How good is the AK-47?

So all we have is your word.

Ergonomics for the M16 is worse than that of the AK. All the controls are on the wrong side of the weapon except for the bolt closing device which is ridiculous because if the recoil spring isn’t strong enough to close the chamber on a live round then the gun is obviously so dirty you really shouldn’t be firing it in the first place and in the second place you’d have to smack the bolt closing device against a rock to push the bolt forward with more force than the main spring anyway.
The c0cking handle is ideally positioned to be able to be used by either left or right hand but to use it you must take your head away from the stock to operate it.
The AK on the other hand can be held and used left handed without fear of being injured by ejecting cartridge cases with your finger on the trigger and eye looking down the sights you can insert a fresh mag, remove the safety, and c0ck the weapon without taking your eyes off the target with training and practise.

In cramped conditions the buttstock can be removed and in most current AK models can be folded to make the weapon shorter than the M4 carbine version of the M16.

No it doesn’t.

Yes it does.

Something worth considering that is rarely mentioned is the impact of magazine lengh, particularly for prone firing where a shorter magazine has huge advantages.

Most of the guys I know who are grunts prefer to find cover and shoot around it rather than lie down on the ground in the open. It is a mobility thing. If it was really that important you’d think soldiers would stop trying to get extended length mags for their weapons. I have plenty of photos of guys armed with SLRs in Vietnam and Rhodesia that have 30 round mags from Bren guns (with presumably strengthened mag springs) as well as Soviet soldiers with the longer mags for the RPK and RPK-74 series LMGs in standard AKs. If height was that much of a problem I would expect the 75 round drums for the RPKs would be more common but they tend to make a lot of noise and are not cheap to make and so are relatively rare.

For an army with poor technical support or rough field conditions or irregular forces the AK47 is probably best, for more developed users others may be better.

Soldiers rarely get the weapons they want or need. A politician would rather see a piece of crap go into service if it was locally made (in their district especially) than for their soldiers have the best or even just something that will reliably work when needed. Seperating M16s and AKMs based on industrial capability or level of civilisation or politics is rubbish too. There are some very rich countries that use AKs or AK based weapons and some very poor ones that use M16 based weapons. Personally I thought the AR-18 was a much better weapon than the AR-15, but the SA-80 proves that with a bit of incompetence even a good design can be stuffed up… which really annoys me because asthetically the SA-80 is my favourite non-soviet bullpup, with the FAMAS coming in second and the Steyr a solid third place.

The fact is that better ergonomics improve combat effectiveness,

No it doesn’t. Ergonomically designed for right handed use means that left handed users actually find it harder to use. The M16 and most western designs are designed for right handed use. The m16 is also too long and with its recoil spring in its stock you can only shorten it by a few cms… try toting that around in an APC or helo or in close combat in urban fighting. Big long barrel is nice for trench fighting but not much else. This makes the M4 the preferred M16 variant yet the M4 is still longer than an AK-74 with its stock folded and very long compared to the carbine versions of the AK-74 like the AK-102, AK-104, and AK-105 or AKS-74U.
The M4 with its stock fully collapsed is 757mm long while the AK-74M is 700mm long with its butt folded… the AKS-74U is 735mm with its butt extended and 490mm with its butt folded. The AK-102/104/105 in 5.56mm/7.62 x 39/5.45mm calibres repectively are 824mm long with butt extended and 586mm with butts folded. (Note the recoil force for each calibre from these weapons is a good comparison of recoil… 0.6/0.78/0.49 kgf repectively, so the 7.62 x 39mm does recoil more than the 5.56mm but the 5.45mm has less recoil if that is so important.

Cool it guys!

M’Pacha
Moderator

Yeah thats what I was doing, Insulting americans…

…why did I even bothered? :confused: :confused:

No. I demand it from you, becouse you made silly and baseless claim, that You so clearly cannot back up. You just try to twist it and hide behind comments that closes up to mockery and throw out silly comments like the Slovenian (or was it slovakia…:rolleyes: :rolleyes: ) example, yet even not bothering to back up your claims. Face it, there isent just man enough in you to admitt that you were wrong:)

And Im not fantazising over anything, Just claiming that AK is good weapon, and its generations main competitors doesen’t posess any qualities that makes them better pick than AK. Also I have all the time said that All Assault rifles are in practice as good as others what comes to accuracy, ergonomy and desing, but where AK triumphs is in its reability, and that is the most important factor of all in the main use of such rifles.

Perhaps for gun-crazy american civilians a soft and comfortable stocks and other penny details can do lot of differences when shooting in tidy gun ranges with too big weapons for that use… But fortuanetly I dont share that experience, I speak only from my subjective personal experience from my army days. Even a thougth of going into war knowing that there is big change for your weapon to jam or that its operationality is dicdated by the conditions you crawl with it…gives me creeps:eek:

Lol now you start insulting Americans, pretty much sums you up.:mad:

No. I demand it from you, becouse you made silly and baseless claim, that You so clearly cannot back up. You just try to twist it and hide behind comments that closes up to mockery and throw out silly comments like the Slovenian (or was it slovakia…:rolleyes: :rolleyes: ) example, yet even not bothering to back up your claims. Face it, there isent just man enough in you to admitt that you were wrong:)

And Im not fantazising over anything, Just claiming that AK is good weapon, and its generations main competitors doesen’t posess any qualities that makes them better pick than AK. Also I have all the time said that All Assault rifles are in practice as good as others what comes to accuracy, ergonomy and desing, but where AK triumphs is in its reability, and that is the most important factor of all in the main use of such rifles.

Perhaps for gun-crazy american civilians a soft and comfortable stocks and other penny details can do lot of differences when shooting in tidy gun ranges with too big weapons for that use… But fortuanetly I dont share that experience, I speak only from my subjective personal experience from my army days. Even a thougth of going into war knowing that there is big change for your weapon to jam or that its operationality is dicdated by the conditions you crawl with it…gives me creeps:eek:

OK, if you clearly want to act like a seven year old, I propaply must start speak to you like I do with kids…

PART I: I have numerious time told you that I agree (that means that I think the same way like you in this matter, if the concept of that word is obscure to you) with You, that better ergonomics can improve the overal figthing capacity of the weapon, BUT (and Here comes the important part) THATS NOT WHAT IM ASKING from you.

PART II: Im asking from you, how does the ergonomics improve the accuracy of the rifle. Simple as that. Not how does it improve its overal handling, but how does it improve its shots.

No. Every weapon has its physical age, and REMEBER Slovenia inherited all of its equipment by war booty from JNA in 1990. No matter JNA would have used M-16s, there would be in need of replacement by now.

So therefore, our Slovenian friends goes shopping. And when we know that Slovenians are in high speed towards to becoming another Washington Lapdog in europe, so they purchase of weapons are 99% NOT going to come from countries that are potential enemies to NATO, but more likely from NATO countries. And you Can start counting yourself of how many NATO country currently manufactures Kalashnikoviks.
There, spot the pattern?

LOL your still doing it on both counts, fantasizing about the AK’s absolute superiority to all other weapons and demanding data that you know cant be provided without mass trials of a large number of weapons.:D :p

Once again, Ergonomics improves combat effectiveness, something which is impossible to numerically quantify within the confines of this thread. I am astonished that you are unable to understand it

OK, if you clearly want to act like a seven year old, I propaply must start speak to you like I do with kids…

PART I: I have numerious time told you that I agree (that means that I think the same way like you in this matter, if the concept of that word is obscure to you) with You, that better ergonomics can improve the overal figthing capacity of the weapon, BUT (and Here comes the important part) THATS NOT WHAT IM ASKING from you.

PART II: Im asking from you, how does the ergonomics improve the accuracy of the rifle. Simple as that. Not how does it improve its overal handling, but how does it improve its shots.

Lol, keep telling yourself that. Just becouse you dont want to believe that the weapon you are so in love with is now outdated and inferior to most modern western designs

No. Every weapon has its physical age, and REMEBER Slovenia inherited all of its equipment by war booty from JNA in 1990. No matter JNA would have used M-16s, there would be in need of replacement by now.

So therefore, our Slovenian friends goes shopping. And when we know that Slovenians are in high speed towards to becoming another Washington Lapdog in europe, so they purchase of weapons are 99% NOT going to come from countries that are potential enemies to NATO, but more likely from NATO countries. And you Can start counting yourself of how many NATO country currently manufactures Kalashnikoviks.
There, spot the pattern?

I have never expressed unconditional love for the M-16, if you actually read a thread before posting in it you will pick things like that up.:p :rolleyes:

Oh! Good one! You’ll be astonished ™ but I’ve read the thread quite carefully. And based on that, I decided to highlight your obvious bias. Maybe you should re-read your own posts.

You are still failing to realize that “combat effectiveness” (whatever the hell that is) does not equal accuracy. And accuracy is not corelated to ergonomics. In fact, some of the least ergonomic weapons like Tokarev TT and M91 Mosin-Nagant, are, in fact, some of the most accurate in their class.

So, please, lets forgo vague and overbroad terms like combat effectiveness and stick to things like accuracy at certain range, reliability in field conditions, ammo penetration power and the like.

Your uber-ergonomic forward grip and BalckHawk tactical sling will do absolutely nothing for your “combat effectiveness” if your weapon is jammed with sand.

You also ignored one point I brought up. Accuracy is only relevant within the tactical range. If you are engaging enemies at 100-200 yards M-16 offers no advantage over AK-47, only shortcomings like reliability and especialy weak ammo.

I wondered what made his claim ringing odd bells in my mind, becouse to my knowlidge, Slovaks use the Chech Vz 58, but Im not that familar with that weapon in order to say wheter its based on kalashnikovik or not. Slovenians decission is propaply due the fact that the inherited bas of zastavas AKs are getting old, and they dont have facitilities to produce the rifle themselves. So choosing something more desirable to small nations alligment needs is rather natural.

Lol, keep telling yourself that. Just becouse you dont want to believe that the weapon you are so in love with is now outdated and inferior to most modern western designs.:D

Yeas, But Im asking you how these claimed ergonomigs inpact on the actuall shooting, or better said, accuracy of the rifle. Simple as that. Its pathetic to claim that I “dont get it”, when I constantly try you to back your words by asking rather simple and clear thing, where As you try to hide behind your “Im allready listed it” arguments, THAT DOESENT EVEN COVER THE SAME TOPIC, that Im asking from you.
Now, did you copy that? Or do I have to spell it into you?
How does the ergonomics effect on the disperse of the shots?
Not, how it will marginally increase the comfortably of the weapon, nor how by that the overal combat capapility comes minorly improved!!!! I have allready agreed with you on those matters, BUT HOW DOES IT inpact on the disperse of the shots.

Once again, Ergonomics improves combat effectiveness, something which is impossible to numerically quantify within the confines of this thread. I am astonished that you are unable to understand it.:eek:

Thanks for the heads up Arthur.;)

I’m sure it’s all the same to you, but that country’s name is Slovenia. Slovakia is an entirely different place – the difference is as big as between ‘hvala’ and ‘dekujem’.

I wondered what made his claim ringing odd bells in my mind, becouse to my knowlidge, Slovaks use the Chech Vz 58, but Im not that familar with that weapon in order to say wheter its based on kalashnikovik or not. Slovenians decission is propaply due the fact that the inherited bas of zastavas AKs are getting old, and they dont have facitilities to produce the rifle themselves. So choosing something more desirable to small nations alligment needs is rather natural.

FWIW the Valmet (Finnish AK “clone”) has much better and more comfortable furniture then a true AK. That being said having shot both the AK and M-16 families quite a bit, I prefer the feel of the M-4 over the AK. I also think most other Western assualt rifles I shot (AK5, G3, G36, SG550, SA80, SLR) have a better feel then the old AK.

That being said, it is a wonderful designed and good weapon that has it place. Certainly there would be situations that I might rather have an AK, but that doesnt make it a superior overall weapon. Its simply a tool in a tool chest….

Kinda like those idiots that think one or two pair of skis is enough…. you need a quiver!!!:diablo:

By the way, slovakia has replaced its AK’s with FN-2000’s, go google it.

I’m sure it’s all the same to you, but that country’s name is Slovenia. Slovakia is an entirely different place – the difference is as big as between ‘hvala’ and ‘dekujem’.

Again, the number of factors involved make a simple numerical analysis within the bounds of this thread. The fact is that better ergonomics improve combat effectiveness, I have even listed at least some of the factors involved in combat effectiveness in a simple equation for you but you still seem unable to get it.

Yeas, But Im asking you how these claimed ergonomigs inpact on the actuall shooting, or better said, accuracy of the rifle. Simple as that. Its pathetic to claim that I “dont get it”, when I constantly try you to back your words by asking rather simple and clear thing, where As you try to hide behind your “Im allready listed it” arguments, THAT DOESENT EVEN COVER THE SAME TOPIC, that Im asking from you.
Now, did you copy that? Or do I have to spell it into you?
How does the ergonomics effect on the disperse of the shots?
Not, how it will marginally increase the comfortably of the weapon, nor how by that the overal combat capapility comes minorly improved!!!! I have allready agreed with you on those matters, BUT HOW DOES IT inpact on the disperse of the shots.

You wont need to repeat anything, as you haven’t mentioned in this thread any exact data or reference how you claimed better ergonomics affect on the dispersion of hits. You know this, So no need to start throwing degatory comments about myself to hide it.:mad:

Again, the number of factors involved make a simple numerical analysis within the bounds of this thread. The fact is that better ergonomics improve combat effectiveness, I have even listed at least some of the factors involved in combat effectiveness in a simple equation for you but you still seem unable to get it.:rolleyes:

By the way, slovakia has replaced its AK’s with FN-2000’s, go google it.

Reckon same can be told about you and your unconditional love for M-16?

Truth is, this kind of comparison was done ad noseum hundreds of times on different forums. And no one ever changed anyone’s opinion. It all goes down to “accuracy vs reliability” and thats where it stays. In the field it comes down to solder’s personal preference. I’ve seen enough GI’s with AK and Hamas with M-4. Both firearms have advantages and shortcomings.

I have never expressed unconditional love for the M-16, if you actually read a thread before posting in it you will pick things like that up.:p :rolleyes:

Something worth considering that is rarely mentioned is the impact of magazine lengh, particularly for prone firing where a shorter magazine has huge advantages.
As for the AK47, it’s a superb gun, many of the real problems are due to indifferent manufacturing quality of some of the AK’s floating around, but get a good one and they’re virtually bomb proof. As to whether it’s the best in the world it is horses for courses and depends on what you need. For an army with poor technical support or rough field conditions or irregular forces the AK47 is probably best, for more developed users others may be better.

As previously stated, I have no intention of repeating myself to you. You are clearly in love with the AK and are convinced by its absolute superiority so I am not even going to bother with some one who can only produce comments about how the AK never hurt you when you fired it.

You wont need to repeat anything, as you haven’t mentioned in this thread any exact data or reference how you claimed better ergonomics affect on the dispersion of hits. You know this, So no need to start throwing degatory comments about myself to hide it.:mad: