Larry Kahaner & Defense Tech - Lessons of the AK-47

Status
Not open for further replies.

wacki

Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Messages
1,703
Location
Reminiscing the Rockies
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002892.html

Lessons of the AK-47

Larry Kahaner is the author of the just-published AK-47: The Weapon That Changed the Face of War. This is his first post for Defense Tech.

In our quest for the latest and most sophisticated weaponry we sometimes tend to overlook a major success in low-tech arms. But there's a lot we can learn from them – especially the AK-47 assault rifle.

The AK-47 is the world's most popular military weapon. At last count, there may be as many as 100 million of these uncomplicated but deadly rifles in use. That's one AK for every 60 people. It is used by about 50 legitimate armies as well as terrorists – Osama Bin Laden calls it the terrorist's most important weapon – insurgents, drug cartels, paramilitary groups and guerrillas.

The rifle, first produced activated in 1947 – hence the name AK-47 for Automatic Kalashnikov 1947 – has undergone very few changes since it was first produced by Soviet soldier Mikhail Kalashnikov. The furniture has been replaced with low weight plastics, and a few other mods here and there depending upon which of the 19 countries produced it, but it is essentially the same weapon it was 60 years ago.

What accounts for its success? Quite simply: it works. Despite its low price (as little as $10 and as much as $300) and often shoddy workmanship, this rifle rarely jams, is almost indestructible, and is easy to fire with no training. Overnight, it can transform paramilitary forces, thugs and street gangs into formidable armies.

It is not very accurate but can fire about 700 rounds per minute. Many western military experts consider it a piece of junk, but it's perfect for poorly-trained soldiers because they can 'spray and pray.' And indeed, it is a piece off junk compared to the M-16A2 now used in Iraq or the shorter barreled version M-4. These rifles are well built, accurate and engineered to close tolerances. They are technological things of beauty. The AK, on the other hand has loose tolerances, feels like it will shake apart (but doesn't) and won't make any friends at the marksmen club. These loose tolerances are the open secret to the AK's almost jam-free history. It's also why you can drag it through mud, leave it buried in the sand and take it out a year later, kick it with your boot, and it will fire like it was cleaned that morning. Again, because of its imprecision, the AK can fire poorly produced ammunition as well as ammo that has been sitting and deteriorating in the jungle or desert.

When the Defense Department offered M-16s to the Iraqi police and army, they refused. They wanted AKs which had to be bought from Jordan (the weapons actually were made in Germany). Indeed, like their brethren in Vietnam, many US soldiers are using AKs in Iraq despite official sanctions against the practice.

As the Pentagon planers ponder what's next for infantry firearms, they need to think in terms of simple instead of complex and practical instead of sophisticated. There's no reason why soldiers should be using M-4s that overheat or place condoms over their gun barrels to keep out the desert sands.

The solution has not come for lack of trying. From the late 1990s to the early 2000s, the Army was developing a new assault rifle known as the XM8 project an outgrowth of the Objective Individual Combat Weapon program, which was to produce a new type of battle rifle. The main goal of the XM8 program was to find a replacement for the M-16 and M4.

However, by late 2005, the XM8 was scrapped partially because of politics; Congress was reluctant to spend billions to outfit soldiers with new rifles while the Iraq war was draining the treasury.

The real problem may be that as the program progressed, military planners kept adding bells and whistles to the rifle system -- even including an electronic bullet counter -- and it became too complex, heavy and unwieldy. Designers would have done better to simply aim for a new infantry rifle that works as well as the AK-47 and be just as simple.

The AK may not be the best rifle for the US but designers can learn from Kalashnikov's experience in building the AK-47. He often found himself guided by the words of arms designer Georgy Shpagin, who developed the successful PPSh41 submachine gun: "Complexity is easy; simplicity is difficult."

-- Larry Kahaner
 
There is so much crap, nonsense, and misinformation in that thread that I don't know where to begin.
 
I hope that the only surviving remnants of the author's submitted work was the title and his name. A rabid and ill-informed editor is surely the only way to explain this.
 
It is not very accurate but can fire about 700 rounds per minute.

Some versions are not very accurate. However new production military weapons from Russia or Bulgaria are considered 2 MOA or better. The inaccurate AK myth stems primarily from inferior sights, and rifles manufactured in 3rd world countries.

Many western military experts consider it a piece of junk
Many western military experts are idiots.

but it's perfect for poorly-trained soldiers because they can 'spray and pray.'
Warsaw Pact doctrine was based upon massed unit fire, rather than NATO style aimed rapid semi-auto. That is not the same thing as spray and pray. If some moron from a pathetic 3rd world militia can't aim, that isn't the weapons fault. A modern production AK from a real military arsenal, and not made out of old railroad ties in the Khyber Pass is plenty accurate enough.

And indeed, it is a piece off junk compared to the M-16A2 now used in Iraq or the shorter barreled version M-4.

Junk? The author of this piece knows less about AKs than I do about rocket science.

The AK, on the other hand has loose tolerances, feels like it will shake apart (but doesn't) and won't make any friends at the marksmen club. These loose tolerances are the open secret to the AK's almost jam-free history.
It isn't the tolerences. That is a common mistake. It is about the CLEARANCES. Modern AKs are built to relatively normal manufacturing tolerences (as in, is it in within a certain specified measurement). Clearances is about how much space you allow between moving parts. AKs have lots of clearance in the action to allow loose material to not bind in the action.

It's also why you can drag it through mud, leave it buried in the sand and take it out a year later, kick it with your boot, and it will fire like it was cleaned that morning. Again, because of its imprecision, the AK can fire poorly produced ammunition as well as ammo that has been sitting and deteriorating in the jungle or desert.

It isn't imprecision. Jeez.

This guy wrote a book about the AK? I could have wrote that based upon skimming articles from gun magazines when I was seven years old.
 
However, by late 2005, the XM8 was scrapped partially because of politics; Congress was reluctant to spend billions to outfit soldiers with new rifles while the Iraq war was draining the treasury.

Yes, damn politics kept us from adopting a rifle that had no real improvements over the M16/M4. It was less durable. The plastic suffered from weakness and melting under high temperatures. We would have to replace hundreds of thousands of good rifles for something that's only advantage was that it had HK stamped on it.
 
While centurys ak may not be built well, my Russian made Vepr k is. As are aresenals. Also the ak is as acurate as it needs to be for the job it was design to do at the range it was desinged to do it at.
 
As the Pentagon planers ponder what's next for infantry firearms, they need to think in terms of simple instead of complex and practical instead of sophisticated. There's no reason why soldiers should be using M-4s that overheat or place condoms over their gun barrels to keep out the desert sands.

He contradicts himself here, since in the prior paragraph he says that the AK is junk in comparison to the M4.

M4s overheat? Any shoulderfire weapon overheats when you fire high pressure rifle cartridges through it on full auto. The solution as suggested later was to replace the M4 with a plastic gun that is known for melting under tough use.

And sand kills everything. The AK's CLEARANCES (not tolerences) give it more leeway in sand than any other weapon system. AK magazine followers are also more forgiving of sand in the mag than any other design that I've seen. (and I tested most of them).
 
I remember as excellent quote form one of the head historians of the Springfield Armory on this subject during a History Channel "Way of the Gun" episode. "Why do all these people use AK-47s? That's easy. It's because they can't afford M-16s." ;)

Yeah, the AK is a great weapon if your soldiers are basically minimally trained idiots. Effective range is about 100-300m depending on the manufacturer and level of training (usually all but non-existant). It's cheap because your soldiers are cannon fodder anyway. Why waste the money on a precision weapon for them when they'll die in droves from horrible tactics?

Mark(psycho)Phipps( HAHAHA! )
 
I'm thinking that those of you who talk about precision weapons have never had to use a rack grade M16 that has been in service for the last 10 years.
 
psychophipps, I remember that episode.

It also makes the point that the AK is a crude weapon designed for massed fire, as opposed to the M16 which is a "precision instrument." Their proof is that the AK selector switch went safe-full auto-semiauto, while the M16 switch went safe-semi-full. That's like saying a car with an automatic transmission was intended to drive in reverse because it comes before drive!

I've never played with an AR type rifle; one day I hope to. I did just get my hands on a MAK-90, and as I field stripped it and examined its workings, I had this one thought: Mikhail Kalashnikov was (and I guess still is) an absolute genius. The workings are simplicity itself. The gun was built to take abuse and keep going. It may not have the accuracy of a M16/AR rifle, but you can pick it up after dragging it through the mud, and so long as the barrel is clear, it's going to work.

Crude? Maybe, it depends on who made it. Simple? Yes, and I contend that simple is a good thing. Reliable? Without doubt. Ergonomic? Well, not exactly. But it sure shoots.
 
Sometimes the "experts" on the History channel are sorely lacking. Anybody who has played with a full auto AK for more than thirty seconds realizes that it is a lot easier to quickly move the clacker from safe to semi, and bounce right past full, than it is to move from safe to full and stop there. When you're moving it off in a hurry at least.

So usually what you do is you move it down to semi first (which is easier). Then if you want full, you carefully bump it up a notch.
 
I own 2 AR's and a SSR-85C-2 ( a fairly high quality Bulgarian designed AK-47). My impressions of the two designs.......


AR - lighter, more ergonomic, easier to customize, less recoil, more accurate, and much more temperamental about the ammo you feed it and how you clean it. If you use good ammo and keep it properly cleaned between shooting sessions, will be quite reliable.

AK - much easier to clean, and not as sensitive to how clean it is regarding function.

Both are great guns, and will get the job done.
 
Correia said:
This guy wrote a book about the AK? I could have wrote that based upon skimming articles from gun magazines when I was seven years old.
You didn't? :scrutiny: That surprises me more than any of the incorrect slop that that man wrote.
 
Last edited:
Nope. I've only written one book. And it was fiction. Kind of like that article.

I've published a few gun magazine articles though, and if I turned that first post into Denny Hansen's office he would send it right back to me and tell me to exercise a little critical thinking. :)
 
I read that article this morning, drank a cup of coffee, afterwards I went and produced my response to the article in the porcelain pot.

I'm sure that was probably TMI, but that’s the best symmetrical response I had for such a load of crap...
 
There might be something to be said for this article. If America is getting turned into a bunch of mindless idots maybe the AK would be a good idea.
 
If this is the state of modern American firearms writing, we are in worse shape than I thought.

This article seems to be based mostly on the idiotic prattlings of gun-shop commando's who decide that the AK is the opposite of the AR--based wholly because that is the way it is presented in the movies.


Also, why do I always read that the AK is designed for uneducated 3rd world soldiers, while the AR pattern rifle is designed for brilliant Americans. Anyone who has been in the service knows full well that the average soldier is...well, I won't even say it. Without being mean, I'll just be honest and say that our military branches do not have a corner on brilliance.
 
Correia said,

I'm thinking that those of you who talk about precision weapons have never had to use a rack grade M16 that has been in service for the last 10 years.

And what's wrong with a rack grade M16 that's been in service for 10 years? Most of them will still shoot better then 2 MOA. Acceptance standard is 4 MOA.

M16s aren't precision weapons, they weren't designed to be precision weapons. They can be made into precision weapons.

4 MOA has been the accuracy acceptance standard for American military rifles for decades. None of them, not the Springfield, not the Garand, not the M14 was designed to be a precision weapon. All of them were modified to be precision weapons at one time or another, some designs more successfully then others.

The M16 and the AK were both designed to be an Infantryman's weapon, not a sniper rifle. While you can take almost any M16 out of a rifle rack from any arms room in the US military and put it on the bench and most likely shoot more accurately then you can with an AK, you're not making a valid comparison because that type of accuarcy is not a requirement for either weapon.

Jeff
 
Further, based on how well my wife and her family, Ukranians all, handle the AK, SKS, and Makarov, I wouldn't put too much stock in the idea that "spray and pray" was any part of Soviet military doctrine.
 
Hahaha.... This article was fun to read.

It's amazing what people will say when they've obviously barely even handled the subject in real life.

An AK in good form will be an excellent weapon. An AR in good form will be an excellent weapon. Pick your poison and stick with it.
 
Grand Inquisitor, I do not think it has to do with intelligence, it has to do with training. We take for granted that even if the average infantryman isn't a candidate for MENSA, he will be able to read and has received a few months' worth of intensive training of high quality. The eastern bloc nations couldn't take that for granted.

As to how much that factored into the design of the respective weapons, I don't know, but I do suspect that such is the reason eastern bloc weapons (not just rifles, but weapons systems in general) tend to be simpler in design. Of course, I'm just talking out of my rump here.

There really are a couple different design philosophies at work between the AK and AR, but they both get the job done quite well, and each has its own inherent benefits and drawbacks.
 
i have no basis to judge the merits of the author's assertions as I am no pro... but i will say, having fired full-auto AK's (7.62 obviously), both with and without cyclic rate reducers and standard muzzle ... I found the AK simply dreadful (noise and recoil) to shoot vs. an M-16.

and I confess i couldn't hit the side of a barn with an AK on full-auto. (semi is another story).

Ok, y'all can call me wimpy now.
 
Jeff, no disagreement. It was the author of the original piece what talked about the precision AR compared to the crappy AK. There's nothing wrong with a standard M4 or M16 or AK47 (not made out of railroad ties over a camp fire). I love them all.

I was trying to point out that the AR standard military rifle isn't a precision weapon at all. It is a military rifle with acceptable accuracy. 4 MOA is still acceptable. All new production AKs are capable of that also.

And that's why the author of this piece doesn't know squat all about guns.
 
Here is a useful bit of info for the author, who is barely qualified to post on the internet, let alone publish works as an expert:

Tolerance: the amount that a manufactured part can deviate from the blueprint.

Clearance: the amount of space between two parts.

Both guns have tight tolerances.

AKs have loose Clearances and lots of extra space in the receiver for dirt and soot to go. They also have an overpowered gas system that can push nearly any obstruction out of the way of the bolt carrier. None of this affects accuracy. A gun can be both reliable and accurate.

ARs have tight clearances and no places in the receiver for dirt to be pushed. When they get dirty, they fail to cycle. Since the gas system and ejector are both marginal, it only takes a modest amount of dirt to interrupt the firing cycle. This isnt a more advanced design than the AK. This is a crappy design- the AR is a good rifle DESPITE these failings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top