AK-47 'War-master' & the History of 'Cheap War'

As far as I know it is far more difficult to cover a lot of the torso with the armor plates needed to stop a 7.62x54 at point blank range than against the 5.56x45 and 7.62x39 which is also doable with thinner and lighter overlapping plates as done in the Dragonskin armor by Pinnacle. The .308 forces the enemy to wear heavier armor with fewer bodysurface covered.

On the other hand a assault rifle chambered for a powerful cartridge like the .308 is heavier, but fully controllable in auto. fire when well constructed and fitted with a sound suppressor. Certainly ideal as a supplement to the standard assaultrifles of a squad, well suited for LR engagements and more armored targets when used by a good marksman.

Still it is just one of the many ways one can kill and die in a "modern" conflict, which makes me think of all the vicitims and does cause me to make a posting break in this thread...

Cheers
OA

Something I was thinking about a while ago: I really have to hand it to the Fins for using their version of the AK. It really seems to fit their terrain, weather, and military much better than an M-16 type weapon. I don’t think they’ll have to change rifles for a long time.

Well, the Soviet original already fit most of the required specs and reinventing the wheel is really a bit pointless with a little-country budget. The potential ability to use ammo looted from the only realistically likely invader was obviously a bonus...

Ahhh... The soon-to-be-ageold debate of AK-47 vs M-16.

It all coems down to philosophy... of engagements, troops and wars.

The US, and generally western philosophy is one of one-shot-one-kill, trained and wars to won by quick overpowering (so no need to replace weapons that fast). You can see that in the tanks and aircrafts as well.
I'll bet you that is either Russia or China held out for a couple months of intensive war against the west (at which point we must assume both sides has used up their initial stockpiles of tanks and planes) we would be in trouble as we couldn't produce our weaponry as fast at that point.

So the western rifleman (assault-rifleman if you like), is a trained individual who knows his weapon (at least that is what is assumed of him). He is expected to hit often and not spray. Hence the reason that most of the western assault rifles have the single-shot setting right after 'safe' (if they have it), and only then burst or auto. Meanwhile the eastern (since it is really that when you count in China and all the rogue states) rifles often have auto/burst before single-shot (again if they have it).

Eventhough the eastern weapons can hit at the shorter ranges, they are still not certain (unless we consider the more recent versions). Their barrelwobble is considerable, especially so for the venerable AK-47, and the recoil is more pronounced, so 'spray and pray' is needed. And that is another difference. The western soldier is 'priceless', so we want him to be able to hit where he aims to make sure he survives. Meaning, that he most certainly shouldn't die because his weapon misses, but rather because he does. I believe the M-16, is so accurate barrelwise that it should hit more than 1km away if there was no winds ect. Meanwhile the AK has barely any certainty above 100 meters.

As long as wars are as short as they have been, or small enough for the professional armies to deal with over time, then the western philosophy does itself justice.
But should we need to replace our troops rapidly, it might fail... Not a pretty picture.

Technically speaking the early M-16 is a better weapon than the AK-47, but is it more effective (much like the old Panther vs T-34 debate)? Well, that is up to the individual to find out. An since I haven't tried either, I will not go so far as to say which one is better.

Talked to an Iraq vet for a while and many Iraqi insurgence are using old Kar98 mauser's from the WWII era. Iron sites and bolt action, the whole thing. It's crazy.

Seems like I said something like one-shot/one-kill before...

It may have something to do with the new emphasis on sniping. I hear CNN has some good footage of US soldiers sans cranium.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon

Talked to an Iraq vet for a while and many Iraqi insurgence are using old Kar98 mauser's from the WWII era. Iron sites and bolt action, the whole thing. It's crazy.

---

Bolt actions aren't that common where I was (West of BIAP), the AK is definately prevalent. We did find an old Lee Enfield MkII or III that was stamped 1940, we assumed it was from when the Brits invaded Iraq to prevent the pro German coup from succeeding, only found a few Mausers though. From what I've seen people with the bolt actions are using them because its accuracy allows them to engage us from a bit farther off where we're less likely to spot them, that way they can pop off one or two shots and scramble.

There's been a few .22 rifles with scopes we've had to confinscate. We laughed about it at first until we realized that they could still kill us with those but because we wear earplugs we'd probably not hear where the shot came from.

For the most part the guys with AKs are bad shots so they try to use them like SMGs at close range. The trend toward accurate single shots or pairs of shots is only natural. How many guys need to get wasted by the US at clost range before they realize we're easier to get and get away from farther ranges. What would you guys do in their place, try to out gun the US or use snipers and IEDs to kill Americans while remaining safe. While not as "chivalrous" its the better tactic by far.

Here's a few of the weapons a nearby unit found:
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...oreweopons.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

It may have something to do with the new emphasis on sniping. I hear CNN has some good footage of US soldiers sans cranium.

---

Well, let's not take such into detail. This is about the weapons, not the gore they cause.

spmetla, that was pretty much the point I had.
The AK is a fine weapon, very good actually. But going up against professionals with weapons of the M-16 line is not good. He will use his weapon better and should in most cases come out on top, and he can engage the AK guy a bit further off with more certainty. But then again, this is a limited war.

I would hate to imagine the results if it was a total war where the M-16 guys were less well trained in handling their weapons.

...or the AK wielders properly trained to begin with ?

AK is a great weapon in the hands of anyone with knowledge of the basic fundamentals for shooting. Some Iraqi security guys are great shots while a lot of them can not hit the target at all, with these guys though they absolutely refuse to acknowledge that they are causing the misses and instead blame the gun. While the sight isn't as good for leading targets as the M16 style sights I can still hit what I'm shooting at up to 250 meters. Past that range the M16 is king.

I'm just glad the guys that were shooting as us were of the untrained variety.:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

...or the AK wielders properly trained to begin with ?

---

Pffft...You don't train people to use the AK, you tell them: Load magazine, pull trigger. ~;p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Pffft...You don't train people to use the AK, you tell them: Load magazine, pull trigger. ~;p

---

I think Watchman included AK clones in his statement.After basic training, some 30% of Finnish conscripts can score 93 or more points with ten rounds at 150 m distance with target shooting on Rk 62, the bullseye (10 points) diameter being 100 mm.~;)

Well you Finns are surrounded by Ruskies, Vikings, and those crazy Germans across the pond, shooting good is a life nessasity!

You can get a bonus vacation slot if you score high enough in the army basic training, which I suspect has more to do with it. My brother would've gotten one once except his last round turned out to be a dud, which did not make him very happy.

And the only thing he had shot before the army were those assorted light-guns some arcade shooting games have... ~;p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

You can get a bonus vacation slot if you score high enough in the army basic training, which I suspect has more to do with it. My brother would've gotten one once except his last round turned out to be a dud, which did not make him very happy.

And the only thing he had shot before the army were those assorted light-guns some arcade shooting games have... ~;p

---

Agreed... incentive to shoot well makes a whole world of a difference.
When I went throught the same with the G3, I told myself to do be the bloody best shot there was. Two days on the range and I was an inch from a badge. However it rained when we shot for badges, that is not good for accuracy when you have iron sights (having to blow out water and having it dropping on your face from the hood is rather disruptive for marksmanship).
But I considered it a good achievement for a beginner with perhaps 6 hours of shooting under his belt.

I'm glad Spmetla was facing mostly religious shooters. That .22 thing is scary -- you made a chilling point.

Even little training helps at getting good results in a one-way shooting, as I can attest. After around 7 hours of air gun pistol shooting over some weeks i scored 331 out of 400. The worldclass shooters get at best up to 390, according to my teacher - however the closer you come to 400 the harder it is to make progress, almost a logarithmical curve :inquisitive:

Bullseye (10) 11,5 mm, any ring adds 8mm...

The Pistol seems to more fitting for me than the rifle, because I'm according to my teacher a fast, impulsive shoother. Still I scored well over 310 out of 400 with it. The world record is 600/600 and 104.1/109. As I think of myself of a rifle shooter I will work on my position and calmness...:whip:

10=0,5mm 1ring=2,5mm

Anyway I think that we all agree that even little shooting training makes more than acceptable rifleman - on the training ground. Shooting on a battlefield is far different...

Cheers
OA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Pffft...You don't train people to use the AK, you tell them: Load magazine, pull trigger. ~;p

---

No, we learned to take it apart and assemble it in 30 seconds. We were all trained. And a few of us, such as myself, were trained with variants too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IrishArmenian

No, we learned to take it apart and assemble it in 30 seconds. We were all trained. And a few of us, such as myself, were trained with variants too.

---

Ya, I was just teasin' Watchman. I've actually fired a few rounds (5 or so) from the Egyptian version of the AK; Mahdi, Mahadi, MuaDeeb, whatever it's called.

I was surprisingly impressed with the weapon. The accuracy was decent and more important, it just felt goood :2thumbsup: . The M-16 wasn't nearly as much of a pleasure to shoot as that weapon. Strange really.

Yes, I find the AK-47 to be near perfect in its proportions. It feels just heavy enough, and the rifle butt seems to be a natural fit. The placement of the trigger is great too. It isn't the most widely recognised and used gun for nothing!

Hey Alex of Macedon, empty your PMs so I can reply to yours.

And to all others, sorry for the OT post.

Hi,

Murat, I would like to question your claim that the m-16 has better penetration than the ak-47. I do believe, that the 7.62 Russian has better penetration and ballistics, than the 5.56 NATO, big time. The 5.56 holds the edge when it comes to recoil, and trajectory, but the downrange energy retention of the 7.62 is priceless.