AK-47/74s and their reputation....

[Sniperdoc 0]

This topic is basically a continuation of a topic getting off-topic.... here it goes:

I have shot with of several AK-family rifles including Norinco's AK47 semi-auto guns that they sold to the civilian market. I do not now how third world militia is trained or adjust their sights. Judging from what I have seen they don't consider weapon handling or proper aiming important. It is the attitude that matters  

Most people can hit military targets with 2-3 seconds aiming at 150 meters after a short practice.  So with a trained shooter and adjusted sights 150m is no problem for AK47. Would not like to be at the recieving end. There are 300m shooting pratices for AK47 and people can hit the targets even from that range. So - conclusion - it matters who is doing the shooting.

EDIT: But then again it is totally different to be at a shooting range when nobody is shooting back at you than in a real combat situation when you put yourself in danger every time you expose yourself in order to aim and take a shot.

Agreed.  I think that Sniperdoc has gotten a lot of his facts wrong.  First off, if you want to talk about Iraq ("over there") you should remember that the insurgents don't have any AK74s.  Even if they did, they clearly lack weapon handling or marksmanship skills to make the most out of the weapons that they are using.

While there is no doubt that the M16 series of rifles are more accurate than the AKs, that should by no means indicate that the AKs are useless. They are quite accurate out to 300-400 m.  Basic Warsaw Pact marksmanship drills had their soldiers engage targets out to 300-350 m with the AK/AKM.  

To say that no one fears AKs is plain stupid.  These rifles have killed more people than any other small arm in the last 50 years. Perhaps, even more than the rest of the rifles put together.

Peace,

DreDay

Given your attitude about the post shows that you haven't had any real world experience either.

First off, I was in the service. Navy to be exact. Corpsman. HM3 if you'd like to know more, I'll be glad to fax you my DD214.

On the other hand, given the fact that I was just a Corpsman, but have dealt with several SpecOps units, BEEN in several SpecOps units, and have dealt with "Contractors" or Mercs, I have a little bit of experience to talk about this.

About your paragraph: "To say that no one fears AKs is plain stupid.  These rifles have killed[...]", again... it shows how much experience you've had.

You may be right that the AK has killed more people than any other small arm in the last 50 years, but it's also THE ONE WEAPON that's the cheapest to make, is the one of the most "resilient"... note my use of terminology, NOT RELIABLE... resilient weapons on the market. THAT'S why it's the most distributed... THAT'S why it's in all the third world countries... THAT'S where all the warfare is going on! You don't see Germans and Brits shooting the hell out of each other with G3's and SA80s do ya? Come on... think a little!

Also, to other folks statements about the accuracy. Anyone can overcome a rifle's shortcoming when it's being shot by someone in the knowhow. I can substitute with Kentucky Windage too... but that doesn't mean that the windage I applied to one AK applies to an different AK that gets handed to me. The rifles are simply too "loose" in their MOA's. Period.

I mentioned my sources up there. It's your choice if you choose to believe me or not. I don't believe that any of YOU are sitting in bullet proof Lincoln Navigators pulling escort duty for Embassy staff... are you? Look up Strategic Security Solutions International... specifically Kabul Afghanistan. I can give you the road they're on too   I've got plenty of my buds pulling duty with those types.   Matter of fact, one of them just came and visited after 3 years over there. None of them like the AK's... none. Hell, they don't even like the Egyptian made MP5's they get... none of the equipment is just reliable enough. It's a godsend when they get a shipment of M4's in. Hell, my buddy had to purchase his on pistol while he was on leave. Ended up getting himself the newer FN Five-Seven... hell of a nice pistol. 20 rounds per magazine and with the magazine extension... 30!!!

I'm not saying that it's not an intimidating weapon... well actually that is what I'm saying... I'm saying that people just aren't impressed when you try to hold them at bay with an AK47/74 anymore in the mid-east. On the other hand... seeing a double-barrel shotty hanging out the window of your escort vehicle will get EVERYONE to back the hell off your car... whereas an AK... just doesn't have the same effect.

There are plenty of modified AK's... but they're not in the 3rd world countries where they're being used the most. Those modified ones are a hell of a lot more accurate and can get 1/4MOA (at least that's what I've heard/read).

Anywho... that's my words and I'm sticking to 'em!

Mentioned Sources:

High Road Forum

Online Survival Magazine Article

Feel free to do searches on AK-47/74 accuracy on Google... you'll get plenty of insight.

[max power 21]

I think that much of the ak74's reputation in the west is by virtue of the reputation of its predicessor and I think that that's not a valid generalization.

[Törni 0]

Quote[/b] ]Given your attitude about the post shows that you haven't had any real world experience either.

Wrong with that one. Quickly counting I would say that I have nearly three years of military experience.

This seems to now be going to the direction: "my daddy is stronger than yours". M16 very prone to malfunctions if not maintained properly. I wonder how all those third world fighters would fight if they had nothing but M16s?

Quote[/b] ]The primary criticism of direct impingement is that fouling and debris from expended gunpowder is blown directly into the breech. As the superheated combustion gas travels down the tube, it expands and cools, not unlike an aerosol can cools when depressurized. This cooling causes vaporized matter to condense as it cools depositing a much greater volume of solids into the operating components of the action. The increased fouling can cause malfunctions if the rifle is not cleaned as frequently as should be.

The questions are:

a) What is the quality of their weapons?

b) Do they really know how to shoot?

c) Do they maintain their equipment?

d) What kind of ammo do they use?

The average "warrior" is an uneducated young man who does not know how to adjust sights properly or clean his weapon. On top of that he has been given some piece of shit AK47 with a half corroded barrel and ammo that is several decades old. Stuff that is in so bad condition that it was dumped by ex-Warsaw Pact countries. Or then it has been in the bush for the last 40 years with this kind of warriors.

Comparison is not a fair one. M16A4 is a different generation weapon than AK47. There can be 30-40 years between them. If you want a fair comparison take a Vietnam era M16 vs. AK47.

[vilas 477]

AK is best rifle in world, not sensitive to dirt, mud

cheap, simple, usefully

AK74 has very good compensation and stability (now better is AN94 Abakan)

i have no idea about other west weapons, but if other gun was better, it would be more popular for sure

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]It's your choice if you choose to believe me or not.

I choose the later as you certainly would know that

Quote[/b] ]You don't see Germans and Brits shooting the hell out of each other with G3's and SA80s do ya?

G3´s are the most popular weapons for any kind of militia on the african continent right after the AK family.

Apart from that, I don´t really see what should be that wrong with the AK´s. The caliber rocks, the gun itself is very reliable under hard conditions (something you can definately NOT say about the M16 family) and if the weapon is not worn to garbage level it certainly is up for good hits at decent ranges.

So really, I don´t understand the reasoning here.

[antagonist 0]

Dang, I think SniperDoc just psychologically locked his own thread - I'm not competing with what he says.

So, Sniper, what IS the best rifle?

[INNOCENT&CLUELESS 0]

AK 47/74 was famous for reliability while being cheap.

G3 is/was expensive compared to the AKs and very sensitive against dust/water. G36 was more reliable and my bro claims G36 is less accurate then the old G3.

Today you must say "Russian manufactured AKs" because there are to many licensed productions in the world to compare AKs in general.

Issues with AKs accuracy only appear due to wrong/missing maintenance and odd manufactured ammo. Todays AK 101 or AK 107 can compete with G36 and SA80 in all areas.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]G3 is/was expensive compared to the AKs and very sensitive against dust/water.

It´s been sold to 20 african countries officially in vast numbers. The unofficial 3rd party trades are not measurable in numbers but from my own experience I can tell you that there have to be really large stocks of them on the african continet.

Dust is no problem if it´s kept totally dry and water never was a problem for it aswell. Usual maintenance should be the standard if you want to keep your gun in a working condition. The only problem I had with a G3 in the desert was that after firing about 100 shots in a row the barrel got so hot that I had to use the boonie hat in my hand to still be able to hold the gun without burning my fingers.

Quote[/b] ]my bro claims G36 is less accurate then the old G3.

It´s not less accurate but the nature of it´s ammunition

makes it more easy that you get deflected shots unlike the go-trough-caliber the G3 used.

[Zorbtek 0]

I would have to say AK is the best out there

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

The OP is pathetic, take it to the military forum if you care, but when your internal organs get ripped you won't care about the rifle. nor the caliber. You sound pathetic and are pathetic by comparing AK47 and 74s 7.62x39 v 5.45.39, first one will make an exit wound you will never forget, the latter will rip your internal muscles and organs and go out in style - out of your arse.

AK47 - cheap, RELIABLE, easy to use (saw how yankees hold their m16 - you don't shoot with a bloody ak like that).

The OP has a narrow perception of the world and thinks that the only AK out there is the 47 model which was developed back in the 47, all the existing modifications not even now can complete with the original design (i'm talking about bulgarians and all that shit). So say it short, by starting with - I've been in the service for x years, reached rank x, been in x hotspots and got a wounded in my nuts several times - you sound pathetic, but know one thing, once you go to a war with a real enemy, not some monkey guerillas (vietnam, iraq, afghan + many others to come no doubt) you will see that all this talk is useless, but then again tanks + infantry will be obsolete in that case, except for sabotage missions at the start of the war - rest nuclear warhead exchange.  

These threads need to end.

[alpha125rbf 0]

You all speak of the AK-47, AKM, (AK-74), if it would be always the same rifle; no matter where it was made!

In the US you can buy a cheep Chinese AK. If its shit, only a very silly person can say ALL AKs in the word are like this shit!

The AK is made in at least 50 countries, and the producing quality is depending on what they want to have! In Egypt or China they try to produce their AKM (modification) under 50$. A Czech AKM variant (for export) costs about 50$. Russians are pride to tell you that their AK-74 costs about 1000 $! In Afghanistan you can buy a AK on the market for only 50 bucks.

Do you want a stabilized and accurate weapon made of high quality steel; you have to pay for it. And the weapon costs.

If you want to have a rifle for the masses, running in a great production numbers and for export (made of recycling goods ), the price can fall with the manufacturing quality…

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

You all speak of the AK-47, AKM, (AK-74), if it would be always the same rifle; no matter where it was made!

In the US you can buy a cheep Chinese AK. If its shit, only a very silly person can say ALL AKs in the word are like this shit!

The AK is made in at least 50 countries, and the producing quality is depending on what they want to have! In Egypt or China they try to produce their AKM (modification) under 50$. A Czech AKM variant (for export) costs about 50$. Russians are pride to tell you that their AK-74 costs about 1000 $! In Afghanistan you can buy a AK on the market for only 50 bucks.

Do you want a stabilized and accurate weapon made of high quality steel; you have to pay for it. And the weapon costs.

If you want to have a rifle for the masses, running in a great production numbers and for export (made of recycling goods ), the price can fall with the manufacturing quality…

Good post.

EDIT: OP, as for the AK reputation, well, sir - it's worth more than your life and in this case makes you a waste of oxygen. Good day.

[-CS-SOBR-1st-I-R- 0]

You've got to see what is most important in a battle situation ...

The first thing that comes to my mind is that the rifle has to work properly which the Ak is best for.

Second the rifle should be hard-hitting and accurate ... And AK is hard-hitting and in a combat situation accurate enough ...

It doenst matter if the rifles shoots to 300meter or 400meter accurate.

The Ak is in fact a damn good rifles and thus has just the right reputation. And as for the greater power of M16 compared to the Ak74 .. this is due to the ammunition used (5.56x45 vs. 5.45x39) with advantages and disadvantages in both cases.

[Heavy Metal 0]

Quote[/b] ]G3 is/was expensive compared to the AKs and very sensitive against dust/water.

It´s been sold to 20 african countries officially in vast numbers. The unofficial 3rd party trades are not measurable in numbers but from my own experience I can tell you that there have to be really large stocks of them on the african continet.

Dust is no problem if it´s kept totally dry and water never was a problem for it aswell. Usual maintenance should be the standard if you want to keep your gun in a working condition. The only problem I had with a G3 in the desert was that after firing about 100 shots in a row the barrel got so hot that I had to use the boonie hat in my hand to still be able to hold the gun without burning my fingers.

Quote[/b] ]my bro claims G36 is less accurate then the old G3.

It´s not less accurate but the nature of it´s ammunition

makes it more easy that you get deflected shots unlike the go-trough-caliber the G3 used.

The G3's achillies heel is lack of maintainence in a desert.  Sand under the rollers in the bolt head can make it damn near impossible to work the action.  Essentially it wedges it stuck in battery.

That and the usual lack of a chromed chamber can lead to problems it the chamber area is not maitained.  The chamber can corrode and pit and lead to failures to exctract in humid environs.

The fluted chamber/delayed blowback system is particularly suceptible to this.

Chroming the chamber pretty much eliminates this failure mode and increased user maintaince eliminates both.

[Heavy Metal 0]

To add:

There is not a damn thing wrong with a Chinese AK.  It may not have all the burrs removed and the edges rounded but it wil work well enough, is durable enough and most are more accurate than most shooters.

The simple truth is there is not really the great gulf of difference between the modern AK-100 series family and the M-16 family some would have you believe.

The deciding factor for me in slightly favoring the M-16 family is the easy ability to mount optics that can co-witness with the irons and also allow a proper cheek weld.  Something my Kobra on my 74 will not give me. That and the fact it does not have a million and one sharp edges. And of of course the controls are much faster and easier to operate.

As a wise man on another forum once said: "The AK is not as inacurate as some would have you believe and the M-16 is not an unreliable as some would have you believe."

99 out of 100 times, it is the operator that makes all the difference.

[Heavy Metal 0]

Worth Reading:

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=5132

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=4294

No, I ain't sayin' which one is me

[Baff1 0]

As a wise man on another forum once said: "The AK is not as inacurate as some would have you believe and the M-16 is not an unreliable as some would have you believe."

What he said, if you can't hit a target at 300 metres with an AK, changing to a M16 isn't going to make any difference. An inch differnece in 1 foot dispersion patterns over 300 metres is sideshow.

These are not sniper rifles.

Neither are popping headshots at that range, both are aiming for centre of mass.

The difference between reliability between AK's and M16's must be largely moot also.

However it is not possible to ignore the difference in cleaning regime's.  

Ak's are not cleaned in the field. A Russian infantry soldier or even special forces, is not taught to clean it.

This is the job of the armourer and only happens once a month.

For a fireteam this counts as increased firepower. There is no downtime. All your weapons are online at all times during an operation.

If your lads in their foxholes are cleaning their weapons, they are not firing them.

The AK has a much more rugged design and isn't going to break as easily when you club people with it.

The M16 has better ergonomics when it comes to the safety catch and fire selector.

[Sniperdoc 0]

Quote[/b] ]Given your attitude about the post shows that you haven't had any real world experience either.

Wrong with that one.  Quickly counting I would say that I have nearly three years of military experience.

This seems to now be going to the direction: "my daddy is stronger than yours". M16 very prone to malfunctions if not maintained properly. I wonder how all those third world fighters would fight if they had nothing but M16s?

Quote[/b] ]The primary criticism of direct impingement is that fouling and debris from expended gunpowder is blown directly into the breech. As the superheated combustion gas travels down the tube, it expands and cools, not unlike an aerosol can cools when depressurized. This cooling causes vaporized matter to condense as it cools depositing a much greater volume of solids into the operating components of the action. The increased fouling can cause malfunctions if the rifle is not cleaned as frequently as should be.

The questions are:

a) What is the quality of their weapons?

b) Do they really know how to shoot?

c) Do they maintain their equipment?

d) What kind of ammo do they use?

The average "warrior" is an uneducated young man who does not know how to adjust sights properly or clean his weapon. On top of that he has been given some piece of shit AK47 with a half corroded barrel and ammo that is several decades old. Stuff that is in so bad condition that it was dumped by ex-Warsaw Pact countries. Or then it has been in the bush for the last 40 years with this kind of warriors.

Comparison is not a fair one. M16A4 is a different generation weapon than AK47. There can be 30-40 years between them. If you want a fair comparison take a Vietnam era M16 vs. AK47.

Oh, I whole heartedly agree.

Quote[/b] ]This seems to now be going to the direction: "my daddy is stronger than yours".

I certainly wasn't going in that direction. I was not trying making a comparison to the M16 by any means by stating that the M16 is better in whatever category than the AK47/74.

Every weapon that exists has its Pro's and Con's and the M16 (whatever variant) is not excluded from that.

I had to use SOMETHING to make a comparison. One Assault Rifle compared to another. Wouldn't be fair to compare the AK47's or AK74's accuracy in MOA to the M40A5 would it...?

Basically, I was just stating that generally the AK47/74's psychological impact in those countries that use them the most, is really non-existent and that as you've stated yourself... that the average "warrior" is uneducated in its use and upkeep.

Factory wise, those rifles on average just exhibit a poorer MOA compared to other rifles. When I state MOA, I'm talking a rack mounted system... not some fool holding the rifle. Because of that poor MOA or "loose" grouping, I tend to lean to the belief that the rifle is just not accurate enough... and this is a concensus across a large spectrum of contractors and "trained professionals" that are in those countries using those rifles as we speak. As far as the origin of those weapons... I don't know. As far as the wear and tear and quality... yes, sometimes they tend to be on the lower end of the scale because the US Contractors over in Afghanistan, depending who they're with (Blackwater, SSSI, Dynecorps, etc), will get hand-me-downs of some sort.

But, I've seen factory made AK's, that have been put in a rack, exhibit a poor shot grouping at 100yards.

So, that's just my observation and opinion, and I'm stickin' to it...

PS: I apologize for questioning your background. Good luck to you and your endeavors.

[Sniperdoc 0]

The OP is pathetic, take it to the military forum if you care, but when your internal organs get ripped you won't care about the rifle. nor the caliber. You sound pathetic and are pathetic by comparing AK47 and 74s 7.62x39 v 5.45.39, first one will make an exit wound you will never forget, the latter will rip your internal muscles and organs and go out in style - out of your arse.

AK47 - cheap, RELIABLE, easy to use (saw how yankees hold their m16 - you don't shoot with a bloody ak like that).

The OP has a narrow perception of the world and thinks that the only AK out there is the 47 model which was developed back in the 47, all the existing modifications not even now can complete with the original design (i'm talking about bulgarians and all that shit). So say it short, by starting with - I've been in the service for x years, reached rank x, been in x hotspots and got a wounded in my nuts several times - you sound pathetic, but know one thing, once you go to a war with a real enemy, not some monkey guerillas (vietnam, iraq, afghan + many others to come no doubt) you will see that all this talk is useless, but then again tanks + infantry will be obsolete in that case, except for sabotage missions at the start of the war - rest nuclear warhead exchange.  

These threads need to end.

How do I have a narrow perception? I'm just stating an opinion and what is pretty much the general consensus of every contractor that's stuck in the middle east. I don't care about the other rifles at this point. The post was about AK47 and AK74's...?

Good maturity on your part though... and your post about "the waste of oxygen"... are you an AK47/74 manufacturer by chance? You sure sound like you're pissed off about nothing...

[Sniperdoc 0]

As a wise man on another forum once said: "The AK is not as inacurate as some would have you believe and the M-16 is not an unreliable as some would have you believe."

99 out of 100 times, it is the operator that makes all the difference.

I agree.

[Heavy Metal 0]

Quote[/b] ]However it is not possible to ignore the difference in cleaning regime's.  

Ak's are not cleaned in the field. A Russian infantry soldier or even special forces, is not taught to clean it.

This is the job of the armourer and only happens once a month.

Baloney.  These rifles largely fire corrosive ammo.  If your maintince regeme was followed, they would be rusted useless in no time.  There is a reason they have a cleaning rod under the barrel and a cleaning kit in the buttstock and it ain't for the armorer back at the base.

[Heavy Metal 0]

I guess no one clicked on my links and saw the class firing the Sturmgehwer 44 on full auto?

[Sniperdoc 0]

However it is not possible to ignore the difference in cleaning regime's.  

Ak's are not cleaned in the field. A Russian infantry soldier or even special forces, is not taught to clean it.

This is the job of the armourer and only happens once a month.

Wow... I wasn't aware of that. Every Soldier, Sailor, and Marine in the United States Military that handles a weapon gets taught how to clean their weapon. To state that even Russian Spec Ops isn't taught how to clean their weapon is really odd...???

No disputing that fact since I can't speak from real-world experience on that one, other than to take an educated guess and say that this possibly stems from WW2 when most infantrymen in the Russian Army were plain citizens conscripted into the military by force and weren't given any formal training in how to manage their weapons, other than... "Look from here, to here, line this up with this, and pull the trigger!".

Wow...?

[Baff1 0]

Quote[/b] ]However it is not possible to ignore the difference in cleaning regime's.  

Ak's are not cleaned in the field. A Russian infantry soldier or even special forces, is not taught to clean it.

This is the job of the armourer and only happens once a month.

Baloney.  These rifles largely fire corrosive ammo.  If your maintince regeme was followed, they would be rusted usless in no time.

That's not my maintenance regime, it's Spetznatz's during the Afghan war.

I agree that spent cordite plus water results in pitted barrels. I clean my guns after every use.

[Heavy Metal 0]

Quote[/b] ]However it is not possible to ignore the difference in cleaning regime's.  

Ak's are not cleaned in the field. A Russian infantry soldier or even special forces, is not taught to clean it.

This is the job of the armourer and only happens once a month.

Baloney.  These rifles largely fire corrosive ammo.  If your maintince regeme was followed, they would be rusted usless in no time.

That's not my maintenance regime, it's Spetznatz's during the Afghan war.

I agree that spent cordite plus water results in pitted barrels. I clean my guns after every use.

I think you have been severly misinformed or misunderstood something else. Even Russian conscripts are trained to dilligently clean their weapons, much less their elite forces.

And it aint the powder residue, it is the potassium chlorate primer salts that are formed from friring in almost all Warsaw Pact ammo.

Potassium chlorate is hydroscopic and pulls moisture from the air, even desert air.