also 6.5mm grendel.

I got the pic from the saiga forums.

It seems that the rock and lock mag system has been.....retired. :evil:

ARAKgunroom15.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top