What if the AK-47 had been designed in 1927?

[lysanderxiii]

What if a patriotic American had designed what later became the AK-47 in 1927 and had entered it in the testing trials against the Garand and Pedersen offerings? How would it have been received?

- The AK-47 would have been selected instead of the Garand.

- The AK-47 would have ultimately been selected in place of either the M1 Carbine, the Thompson submachine gun or the greaser.

- The AK-47 would have been rejected because it wasn't chambered in either .276 Pedersen or .30-06 Springfield.

- It would have been rejected with regard to its accuracy.

- It would have been rejected due to "politics."

- The US Military would have bought the design and then buried it, afraid the Axis would easily duplicate it.

- It would have been rejected for...?

That is like asking what if you were your own grandfather.

Many of the the elements of the AK were borrowed from the Garand, a good designer copies what works.

A more interesting question is "What if George Washington wrote the Communist's Manifesto?"

 

[Neo-Luddite]

"Although this is an awfully contrived "what if" question the AK-47." So says you. If you don't like it, pass over it.

Like it or not, the final version of the AK-47 or even the AK-74 (with wood furniture) would have been easily producible in 1927, so it's a legitimate hypothetical.

Yeh, says me. Despite finding it awfully contrived I provided a thoughtful answer. I don't recall disputing the theoretical possibility of manufacturing an AK in 1927---the machine processes required were well within the capability of any major firearm manufacturer of the time, probably within range of a good machine shop in fact.

 

[grampajack]

It probably would have been rejected on several grounds, primarily that the cartridge wasn't powerful enough. They also would have rejected it due to the sight radius being too short, and probably also on the grounds that the sights were too high above the bore axis. They also had decided on an en bloc stripper clip, thinking it was technologically superior to detachable box magazines.

 

[buck460XVR]

What if Germany had been the first to develop the atom bomb? What if the battle of Midway would have gone the other way? What if the South would have had more manufacturing and the North less? Lotta what ifs in life. What if i woulda married my first love?

 

[grampajack]

What if Germany had been the first to develop the atom bomb? What if the battle of Midway would have gone the other way? What if the South would have had more manufacturing and the North less? Lotta what ifs in life. What if i woulda married my first love?

Then we would all be speaking German with a southern accent!

 

[Decoy80]

It probably would have been rejected on several grounds, primarily that the cartridge wasn't powerful enough. They also would have rejected it due to the sight radius being too short, and probably also on the grounds that the sights were too high above the bore axis. They also had decided on an en bloc stripper clip, thinking it was technologically superior to detachable box magazines.

You are probably right about the cartridge power. Im glad that even though by my 18th birthday I had graduated from basic and AIT at Ft. Knox I still had to register for the draft. What if I had been born in 50,or 52 instead of 62. I would have been in the mud,bugs and jungle with a 22 caliber rifle after they pried the 14 out of my hands. The 308 is just too effective I think. Why would we ever sign an agreement with other nations to only use ball ammo? I thought in war the object was to vanquish your foe not wound him so he comes back 6 months later with a vendetta and a couple of his friends.
I was picking up that cheap draco and a young man showed me a scar just below his right shoulder and told me I was just buying a wounding weapon. I knew he had been to the sandbox and held my mouth shut a moment to reply. I didnt want to tell him I wasnt planning to carry ball ammo for defense and ball ammo was the only reason he was breathing. I camly thanked him for his service and finished the paperwork. The fighting of war without intending to win is against the most basic common sense and there are always more civilian casualties than soldiers it just isnt told. The boys in Nam threw the 16 down for the first 12 gauge they could find and some used AKs they took from the enemy. I have a 30 round AK mag with a name and serial number of one of our guys on it.

 

[Decoy80]

Please dont start in about me being southern. That is another war nobody won. Lets hope China dont get mad enough to come over here. Theres a billion of them and the manufacturing base too. theyve got buddies too. I couldnt whip my way out of a paper sack anymore and am broken up to much for more than a fast walk. I cant see no more, I guess if these kids will get off the couch and viedo games I can load them some ammo

 

[Solomonson]

Sure. As a specialty gun for paratroopers, radio men and others whose gear made it impossible to sling a grand.

No, not really. There were actually more M1 Carbines (6.5M) produced during WWII than Garands (6M) or Thompsons (2M.)

 

[Solomonson]

What if Germany had been the first to develop the atom bomb? What if the battle of Midway would have gone the other way? What if the South would have had more manufacturing and the North less? Lotta what ifs in life. What if i woulda married my first love?

I wonder why my questions bothers you so much? I wonder why you don't have the discipline to simply simply skip over it?

 

[Solomonson]

Please dont start in about me being southern. That is another war nobody won. Lets hope China dont get mad enough to come over here. Theres a billion of them and the manufacturing base too. theyve got buddies too. I couldnt whip my way out of a paper sack anymore and am broken up to much for more than a fast walk. I cant see no more, I guess if these kids will get off the couch and viedo games I can load them some ammo

"Lets hope China dont get mad enough to come over here. Theres a billion of them and the manufacturing base too. theyve got buddies too."

Hmmm...

 

[Solomonson]

That is like asking what if you were your own grandfather.

Many of the the elements of the AK were borrowed from the Garand, a good designer copies what works.

A more interesting question is "What if George Washington wrote the Communist's Manifesto?"

Whether you want to admit it or not, there was nothing -- no technological breakthrough that would have kept anyone from designing the AK-47 in 1927. It's not made of exotic materials and it doesn't use transistors or integrated circuits, etc.

 

[hdwhit]

Solomonson wrote:
What if a patriotic American had designed what later became the AK-47 in 1927 and had entered it in the testing trials against the Garand and Pedersen offerings?

First, who was it that was developing this rifle and submitting it? Corporate interests and the military's interest in "maintaining the industrial base" inevitably figure into such a decision, so a lone inventor or small company was at a significant disadvantage.

Second, I think posts #2 and #4 cover the issue pretty well.

Third, in 1927, an additional consideration was that the nation did not have - nor did it anticipate building - a logistical infrastructure for the Army with the capability to supply ammunition to the field in the quantities necessary to feed fully automatic individual weapons.

 

[Solomonson]

First, who was it that was developing this rifle and submitting it? Corporate interests and the military's interest in "maintaining the industrial base" inevitably figure into such a decision, so a lone inventor or small company was at a significant disadvantage.

That's true. I said "patriotic American" -- not a company, big or small. Suffice to say if Alfred Sloan or Edsel Ford had designed the AK-47 in their garage as a hobby, it likely would have been chosen over the Garand.

Second, I think posts #2 and #4 cover the issue pretty well.

Not really, no. The "stamping machinery" comment is false. I suspect the punch presses and press brakes Ford used to produce the Model A were easily as advanced as what the Soviets used a half century later.

As far as the caliber goes, neither the Garand nor the Pedersen demonstrated the significant advantages of a .22 caliber round. The .276 Pedersen really cannot be compared to say the 5.45x39mm

Third, in 1927, an additional consideration was that the nation did not have - nor did it anticipate building - a logistical infrastructure for the Army with the capability to supply ammunition to the field in the quantities necessary to feed fully automatic individual weapons.

You mean like the M1A1 Thompson Sub machine gun or the M3 Grease Gun?

 

[armarsh]

The value of an intermediate cartridge was not shown until WWII. An AK47 in 1927 would have been rejected because the decision makers would have judged it based on how well it would have worked in WWI.

This assumes adoption as the standard rifle for the majority of infantry, not specialist niches.

 

[oobeedog]

What if a patriotic American had designed what later became the AK-47 in 1927 and had entered it in the testing trials against the Garand and Pedersen offerings? How would it have been received?

- The AK-47 would have been selected instead of the Garand.

- The AK-47 would have ultimately been selected in place of either the M1 Carbine, the Thompson submachine gun or the greaser.

- The AK-47 would have been rejected because it wasn't chambered in either .276 Pedersen or .30-06 Springfield.

- It would have been rejected with regard to its accuracy.

- It would have been rejected due to "politics."

- The US Military would have bought the design and then buried it, afraid the Axis would easily duplicate it.

- It would have been rejected for...?

What if a patriotic American had designed what later became the AK-47 in 1927 and had entered it in the testing trials against the Garand and Pedersen offerings? How would it have been received?

- The AK-47 would have been selected instead of the Garand.

- The AK-47 would have ultimately been selected in place of either the M1 Carbine, the Thompson submachine gun or the greaser.

- The AK-47 would have been rejected because it wasn't chambered in either .276 Pedersen or .30-06 Springfield.

- It would have been rejected with regard to its accuracy.

- It would have been rejected due to "politics."

- The US Military would have bought the design and then buried it, afraid the Axis would easily duplicate it.

- It would have been rejected for...?

The AK-47 round fired from a standard rifle is accurate. The run of the mill AK-47 weapon mostly sprays bullets and hopes on hitting something. With that being said they're like a tank. You can't kill them.

 

[Solomonson]

The value of an intermediate cartridge was not shown until WWII. An AK47 in 1927 would have been rejected because the decision makers would have judged it based on how well it would have worked in WWI.

This assumes adoption as the standard rifle for the majority of infantry, not specialist niches.

There was absolutely nothing that kept "intermediate cartridges" from being produced/evaluated far earlier. It's not as if they became effective due to later developed technology/materials. They may have become better over time, but their value could have been measured in 1927.

It's not like saying "just think how things would have been different if Apple MacIntoshes would have been available to use in control systems during WWII." That would have required decades of pyramiding technological advances and breakthroughs.

That's not the case with developing the .223 in 1923.

 

[Solomonson]

The AK-47 round fired from a standard rifle is accurate. The run of the mill AK-47 weapon mostly sprays bullets and hopes on hitting something. With that being said they're like a tank. You can't kill them.

"The run of the mill AK-47 weapon mostly sprays bullets and hopes on hitting something." <-- Absolutely untrue.

 

[Panzerschwein]

I don't think it would even have been considered for a main battle rifle. The US military wasn't far off yet from the single shot mind set, if it hadn't been for the Mausers beating their butts in the Spanish-American War with magazine loaded rifles, they may have still been using Trapdoor Springfields. Those making the decisions thought rapid firing was just a waste of ammo.

Look at how long it took them to adapt to 1911's after the advent of semi-auto pistols.

If it weren't for The Spanish and their Mausers we would still have trapdoor Springfields in 1927... are you nuts? Ever heard of a little thing we were in called World War 1??

By 1900, every modern major army in the world was using repeating rifles. You are daft if you think that that's the only reason we switched to bolt action rifles, every other kid on the block eas doing the exact same thing.

 

[grampajack]

You are probably right about the cartridge power. Im glad that even though by my 18th birthday I had graduated from basic and AIT at Ft. Knox I still had to register for the draft. What if I had been born in 50,or 52 instead of 62. I would have been in the mud,bugs and jungle with a 22 caliber rifle after they pried the 14 out of my hands. The 308 is just too effective I think. Why would we ever sign an agreement with other nations to only use ball ammo? I thought in war the object was to vanquish your foe not wound him so he comes back 6 months later with a vendetta and a couple of his friends.
I was picking up that cheap draco and a young man showed me a scar just below his right shoulder and told me I was just buying a wounding weapon. I knew he had been to the sandbox and held my mouth shut a moment to reply. I didnt want to tell him I wasnt planning to carry ball ammo for defense and ball ammo was the only reason he was breathing. I camly thanked him for his service and finished the paperwork. The fighting of war without intending to win is against the most basic common sense and there are always more civilian casualties than soldiers it just isnt told. The boys in Nam threw the 16 down for the first 12 gauge they could find and some used AKs they took from the enemy. I have a 30 round AK mag with a name and serial number of one of our guys on it.

We never actually signed the agreement, so technically we could use hollow points if we wanted to, and in some cases we sort of do. But ball ammo is quite effective. I assure you there are other, better reasons he was still breathing, namely the fact that he got hit in the shoulder instead of the chest.

 

[roscoe]

One thing - it would have been called the AK 27

 

[Robert]

This is why we don't do "What if" threads. There is no right answer and they all lead to bickering and eventually insults and other non THR behavior.