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

[BlackScorpion 0]

Nah... I just quickly eyed through them, thought that I'd give 'em a full go later... now you certainly got my interest, though. Is that a rechambered Rk.76 on the right in the lineup pic, btw?

And... as said, depends on the user. Also on the rifle, though. AK's have been manufactured for 60 years. About 90-100 million rifles, possibly a lot more. 60 years of re-designing for both the rifle, about 5 years more for the ammunition. Alot to choose from. AP, tracer, corrosive or non-corrosive... feel free to choose. You just need a mounting rail to put on optics, AFAIK... every rifle can be modified. Finnish spotters have Rk. 95 rifles with ACOGs mounted on them, as far as I know.

Not impressive enough, psychologically? Well, shoot that double-barrel out to that 100 m and past, then. Almost every guy who'd have reason to be really afraid (actually counting as enemies) uses the same friggin' thing. How effective is M16 or M4 then?

The thing was designed to close-range battles, out to about 250-400 metres. Muzzle energy is about 1900-2000 Joules for normal ammunition on the 7.62x39 mm caliber, M16 series by comparison has about 60-70% of that. Must have nice effect on the other end, I suppose you know very well.

[Baff1 0]

Here's an exert from an interview with a Red Star winning  Spetsnaz veteran of the Afghanistan war where he discusses it.

Quote[/b] ]SP: How often did you actually clean your guns.

Andrei: That's hard to say, if you leave it up to enlisted man, NEVER. It was up to the officers to make sure their personnel kept their weapons in working order. If one of the guns jammed or whatever then that particular individual is in trouble and that unit is in trouble. You tried to clean one when you were killing some time, you're on an operation sitting on an ambush killing daylight and if you knew you fired your weapon recently then you'd go and clean it just to keep it functioning well. I don't remember the frequency that we'd clean it, like I said we would just sit and twiddle thumbs. You have to remember that in Afghanistan your rifle will be dirty every day that it is out of the armory, so friggen dirty with the sand and dust. It's almost impossible to keep the outside clean but you were kinda concerned with the inside to make sure it functions well. But sometimes you'd go on for weeks without cleaning it.

SP: In the field?

Andrei: In the field.

It seems that you are correct and that they do clean them after firing.

I've highlighted the last sentence as it took me by suprise when I first read it.

[Heavy Metal 0]

Nah... I just quickly eyed through them, thought that I'd give 'em a full go later... now you certainly got my interest, though.    Is that a rechambered Rk.76 on the right in the lineup pic, btw?  

Not my rifles (belonged mainly to the instructor) but I think you are referring the the 5.56mm Valmet M-76 in the pic.

It came from Finland like that, I assume it was mainly for export. I used to have an M-76 in 5.56mm years ago but sold it due to not being able to easily find magazines for it.

[Törni 0]

Quote[/b] ]99 out of 100 times, it is the operator that makes all the difference.

Well that what I was trying to point out. AK-47, AK-74, M16, G3, Steyer, Galil etc. etc.

All of these weapons can do the job they are designed for.

Engagement ranges up to 300 meters.

@Sniperdoc

If I have a choice I'll take a modern M16A4 or infact any modern assault rifle than venerable AK-47 with open sights But I guess that it is a matter of taste as it with cars, movies, tools, boats etc. Do not want to claim that AK-family is a series of super rifles that outdo anything else. Quite the opposite. <They can do the job, but lack the finesse of western weapons.

[Sniperdoc 0]

Not impressive enough, psychologically? Well, shoot that double-barrel out to that 100 m and past, then.

I think I actually stated that in the post where this discussion actually got started... I just recreated this discussion because the original topic started going off topic.

I am not disputing the fact that ANY weapon isn't something to be feared... but, it's a little different if every swinging di** has one... no?

[Heavy Metal 0]

Baff1,

Remember there are two kinds of fouling.  Environmental and firing residue.

I can see them going weeks carrying it in the desert and not cleaning it if they were not firing it and carrying it only.

Still a dumb thing to do, even with an AK but sand will not cause rust.

[Sniperdoc 0]

Isn't that like iron and water...?

[Baff1 0]

One day I will own one of those stainless steel guns. They might look stupid...

Baff1,

Remember there are two kinds of fouling.  Environmental and firing residue.

I can see them going weeks carrying it in the desert and not cleaning it if they were not firing it and carrying it only.

Still a dumb thing to do, even with an AK but sand will not cause rust.

While this is true, the M4 and SA80 in the same conditions got fouled by the enviroment.

The SA80's were even laid on blankets during testing to reduce the exposure to dust.

Helicopter downdrafts were specifically mentioned as a problem in both of their combat trials.

From memory 3/7 M4's were reported to have jammed in combat (and half of all Minime's reported to have failed to fire when pointed at an enemy! ).

Sand has been a particular issue for any number of weapons systems in any number of wars.

[Heavy Metal 0]

Thats why I was taught to always keep the dustcover closed. It also helps to keep the mag well covered or a magazine in the well.

The US Army teaches "Saftey..Dustcover" when moving after firing. After a while it becomes second nature.

[Baff1 0]

I noticed the Brits on TV all have a dust cap equiped and carry around little bottles of oil.

[BlackScorpion 0]

Read the AK topic forward - very nice stuff.

Crossquoting here...

About the loudness of breathing... maybe it's to help you judge the cycle? After all, you don't have the muscles ingame... only way you'll know it is either by looking or listening. And I guess by listening, it's easier to get the cycle, atleast if you've just moved your sights.

And as a sidenote, even though it has it's own topic... Finnish recruits repeatedly score an average of 93 points in their shooting training at 300 or 350 metres with AK-based weapons firing 7.62x39mm ammunition.

Well... then post it in the other post that I've seen you in!!! Try to clarify if that's out of 93:100 or 93:1000 would you???

93 out of hundred. But I remembered it wrong, one third of fresh, basic trained recruits at 150 m shooting at a target with a 10 cm bullseye. 10 rounds.

AKM is also lighter unloaded than an M16, btw... not that it matters. While I might in most cases choose an AK variant over an M16 variant, should I be given a choise... judging by what I've read, I'd propably go for a HK416/417 rifle. Or AA-12 shotgun... everybody who knows that gun and doesn't have a ballistic vest, propably fears it.

Maybe I'll come back after my 6-12 months in FDF and possibly 6-12 months in Afghanistan...

[Heavy Metal 0]

Quote[/b] ]AKM is also lighter unloaded than an M16, btw...

Depends on which M-16 you are talking about.  A1 no, A2 a bit heaiver, M-4 or CAR-15 no.

[Phantom Mark 0]

I noticed the Brits on TV all have a dust cap equiped and carry around little bottles of oil.

Yes we do......

SA80 Mk1 is useless in dust and dirt, also has terrible problems fouling the Gas parts, had loads and loads of stopages with this peice of crap.

Great reliable shot on the ranges in the 300m region.

I have since left the Army and heard the Sa80 Mk2 is much better and much more reliable..

For the record, quoting back to a post in the start of this thread.... I couldnt give a rats arse if it was shotgun or a AK pointing out the window at me, I would be bloody anxious in either case !, Dead is Dead, no matter which tool it was that took you down, in fact given the choice I would probably rather take the shotgun ( at more than 20ft )

[Heavy Metal 0]

Quote[/b] ]SA80 Mk1 is useless in dust and dirt, also has terrible problems fouling the Gas parts, had loads and loads of stopages with this peice of crap.

I will never understand how the Birts took the Armalite 18, a design so simple Eugene Stoner set it up so most of it could be built on 3rd world tooling, made a bullpup version(SA80) out of it and fubared it so bad it took H&K to fix it.

[Jester_UK 0]

Quote[/b] ]SA80 Mk1 is useless in dust and dirt, also has terrible problems fouling the Gas parts, had loads and loads of stopages with this peice of crap.

I will never understand how the Birts took the Armalite 18, a design so simple Eugene Stoner set it up so most of it could be built on 3rd world tooling, made a bullpup version(SA80) out of it and fubared it so bad it took H&K to fix it.

Brief outline of the history of the SA80

Not the most comprehensive around but fairly balanced (AFAIK).

[USSRsniper 0]

Weapons that are simple, and contain less parts are always better... With few exceptions ofcourse.... M-16.... etc

But who cares which weapon is most accurate, assault rifles made to spray and pray... its not a sniper rifle  

[Heavy Metal 0]

Quote[/b] ]assault rifles made to spray and pray... its not a sniper rifle

That is a strawman. Western doctrine is not one of spray and pray and the rifle must be capable of accurate aimed fire. The US uses its weapon on semi by far most of the time, even for supressive fire. Accurate aimed fire is heavily emphasized during training.

[USSRsniper 0]

Quote[/b] ]assault rifles made to spray and pray... its not a sniper rifle  

That is a strawman.  Western doctrine is not one of spray and pray and the rifle must be capable of accurate aimed fire.  The US uses its weapon on semi by far most of the time, even for supressive fire.  Accurate aimed fire is heavily emphasized during training.

on target range yes :P msot of videos i saw US soldiers in IRAQ they just swear and fire full auto.....  

[Heavy Metal 0]

Quote[/b] ]assault rifles made to spray and pray... its not a sniper rifle  

That is a strawman.  Western doctrine is not one of spray and pray and the rifle must be capable of accurate aimed fire.  The US uses its weapon on semi by far most of the time, even for supressive fire.  Accurate aimed fire is heavily emphasized during training.

on target range yes :P msot of videos i saw US soldiers in IRAQ they just swear and fire full auto.....  

You realize an M-4 or an M16A2 can't fire full auto?

The footage I have seen shows they are using proper weapons handling tecniques and are not 'spraying and praying' by any stretch.

[Easy_tiger 0]

bursts fired in quick succession could be mistaken for full auto...

but what this has to do with the AK47 / M / 74 i have no idea...

[Heavy Metal 0]

bursts fired in quick succession could be mistaken for full auto...

but what this has to do with the AK47 / M / 74 i have no idea...

It is not full auto and cannot be used to do full mag dumps AKA spray and pray.

[dreday 1]

To the OP,

I really don't see what issues you have with my post. I was responding to your statement that AK-74 are inaccurate past 100m and that no one fears AKs, period. I had pointed out that both of these facts are erroneous.

That does not mean that AK is the most accurate weapon out there, or that all the contractors are rushing out to get one.

Peace,

DreDay

[Soviet Spetsnaz 0]

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.

[.COMmunist 0]

When Kalashnikov was designing his AK-47 at the end of WW2, he had an idea. He decided to make more room in between moving parts of the gun. So, even if dust, dirt or sand gets inside, the gun will still function, because all that room in between the moving parts. However, that creates less accurate shooting. Kalashnikov's reasoning was that the gun is designed for a regular soviet conscript, who is in no way an expert shooter, but a farm boy from Siberia. He needs to learn to shoot and operate his weapon in less than 2 weeks and be ready to fight. The gun needed to be simple, reliable and accurate for up to 250 meters, the type of gun that anyone can learn to operate quickly. Did he achive his goal? Sure he did. AK is very simple to clean, maintaine and store. It's reliability has been proven around the world in many conflicts. It is an accurate weapon, perhaps compared to other similar assualt rifles it is not AS ACCURATE, but this gun is in no way a bad choice for battlefield. So, basicaly there is a trade off, you either get your accuracy or you get your reliability.

Another great plus of these AKs is its price. If you have a small African army of 2000 ppl to arm, AK is the best choice by far. If you are so concern about the accuracy at 300 meters and up, than you would decide to get them M16's. But you could only afford to arm 300 of them and the rest would have to go with bows and arrows. But with AKs, all 2000 guys would get an assault rifle. Seems like a very obvious choice for anyone.

[CanadianTerror 0]

What was the purpose of this topic again...to argue that the AK has killed more people or just to say it works when its dusty and leaves a big exit hole?

You lost me with all the navy spec op corpsman seal ill fax you my number speech.