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

[Spindry69 0]

I'd say they are pretty reliable.

 

[Second 0]

on target range yes

Yes, this is funny thing. How good MOA can rifle gain... When in combat situation only thing that matters is that is shooter coldblooded killer or not. Mostly he is not and so he points and sprays if conditions are somewhat hostile: he shoots accurately if target is harmless, fleeing forexample, but if target shoots back then it's powder burning time

Following lessons of history: shooting distance needs to be less than 100 meters to gain good possibility to kill enemy. I've heard that about 90% of casualities produced by small arms fire shootingdistance is less than 100 meters (This statement might consern only ironsights and not optics, i'm not sure). Beyond that smallarms are just slowing enemy down so that artillery/mortars/CAS can finish it or enemy desides that this not worth of a risk and pulls back.

[nephilim 0]

@Spindry69

ak´s are reliable

on that video the furniture caught fire due its been used like some kind of pseudo machinegun.

but prolly it wasnt in good condition anyhow or its been manipulated

interesting topic..

i wonder how many of you folks have actually RL experience with an AK47/74 to discuss soemthing like this..

[Spindry69 0]

I agree with you, I only posted it for a laugh. I was amazed that it was on fire but also that it was still firing.

After the Steyr was introduced to the Australian millitary it gained a reputation of melting the plastic housing on full automatic fire. This reputation however apparently only came from one incident where an instructor on the firing range gathered up all the unused ammo and fired multiple magazines in sucession.

[Second 0]

i wonder how many of you folks have actually RL experience with an AK47/74 to discuss soemthing like this..

AK47 clone Finish RK.62. And like i said in earlier post, it doesn't matter what rifle i would have been issued, as long as i know how to use it to gain best results (wouldn't trade my wartime rifle to M16 as i don't have anykind experience with that) and as long as i can (and hopefully will) control my nerves in possible combatsituation aka become coldblooded killer.

[rom_un 0]

During a French-Russian army exchange in 96, I've seen Russian paratroopers (51st from Tula) cleaning their AK by pushing it in the ground, cannon downward to fill it with sand/mud 'ground in French'.

I'm still impress how a gas-operating rifle can resist to this torture

Edit : Welcome in the army

[Phantom Mark 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.

Thats politics for you mate......

Personaly I would have been happier with a 7.62 round and a little more weight in the weopon as the trade off, as some of you may know "one" of the reasons the 5.56 was designed was to create casualties, personaly if I shoot someone I would like to know they are going down and staying down, something you really cannot rely on with the 5.56 rounds.

[.COMmunist 0]

I have to agree that 100 meters shooting with AK-47 is the best range. Everything after that, you have to be a skillful shooter. We were testing different type of AK scopes one day, and even with optics, it is not that easy to hit all the targets at 200-300 meters because of the recoil. Once I figured out the individual weapon (in our case it was Romanian AK, the worst AK out there!, I was able to hit all my targets at 200 meters with 4x24 scope. It was much easier to do with M4 that had EoTech on it. Recoil on M4 is very small compared to that Romanian AK-47. However, AK-74 doesn't kick as hard as 47, so it is easier to hit all the targets. But I don't like the 5.56 caliber of the 74. I think that the Russian are re-introducing 7.62 for AKs. Americans will be doing it too. There were lots of complaints about a small 5.56 caliber in Iraq war. It's just not powerful enough to penetrate small walls, body armor, metal doors, etc. With introduction of all these new body armor systems, the military is starting to look at a larger calibers to defeat the armor.

[-Soviet- 0]

Hi,

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.

I dont understand nobody mention that movie...

Some reliable informations!

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Hi,

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.

I dont understand nobody mention that movie...

Some reliable informations!

Discovery show with chinese subs. Very reliable.

[-Soviet- 0]

The demonstrations speak about themselves… Discovery channel with chinese subtitles or not.

[ralphwiggum 6]

so? it's a discovery channel show, not a chinese hackjob.

I do have a comment for that video though. The groupings of the both rifles in the video could be better. You can see that both shooters are jerking the trigger.

[Wolfrug 0]

And to anyone who looks, this seems to be a part of the same Discovery "series":

Then again, the question here seems to have originally been something about the accuracy and the fear-factor of these two rifles. If he says people aren't afraid of 7.62mm death pointing in their direction, then I'll give him the benefit of doubt. And that the MoA is different is a fact. Ah well.

Maybe we've spammed YouTube videos enough already.

Regards,

Wolfrug

[Heavy Metal 0]

Quote[/b] ]as some of you may know "one" of the reasons the 5.56 was designed was to create casualties, personaly if I shoot someone I would like to know they are going down and staying down, something you really cannot rely on with the 5.56 rounds.

I am sorry but this is urban myth. Stoner had no such intention when he invented the 5.56. This is one of those nonsense rumors that are repeated until they are considered gospel like the one about Mattel making M-16's.

That said, the 5.56 has a somewhat better record as a manstopper than the 7.62x39. Read Facklers report on the Stockton shooting for more information. The 5.56 is better than some would give it credit.

If bore diameter alone were sufficient for effectivness, we would still be using the light and handy M-1 carbine.

[max power 21]

We'd be using 19.7mm muskets!!

[Phantom Mark 0]

Dont twist my words for your own purpose thanks, I said if you read my post again it says very very clearly " ONE OF THE REASONS" , there is a whole bunch of reasons which I am more than well aware of thanks, futhermore I was not quoting the design of 5.56 , I was quoting one of the reasons we used 5.56 in the SA80, so wind your neck back in thanks.

[Second 0]

"accurate" discovery program said:

"AK-47 is machine gun because it's fireselector has first auto and then single mode"

[Baff1 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.

I was under the impression that the M16 program was introduced to mimic the Soviet Infantry doctrine.

Quote[/b] ]That said, the 5.56 has a somewhat better record as a manstopper than the 7.62x39.  Read Facklers report on the Stockton shooting for more information.  The 5.56 is better than some would give it credit.

Lower recoil = more accuracy during a higher rate of fire. This is Soviet Infantry Doctrine.

The AK=47's round is a cut down for precisely the same reason.

In all honesty I don't buy into the increased kill power of the smaller round. They said the same thing about the AK 74's.

I suspect it to be a similar kind of bollocks to they come out with when they tell you the enemy force will consist of old men and wounded.

[Baff1 0]

so? it's a discovery channel show, not a chinese hackjob.

I do have a comment for that video though. The groupings of the both rifles in the video could be better. You can see that both shooters are jerking the trigger.

The one thing I did notice was their discussions of the sights. They demonstrated the M16's dual range flip.

And then went on to completely ignore the fully scaleable AK's. Bias of ommission is Discovery Channels hallmark.

Lol, in that final one "John Wayne would carry an AK 47".

My arse. John Wayne ain't no pinko.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Soviet, people do not need demonstrations and pretty shows, people need numbers.

'AK-47 is a machine gun because it has a full-auto fire selector, which makes m16 a true rifle w/ the semi-auto firing mode.' - This is dog sht, a narrow perception if you will and most important this it the reason people do not watch these promotional shows. Stupid f...s talking all day and night. Give a man 'his' freedom and he will cut his nuts off.

As was said this thread is pathetic for one. Using a romanian/bulgarian clone (it's not even a clone and I have no doubt that these shows use what's availiable at your local store - bulgarian (licence expired), romanian (poor quality and I'm not talking about clones which have key elements placed on the opposite side compared to the original) to view it as an orignal is bit retarded at best.

Then there's AK-10x (1 to 6, except 7 and 8 which where re-designed for export).

The 5.56x39(45). You know, it's much more effective to leave wounded, not battle-capable soldiers on the battlefield, to make your enemy take care of the wounded which will cost him much more. (unless you fight banana republics and monkey dictatorships) Remember WWII? But then again 80% of casualties were from artillery.

As for the accuracy/reliability/ease of use well, mate, don't you worry the USSR/Russians never created something that was a waste of time and money; it's a mindset: they need something, they create it and they make sure it kills, and does so effectively.

Kill this thread, the AK reputation is well worth it.

[Heavy Metal 0]

Quote[/b] ]I was under the impression that the M16 program was introduced to mimic the Soviet Infantry doctrine.

It was introduced to enhance the doctrine of fire and maneuver which then Lt Chesty Puller developed some decades earlier during the banana republic wars of the 1920 and the US utilized extensively during WWII.  We still use this doctrine today.  This is where the concept of fire teams comes from and it is a US invention and had no Soviet involvement  You are again misinformed.

Quote[/b] ]In all honesty I don't buy into the increased kill power of the smaller round. They said the same thing about the AK 74's.

Whether you buy into it or not does not change the objective data collected over the past 40 years and that data supports the 5.56 as the superior round for terminal effect.

Quote[/b] ]As was said this thread is pathetic for one. Using a romanian/bulgarian clone (it's not even a clone and I have no doubt that these shows use what's availiable at your local store - bulgarian (licence expired), romanian (poor quality and I'm not talking about clones which have key elements placed on the opposite side compared to the original) to view it as an orignal is bit retarded at best.

Funny how my bulgarian RPK-74 had an arrow inside of a triangle stamped on the trunion.  Many of the Bulgarian 74 components made during the 80's and 90's are nothing more than restamped russian parts.  There is not a significant difference between a Bulgarian AK-74 series and a Russian AK-74 series.  The parts are either Russian or made to the same Technical Data Package by technicans trained by the Russians on russian dies and tools.

Quote[/b] ]romanian (poor quality and I'm not talking about clones which have key elements placed on the opposite side compared to the original) to view it as an orignal is bit retarded at best

WTF are you talking about? Wrong side?

[RedStorm 0]

All this is moot. I've been in the Navy SEALS, did twenty years in the British SAS, then joined Delta Force for fun. I carried on to be a Black Op. Ranger because they wanted me so bad, then I won a few wars for Soudan as leader of their famed "peoples' special". Now here's the amazing bit; I only ever used my hands.

That's right, my hands beat any of these guns you people are worshipping here. Hooah!

If you don't believe me, I'll fax you my numbers.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

All this is moot. I've been in the Navy SEALS, did twenty years in the British SAS, then joined Delta Force for fun. I carried on to be a Black Op. Ranger because they wanted me so bad, then I won a few wars for Soudan as leader of their famed "peoples' special". Now here's the amazing bit; I only ever used my hands.

That's right, my hands beat any of these guns you people are worshipping here. Hooah!

If you don't believe me, I'll fax you my numbers.

: )

No one in the military or ex-military would start a thread with 'x years in the FFL, then returned to me homeland to join SAS, my best friends all are in the navy seals just because.' etc etc

RedStorm, this thread needs to be purged and future threads to be closed on sight, don't you agree?

Today people more and more tend to be just a waste of oxygen. : ]

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]All this is moot. I've been in the Navy SEALS, did twenty years in the British SAS, then joined Delta Force for fun....*snip*

Gave me a good laugh and perfectly reflects my view on the initial threadstarter.

I mean...he´s not worried when someone is pointing and shooting an AK at him...

Either he´s wearing a kryptonite catsuit and a cape or he confuses some stuff he "should" have learned...

Anyway, lame topic already. Turned into a "mine is longer than yours" debate once again.

[Uziyahu--IDF 0]

AK's using iron sights have shorter sight rails than an M16 using the same. The shorter the sight rail, the less accurate it will be at distance...PERIOD. The closer the rear peep sight is to the front sight post the more "sloppiness" is introduced in lining up those two elements with the target.

And to try to insinuate that the AK is not more RELIABLE than the M16/M4 weapons platform is to demonstrate one's ignorance or cynicism...take your pick.

I'm sure, though, that the AK-74 has more feed problems than the AK-47, just because of its diet of smaller cartridges. This is to be expected. Ever fire a .22 LR in semi-automatic? (Yes, some of the reliability is due to the rim, but the PK reliably fires 7.62 x 54mm Dragunov, which also has a rim.)

I fired the M16A1 extensively in U.S. Army and then did the same with the A2, when it was fielded. I've also fired a ChiCom AKS. My experience is that the M16 series will jam on you when you must need it to work. AK's are like clockwork.

The M16 series defecates where it eats. That's the HK 416's cue.

Which 5.56mm NATO round was being fired at the Stockton shooting? And was it civilian ammo, often better performing?