U.S Armored Troops prefer the AK

[Perinquus]

One reason for the AK's inferior accuracy is the looser tolerances to which it is built, and the nature of the design itself, and the philosophy that went into it. The AK47, remember, was designed for use by massive armies of conscript soldiers, who were not necessarily very well trained in individual marksmanship all that well, but who were trained to be very aggressive and always to seek to close with the enemy.

Another reason for its inferior accuracy is part of the reason for its reliability. There is no gas regulator, instead, a generous, and indeed greater than necessary amount of gas is tapped off from the barrel to operate the gas piston. This provides a reserve of power to overcome any resistance from dirt, mud, carbon fouling, or even rust. Consequently, the AK47 will almost always work when you pull the trigger. The downside of this is that having a long stroke piston reciprocating back and forth with so much force makes it more difficult for the firer to hold the weapon steady; it throws the aim off just a tiny bit. Many western rifles, like the FN FAL, for example, have a gas regulator. Only just enough gas is tapped off to operate the action, so the piston and operating rod do not move back and forth so violently, and this disturbs the aim less. If dirt or carbon builds up, the firer can open the gas regulator up a bit more to tap off more gas to operate the action and overcome any stickiness. The AK is essentially built with a fixed "wide open" setting, and the Russians considered the inherent accuracy penalty an acceptable price to pay.

As far as ergonomics go, the M16 has it all over the AK47. Magazine changes are much faster owing to better positioning of the magazine release (you can drop the magazine with the index finger of your firing hand at the same time your other hand is reaching into your magazine pouch for a fresh mag; you can't do this with the Kalashnikov), and the presence of a bolt hold open, which the AK doesn't have. The M16's magazine can just be slammed straight into the magazine well, while with the Kalashnikov, you have to hook the front edge of the mag on the edge of the magazine well, and then rock the mag azine backward into place. The M16's safety can also be operated without shifting one's hand off the grip, which one must do to operate the AK's safety.

Once again, I wish we had chosen the AR18 over the AR15/M16. The AR18 has the M16's better accuracy, better ergonomics (the AR18's control's operate almost identically to the M16's), and it is more mechanically reliable and more tolerant of dirty or muddy conditions.

[Edi]

Sure, range is limited to about 300 meters for effective firing, and it's probably not quite as accurate as the M16 and M4, but in the hands of a trained soldier, the difference should not be all that significant. Given a choice between the M16/M4 and AK-47,

But AFAIK most M16/AK47 debates eventually come to:
1) Accuracy vs Reliability (while some have different experiences, most seem to think the AK is more reliable)
2) The stopping power of the 5.56 to the 7.62.
3) Ergonomics (though sometimes ergonomics AFAIK are linked to reliability - the AK sometimes eliminates parts and doubles up others, thus reducing failure points but worsens ergonomics to some people)

I have no experience on M-16 ergonomics, but the AK is quite usable. The fire selector switch isn't very well placed, it'd be better if that could be someplace that doesn't require you to take your hand off the pistol grip and trigger to switch between firing modes, it's my worst complaint.

But this one is new on me. I thought having a very accurate rifle matters more and not less for a trained soldier.

When you're talking about assault rifles, they are, by their very nature, not very accurate weapons. Try a hunting/sniper rifle for that sort of thing. What I meant is that all other things being equal (proficiency with both AK and M-16 and so on), a well trained soldier can fire either weapon accurately enough that the difference in accuracy between them on a given range (under 300 m) shouldn't be an issue.

Suppose I'm a sniper that can shoot 0.5MOA groups. Then I'd be restricted more by my rifle. I'd need a great rifle to do my best - perhaps nothing Automatic can meet my needs.

That depends on what you need to accomplish. If you need to take a man down and special considerations are not an issue, an assault rifle will serve quite well. If you have to hit that five inch square at 600 meters, it most definitely will not.

But if I'm just a "point, spray and hope guy" guy, then I could have a 6MOA weapon and it'd still be OK. In fact, it might be even better - the wider spread might even help me by compensating for my lack of accuracy.

That'd be one of the swiftest ways to get yourself killed. Automatic fire eats up ammo like you've no idea of, and contrary to popular belief, it actually worsens your accuracy instead of improving it. Just try and fire a full magazine of an AK-47 non-stop and see what happens. Most people won't be able to hit the broadside of a barn from the inside that way. You can fire short, three to five round bursts (though five's pushing it) and hit a man sized target at 50 meters relatively easily, provided you know how to do it, but that's wasting ammo. One or two aimed shots will serve better, and they should stop the target just as good. Moreover, constant automatic fire is a good way to mark your position for the enemy, who will either wait for you to run out of ammo or take you out with a mortar or something else.

So what gives? Or is it like "It doesn't matter because a trained soldier would be able to find cover till he reaches three hundred meters and begins to fight where performance is about him, not his rifle's extreme accuracy?"

A trained soldier won't be able to find cover where none exists, but at the effective combat ranges the accuracy differential is usually not an issue. Very little (non-sniper) rifle combat happens at ranges over 150 to 200 meters simply because hitting a moving man-sized target (who will probably be wearing camouflage to boot) beyond that range is very difficult. Obviously the US rifles have accuracy edge at the longer ranges, but that edge steadily deteriorates the closer you get and the AK has an edge in stopping power and penetration, especially at closer range.

Edi

[Edi]

Thanks for the details, Perinquus. I'd forgotten how much of a bitch changing the magazine for an AK was...

One thing about the inaccuracy thing: The AK has sights that are straight from hell. Whoever made the decision to place the back sight at the front of the mechanism cover plate should have been shot for incompetence, because it makes for a big difference in accuracy, simply because the tolerance in aiming becomes greater than in a version where the back sight is at the back of the cover plate. You see the results immediately when you take the rifles to a 150 meter range.

Edi

[Vympel]

With western ammo Soldier of Fortune magazine found AK-74s and later AK-100 series rifles in western calibres were every bit as accurate as their western equivelents. Since the Russians have changed their focus to improve accuracy their ammo makers have made huge changes and are now producing quality ammo.

I don't have the magazine in question, this is actually a tidbit I heard elsewhere (in a gun discussion, of course).

"I wouldn't call myself a gun expert, but Peter K Kolikus from Soldier of Fortune magazine does and he stated that the AK-101 which is basically an AK-74M in 5.56 x 45mm NATO is as accurate out of the box as any M16 he has ever fired. Subsequent articles about the Wolf Ammo brand (Russian) being cheap but also accurate due to a new emphasis on accuracy by the Russian military suggests to me that you no longer have to choose reliability or accuracy with a Russian weapon."

[Perinquus]

"I wouldn't call myself a gun expert, but Peter K Kolikus from Soldier of Fortune magazine does and he stated that the AK-101 which is basically an AK-74M in 5.56 x 45mm NATO is as accurate out of the box as any M16 he has ever fired. Subsequent articles about the Wolf Ammo brand (Russian) being cheap but also accurate due to a new emphasis on accuracy by the Russian military suggests to me that you no longer have to choose reliability or accuracy with a Russian weapon."

The above may be true as far as standard issue weapons to the troops go. But the M16/AR15 has a bit more accuracy potential than the standard AK design, and you have specially built, match grade AR15s and AR10s that are more accurate than ANY Kalashnikov, including the Dragunov sniper variant.

[Vympel]

The above may be true as far as standard issue weapons to the troops go. But the M16/AR15 has a bit more accuracy potential than the standard AK design, and you have specially built, match grade AR15s and AR10s that are more accurate than ANY Kalashnikov, including the Dragunov sniper variant.

The Dragunov has very vague similarities to the AK series, but I wouldn't really call it a variant. The Dragunov isn't specially built or match grade either, of course- it's really just a battle rifle to extend the range of the squad, rather than a true sniper rifle- it's definitely not built to those sorts of standards.

New model SVD- standard

SVDK- folding stock, for paratroops

[The Dark]

By the way, this change to the newer much less effective bullet was carried out in the name of NATO standardization. The Belgian SS109 bullet was chosen as the new NATO round. Interestingly, the SS109's designers thought the reduced tendency of the bullet to tumble was a good thing. They were glad it prodced less fearful wounds, since this was perceived as more "humane". Why the hell you would want to use "humane" ammo on an enemy who may kill you if your weapon fails to stop him I can't imagine. And that is just what is happening. Our troops are reporting numerous incidents where their weapons are not putting the enemy down, and this is costing our troops lives and damaging their morale. This is what happens when you let your priorities get so badly out of order, and allow squeamish PC considerations to affect weapons design.

Or they may have followed the Geneva Conventions, which expressly forbid bullets that shatter or tumble upon entering the body. Of course, they also forbid shotguns, and that doesn't stop anyone.

[Vympel]

As Shep said, the wounds from 5.56x45mm armor-piercing will be much worse if you're hitting a target with body armour- Soviet soldiers didn't have very high tech body armor when the round first came into use- in fact I don't think they had any (could be wrong), but in the 1980s they started to wear some rudimentary armored vests with extra protection provided by ammunition magazines on top of those vests for certain.

(interesting factoid, it was not until 1991 that Russia got Kevlar technology, and since then the Kirasa joint-stock company has been providing continuously improving body armor for Russian soldiers, police, special forces, etc- and with add-on special armor steel/ ceramic plates ala Interceptor Body Armor- the protection levels provided seem roughly the same- in so far as I can understand body armor lingo)

Of course, soldiers in IBA-style armor isn't the threat, so one wonders why they don't issue different ammo.

[Lonestar]

Both the M14 and the M1A1 Thompson should stay dead. They are old weapons, overly heavy, and not the best.

The USN uses M-14's for topside rover watches in port. I should know. The damn rifle is almost as tall as me and heavy. Especially when you're carrying it around for 5 hrs.

The military SHOULD be supplying MP5Ns to the soldiers if the rifles are some times getting to big.

Our ship's Boarding Party is switching from 9mm's and M-16's over to MP5N's this december.

[Pu-239]

Why not just mix the ammo with better armor penetration and the ammo that tumbles in a 1:1 ratio? Don't people empty more then one round into a target?

[Howedar]

IIRC, part of the problem is that much of the change was due to a different twist rate in the barrel. You can't very well have a dual-barreled AR.

[Perinquus]

Or they may have followed the Geneva Conventions, which expressly forbid bullets that shatter or tumble upon entering the body. Of course, they also forbid shotguns, and that doesn't stop anyone.

The Geneva and Hague Conventions do not forbid ammo that tumbles, they only forbid bullets that fragment or deform on impact. They also do not forbid shotguns. The Germans kicked up a stink about our use of them during WWI, and threatened to execute any American soldier captured with one. We pointed out that they had had a chance to have any weapons they objected to outlawed during a prewar conference on the rules and usages of warfare, and had failed to do so, and if any American POWs were summarily executed, an equivalent number of German POWs would be treated likewise. We'ev used shotguns in every war since; they're not outlawed.

[Perinquus]

The Dragunov has very vague similarities to the AK series, but I wouldn't really call it a variant. The Dragunov isn't specially built or match grade either, of course- it's really just a battle rifle to extend the range of the squad, rather than a true sniper rifle- it's definitely not built to those sorts of standards.

It's used by the Russians as a sniper rifle, though it's not quite as accurate as a really good bolt action. It's still very accurate out to the limit of its effective range though.

And it really is an AK variant. The only differences are a longer action to accomadate the larger 7.62x54mm rimmed cartridge, and the replacement of the long stroke piston with a short stroke one to reduce the mass of the reciprocating parts, and disturb the aim less during firing. And everything is built to somewhat tighter specs in order to obtain the required degree of accuracy.

[RogueIce]

The USN uses M-14's for topside rover watches in port. I should know. The damn rifle is almost as tall as me and heavy. Especially when you're carrying it around for 5 hrs.

Really? I could swear I saw M16s on the Philipine Sea when I was there.

The SSBN group had M16s, too, but those were, I think, Marines.

[Sea Skimmer]

The Dragunov has very vague similarities to the AK series, but I wouldn't really call it a variant. The Dragunov isn't specially built or match grade either, of course- it's really just a battle rifle to extend the range of the squad, rather than a true sniper rifle- it's definitely not built to those sorts of standards.

The starting point for the Dragunov project was the AK-47 but it's not a variant. I don't know, maybe "inspired by" or "based on" would be a better way to put it.

As Shep said, the wounds from 5.56x45mm armor-piercing will be much worse if you're hitting a target with body armour- Soviet soldiers didn't have very high tech body armor when the round first came into use- in fact I don't think they had any (could be wrong),

I'm fairly certain they had vests made of ballistic nylon in service by the late 60's.

Why not just mix the ammo with better armor penetration and the ammo that tumbles in a 1:1 ratio? Don't people empty more then one round into a target?

Troops aren't going to bother with that. When you've got to fill 8-12 30 round magazines round by round do you really think you'd want to bother with switching back and forth between rounds?

[Rubberanvil]

I meant to post:

Or they may have followed the Geneva Conventions, which expressly forbid bullets that shatter or tumble upon entering the body.

Iirc much of the civilian market ammo types have been bannad from military as they're simply too lethal in relation to convention military anti-personnel rounds.

Could a Mod delete my other screw-up post, please.

[Perinquus]

I meant to post:

Or they may have followed the Geneva Conventions, which expressly forbid bullets that shatter or tumble upon entering the body.

Iirc much of the civilian market ammo types have been bannad from military as they're simply too lethal in relation to convention military anti-personnel rounds.

Could a Mod delete my other screw-up post, please.

Personally, I have never understood the justifications for banning such ammunition on the grounds that it is "inhumane". Why, for example, is it inhumane, and thus forbidden to shoot someone with hollowpoint ammunition which mushrooms on impact, but it is permissible, and thus presumably not inhumane, to burn someone to death with incendiary weapons - an unspeakably more painful and horrible way to go? I don't get it.

[Perinquus]

The starting point for the Dragunov project was the AK-47 but it's not a variant. I don't know, maybe "inspired by" or "based on" would be a better way to put it.

The Dragunov shares probably better than 95% of its design features with the AK series of rifles. The only changes were in the dimensions of most of the parts in order to handle the larger cartridge, and slight revisions to the gas operating system to improve accuracy. Apart from the revised gas piston, the mechanism functions exactly the same way, the controls operate identically, even some of the parts in the fire control mechanism are interchangeable. I can't see any logical reason why you wouldn't consider it a variant.

[Sea Skimmer]

Personally, I have never understood the justifications for banning such ammunition on the grounds that it is "inhumane". Why, for example, is it inhumane, and thus forbidden to shoot someone with hollowpoint ammunition which mushrooms on impact, but it is permissible, and thus presumably not inhumane, to burn someone to death with incendiary weapons - an unspeakably more painful and horrible way to go? I don't get it.

Hollowpoints didn't exist at the time. Right now you could argue that it's inhumane to use ball ammo from such small weapons. But back when the Hague convention was first signed rifle rounds which big, powerful and quite lethal. What the convention banned was fragmenting bullets which often included glass that shattered on impact, they where actually less lethal then normal rounds in terms of instant kills, yet created horrible wounds that where near impossible to repair and left a man to slowly bleed to death. Incendiaries like white phosphorus or napalm didn't exist either.

[Perinquus]

Hollowpoints didn't exist at the time. Right now you could argue that it's inhumane to use ball ammo from such small weapons. But back when the Hague convention was first signed rifle rounds which big, powerful and quite lethal. What the convention banned was fragmenting bullets which often included glass that shattered on impact, they where actually less lethal then normal rounds in terms of instant kills, yet created horrible wounds that where near impossible to repair and left a man to slowly bleed to death. Incendiaries like white phosphorus or napalm didn't exist either.

Even such things as non deforming unjacketed lead bullets were declared inhumane. The Hague Conventions regarding the laws of war were held between 1907 and 1910. It was during this period that such ammunition was outlawed. However since that time, not only have newer and more deadly weapons come along, but the Hague Convention has been reconvened several times. The last time was in 1956, well after the introduciton of napalm, flamethrowers, white phosphorus, etc. There has been plenty of opportunity either to declare these weapons also to be inhumane, or to change the rules regarding small arms ammunition. They have done neithr of these things, so it remains - illogically - "inhumane" to shoot someone with a fragmenting bullet, but "humane" to roast him to death with incendiaries, shred his body with cluster bombs, or blow his extremities off with landmines.

Come on guy, admit it. The definitions of what weapons are and are not "inhumane" according to the laws of war are both illogical and arbitrary.

[Edi]

Vympel, I've got to agree with Perinquus on the Dragunov, structurally it's just a reshaped AK. It's taken apart and put back together in exactly the same way and the parts look almost exactly alike, just the dimensions are a little different.

The Dragunov might be accurate enough up to its specifed ranges, but the sniper team guys in my platoon said it was really a shitty weapon to use compared to the actual sniper rifles (SAKO 7.62x54) they used, mostly because it weighs almost nothing and consequently kicks like a mule when you fire it. The damn thing actually weighs a lot less than a typical AK.

Edi

[Sea Skimmer]

Hollowpoints didn't exist at the time. Right now you could argue that it's inhumane to use ball ammo from such small weapons. But back when the Hague convention was first signed rifle rounds which big, powerful and quite lethal. What the convention banned was fragmenting bullets which often included glass that shattered on impact, they where actually less lethal then normal rounds in terms of instant kills, yet created horrible wounds that where near impossible to repair and left a man to slowly bleed to death. Incendiaries like white phosphorus or napalm didn't exist either.

Even such things as non deforming unjacketed lead bullets were declared inhumane. The Hague Conventions regarding the laws of war were held between 1907 and 1910. It was during this period that such ammunition was outlawed. However since that time, not only have newer and more deadly weapons come along, but the Hague Convention has been reconvened several times. The last time was in 1956, well after the introduciton of napalm, flamethrowers, white phosphorus, etc. There has been plenty of opportunity either to declare these weapons also to be inhumane, or to change the rules regarding small arms ammunition. They have done neithr of these things, so it remains - illogically - "inhumane" to shoot someone with a fragmenting bullet, but "humane" to roast him to death with incendiaries,

Those tends to be rather fatal very quickly, the convention banned fragmenting ammunition because it inflicted wounds that where generally impossible to close and left a person linger for quite some time. This was the same reason why triangular bayonets got banned as well.

shred his body with cluster bombs, or blow his extremities off with landmines.

Cluster bombs have this little habit of killing everything anywhere near them about fifteen times more effectively then conventional bombs and most mines are designed to be highly lethal as well.

That is the distinction you're not getting. Fragmenting bullets of the line where not the quickest and more efficient way to kill someone so the only reason to use them was to create large numbers of horrible wounds to cause slow deaths. Everything else you've named is meant to be as efficient at killing as possibul.

[Perinquus]

Those tends to be rather fatal very quickly, the convention banned fragmenting ammunition because it inflicted wounds that where generally impossible to close and left a person linger for quite some time. This was the same reason why triangular bayonets got banned as well.

I've got to disagree. Many of the shootings we deal with here on the street are done with expanding or fragmenting ammunition. They are frequently survivable with prompt medical attention. Soldiers these days, and even as far back as WWII are often medevaced to a field hospital faster than civilians in modern cities can be taken to the nearest trauma unit via ambulance.

Cluster bombs have this little habit of killing everything anywhere near them about fifteen times more effectively then conventional bombs and most mines are designed to be highly lethal as well.

That is the distinction you're not getting. Fragmenting bullets of the line where not the quickest and more efficient way to kill someone so the only reason to use them was to create large numbers of horrible wounds to cause slow deaths. Everything else you've named is meant to be as efficient at killing as possibul.

I get the distinction just fine. What you are not realizing is that to the military, on a cold statistical basis, it is often preferable to severely wound an enemy instead of simply killing him, because human nature being what it is, the wounded man often gets the aid of one or two buddies to get him to a medic, whereas the dead man is simply left where he fell to be picked up later. You thus take two or even three enemy soldiers out of action rather than just one.

I am not just saying this to avoid conceding the point either. We were actually told this when I was in the infantry. You may also find this in print in the book Modern Small Arms (Bison Books, 1983, p. 149), by Ian V. Hogg - one of the world's current experts on small arms and their history.

[MKSheppard]

You thus take two or even three enemy soldiers out of action rather than just one.

Problem is that doesn't work with Islamofascists or really doped up people
like in Somalia. It's more preferential to kill them since then they can't
shoot back at you. A gut shot guy can still lie on the floor and shoot back.

[Perinquus]

You thus take two or even three enemy soldiers out of action rather than just one.

Problem is that doesn't work with Islamofascists or really doped up people
like in Somalia. It's more preferential to kill them since then they can't
shoot back at you. A gut shot guy can still lie on the floor and shoot back.

That is the problem with that design philosophy. I never said I was in wholehearted agreement with it, but it would be a mistake to think that that sort of thinking has not affected our small arms design; it has. If I had my druthers, we would be using an update of the AR18 design, but in a slightly more substantial caliber than 5.56mm (though not so large as 7.62mm NATO, which is too powerful a round for a true assault rifle).