Kalashnikov says Iraq shows his gun is still best - Page 3




 
--
 
May 28th, 2006  
sven hassell
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Easy-8
The AK was a break threw. You can't destroy it! drag it in sand, dirt, mud or whatever and you can still use it. Try that with a M-16! It has powerful rounds which give it some nasty recoil which is the sole drawback. The AK is two things:

1. High in demand
2. High in supply

This is why it is the most used assault rifle in the world.
It does sound good though(and yes I know this has no practical value)
May 30th, 2006  
5.56X45mm
 
 
The AK-47/AK-74 series rifle was designed for an army of illiterate conscripted peasants that use Soviet Steamroller advancing tactics where marksmenship plays no value.

The AR-15/M16/M4 series rifle of designed for a professional army that values marksmenship over pray and spray tactics.

The AK-47 was designed to fill the gap between the Sub Machine Gun and Battle Rifle. Soviet Tactics during WWII involved large use of the PPSH-41. The weapon made it's soldiers fight in a closer range to the germans, thus making the red army troops fight with a more aggressive style.

The AR-15 evolved from a Army that used the M1 Garand and the M14. A marksmenship rifle. The US Army order of training with firearms have always been accuracy over firing rate. Quality over Quanity.

The AK-47 is a weapon designed for the illiterate conscripted peasant. Hence it is built to a losser tolerance.

The AR-15 is a weapon diesgned for the US Army Soldier. A man that learned accuracy is the key to winning a gun battle. Hence the rifle is built to a tighter tolerance because a tighter rifle is more accurate.

And no, US Troops are not dropping their AR-15s in droves to carry AK-47s. That was when Armored Units wanted M4 Carbines for personal defense and couldn't get them for a short period of time.

Lastly, most AKs being used today are Ak-74s. Which is chambered for the 5.45x39mm round. It's smaller than the USA/NATO 5.56X45mm round.
May 30th, 2006  
Bugfatty
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Easy-8
It has powerful rounds which give it some nasty recoil which is the sole drawback. The AK is two things.
I would not call 7.62x39 a powerful round with nasty recoil. Maybe when compared to 5.56x45 round. Compared to old-school military rifle ammunition 7.62x39 is really tame. Besides that an AK is a heavy weapon and absorbs a great deal of recoil by its self.

People who complain about recoil on an AK are most of the time not holding it tight enough to their shoulder due to the undersized stock.

With an AK shouldered properly, its pretty nice to shoot.

I would not consider the recoil a draw back.

Anyway AK-47s do have a number of major draw backs. These things get extremely hot even in semi-auto only. (I can only imagine how hot AKs get in full auto). They have no hold open device. Magazine insertion is awkward and time consuming compared to an AR-15. The sights are crap, ect.

And they are certainly not jam proof despite popular myth.
--
May 31st, 2006  
deerslayer
 
 
Well, the tolerances are much looser than that of the AR-15, allowing it to stand up better with improper care to harsher conditions, but you sacrifice performance with poor tolerancing.
June 1st, 2006  
gladius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5.56X45mm
The AK-47 is a weapon designed for the illiterate conscripted peasant. Hence it is built to a losser tolerance.
Exactly.

The AK was made for delivering volume fire. Not accurate aiming.

For the job it was intended it serves it purpose well.

You can't really compare it to a NATO weapon. Diffirent tactics and shooting styles.
June 1st, 2006  
zander_0633
 
 
WEll, I remember reading some where that the AK-47 were built for troops that were trained to engage in enemy about 100m. While the AR-15/M-16 was made to engage the enemy at 200m