Proposed replacement for the M4: The AKM
- Thread starter rtz
- Start date
- Status
N003k
Member
I'm confused...are we supposed to discuss why the AKM should/should not be a replacement for the M4? Or are we supposed to recommend other replacements for the M4?
Bobson
Member
The modularity of the M4 is one of its best attributes. You can give every man in a squad an M4, and modify them so that five different roles are assumed, and each are assumed well. You can't do that with the AKM.
From what I hear, the trade-off with ammo size/weight versus number of rounds a soldier can carry is another important point.
From what I hear, the trade-off with ammo size/weight versus number of rounds a soldier can carry is another important point.
Last edited:
Rob G
Member
Yeah I don't ever seen that being considered by anybody rational. Don't get me wrong, I have an AK74, (admittedly not an AKM) and I love it. I love it so much I'm not even really interested in owning an AR15. But I certainly wouldn't consider it as a replacement for the M4.
No they don't. The current version is the AK-74M which has some significant changes from the AKM. They also have the AN-94, which is kind of a niche weapon, and the AK-104 and AK-103 which are the rifles currently issued when the 7.62x39 cartridge is preferred.
No they don't. The current version is the AK-74M which has some significant changes from the AKM. They also have the AN-94, which is kind of a niche weapon, and the AK-104 and AK-103 which are the rifles currently issued when the 7.62x39 cartridge is preferred.
USAF_Vet
Member
We've used foreign designed weapons throughout our military history. But we will never go to any type of AK platform. Lack of modularity being a huge part of that. It would just be a huge step backward.
SpentCasing
Member
So we get a front heavy, inaccurate, ergonomic nightmare for 99.99% reliability instead of the M4s 99.98% reliability? Awesome, Ill work extra hours to help speed this along with the extra tax money! 
jason41987
member
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2012
- Messages
- 1,293
ak? lack of modularity? because it doesnt have a quick change barrel (never seen a soldier change his barrel on a battlefield) or because it doesnt have a top rail (despite the side rail being just as strong, accurate, retains zero, and the polish rifles even have a top rail)... wheres this lack of "modularity"?
heck the biggest flaw of the 6.5 grendel and 6.8SPC was that they had to constrain specifically to the AR15 magwell... with an AK you can make a magazine well as long, or as wide as needed, you have the option of a side folding stock, and its reliable
so i dont get this "lack of modularity" crap when its capable of doing everything an AR15 can do, and then some, especially with the polish beryl/archer rifle capable of 1 MOA and does in fact have a top rail
"oh, but it doesnt have a bolt hold open feature or a drop free magazine" like thats more important than reliability... i think people are just WAY too enamored with "tacti-cool"
doesnt mean id say adopt an AKM (in this case it would end up being an AK-101), but there are rifles out there based on the design of the AK that are in fact superior to both that, and the AR15 (sig 551 for example)
heck the biggest flaw of the 6.5 grendel and 6.8SPC was that they had to constrain specifically to the AR15 magwell... with an AK you can make a magazine well as long, or as wide as needed, you have the option of a side folding stock, and its reliable
so i dont get this "lack of modularity" crap when its capable of doing everything an AR15 can do, and then some, especially with the polish beryl/archer rifle capable of 1 MOA and does in fact have a top rail
"oh, but it doesnt have a bolt hold open feature or a drop free magazine" like thats more important than reliability... i think people are just WAY too enamored with "tacti-cool"
doesnt mean id say adopt an AKM (in this case it would end up being an AK-101), but there are rifles out there based on the design of the AK that are in fact superior to both that, and the AR15 (sig 551 for example)
I just brought this up since it seems like every so often the military solicits for a potential replacement and an AK anything has never been considered. I figured since who created it and uses it on that basis alone would forever prevent them from ever considering it even if it would be a good option(lowest bidder?).
Bobson
Member
Are you thinking of a specific round, dvdcrr? It seems like 5.56 is a common area of dissent among proponents of replacing the M4. Usually though, people say a bigger round would be the right move. Not saying I agree or disagree with it; just wondering what you're thinking of.
jpwilly
Member
Like a BB gun perhaps because you can carry 10,000 rounds and keep the enemy out of the fight after all nobody wants their eye shot out.
No I am not thinking of a specific cartridge, just taking into consideration the 156 year trend of military caliber reduction along with the ever present need to become/remain logistically superior. Also development of projectiles could certainly yield lethal rounds smaller than 5.56, I am guessing as small as .17 could not be out of the question. BB's? Hah! I love it! You'll put your eye out kid!
Dave Rishar
Member
It's true - a lot of the M4's more desirable features can be designed into an AKM platform. Of course, if you're going to engineer the good stuff in, you might as well engineer the bad stuff out - and then you're designing a new rifle. And if you're going to design a new rifle...well, we're beyond both original rifles now.
I'm lost here. Perhaps I'm not understanding. Enlarging the magazine well can be done on nearly anything, including the M16 platform. (See Exhibit A: the AR-10.) This is not a bolt-on feature. It's a major redesign. We can make the magazine wells larger on either rifle, so I don't see this as being a valid complaint. The idea with work-around cartridges was to improve the performance of the weapon without changing the fundamental design. Utilizing one of these cartridges would require only a new upper and magazine at worst - something that the AKM can't accomodate, interestingly enough.
Again, we can incorporate the good parts from the M16 into an AKM, but we're basically designing a new rifle at that point. If we're going to design a new rifle, we can do better than either, so why not do better?
Those features are probably not thought of as being more important than reliability, but they're both desirable features. Agreed on the latter point.
A more important question may be this: if the M16's basic design is unsatisfactory (and by most accounts, it is not), why not adopt something new? This will cost a lot of money, require a lot of training and the infrastructure supporting the training, and will create significant "churn", both operationally and logistically. If the M16's case is any indicator of what will happen, we will be left with a rifle and caliber that we will be using for decades afterward.
The military's stance on it - a stance that I agree with - is that whatever replaces it should be significantly better. It should not be an incremental improvement, but rather a quantum leap. Again, we're probably going to be stuck with it for quite some time, and the rest of the world won't sit still in the mean time. If we apply this line of thought to the question, we can reasonably come to the conclusion that the AKM probably isn't the answer, no matter how many gadgets we bolt on to it or how much we monkey with the design. It must be far better than that to even be worthy of consideration.
So we get a front heavy, inaccurate, ergonomic nightmare for 99.99% reliability instead of the M4s 99.98% reliability? Awesome, Ill work extra hours to help speed this along with the extra tax money!
Just sayin', so far my M4 has been 99.95% reliable, and that 0.05% was 100% the fault of the magazine (a magazine I knew was prone to be less reliable, and was only used at the range, and which I no longer own now anyway, and which I only had one of)
InkEd
Member
The Stoner platform has finally become reliable in the past 20 years. It isn't going away. Now, I will agree that if it was an allied nation that developed the AK way back when we would have adopted it. However, we did pass (IMHO rightfully) on the FAL later on too.
I think there's a few mechanical features of the AKM that are worth consideration for any future rifles:
1 - gas piston design. Increased resilience to fouling. As the Polish Beryl/Archer designs show, accuracy can be just as good as DI. I am under the understanding that the Sig 551 and the Valmet rifles also have great accuracy. Generalizing further to the use of the long stroke piston, look at the Tavor which (I think) uses a "long stroke" gas piston, although the piston is tiny, so I think it fits into a hybrid range of DI/Long stroke.
2 - Using stamped steel receivers. The Ak receiver is fairly strong with ease of manufacture and minimal weight. Lately the polymer/machined aluminum receiver has predominated, but I am unsure why not go with a equally strong/stronger stamped steel receiver for the rifle.
3 - any other flaws can be easily engineered out; last round bolt hold open is an easy component to add. Top rails are not a hard component to add either (eg Parabellum Armament, Texas Weapons system). Rear peep sights? Easy (ex: Tech sights). Non-reciprocating left-sided charging handle? Again, already has been done as a drop in part for any AK variant (eg Dublin weapons system, LINCH charging handle).
1 - gas piston design. Increased resilience to fouling. As the Polish Beryl/Archer designs show, accuracy can be just as good as DI. I am under the understanding that the Sig 551 and the Valmet rifles also have great accuracy. Generalizing further to the use of the long stroke piston, look at the Tavor which (I think) uses a "long stroke" gas piston, although the piston is tiny, so I think it fits into a hybrid range of DI/Long stroke.
2 - Using stamped steel receivers. The Ak receiver is fairly strong with ease of manufacture and minimal weight. Lately the polymer/machined aluminum receiver has predominated, but I am unsure why not go with a equally strong/stronger stamped steel receiver for the rifle.
3 - any other flaws can be easily engineered out; last round bolt hold open is an easy component to add. Top rails are not a hard component to add either (eg Parabellum Armament, Texas Weapons system). Rear peep sights? Easy (ex: Tech sights). Non-reciprocating left-sided charging handle? Again, already has been done as a drop in part for any AK variant (eg Dublin weapons system, LINCH charging handle).
Recon Marine and USMC foreign weapons instructor here: Dave Rishar basically nailed it.
The unit cost of the rifle has almost nothing to do with the issue. The current Colt M4A1 has a unit cost of about $550. Then we go and slap a thousand dollar ACOG on it, an $800 dollar laser/illuminator module on it, and put a few thousand dollars worth of ammo through it.
Other than the M4 platform having the following points in its favor, sure, let's switch to the AKM.
Lighter, flatter-shooting round
MUCH better ergonomics
More accurate
More modular
Easier to mount optics
Drop-free mags
Bolt hold-open
Push-in mags (i.e. no "rock and lock")
Lower recoil
Easier to train on
Platform similarity with current-use precision platforms
All members of the U.S. armed forces are already familiar with it
The bottom line is that while you may prefer the AK to the AR platform, and it might suit your specific purposes better, for the military there is absolutely no reason to switch or to even consider switching to the AKM. It is quite simply two steps backwards from where we are now. You must remember that there is much more involved with switching the primary rifle of the armed forces than learning the new controls.
The unit cost of the rifle has almost nothing to do with the issue. The current Colt M4A1 has a unit cost of about $550. Then we go and slap a thousand dollar ACOG on it, an $800 dollar laser/illuminator module on it, and put a few thousand dollars worth of ammo through it.
Other than the M4 platform having the following points in its favor, sure, let's switch to the AKM.
Lighter, flatter-shooting round
MUCH better ergonomics
More accurate
More modular
Easier to mount optics
Drop-free mags
Bolt hold-open
Push-in mags (i.e. no "rock and lock")
Lower recoil
Easier to train on
Platform similarity with current-use precision platforms
All members of the U.S. armed forces are already familiar with it
The bottom line is that while you may prefer the AK to the AR platform, and it might suit your specific purposes better, for the military there is absolutely no reason to switch or to even consider switching to the AKM. It is quite simply two steps backwards from where we are now. You must remember that there is much more involved with switching the primary rifle of the armed forces than learning the new controls.
firesky101
Member
No submissions I have heard of. IMO there are much better options than the AKM out there, just like there are better options than the AR platform out there. I just don't see enough of a gain in any platform right now to justify the cost of switching over, and no offense to the AK but it is certainly not at the top of my list for what I would be looking for in an issue rifle. Modularity is just one of the big concerns of the AK platform.
mljdeckard
Member
I can't any way at all it could be considered a step forward.
Hunter125
Member
Just curious, has anyone ever tried to design a mix between the AK and AR? It does seem like they both have some features that would be desirable. I have always seen the buffer tube on an AR as a drawback. A mix between the two seems like a desirable rifle.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
