Flaws in the AK design: By an AK lover.

[Evil Monkey]

$300 extra for the 'privilege' of using delicate AR mags in a Kalashnikov?

Think again.

I know I know.

I think another company is producing adapters again to fit Saigas. I was reading about it on that forum. Might be a better option if it's less than $100.

 

[HorseSoldier]

The use of the sling to steady shooting is also not a universal component of basic marksmanship training today.

Nor should it be, since it's irrelevant for the ranges where 99% of shooting take place, but will slow engagement times dramatically on a three dimensional battlefield where threats can appear at random ranges, rather than walking in open order across manicured lawns.

More and more, the American Infantryman is moving away from individual marksmanship, and towards combined arms, al la the Soviet model.

Neither current training nor equipment support this claim much at all. Today we focus on training people to make hits on bad guys at real world ranges, rather than training guys to compete in NRA service rifle competitions.

I've seen no evidence that the common M4, or M16A4, is capable of this outstanding competitive accuracy mentioned.

Actual research, rather than speculation and hyperbole, has found an ACOG equipped M4 to be capable of almost completely matching the capabilities of an accurized SPR pretty much out to the limits of both the effective range of the 5.56mm round and the effective range an ACOG can PID a guy at.

True, if you consider close in hosing to be hitting man sized targets out to 300 yards.

Realistically, men wearing drab clothing tend to be damn hard to see at 300 yards, much less past that. BSW

An AK is absolutely a 0-200 or 0-300 kind of weapon (though as you note, 300 meters with iron sights is optimistic in the real world, with an AK or most anything else), but from the low ready, weapons on safe, an AR will tend to beat an AK on time assuming equal operator skill (and equal optics) when the range starts getting pushed.

Part of that is the less user friendly AK safety, and, in theory the AK shooter can save some time by simply running his weapon hot all the time, with the safety off. This is a generally unsatisfying solution to most, however, especially anyone who might have to be stacking up in front of a guy on the same side with a hot AK, etc.

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?

Personally, I've had a good deal of training on the AK and Galil from the .mil, and also spent some of my own money taking AK-specific classes from Larry Vickers and Gabe Suarez. While I don't pretend to be the best and fastest guy with an AK out there, I do feel quite comfortable and confident with running an AK pattern weapon . . . but also feel that the design has real and significant issues in terms of ergonomics. I would not feel poorly armed in a gun fight with an AK, but it would not be my first choice.

Then why haven't the Finns adopted the AR, instead of the Valmet, and, now the Chinese AKM?

Cold War politics peculiar to Finland's status as a neutral living next door to the Soviets account for the initial adoption of the AK.

Or the British, or the Germans, or the French, or the many other states, large and small? Many of the smaller ones use the AK variants, even when the M16 is readily available to them.

Generally speaking, with western nations we tend to see large scale service rifle decisions made with a healthy dose of politics and occasionally nationalism thrown in. That applies in the US as much as anywhere else, of course. Of course the smaller nations you reference also tend to use whatever was given to them by the East or West for free, but that's politics as well.

We also tend to see that when western nations' special operations units identify shortcomings in their nation's service rifles (sometimes they don't see any issues, obviously) and equip themselves with an alternate weapon, it tends to be the M4 more often than anything else. Since this discussion is about ergonomics and not the issue of direct gas versus piston, etc., we can count the HK416 on that list as well.

At the end of the day, the AR has proven to be a superb gunfighters' gun, and has become the industry standard for a fightable service carbine. Even those weapons that seek to challenge its status at the top of that particular pile generally try to copy its ergonomics and control layout to a varying degree.

the simplicity, reliability, power, and total inability to be destroyed outweighs any shortcomings by far.

To modify my usual sentiment about the AK never jamming, if you've never seen an AK rendered inoperable you've not spent enough time around an AK. It's a rugged design, but with neglect and abuse, it can and will fail.

Secondly, all the pluses you mention for the AK ultimately do not outweigh the minuses if those minuses get the operator killed. This is a generically true observation for any weapon, of course, but in the case of the AK, where its minuses can and do translate directly into how fast you can engage a target, they are particularly salient.

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.

Actually, as soon as you put the shooters under any kind of stress -- be it on the clock or whatever -- that's pretty much exactly how it works out -- hammers falling on empty AK chambers is pretty common when training new operators with any kind of stress involved.

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.

On most any weapon designed since the AK, you disengage the safety as you are bringing the weapon up to engage the target. No muss, no fuss, and less risk of AD'ing.

It bears noting as well that the Russians teach safety on for movement, etc., and then off only when engaging . . . pretty much like what we teach with the M4. The only problem is the AK selector is not as handy for that, so in reality a lot of their troops (and other AK users) just run the gun hot all the time, and have more accidental discharges as a result.

The Makarov doesn't even have a safety, neither did the Nagant revolver.

Can't speak for the Nagant, but the Makarov has a combination decocker/safety on the left rear of the slide.

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.

If you have a major stoppage with an AK involving brass getting back into the receiver rather than be ejected (can and does happen -- I've seen it on a number of occasions) either optics mount means even more time to clear the malfunction.

On an AR, you can go digging into its guts to clear any kind of malfunction while leaving your optic mounted, and having something on the flat top doesn't slow down getting inside the weapon if you need to.

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.

The "ARs only work when you have mortars and air support and tanks, etc." argument kind of falls flat when you look at the fact that the AR is internationally popular with special operations units whose mission requirements include going places and doing things where none of that is readily available . . .

Apparently, the SAS, for instance, thinks that the AR is also ideal for a well trained guy with zero support in the mountains of Afghanistan (or on some wind scoured hillside in the Falklands for that matter . . .).

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.

Mag changes only matter when they matter . . . but at that point the guy who never really bothered with learning to do them because he'll always be behind cover with buddies laying down suppressive fire is probably killed while fumbling with his weapon.

The AR is the better gun for competition but in most scenarios, the AK wins in war.

Pretty much nobody who gets to select the weapons they carry into harm way seems to agree with that conclusion.

 

[R127]

Nor should it be, since it's irrelevant for the ranges where 99% of shooting take place, but will slow engagement times dramatically on a three dimensional battlefield where threats can appear at random ranges, rather than walking in open order across manicured lawns.

I developed a sling technique that works well for me, it helps stabilize the rifle and takes some of the weight off. Depending on how you like to use your sling it may or may not interfere with other techniques. I use a basic 2 point sling and instead of wrapping it around my arm I adjust the length of the sling till it will be reasonably taught against my tricep from my standard stance with the sling merely over my arm, not wrapped around it. The sling is still long enough to go over my shoulder, not long enough to comfortably sling the rifle across my body.

Cold War politics peculiar to Finland's status as a neutral living next door to the Soviets account for the initial adoption of the AK.

The Kalashnikov action simply works better than the AR action in extreme cold. Finland has a very similar environment to Russia, Russia had already developed a weapon that works well in that environment and the Finns had already learned it's good to be able to work with captured Russian equipment. They essentially did the same thing with the AK that they did with the Mosin Nagant, take the Russian rifle and refine it a bit. Lots of Finnish gear is a unique blend of Russian and German, two countries they have had a lot of military experience with.

Actually, as soon as you put the shooters under any kind of stress -- be it on the clock or whatever -- that's pretty much exactly how it works out -- hammers falling on empty AK chambers is pretty common when training new operators with any kind of stress involved.

I don't think you understood what I was saying. Hammers falling on empty chambers are extremely common everywhere, even for skilled operators. Bolt hold opens and slides locking back do not change this. I'm sure somebody will tell me I'm horribly wrong and the ninjas have it all worked out. My own eyes have shown me otherwise.

On most any weapon designed since the AK, you disengage the safety as you are bringing the weapon up to engage the target. No muss, no fuss, and less risk of AD'ing.

That's a particular tactic, not a design issue. I'm sure there have been guns designed for that particular tactic, just as sure as I am there were guns with safeties capable of being manipulated in that way before people decided it was a good idea to monkeyfinger safeties.

It bears noting as well that the Russians teach safety on for movement, etc., and then off only when engaging . . . pretty much like what we teach with the M4. The only problem is the AK selector is not as handy for that, so in reality a lot of their troops (and other AK users) just run the gun hot all the time, and have more accidental discharges as a result.

Kinda sorta. I have the Soviet manual on the AK-47 sitting right in front of me. They do recommend putting the rifle on safe before movement. They also teach firing on the move. Now how in the world do you fire your weapon while it's on safe? You don't, because you can't. If you're moving but not needing to fire is it a good idea to put the safety on? Probably, but you often won't know when you need to fire and pretty much nobody fights like that. I realize there are no statistics at all on the "more accidental discharges" and even if there were you'd then have to relate them to the particular differences between the average American and Russian soldier but I'm going to have to call shenanigans on your statement anyway. If it were such a problem nobody would use Glocks and we would never have survived the double action revolver era. Heck, I've carried a double action revolver or autoloader nearly every day for years and years and years now... no fuss, no muss, no negligent discharges.

Can't speak for the Nagant, but the Makarov has a combination decocker/safety on the left rear of the slide.

You got me there. The decocker is also a safety. I carry my Makarov in condition 2 and manually decock just like on my CZ-75. I do find it disturbing that I had not noticed that before regardless. I always expected it would operate like the decocker on a P-01.

If you have a major stoppage with an AK involving brass getting back into the receiver rather than be ejected (can and does happen -- I've seen it on a number of occasions) either optics mount means even more time to clear the malfunction.

On an AR, you can go digging into its guts to clear any kind of malfunction while leaving your optic mounted, and having something on the flat top doesn't slow down getting inside the weapon if you need to.

Let's be honest up front though, it's not exactly a common occurence. I've sent a ridiculous number of 7.62x39 rounds through quite a few AK's and never have had that happen to me. It's never happened on any range I've ever been on and it's never happened to anyone I know in real life and I should qualify that by stating my friends and family all standardized on the AK long ago. I'll also qualify that by saying I've shot exactly one WASR in my life and it didn't belong to me. For whatever it's worth WASR's do appear to have more various problems than other AK's so maybe it is something that is happening with more regularity now in classes or on ranges than my experience would lead me to believe. Otherwise it just seems a bit like saying a rock could get jammed in your chamber and that would be bad. Yeah, I guess it would.

That's not the heart of your point though, it seems you're talking about clearing a difficult stoppage that requires accessing the weapon's innards. That's a valid point of concern and the answer to it is entirely dependent on what rail and mount you're talking about. A Beryl style rail will have to be flipped up to access the dust cover. The optic should be unaffected. With a side rail it all depends on the mount. If it is a particularly low profile mount that would be a valid concern even if it only applies to an exceedingly rare problem. On the other hand some mounts don't interfere at all. For instance I use a PK-AS on my AK. It does not slow down or interfere in any way with removing the dust cover. One could then take the discussion in the direction of what those guts are like when encountered. The AK's internals are few, large, accessible and easily removed without tools.

The "ARs only work when you have mortars and air support and tanks, etc." argument kind of falls flat when you look at the fact that the AR is internationally popular with special operations units whose mission requirements include going places and doing things where none of that is readily available . . .

I agree with the general sentiment. It's kind of a myth, like that Russians don't teach tactics or marksmanship, just marching forward with the selector set to full auto.

Apparently, the SAS, for instance, thinks that the AR is also ideal for a well trained guy with zero support in the mountains of Afghanistan (or on some wind scoured hillside in the Falklands for that matter . . .).

I have no hands on experience with the SA80 family of weapons but if what I hear from those who do is true I'd want something different also. The other thing here is that Americans are emulated by people in foreign lands because we have a gun culture and they don't. Oh how I wish I had an exact reference but I remember reading an article from an American instructor who was sent to train with some European elite unit, I think it may have even been GROM. Long story short they were firing their handguns "gangster grip" because they thought that's what Americans did and Americans know a lot about guns.

To be perfectly fair I will say it is possible to keep an AR-15 type weapon running and I even know how. For me personally it's just that it takes more effort than I think is reasonable and I don't feel it offers me any compelling bonus in some other area to make up for it. For instance you used the example of a race between an AK and an AR from the low ready with the safety on. That's a scenario that will never apply to me unless someday I happen to do it for fun against a friend on a range. If I lived in more open country than I do I probably would appreciate the accuracy and flatter trajectory a good AR with common 5.56 ammo has to offer.

Mag changes only matter when they matter . . . but at that point the guy who never really bothered with learning to do them because he'll always be behind cover with buddies laying down suppressive fire is probably killed while fumbling with his weapon.

I do agree with the notion that the value of a speed change is overstated. I also agree that changing magazines fast is a good thing. The AR platform can probably do a mag change with mag retention a little faster than the AK platform can do a mag change with mag retention. I sincerely doubt there is any difference at all in speed on a change without mag retention. I sincerely doubt anybody will try to retain the mag in some weird scenario where a quick mag change is important. Everybody who is any good with their AK knows how to do the quick change at this point in time, it isn't hard. Even then, as Suarez has pointed out, you probably should be doing a transition anyway if you happen to have a side arm. I understand that isn't an option for everybody.

Pretty much nobody who gets to select the weapons they carry into harm way seems to agree with that conclusion.

I would add that pretty much everybody who has actually survived any form of violent encounter tends to trust what worked for them and distrust that which is unproven to them. I'm very particular about a lot of things. It just makes sense. I will also note that nonetheless weapons are also often selected for reasons other than real world performance and experience even by people who should know better. For better or worse fashion has always had a significant impact on any sort of fighting man from any age. Black berets and short barrels, anyone? If we're just talking about armies in general then as you mentioned before politics is often a large factor as well. Political factors do go a long way toward explaining why AK's ended up so widely distributed. Political factors also go a long way toward explaining why many armies are switching over to 5.56 and even AR-derived weapons.

 

[Evil Monkey]

Political factors also go a long way toward explaining why many armies are switching over to 5.56 and even AR-derived weapons.

Ha...as a side note, that's the reason some gun owners, including my self, have decided to only collect NATO caliber rifles. I go as far as to consider 5.56mm rifles that use AR15 mags only. It seems that even in a restricted market like the US market, 5.56mm stanag4179 compatible rifles are just ridiculously commonplace, because of politics. I actually wanted to standardize on 7.62x39mm and AK mags instead, but there was a lack of diversity in rifles for this cartridge and magazine. Either the rifle used AK mags but was FAR too expensive (ex: 7.62x39 galil), or.......the rifle used proprietary mags(ex: vz58).

 

[R127]

The only non-AK, non-AK derived gun that uses AK mags that I can think of is one of those 7.62x39 new manufactured Lee-Enfield rifles but I've never seen one in person. I think Rob Arms used to make something too, but I forgot what it was and they probably don't support it anymore anyway. I would say there is a lot of variety within the AK platform itself from pistols to krinks, various folders, all kinds of variants. I can think of a number of very different guns that use AR mags like the M17 or SU-16. It's a shame the standard 30 round mag is one of the weaker areas of the AR platform but I guess the good news is the new high reliability steel mags if you can afford them. The mag issue didn't affect me much since I loaded up during the Assault Weapon Ban, when high capacity magazines were CHEAPER! :banghead: I still can't figure that out. Chinese with no ribs for $6 each, Bulgarian waffles under $10, 75 round drums for $65! I also got in on a killer Sportsman's Guide deal. I got a whole mess of used AK mags in fine working condition for under $3 each, delivered! I'm still shooting 7.62x39 purchased at under ten cents a round... a healthy diet for a $650 milled Arsenal. Ah, the good old days... when all the things I love were banned, more widely available and cheaper.