This is in reply to the thoughtful comments I read on Joe’s post regarding the AK, which became a discussion regarding the relative merits of the two types, AR v. AK. The general philosophy behind the two weapons is a reflection of the military tradition of the two countries. The AR is a precise weapon, regardless of the caliber. It is accurate out to 500-600 yards using the peep sight system adopted by the American military. Troops can be trained readily to become proficient out to that range, the entire Marine Corps is trained out to that distance. I agree w/Monk (someone note the date and time) the AK is not a weapon I generally appreciate. It reflects the Russian military philosophy that the tools of war, like the troops, are cheap, imprecise and expendable. The atrocious accuracy of the AK at 200yds is emblematic of everything that is wrong with the weapon.
The US and some other western countries became enamored of the 5.56×45 round because a soldier could carry more rounds than if they where equipped with the 7.62×51. The thinking was the stopping power of such a round on the plains of Germany to stop Ivan was sufficient; the 5.56×45 was, and still is, sufficient for warfare in open terrain. If someone gets hit by a 5.56 at 200+ yards, they are done for the day, if not for good. If you want to openly contest this, go find Monk in western Loudoun, and let him shoot you at 200+ yards (or even 100 yds), with a 5.56×45 using an AR15. If you are able to then run up and explode your IED strapped to your chest, more power to ya.
The trouble is that this round may not drop someone fast enough in an urban environment. In house to house, room to room fighting the high velocity 5.56×45 round is not knocking people down, as it is passing through cleanly, and not imparting its energy to its intended target. However, there are work-a-rounds, as the Wolverine put it, pull out a bazooka and the trouble in the other room WILL GO AWAY. As many AR type weapons are capable of carrying a 40mm grenade launcher slung underneath, that is almost as good as a bazooka. The real lesson here is that the AR is fine, the round it is pushing is far too specialized. The new 6.5×47 is a very good compromise.
I like to hit what I am aiming at. If you keep your AR clean it will work. Our troops kept their gas operated M1’s clean in WWII and Korea. The argument that taking care of a weapon is too much to expect is vacuous. The Russian’s made the AK popular because it was cheap. You get what you pay for. The loose manufacturing tolerances are a function of the abysmal state of Russian/Soviet manufacturing, not some stroke of design genius. The loose tolerances gave the AK its ability to be a maintenance free weapon. The price for this feature is accuracy. Accuracy kills. At 200+yds the AR is to the AK what a guided missile is to an iron bomb dropped at 30K ft.
The short comings of the 5.56 were magnified in Iraq, the fighting there has been almost exclusively urban in nature. In Afghanistan the 5.56×45 is in a mixed urban/rural environment and has performed well there. The urban environment is where the 7.62×39 shines, at close range it has far more stopping power than the 5.56×45. Again, the issue is not the rifle but the ammo. The AR10 fires the 7.62×51, a round with plenty of stopping power. As mentioned above the 6.5×47 Lapua is another option. Considering the nature of asymmetrical warfare the US may need to consider adopting a new round, or, returning to the 7.62×51.
Another area where the AK shines is in the use of it by untrained militias, guerrilla troops, or other irregulars. These troops fit the profile of typical troops in the Russian military doctrine. They can’t hit anything past 100 yards, regardless of weapon choice, so the AK is just fine. The AK requires no care, since untrained militia typically do not take good care of their weapons, the loose tolerances of the AK is a plus for these kinds of combatants. If all you want is something that will fire, with an effective range of less than 100yds, the AK is good enough. Since it is cheap, the AK is probably a better choice than the AR for those who can’t shoot.
UPDATE:
The issue of tumbling M16 bullets came up. Below is a link all may find useful:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs13.htm
and the following illustration is useful as well.
There is only one way to settle this AK vs. AR debate – let’s choose sides and have at it.
Gentlemen, pick your weapon :
http://www.hobbytron.com/AirsoftAK47.html
http://www.hobbytron.com/M16Airsoft.html
Good Stuff. I am an AR guy for the shooting I do.However, if I need a rifle that you can drag thru the mud, use as a wheel stop and then hit a watermellon at 30 yards, its the AK.
One thing that is being totally left out of this debate, accessories. The AR is not just a rifle, it is a platform which serves as the foundation of a complete combat system.
While the AK is a superior close quarters or urban combat rifle, the AR shines in it’s breadth of capabilities.
Jacob, Don’t overlook the .50 Beowulf..
“The atrocious accuracy of the AR at 200yds is emblematic of everything that is wrong with the weapon.”
I have no doubt that you were actually adressing the AK.
Having said that, is increased, or decreased rifling used to make the round “tumble”?
That was the truly sadistic nature of the AR/M-16 variant. It could go in a shoulder and exit a leg.
Monk,
Ouch!! Good catch, very bad slip of the thumb. Kudos, I am going to address this … NOW.
Monk,
“increased, or decreased rifling”
Do you mean rate of twist ?
Dan,
Yes he does.
Monk,
Given what I read it appears it is not the rate of twist but the inherent instability of the bullet caused by its length. A 55 or 62gr .223 bullet is a long narrow ogive. I do not think that the design was intentional in this regard.
Nice link and illustration. It may not be intentional, but as a particularly nasty aside, it was certainly lethal in many cases.
Very good summary, Jacob, the only part I really take issue of with is your use of the word “expendable” because the fact that something lasts forever, in my book, does not earn the definition of “expendable.”
The value of an AK in my view is it’s ability to always go bang no matter what, just like the value of a Glock. And the environment you describe where it shines is precisely the environment it is kept for. For hunting deer at 300 yards, you’d use a different rifle.
Joe, respectfully, have you seen the sniper movie depicting the Russian outlook on manpower? They gave a rifle (pre Korea – so it had no AK’s in it)to every third man, and backed him up with several more men with no more than a clip to hold. The thought was that when the first man fell, the second fellow could pick up the weapon, jam in a new clip if necessary, and resume shooting. When he fell, the whole process started over again with the third man, and so on….
Expendable means cheap production cost to be left in the mud if necessary. But they wanted mass production so that they did not have a repeat of the WWII scenario.
Okay. The 5.56 is a light round that can go awry by a blade of grass. The accuracy of the AK is NOT the design of the weapon but the characteristics of the barrel in relation to the round. The round is used in the SKS which has plenty good accuracy. As well as the Dragonov which IS the AK platform. The AR/M16 was made to tighter tolerances to be more precise BUT will mal-function at a whim. It also is a very poor assault weapon compared to an AK. If I wanted a battle rifle it would have to be an M1 Garand. The assault weapon would have to be the AK. The 16 is a good mid-range weapon but in the open field….period. And I own them all…..everyone! You wouldn’t use a sledgehammer to drive a 12 penny nail just like you wouldn’t use a tack hammer to break up concrete. Every tool (or weapon) is made for a unique purpose and there is no “one size fits all occasions” weapon out there. Although a nucleur device does have many advantages!
Jacob, you shot an M16 but you go out and buy the M1A (Garand platform). What does that tell you.
Good illustration. People who dis the AR sometimes forget how awful the wound path is.
Also, you can get some decent stopping power for CQB if you look at the subsonic rounds that hyper fragment. Bear in mind that these are generally 100gr rounds and require a 1:7 twist to stabilize the bullet.
ACT,
“The accuracy of the AK is NOT the design of the weapon but the characteristics of the barrel in relation to the round.”
No habla ACT, en engles por pavor
OR What the hey?
The Dragunov uses the 7.62×54R, not the 7.62×39, which the AK-47 uses.
The 7.62×39 round has accuracy problems in any rifle chambered for it. Just google “Mini-30 Accuracy” and you will see what I mean.
“The accuracy of the AK is NOT the design of the weapon”
The accuracy problems with the AK are all related to the design of the rifle. The AK was intentionally designed with very loose tolerances. Couple that with a large gas piston attached to the barrel fore end, which is a lot of mass cycling back and forth with each shot. The gas piston travel is a major contributing factor with the barrel oscillations. The AK was not designed to be an accurate rifle, it was designed to be a cheaply made automatic rifle capable of reliability in the absence of a routine cleaning regimen.
“BUT will mal-function at a whim.”
True enough if you fail to clean it regularly, or use dirty ammo.
“It also is a very poor assault weapon compared to an AK.”
Bull feathers. Saying the AK is the top military rifle is like saying the Volkswagen Beetle was the top car of the 60s…
I will answer the part of ACTs comment that makes sense to me. I was looking for either an M1a or an AR15. Both are excellent weapons in my estimation. When I looked at the 7.62×51 version, the AR10,I saw that it was in general more expensive than its M1a counterpart.
As for jamming real easy, that is crap. Carried the damn thing in the corps. It never jammed. I kept it nominally clean, and it worked. In Vietnam they did not provide cleaning kits initially because the gun was touted as not needing it AND they switched the powder type that was used during testing.
Dan,
The loose tolerances are not a design feature with regard to reliability. The looose tolerances result of wanting cheap and easy to make, given the state of Soviet manufacturing capability. I repeat, these loose tolerances make it easy to care for and reliable is not something that was part of the initial design. Just a happy accident.
ACT,
The Dragunov is a different riflee than the AK. It is manufactured differently with much tighter tolerences and fires a different cartridge. An AK is completely innadequate as a sniper rifle.
Just reading the link you posted, Jacob. I am surprised that the current military ammo is not ENC (enclosed), but has an open base.
jacob,
“I repeat, these loose tolerances make it easy to care for and reliable is not something that was part of the initial design.”
Wrong. Where the design goal is easy to care for and reliable absent routine cleaning, i.e. “drag through the mud” as G describes, this can only be achieved by the specification of loose tolerances in the design.
jacob is correct about the powder and it’s role in fouling during AR introduction :
1965 – 1967. Field reports from Vietnam began to look much more pessimistic. M16 rifles, issued to US troops in the Vietnam, severely jammed in combat, resulting in numerous casualties. There were some causes for malfunction. First of all, during the introduction of the new rifle and its ammunition into the service, US Army replaced originally specified Dupont IMR powder with standard ball powder, used in 7.62×51mm NATO ammunition. The ball powder produced much more fouling, that quickly jammed the actions of the M16 unless the gun was cleared well and often. This pitifully combined with the fact that the initial M16 rifles were promoted by the Colt as “low maintenance”, so, for the sake of economy, no cleaning supplies were procured for new M16 rifles, and no weapon care training was conducted fro the troops. As a result, soldiers did not knew how to clean their rifles, and had no provisions for cleaning, and thing soon turned bad. To add the trouble, the ball powders also had a different pressure curve, so they produced higher pressures at the gas port, giving the rise to the rate of fire, and, thus, decreasing accuracy and increasing parts wear.
1967 – 1970. The deficiencies discovered in previous years began do dissolve. 5.56mm ammunition was now loaded using different powders that produce much less residue in the gun action.
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as18-e.htm
Me, I want the Mk17 SCAR with EGLM 40mm Grenade Launcher attachment.
Fires 7.62×51 for long-range, knock-down punch, will fire 7.62×39 mags in a pinch, and has 3 interchangeable barrels (CQB = 13″, Long = 20″) which allegedly don’t require re-zeroing upon change.
I’ve heard great things about the 6.5 lapua, but being able to pick up ammo off the street if I run out has its appeal; run out of the 6.5, and you’re *out*.
One thing I really liked about the M16’s 5.56; even in full auto, it’s very controllable, while that AK becomes an anti-aircraft weapon real fast.
squiddy, if you want to see some crazy 5 shot groups from the 6.5 Lapua :
http://www.6mmbr.com/gunweek072.html
I like the CETME, which the Spanish licensed to Germany to become the H&K G3.
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=150239745
Inexpensive, good accuracy, and takes 7.62×51 NATO ammo.
Talk, talk, talk. I once knew an African houseboy. When he was out on the verandah ironing the clothes, he would suddenly reach into his back pocket, pull out a slingshot, and fire a stone into the upper branches of a large tree near the house. A second later a headless green mamba snake would fall from the tree to the ground. Now, there was a sharpshooter!
(sigh)
I’ve spent entirely too much time on this thread today, looking at Grendel’s and ballistic charts and such – I really need to get back to work …
But I know what I want for Christmas now …
Wolv,
Must have been an American made slingshot, which are inherently more accurate than Russian slingshots..
Not if it is made for K-mart
K-mart carries something that is American made ?
Actually, the sling was hand-crafted. I think you might have to call him a “slingshotsmith.”
Anyway, he was a slick, sureshot. Me? A bull in a China shop. I once killed a black mamba (bigger, faster, even more venemous) with a broken table leg — in the dark using a flashlight. Decapitated the sucker. When I relocated him, I found only the head. He was still looking up at me with those evil eyes and that black, fanged mouth opening and closing. Stupid ass me. Should have called the houseboy. Those damned things can kill a lion or a giraffe with one bite.
Merry Christmas, a song dedicated to the NVTH gun guys:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TC2xTCb_GU&feature=player_embedded
Cmac, a very Merry Christmas to you and yours as well..