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

[Jeff White]

What was that old saying about glass houses and stones?

beerslurpy said,

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.

Definately not true. It takes A LOT of dirt to interrupt the firing cycle of an AR. Although I don't think that myth will die any faster then most of the myths in the article.

Jeff

 

[lurkersince03]

My GP WASR-10 has always treated me fine. I'd definitely choose it over my DPMS AR anyday of the week if society broke down and I had to take a long trek across the country.

Furthermore, especially in such a situation, I would never try to engage an enemy (considering I'd be by myself, or with one or two others at the most [AND AVOIDING ALL HUMAN CONTACT IF POSSIBLE]) at these insane distances that spell the difference between an AR's and an AK's accuracy -- something that people seem to think they'd need to do with an infantry man's rifle in such a situation (such as another wake-of-Katrina).

Like I've said before, if you want to shoot long range, get a proper rifle with a scope.

 

[beerslurpy]

Definately not true. It takes A LOT of dirt to interrupt the firing cycle of an AR.

Speaking of places with lots of dirt, isnt that where the AR ends up getting fired the most? If our gun is meant to be used in filthier conditions than the bench-rest, shouldnt that be designed into the rifle?

I never meant to say "yeah the AR totally jams up if you have more than 100 rounds worth of powder residue in the receiver"- I meant something more along the lines of "oh crap I dropped my rifle in the mud/snow/sand during a gunfight"

 

[Mulliga]

never meant to say "yeah the AR totally jams up if you have more than 100 rounds worth of powder residue in the receiver"- I meant something more along the lines of "oh crap I dropped my rifle in the mud/snow/sand during a gunfight"

If the bolt on the AR were closed, I don't think it'd be too much of a problem. Again, I've never thrown my AR in the mud or anything, but plenty of people have done "torture tests" like the Gunsmoke Enterprises one.

 

[The Grand Inquisitor]

I think Beerslurpy made a good point - The AR has sutained itself as a viable platform in spite of its problems.

 

[AZ Jeff]

Aside from being the author of the book " AK-47: The Weapon That Changed the Face of War", does anyone know what the credentials are for Larry Kahaner?

This is the first I have ever heard of this guy.............

 

[Glockfan.45]

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.

AK's overheat too. I know I have accomplished this. Both the AK, and the AR have their strengths. Is the AR more accurate....yes, Is the AK more reliable....yes. I own both, I like both. The AK is as accurate as an assault rilfe needs to be. You dont get an assault rifle to play William Tell, you get an assault rifle to put rapid fire on a target, and even my "crappy" Romanian AK does this well enough at 200 yards. MY AR does the aformentioned task just a little bit better but if I had to pick one of the two to trust my life with it would be my AK. The AR has jammed more than once, the AK never. The AR is a target rifle designed for the Air Force to amuse themselves with. And as far as the X-M8 goes I agree with the author on one thing, too many bells, and whistles were finding their way onto this design. I want my battle rifle to be as simple as possible, and still remain effective.

 

[RecoilRob]

"Complexity is easy; simplicity is difficult."

Those words are the only thing that I found of value in the piece, and only because they are brilliant.

Oh, how I wish more 'engineers' understood and applied that philosophy. The best design is ALWAYS the one with the fewest parts that accomplishes the desired function.

Both mentioned weapons do the job that they were designed to do. The main difference is the technology required for manufacturing them.

The M-16 requires forging (or complicated and expensive milling from billit) whilst the AKM is stamped and formed. The Russian design is much easier to build with less sophisticated tooling and machinery.

But, questions about the 'horrible accuracy' of AK can best be answered by sliding a POSP on the rail of a WASR-10. I was MOST impressed by the POS Romanian rifle hitting small things out to 2-300 yards. IMO, the poor sight radius is mostly responsible for the undeserved reputation of the AK. And the fact that most of the troops using them haven't figured out that those things (sights) can actually be used to help you hit things! Seems that most DO spray and pray....it isn't the rifles fault.

 

[Gewehr98]

I'm still trying to be open-minded about that one, Jeff.

Definately not true. It takes A LOT of dirt to interrupt the firing cycle of an AR. Although I don't think that myth will die any faster then most of the myths in the article.

But I've got an example of a pre-'94 ban Colt Competition HBAR that will just plain choke up in 200-300 rounds if I don't do a righteous cleaning and lubing. I don't run Wolf, I do run Federal Match or my own handloads with IMR4895, WW748 or H335. Maybe clearances and chamber dimensions were tighter for that variant?

I've been issued a couple M16A1 and A2 variants that acted fussy, although my last FN-made M16A2 was pretty good, even in the Saudi sand.

Back to the thread, yeah, the author in that Defense Tech piece doesn't know an AK-47 or the rifle's employment tactics from his posterior. One can only hope his first writing contribution will be his last, especially if he doesn't take a look at the Big Picture before then.

 

[Trempel]

Their proof is that the AK selector switch went safe-full auto-semiauto, while the M16 switch went safe-semi-full.

The reason for that was that under stress, a soldier would flip the selector as far as it would go, and having "semi-auto" under that setting would prevent soldiers spraying auto fire. You would need to carefully select the automatic mode, i.e. a consious decision.

As for accuracy, the AK doesn't have the same potential as the AR platform, but I've only hear that AKs are inaccurate from people that either can't shoot to save their life or from those that shoot cheap, POS AKs. The AK sights are harder to use and it's not a percision rifle, but it hits where you aim it.

 

[buzz_knox]

The reason for that was that under stress, a soldier would flip the selector as far as it would go, and having "semi-auto" under that setting would prevent soldiers spraying auto fire. You would need to carefully select the automatic mode, i.e. a consious decision.

Is that a reason attributed to Kalashnikov? My understanding was that the auto setting was the initial selection position because the standard tactic was an assault, and burst fire was considered optimum for suppressing the enemy during the advance.

 

[Trempel]

Is that a reason attributed to Kalashnikov?

I honestly have no idea who it's attributed to.

 

[buck00]

You have to put this author in proper perspective. Larry Kahaner was on NPR the other night. I tuned in during a long drive to see what the liberals were cooking up. (Know your enemy)

I was surprised to hear a review of a book about the AK-47. As other membes have mentioned, the author is not very professional nor is his book accurate.


During the interview the author said the following:

During the Hungarian Uprising of 1956, Russians soldiers used AK-47s to mow down "ten of thousands of innocent civilians in the streets". His tone and context implied the AK-47 was a devastating new "wonder weapon" that gave soldiers an unheard of fire power. "Tens of thousands" Hungarians killed by AK-47 fire (during the revolt) is inaccurate by the way. The NPR interviewer gasped at this.


He summed up combat in Vietnam like this: Soldiers would aimlessly walk around the jungles and if they heard any noises, they simply sprayed full auto fire at the area and hoped they hit something. According to the author, this is why the Viet cong won all their battles against our troops, because they had AK-47s in these types of situations. While such a description may be true of some firefights, it was gross oversimplification and gave way too much credit to the AK-47 for "winning the war" by itself.


The interview didn't get as negative as I thought but I have to admit I got home before it finished. Most of the questions the NPR interviewer had were loaded and she threw around the term "deadly assault weapon" frequently. I wouldn't be surprised if the interview went towards a "inner city gangs use AK-47s constantly to stick up 7-11s and take on police" type of angle.


The overall impression I got from this author's interview was:

AK-47s are evil, devastating "machine guns" that give terrorists an advantage over our troops.

There are way too many AK-47s out there in the world, and they, along with all other guns need to be banned and destroyed.


Anyone rushing out to buy his book??

 

[JohnBT]

www.kahaner.com

"Corporate Speaker, Best-Selling Author

For more than 20 years, Larry Kahaner's books, lectures, articles, workshops, and private consultations have helped company managers achieve their goals.

His work focuses on four cutting-edge disciplines designed to sharpen managers' decision-making skills: Ancient Business Wisdom, Competitive Intelligence, Values-Based Decision-Making, and Lessons from the Masters."

edited to add: www.ak-47book.com

 

[JohnBT]

"Pakistan gun maker"

I don't see no railroad ties.

I'm just kidding around. I've seen the film of them casting receivers on the floors of their little shops and filing them into shape by hand.

John

 

[HorseSoldier]

The interview didn't get as negative as I thought but I have to admit I got home before it finished. Most of the questions the NPR interviewer had were loaded and she threw around the term "deadly assault weapon" frequently. I wouldn't be surprised if the interview went towards a "inner city gangs use AK-47s constantly to stick up 7-11s and take on police" type of angle.

I'm guessing the show was Fresh Air? I've never heard them discuss firearms related topics, but my general impression from stuff I've heard discussed on that show (well, NPR in general) is that they'd not know which end the bullets came out of unless this year's critically acclaimed piece of French cinema involved gunplay or something.

 

[AZ Jeff]

"Corporate Speaker, Best-Selling Author

For more than 20 years, Larry Kahaner's books, lectures, articles, workshops, and private consultations have helped company managers achieve their goals.

His work focuses on four cutting-edge disciplines designed to sharpen managers' decision-making skills: Ancient Business Wisdom, Competitive Intelligence, Values-Based Decision-Making, and Lessons from the Masters."

Well that certainly makes him qualified to speak on small arms............NOT.

 

[buck00]

I'm guessing the show was Fresh Air?

Yes, it was the show "fresh air" with the ultra liberal host, not sure what her name is. Honestly, that is where red flags went off in my head. Why was this author pitching his AK-47 book on NPR? What agenda does he have?

The angle and tone of the show was more or less: "AKs are evil" "AKs kill people with supernatural ease."

At one point he was telling the well-known story of Mikhail Kalashnikov and how he started designing the AK during WWII to help the Soviets counter the small arms the Germans had. At one point the author said something like- the Germans liked to use the MP-40 (Maschinenpistole 40) because it "was easier to shoot large numbers of Russian POWs." And again the NPR host was like "owww, that’s horrible." And she goes "So the Russians wanted a similar weapon?" The context was- the AK was designed to kill and to especially kill innocent people. I have no doubt the Democrat NPR listeners were thinking:
"OH MY GAWD WE NEED TO BAN AK-47s IN THE US!"

 

[gm]

He forgot that sliding the lever from safe to semi or full, makes enough noise to give away your location to anyone with earshot.

 

[Joe Demko]

With those amazing telepathic mutant powers of yours, i.e. the ability to read the thoughts of people on a radio show and the listeners too, you shouldn't be wasting time on this board. You should be out superheroing.

 

[KaceCoyote]

I dunno why everyone acts like the selector is SO LOUD.


Mine is pretty quiet.

 

[AK103K]

I dunno why everyone acts like the selector is SO LOUD.

Its no louder than an M1/M14's selector being flicked off quickly, and just as quiet if you do it slow. Contrary to what you so often hear, the selector is also very easy to manipulate, even with your hand on the grip.

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

There ya go. Just not "book" writers either.

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.

This pretty much sums it all up. They both work, and work well, if YOU take the time to learn them.

 

[benEzra]

Is that a reason attributed to Kalashnikov? My understanding was that the auto setting was the initial selection position because the standard tactic was an assault, and burst fire was considered optimum for suppressing the enemy during the advance.

It may just be something that flows from the sear design or something, i.e. it just worked out that semi is on the bottom. However, I will say that the way the AK safety/selector lever is configured (speaking from experience with the civilian, non-select-fire version only), operating that lever is NOT a fine motor function, but is more of a whole-hand thing. A conscious, controlled movement of the lever will put you on Auto, but claw at the lever in a panic and you'll most likely end up on Semi. I've heard that touted as an advantage of the design.

 

[MechAg94]

According to the author, this is why the Viet cong won all their battles against our troops, because they had AK-47s in these types of situations.

I guess I was always under the impression the Viet Cong didn't win any battles with our troops. I am no expert though.

 

[MechAg94]

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

My impression is that the reason the AK is so popular and widespread is because it is cheap or free and was given away by the truckload by the Soviets for years. Based on comments I have read, it is also relatively easy to make.