SC politician starts campaign with AK-47 raffle

[Darth Wong]

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/Oddities/090927/K092704AU.html

Bullets and barbecue: US candidate raffles off AK-47, offers target practice at campaign rally
Published: Sunday, September 27, 2009 | 4:54 PM ET
Canadian Press THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

GREENVILLE, S.C. - A candidate to be South Carolina's next National Guard leader skipped the fiery speeches for firepower, launching his campaign with what he called a "machine-gun social."

The Greenville News reports some 500 people came out to a shooting range Saturday for Republican Dean Allen's political rally. He wants to be the next adjutant general, the person who leads the state's National Guard.

Attendees paid $25 for barbecue, a clip of bullets for target practice and the chance to win a semiautomatic AK-47. Whoever wins the rifle will have to undergo a background check.

South Carolina is the only state that elects its adjutant general.

Why would this position be given to an elected politician anyway? Shouldn't the selection of this individual be done by the military hierarchy, based on military criteria?

Anyway, I just found it amusing, and simultaneously curious: why would he choose to give away an AK-47 in order to kick off his campaign to run the state National Guard, when that is not a standard-issue weapon for that force? Shouldn't he be giving away an AR-15, which I believe to be the civilian version of the M-16 (I'm sure some gun person will correct me right away if I'm wrong about this)?

[Thanas]

AK-47s are probably cheaper and a lot of those people would probably already own a AR-15 or some derivative?

[erik_t]

From a pragmatic point of view, an AK-47 is probably a lot cheaper

[Serafina]

Generals are pretty much chosen due to politics, anyway.
Which makes sense - if you give someone that much power, you want him to follow your political ideas.
Except when you really, really need good commanders - but thats only an issue in a great war.

Anyway, I just found it amusing, and simultaneously curious: why would he choose to give away an AK-47 in order to kick off his campaign to run the state National Guard, when that is not a standard-issue weapon for that force? Shouldn't he be giving away an AR-15, which I believe to be the civilian version of the M-16 (I'm sure some gun person will correct me right away if I'm wrong about this)?

AK-47s are propably cheaper
That, or he does not want people to notice that the M-16 sucks

[Mr Bean]

Anyway, I just found it amusing, and simultaneously curious: why would he choose to give away an AK-47 in order to kick off his campaign to run the state National Guard, when that is not a standard-issue weapon for that force? Shouldn't he be giving away an AR-15, which I believe to be the civilian version of the M-16 (I'm sure some gun person will correct me right away if I'm wrong about this)?

You would be correct, Kalashnikov are weapons of those who want a cheap, durable and effective assault rifle(IE 2nd and third world armies and paramilitaries). The AR-15 is for Americans! It's over-priced, must be cleaned and maintained well but hey it's a touch more accurate when your firing on the range. That and you can mount many useful extra's on it.

*Edit
On a cost issue a quick check shows you can buy 1 & 2/3rd's AK-47's for every one AR-15 you can buy. And that's after the market prices have gone up so high as they have for AK's. It used to be 2 & 1/2 AK-47's per AR-15. Your talking a 340$-510$ expense verses a 740$-900$ cost difference.

[Stuart]

Anyway, I just found it amusing, and simultaneously curious: why would he choose to give away an AK-47 in order to kick off his campaign to run the state National Guard, when that is not a standard-issue weapon for that force? Shouldn't he be giving away an AR-15, which I believe to be the civilian version of the M-16 (I'm sure some gun person will correct me right away if I'm wrong about this)?

The AR-15 will cost anywhere from $1,200 to $1,800 and there's a long backorder. An AK will cost approximately $500. Both are semi-auto only in this configuration. In many places it's illegal to go hunting with an AR-15, the round isn't considered lethal enough to ensure a clean kill. The AK-47's 7.62mm is legal for hunting most places.

[Dark Hellion]

Isn't this spreading communism to the United States? I thought these guys were against it?

[Oskuro]

AKs are also cool as hell, specially since you can spout that famous line from Heartbreak Ridge.

And I'm being serious, an AK is probably exotic enough that gun owners might be intested.

[Ritterin Sophia]

My real beef is he's calling it a 'machinegun social' the least he could've done is raffled off an actual NFA AK.instead of a Fake K-47.

[Simon_Jester]

Isn't this spreading communism to the United States? I thought these guys were against it?

The inherent commie-ness of using Soviet-designed guns is offset by the fact that you're spreading gun ownership, and therefore freedom.

As for the position of military leader being elected, remember that this is the National Guard: effectively, a provincial militia. Leadership is chosen at the state level, so it's a political football by nature. Which is the way militia appointments have been in the US since the Revolution, and I suspect the way they've been in most times and places since the invention of the pointy stick.

In any situation where the South Carolina Guard is expected to fight or organize its way out of a paper bag , it's going to be under someone else's overall command (overseas deployment), or it's going to be using the kind of long-term disaster plans that bureaucrats come up with on their own (hurricane relief, for instance). Either way, the fact that the senior Guard officer is an unmilitary dimwit won't make much difference.

[Sea Skimmer]

Why would this position be given to an elected politician anyway? Shouldn't the selection of this individual be done by the military hierarchy, based on military criteria?

In almost every other state the position is filled by appointment by the governor. As the role of a National Guard adjutant general is largely comparable to that of the Secretary of Defence at the federal level, it does not necessarily need to be filled by a current or former military officer. Remember also that the US National Guard is a direct outgrowth of independent state militias in which usually all officers were elected by the men themselves.

[His Divine Shadow]

You would be correct, Kalashnikov are weapons of those who want a cheap, durable and effective assault rifle(IE 2nd and third world armies and paramilitaries). The AR-15 is for Americans! It's over-priced, must be cleaned and maintained well but hey it's a touch more accurate when your firing on the range. That and you can mount many useful extra's on it.

It doesn't need to be cleaned that often, more than an AK sure but it's not that finnicky about it. It's more reliable than armchair internet experts would have you think and the AR is probably one of the most accurate semi-auto rifle platforms designed, I've shot both and the differences are very noticeable, the only AK based rifles that can equal an average in AR in accuracy in my experience is the finnish RK-95 and Swiss SIG 55x series.

People love to hate on the M16 but most of that is based on the earliest periods when it was introduced and some major fuckups where committed by the military.

Also an M16 or M4 for the army costs them about 6-700 thanks to economies of scale. Most people who buy civilian ARs buy from small companies who can't deliver large quantities of firearms.

[Mr Bean]

It doesn't need to be cleaned that often, more than an AK sure but it's not that finnicky about it.

If you do not keep an M16 cleaned it's probabilty of jamming rounds goes through the roof. It won't not work it will simply not work well. And trust me when I say I speak not from Armchair Internet Experts status but having grown up in the south, in a family that had several gun enthusiasts and living near other gun enthusiasts. I started plinking my first cans with a .22 at eight and on my tenth Birthday I got to shoot my own paper targets with a friend of the families .44 Magnum which put me on my ass the second time I fired it. I have shot a few loads of ammo from various AK-47's over the years as well as had experience in the service handling an M-16 and the AR-15 it's civilian counter-part. The M-16 is a good assault rifle at what it does, in the hands of a well trained solider who can maintain it, it won't let him down right up until the point he tries to use it to bash in a door because it's not built to "in case you forget your bayonet" standards like M1 Garand's and every World War I/II rifle with nice solid reinforcement and durability.

No question soon my fellow Mess members will be in here to remind me how much of a joy carrying the rather lighter M-16 can be after six hours of marching in the desert. To which I remind them that I once again suggest that we start invading a much nicer class of countries than our last three(Not counting Bosnia).

Also an M16 or M4 for the army costs them about 6-700 thanks to economies of scale. Most people who buy civilian ARs buy from small companies who can't deliver large quantities of firearms.

That's an even worse argument because AK-47's are dirt cheap to make. To the point at which my friend could be offered still in shipping crates 1965 AK-47's for 90$ a pop while in Turkey. If you want to go even cheaper I recall hearing Chinese production costs for the Type 56(AK clone) were under fifty dollars a gun when they were in full swing. Yes we to can produce M-16 for over 600$ a gun.

Again your trying to compare the M-16 to the most produced assault rifle in existence.... and your trying to do it by arguing economies of scale.... Yeah good luck on that.

[His Divine Shadow]

If you do not keep an M16 cleaned it's probabilty of jamming rounds goes through the roof. It won't not work it will simply not work well. And trust me when I say I speak not from Armchair Internet Experts status but having grown up in the south, in a family that had several gun enthusiasts and living near other gun enthusiasts. I started plinking my first cans with a .22 at eight and on my tenth Birthday I got to shoot my own paper targets with a friend of the families .44 Magnum which put me on my ass the second time I fired it. I have shot a few loads of ammo from various AK-47's over the years as well as had experience in the service handling an M-16 and the AR-15 it's civilian counter-part.

More or less ditto for me, I've handled several makes of AK's, finnish RK (being issued one), bulgarian AKs, Chinese ones and ofcourses Saigas and Saiga-12s.

The M-16 is a good assault rifle at what it does, in the hands of a well trained solider who can maintain it, it won't let him down right up until the point he tries to use it to bash in a door because it's not built to "in case you forget your bayonet" standards like M1 Garand's and every World War I/II rifle with nice solid reinforcement and durability.

Not arguing that, only that the M16s reputation as unreliable has been overstated, despite it not being as reliable as an AK.

No question soon my fellow Mess members will be in here to remind me how much of a joy carrying the rather lighter M-16 can be after six hours of marching in the desert. To which I remind them that I once again suggest that we start invading a much nicer class of countries than our last three(Not counting Bosnia).

Hi I'm a fellow mess member, I've managed to jam an AK with sand myself during my time in the army. I know [the M16] it's got nooks and crannies, I've also got my AR filled with sand one day at the range during an SRA comp (it's an old quarry, wind kicked up a good duststorm that day, had to wear protective goggles to be able to keep my eyes open) ofcourse it was only a range comp and like 200 rounds through it, but it never failed despite lots of dust and sand getting into it.

Again I'm sure it's not as good as an AK but it's not bad either, and as anyone who has look around the internet you will find lots of armchair experts on gunboards and the like saying the M16 is unreliable and sucks and we should have AKs instead in the army etc, etc, etc.

That's an even worse argument because AK-47's are dirt cheap to make. To the point at which my friend could be offered still in shipping crates 1965 AK-47's for 90$ a pop while in Turkey. If you want to go even cheaper I recall hearing Chinese production costs for the Type 56(AK clone) were under fifty dollars a gun when they were in full swing. Yes we to can produce M-16 for over 600$ a gun.

Again your trying to compare the M-16 to the most produced assault rifle in existence.... and your trying to do it by arguing economies of scale.... Yeah good luck on that.

Wheter it's a worse argument or not depends on what you think it was an argument for. My argument was simply it's not fair to imply the M16 as costing 1200+ when it's half that for the army. Sure if you're talking ARs for civilians though...

[Broomstick]

AK-47s are probably cheaper and a lot of those people would probably already own a AR-15 or some derivative?

My experience (admittedly limited) is that a US gun owner is more likely to own an AK-47 than an AR-15, though plenty own both. The lower price has much to do with that.

[Zwinmar]

Have to chime in and say that the 16 is not as unreliable as people are claiming. No weapon is designed to never need cleaning, no matter how much that line is touted out. There are far more finicky weapons systems out there, such as the MK 19.

Carry a 16 long enough and you know how relatively easy it is to clean one.

[Simon_Jester]

I think the M16 got its reputation for being unreliable and finicky in the initial version (which, I gather, really was shitty in that respect). They managed to hammer out the bugs and come up with a reasonably reliable weapon, and training people to take better care of it helped. But by the time they got the thing working there were already tens or hundreds of thousands of Vietnam vets who now remember the M16 as a jam-prone, fragile, temperamental piece of crap.

[TrailerParkJawa]

I think the technical merits of M16 vs. AK-47 are largely a side issue. For me at least, the irony here is that they are raffling off a weapon that isn't American made. Doesn't it just seem weird? Come out and support your local gov't and get rifle made elsewhere.

Now, I realize it might be simply that an AK-47 is a an attractive weapon to gun collectors but would a politican be able to get away with raffling componets for a foreign auto? Say Honda Floor Mats?

[Mr Bean]

I think the technical merits of M16 vs. AK-47 are largely a side issue. For me at least, the irony here is that they are raffling off a weapon that isn't American made. Doesn't it just seem weird? Come out and support your local gov't and get rifle made elsewhere.

AK-47's are made in America by several small companies, just like M-16's are made in Korea, South Africa and elsewhere for sale in America.

[TrailerParkJawa]

I think the technical merits of M16 vs. AK-47 are largely a side issue. For me at least, the irony here is that they are raffling off a weapon that isn't American made. Doesn't it just seem weird? Come out and support your local gov't and get rifle made elsewhere.

AK-47's are made in America by several small companies, just like M-16's are made in Korea, South Africa and elsewhere for sale in America.

I was wondering if that was a possiblity but didn't actually know someone was making them here. Thanks for the info. It still feels "odd" to me but such is the reality of a global economy.

[Glocksman]

I think the technical merits of M16 vs. AK-47 are largely a side issue. For me at least, the irony here is that they are raffling off a weapon that isn't American made. Doesn't it just seem weird? Come out and support your local gov't and get rifle made elsewhere.

AK-47's are made in America by several small companies, just like M-16's are made in Korea, South Africa and elsewhere for sale in America.

I was wondering if that was a possiblity but didn't actually know someone was making them here. Thanks for the info. It still feels "odd" to me but such is the reality of a global economy.

As someone who has owned both guns (2 different AK knockoffs and a genuine Colt AR) let me offer my 2 cents.

The guns in question:
1. Egyptian Maadi AK clone
2. Romanian AK clone.
3. Colt M16A2 semi auto only clone. I don't remember the civilian nomenclature.

The AK clones I owned had varying fit and finish, but both were equally reliable (once the gas tube on the Romanian AK was straightened out under warranty).
Of the two AK's, the Maadi had the better fit and finish and worked perfectly out of the box.
The Romarm AK needed to be sent back to the importer to have the gas tube fitting straightened in order to perform correctly.

Both weapons exhibited the 'trigger slap' single hook AK clones are noted for.

The Colt AR was perfectly reliable with the one exception of a single misfeed from an old milsurp magazine that God only knows how old it was.
Of course I didn't let the $800 rifle collect dust, grit, rust, and grime either, so YMMV,

Conclusion:

Based on my own experience with the type, I'd choose a Bulgarian AK clone (reputed to be the best quality available in the USA) with a double hook trigger and a lot of quality surplus magazines.

Not because the AR is junk, but because I can purchase a lot more ammo and accessories for the same $$$ than I could purchasing a quality (Bushmaster or Colt equivalent) AR series rifle.

[Loner]

For the AR reliability issue, it should be cleaned. However, I've heard and seen pictures of people running thousands of rounds without cleaning, only lubing the bolt carrier. See this example:



Guy that took this photo said he's shot 7,000 rounds of Wolf ammo. I'm doing the same with mine to see if I get the same results.

As for the AK, the AK's sold in the U.S. are made by American companies, but usually they're built from parts kits imported from Eastern Europe. See the rifles sold by Century and Lancaster Arms.

[Count Chocula]

I personally don't like the AK pattern rifles because they're relatively nose-heavy, their sights (tangent rear/post front) are crude, and the sight radius is short for a rifle, reducing accuracy. It also doesn't have a last round bolt hold-open, which I like. My 20-inch HBAR Armalite AR-15 has about the same balance as a standard AK pattern, has far superior iron sights, faster follow-up shots due to the lower recoil of the 5.56mm round, superb accuracy, and accessories galore. None of which I have aside from a scope, as flashlights, vertical grips, bipods etc. mount on the forend and shift the weight awkwardly far forward for my taste. I haven't had any reliability issues with my AR, either in desert or snow, but I haven't fired more than 300 rounds before cleaning so YMMV.

Regardless of the merits of AK vs. AR, a Colt .45 seems like a better raffle item for a US politician. It's 100% Amurrican, and nothing says "rugged individualism" like a big-bore Browning pistol.

[His Divine Shadow]

Especially if it's a Springfield.

[Simon_Jester]

I think the technical merits of M16 vs. AK-47 are largely a side issue. For me at least, the irony here is that they are raffling off a weapon that isn't American made. Doesn't it just seem weird? Come out and support your local gov't and get rifle made elsewhere.

Now, I realize it might be simply that an AK-47 is a an attractive weapon to gun collectors but would a politican be able to get away with raffling componets for a foreign auto? Say Honda Floor Mats?

Again, in the eyes of the kind of people who would actually show up, the un-Americanism of handing out foreign guns is cancelled out by the fact that you're promoting gun ownership. Wouldn't work for cars.

Now, you can get more Americanism by raffling off something else... but there are only so many things you can get cheaply that most of your raffle audience doesn't already own.