Wired Article on the AK-47 : is accuracy inversely related to reliability?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes.

Accuracy requires -

1. Tight Tolerances - in chamber dimensions, headspace, short throat and short lead

2. Repeatable Concentric lockup - something falling block or rear lock actions do not provide

3. Stiff/Heavy barrels

4. Trigger quality and short lock time

5. Consistent ammo with ball matched to twist/diameter/groove type
 
The AK does just fine as a third world design anchored in '30's design technology.

It wasn't designed in a third world. It was designed by the sole other competing global super power (Soviet Union). The same world power that had us scared for nearly 50 years throughout the cold war.

The Soviet Union requested/required that its allies utilized the 7.62 x 39 cartridge, and many of those nations chose to use the AK format. For example, in China, Russian techs came over with surplus Russian parts and taught the Chinese how to make the rifle. Over time, the Chinese began manufacturing their own parts, and I firmly believe this to be part of the reason why a pre-ban Norinco type 56 to be one of the finest examples of an AK. Minus the full auto. :(

And why would we not use an AK in our own armed forces? Well, how would you like to be the politician/serviceman/citizen to suggest we use the weapon of our "enemy"- not only claiming they made something superior than we could, but that we need to use a "Communist" weapon? I don't think that would have gone over well.

Regardless, studies have shown that more bullets in the air work better for your side, so we went to smaller calibers, thus allowing troops to carry more ammunition.

I have no qualms with the AR, other than sometimes wishing it was a bigger caliber. I realize there are different modifications you can do, but as the standard design, I wish it would have used a .30 cal of sorts. I guess give me an AR-10 and call it day.
 
What I've never understood is why the AK has a rear sight graduated out to extreme range (800-1000 yards typically). It's well understood that the rifle was meant for realistic combat ranges. It seems that a simpler sight would have been in order. Machining for the sight seems like unnecessary embellishment.

The again, I suppose it's tradition. My C96 Mauser has a long range sight which is pretty optimistic considering the cartridge fired.
The intent of the way-out-yonder sight settings on older rifles was to allow more accurate placement of massed fire at groups or areas, presumably with the intent of "keeping their heads down" rather than hitting an individual target. I want to say my Finn M39's rear sight goes up to 2000 meters once you flip it to vertical. You can't even see an individual at that distance except in exceptional lighting conditions, but having a 2km sight would certainly allow a group of riflemen to put rounds on a much smaller CEP at 2km than if they were trying to use unsighted fire, and it could certainly encourage dispersal of mass formations. I agree that in practice this probably isn't useful, but I think that was the intent.
 
1. The only semi-automatic weapon I can think of that keeps dirty propellant gas out of the moving parts is the roller-delayed blowback design - and even that is debateable. The AK47 uses dirty properllant gas to push a piston - the piston being a moving part.
Have you ever owned an HK91, 93 or 94? They are just as filthy, if not more so, than an AR. They use flutes in their chamber to float the case on hot gas which aids in extraction. This in turn blows propellant gases throughout the rifles action.

The cleanest rifles I've seen use either long stoke or short stroke gas systems.
 
Forget all the technical stuff for a moment. If you want good accuracy, the most important concepts in a rifle are good sights and a good trigger. After all, it's usable accuracy that counts, not what you can get off a bench on a sunny day.

And that's one thing that always puzzled me about the AK. Why haven't they upgraded the sights and fixed that gritty, stagey trigger? Those cheap and easy improvements would make it a far better rifle.
 
Why haven't they upgraded the sights and fixed that gritty, stagey trigger?

And that's the thing. With a lot of our examples, we are seeing rifles that are made from parts that go together rather than parts that were made within a factory for each other.

If we took apart all M-14's, threw all the parts in piles, and picked them at random to put on a newly made receiver, some would be better than others, but I think we would agree that few would be as decent as a roll out from an actual factory.

I think that until we are allowed to import the rifle as designed and built, we will only see mediocre examples, some better than others, save those pre-ban rifles.

But please don't forget about the full auto fire. That is where the AK truly shines. And not specifically alone, but with a small squad unleashing at once, as intended.

I would equate it to owning a corvette but not being able to drive over 30. You just can't fully appreciate it because it can't do what it was intended to do.
 
Bartholomew Roberts, thank you for your many enlightening posts in this thread. You see reported over and over how "poorly" the M4 performed in dust tests that it's refreshing to get "the rest of the story".
 
If we took apart all M-14's, threw all the parts in piles, and picked them at random to put on a newly made receiver, some would be better than others, but I think we would agree that few would be as decent as a roll out from an actual factory.

True, but they'd all have excellent sights and the triggers would be at least fair to good. Same with the AR.

We'll probably never see a crisp trigger (like a commercial sporting rifle) on a battle rifle, but there's no reason they can't have a clean two stage trigger like we find on most WWII era rifles. Good sights and triggers are easy technical "fixes".

.
 
It wasn't designed in a third world. It was designed by the sole other competing global super power (Soviet Union). The same world power that had us scared for nearly 50 years throughout the cold war.

+1. The Soviets were either the 2nd World, or the other First World nation besides the US, depending on when and who you talked to. The point in all cases was that 3rd World nations were the poor, underdeveloped/developing nations that were either unaligned with the western or communist blocs or at best loosely affiliated with one side or the other.

And the AK was, hands down, the most advanced and most combat optimized service rifle of the 1950s. The differential between a true assault rifle like the AK and the battle rifles the US shafted NATO and ourselves with was probably on par with the difference between a flintlock and a percussion cap muzzle loader. The former would still kill you deader than cancer, but the latter did it better and more effectively.
 
Kalasnikov designed the AK to be made in an industrial base decades behind any other major nation, hence the stamped folded parts and simple twisted wire springs. Any student of industrial design can spot it. Even attempting to equate the Soviet Union of the '40's as an industrial equal to the US or Germany is ludicrous. They couldn't even get the shift mechanism on the T34 to work smoothly, it's very old tanker lore they used a 5 pound sledge to move it.

Compared to the STG 44, the AK is a poor step child. The Germans did a much better job at INVENTING the entire assault rifle class of weapon. The delay roller lock bolt and dirty action that results didn't bother them one bit - or me, when I owned a HK91. You could pour a handful of gravel in the open bolt and it would still chamber and fire.

As a direct result of what was thoroughly studied by many nations, the .30 cal battle rifles, bolt or gas operated, were not well liked by the soldiers. It is entirely the fact they would not shoot them often or well that created the move to the intermediate caliber full auto fire, magazine fed weapons that replaced them. Shooting more often, with less recoil, means more bullets on the battlefield, which however inaccurately done, means more hits. On the battlefield, a squad getting more hits has superior firepower, regardless of caliber or training. It's also why the US still has a 2MOA milspec standard, and has since the 1950's. It's old news to read the Ordnance ammo testing standard that requires 2MOA in ten rounds shot. 2MOA is all that is needed.

Conspiracy theory we won't buy Soviet weapons because of politics tends to expose a serious weakness in understanding firearms design and tactical application. We don't buy into old curio relic designs because the ergonomics are poor, the controls don't allow safe chambering of ammo, and the construction used is heavy and inefficient. Why trade off a weapon with a thumb operated safety that helps the user swap mags with an open bolt for a heavier, more inaccurate, and generally less well finished weapon? The weight alone offsets a magazine or two of ammo that could be carried and that will contribute to more hits on the battlefield.

Gas operated .30 cal rifles are pretty much second and third world these days, most nations use a AR pattern rifle - unless they get a free AK factory to punch up the deal with their oppressive leaders who tend to accumulate all the profits themselves. Exercising a competition among weapons suppliers like the Army's Improved Carbine trials doesn't exist in dictatorships. They don't have competing weapons makers, they are not allowed to exist. If all you have is the AK, no wonder that's all there is to choose.

It certainly explains the difference between the Free West and the rest of the world.
 
Kalasnikov designed the AK to be made in an industrial base decades behind any other major nation, hence the stamped folded parts and simple twisted wire springs.

Hmm, that explains the receiver of the G3 and recoil spring in my Sig pistol. Damn Germans pawing off obsolete technology to the rest of the world.

Everything is a compromise. Part of the compromises made with the AK was that they be capable of being cheaply mass produced and not use strategic materials (like aluminum that was in demand for aircraft). The Sov (and Russian Empire before them) fought both World Wars with a shortage of infantry rifles. They didn't want to be caught with their pants down again.

As far as accuracy, the Sov spec was that AKs had to keep 4 rounds in a 15cm (5.9") circle at 100m (109 yards). If the rifle failed it was to be evacuated to support for repair*. Yes, they emphasized reliability more so than accuracy but they didn't ignore accuracy either. BSW

*p119 of this manual: https://docs.google.com/fileview?id...k0Y2ItYjBlZTNiNDc5NWE0&hl=en&authkey=CLT79qIH
 
Just for the record, the acceptance standard for the M14 was 5 MOA - and many rifles failed to meet this. The problem was traced to ammunition, but this is well documented and even resulted in senate hearings. Details can be found in US Rifle M14 by Stevens. Interestingly, the precision standard was the same for the M1 Garand.

Further, it should be noted that it was the US that pushed the acceptance of the full power 7.62x51 (308) cartridge as NATO standard over the objections of the European members. It was not soldiers complaints but battlefield studies, originally performs by the German army post WWII that led to the concept of the intermediate range cartridge. The rationale was that current rifles were needlessly powerful for normal combat ranges, and an intermediate round would be cheaper to produce and a soldier could carry more. I know of no study that used the desires of the soldiers.

The US was one of the last industrialized nations to adopt the concept of the intermediate round, and this was probably due more to the departure of Rene Studler as head of ordnance than any other factor. He worked tirelessly to kill off support for the assault rifle concept, continuing to support the notion that infantry rifles needed to be effective out to 1000 yard in spite of all the studies that had shown that to not be the case.

The two seminal publication in the US that led to the adoption of the assault rifle in the US are Hitchman's Operational Requirements for an Infantry Hand Weapon and the Hall's An effectiveness study of the infantry rifle. Both were published in the 1950s and while forward thinkers used this to promote the SPIW as the next generation of infantry weapon, it was basically ignored by the insiders at ordnance.

For those unfamiliar with either work, the Hitchman study basically confirmed what the Germs had found in the interwar years - that virtually all smallarms fire occurs at 500 yards or less and effectiveness drop to virtually zero at his range, that 70% of all smallarms fire is at 100 yards or less, and that volumes of fire were more effective than aimed fire in the confusion of combat. The Hall study postulated that a small caliber bullet driven at sufficient velocity would have the approximate lethality of a larger caliber round at combat distances.

The upshot of all this was the adoption of the M14 to satisfy ordnance, but to pursue the SPIW as the long term replacement rifle for US forces. Almost immediately, ordnance started to sabotage the SPIW project by introducing requirements not called for or seen as necessary by the Hitchman study, but fitting in with the conservative, target shooter mindset of Ordnance.

Long range effectiveness was not necessary according to Hitchman, but ordnance wanted a rifle that could be effective out to 800-1000 yards. Burst fire increased the potential for a hit, and slight dispersion was advantageous, but ordnance insisted upon single round accuracy.

The SPIW program fell farther and farther behind thanks to immature technology and conflicting requirements. Meanwhile, the M14 was proving to be nothing more than a product improved Garand, and the Manufacturers were having problems producing the rifle at the estimated cost and required quality. The idea that modified Garand tool could be used to save money proved utterly false.

The M14 problems weren't resolved until TRW took over production, building a new manufacturing facility from scratch. By that time, the M16 was already in the pipe as an interim rifle until the SPIW was ready and production of the m14 ceased just as things were finally sorted out.

The M16 itself was never seen as a permanent solution. It was never subjected to acceptance trials the way previous rifles were, and was adopted through the back door thanks to Colt's sales people pitching the rifle to SAC chief Curtis Lemay, who was something of a gunguy and needed a new high tech rifle to replace the M1 carbines the Air Force was using. SAC was all about high tech, and when the rifle was presented to Lemay at a picnic - which included some watermelon shooting - Lemay was sold. From their the rifle gradually crept into military service. It was seen as a perfect rifle for smaller Vietnamese allies, and gradually the 'interim' rifle became standard and the SPIW project shriveled up and died.

The M16 series - an interim weapon - is now the longest serving rifle in the US, probably a testament more to the conservative nature of the military and Colt's understanding of how to work the procurement process than anything else.

The whole M14/SPIW/M16 debacle also led to the dismantling of the US arsenals and putting the whole contracting of small arms into the hands of private companies - for good or ill.
 
One thing to add to the debate is that event he Soviets decided that the small 5mm projectile was the way to go for infantry rifles.

The AK-47 was adopted in '49 and continued to '56. It was a good rifle, using a milled receiver, but it had some problems, such as high manufacturing cost, and requiring over 1 million machining operations to machine the receiver, inefficient even by soviet standards. Kalashnikov's design specs called for a stamped receiver, similar to a StG44, but Soviet industry at the time could not meet that standard.

In '56 the AK-47 was replaced by the AKM (What is commonly and colloquially seen as an AK-47) that addressed many of the '47's short comings, including high manufacturing costs by by finally being able to manufacture a stamped receiver, resulting in a weight savings of 1.5lb. The AKM also introduced some improvements in the fire control mechanism.

In '74 the whole M43 cartridge was scrapped in favor of the M74 5.45x39.5 cartridge. If I remember, it also has an accuracy standard of ~2 MOA, same as the M16 family. Looking at the many 5.45 shooters using soviet surplus, 2.5 MOA appears to be the norm.

As for why no NATO member used the AK design? Well, I think the answer there is obvious. Who in the NATO block would adopt and use a WARSAW Pact weapon and ammunition?

This of course has changed in the 21st century, with many of the former WARSAW pact nations being incorporated into NATO, and with some of them (Poland being a prime example) electing to transition to a 5.56x45 chambering for their AK-74M variants over adopting some of the other western offerings in the same caliber (G36, Sig551, FAMAS, L85, AUG to name a few).

As for "No Western Rifle Uses Stampings!" argument, Need you look no further than the CETME and G3 rifle, which was also made using cheap stampings and then welded together. a G3 is able to produce accuracy very much on par with an M16-pattern weapon, while using seemingly "inferior" "third-world" "1930's technology" with arguably more reliability.
 
Last edited:
requiring over 1 million machining operations to machine the receiver

You got some documentation for that claim?

Also, the earliest AKs were stamped. They got pulled as they were insufficiently durable and were replaced with the milled receiver design. Then the AKM came along with a different design of stamped receiver. BSW
 
Kalasnikov designed the AK to be made in an industrial base decades behind any other major nation, hence the stamped folded parts and simple twisted wire springs. Any student of industrial design can spot it. Even attempting to equate the Soviet Union of the '40's as an industrial equal to the US or Germany is ludicrous. They couldn't even get the shift mechanism on the T-34 to work smoothly, it's very old tanker lore they used a 5 pound sledge to move it.
Don't forget that the Russians were building T-34's under extreme duress in the middle of an all-out invasion by a major military power, and the T34 was *still* one of the best all-around tanks of the war---certainly as good as or better than any U.S. medium tank of the time. As far as the transmission, the Russians switched to a completely different transmission in 1942, and since T-34's were produced until 1958 I have trouble believing that the later models still had to be shifted with a hammer. T-34 variants were still serving in First World militaries as late as the mid-1990's. Russian industry also designed and flew some of the best fighter aircraft of the war, e.g. the Yakovlev Yak-9 and Lavochkin La-7 that gave them air superiority over the Germans, and they built the first ICBM around the time the AKM was being issued, so I wouldn't characterize Russian industry at the time of the AK's adoption as backward by any means. Sometimes inefficient (and in later years, a bit fossilized) due to command-and-control economics, yes; backward, no.

The AK wasn't an attempt to compensate for lack of production technology; it was designed to be able to produced at minimal cost of tooling and strategic materials. I'm sure the lessons of Stalingrad were also fresh in their minds.
 
On the topic of reliability, I'll say this. I own an AR, an AK-47, and an AK-74. For any given number of rounds fired, the AR gets much MUCH dirtier inside than the AK's do. Hell, after 100 rounds, the AR looks dirty inside (and, no, I'm not using wolf or other steel cased garbage in it). The AK's still look clean and have maybe a small amount of carbon on the piston face (and they often ARE firing wolf).

It would seem logical the AK's are less sensitive to a lack of maintenance than the AR is, just based upon this.

Of course the sights and ergonomics on the AK's suck, and my AR has never suffered a failure of any kind.
 
It should also be recalled that while not NATO countries, Both Finland and Israel adopted AK variants. The Finn still use the Rk95, and the prime reason the Israelis adopted the M16 variants is that theyre were required to use a certain portion of the US military aid to purchase US made weapons. The machined Galil cannot compete costwise with a heavily subsidized M16.


Other non-Sov Bloc nations using AK variants include Columbia and South Africa off the top of my head.
 
Other non-Sov Bloc nations using AK variants include Columbia and South Africa off the top of my head.
I *think* Mozambique might use it too (amongst hordes of other nations). ;)
mozflag.jpg

That said they are a communist nation, so that doesn't really count for much...does it?

:)
 
This is a good reference on the AK-47/AKM family: http://world.guns.ru/assault/as01-e.htm

It is noteworthy that the AK-47 wasn't adopted officially until 1949. As for the 1 million machining operations for the receiver, I recall it being mentioned on History Chanel's "Tales of the Gun", but I can find no precise references on line, so take it with a grain of salt.

benEzra also brings good points. It's not that soviet industry couldn't produce a more advanced firearm, its that there was seen to be little/no need for a more advanced firearm. A 300 meter Minute of man accurate assault rifle that could be made en mass was needed, and thats what they received. I heard the figure that at peak war production, IzMash arsenal could manufacture 40,000 AK-74M rifles in a single day.

In the end, the AK is very fitting with the Russian mindset: It doesn't need to be perfect, it just needs to be good enough. The T34 was not a very refined tank, but it was certainly good enough to fight anything in Europe, the PPSh-41 was not the end-all be all SMG, but it was good enough, the Mosin-Nagant and DP28 all had their flaws, but again they worked well enough, and lastly while the AK platform is not the end-all be-all of small arms, it works well enough as a combat arm. The same can be said of the M16.
 
from the perspective of the Pentagon, they'd rather buy more tanks and other bigger weapons that can kill huge numbers of people at once.

More bang for your buck. Poking holes in people one at a time is rather inefficient. :D
 
Regarding the "1 Million" machining operations required for the production of the AK-47; see excerpt from page 18 (specifically para. 2) from
The New World of Russian Small Arms and Ammo by Charlie Cutshaw:

deleted -- <Sam>

That having been said, 120 operations on milling machines is still very time consuming, and costly. It also requires highly skilled labor, not required of a bending brake, punch press, and riveter employed in the production of the AKM.

:)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So many good points made by so many people. I believe both the AK and AR are good weapons. This could be argued till the cows come home. Just as there are dog people and cat people, there are AK and AR people, and never the twain shall meet.
Sturmgewehr, your dead on about fouling in HKs. When I bring mine home from the range, it looks like I've been burning coal in the receiver
 
Mmmm . . . no. In a 100 year retrospective I can think of many pieces of equipment where we most certainly did not field the best. The Sherman tanks we sent up against Panthers and late model Panzer IVs in WW2 jump to mind -- as do the Shermans we sent up against T-34s in Korea.

The Sherman was rather good in most regards and are partly credited with helping the British turn the North African campaign around. While it didn't fare so well against the later German tanks, the fact of the matter is they didn't have that many of them. Anything less than an up gunned Panzer 4 the Sherman was better than. Yes the Panther was a deadly tank, but only a relative handfull ever saw combat against our tanks, so they achieved nothing.


What I was referring to was how the average solider was equipped. If you compare a German, American and Russian solider our guys had the best gear and weapons by a mile.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top