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

[Marshal Murat]

I'm sure any, if not all posters are knowladgeable about the AK-47. I was inspired by an NPR program on it, and have decided to post an entire thread on the AK-47. I have dubbed it the 'War-master' just because I can.

AK-47
A-Avtomat
K-Kalashnikova
19'47'

History
During World War 1, trench warfare covered northern and western France. The infantry man who could deal one shot, one death with his portable rifle. Then there was the machine-gun, dealing the firepower of hundreds of infantry. The trenches were opened up later by the Germans, with storm-troopers. Wielding semi-portable machine-guns, flame-throwers, and grenades, these soldiers cleared entire sections of trench, leaving it open for those that who followed.
In response, nations began the creation of machine-guns or machine-pistols. Rapid firing, compact weapondry, they were designed to 'sweep trenches clean' with fire.
However, the war ended before then. During the inter-war years, the Germans perfected 'blitzkrieg' and the sudden shock of a armored attack, dealing fire-power and destruction, ripping the enemy apart. The war was characterized by the two opposite ends. The heavy support machine-guns (Bren, BAR), light rifles (M1A1 Carbine), rifles (Kar, Mosin-Nagant, Lee-Enfield), and light machine guns (Thompson, MP40, PPSH). The rifles and support weapons had the range, the light weapons the firepower. A sythensis of the two was achieved by the Germans with the StG-44. Anyone who has played CoD knows what I'm talking about.

After WW2, the Cold War began. The Russians and Americans needed the sythensis. The StG-44 was the answer. Deemed an 'assault rifle', it combined the magazine size and firepower of a machine gun with a range of about 300 meters, better than many machine guns.


Specifications
Weight:3.8kg unloaded, 4.3kg loaded
Length:870mm
Barrel Length:415mm
Cartridge:7.62 by 39mm
Action:Gas-operated rotating bolt
Rate of Fire:600 rounds a minute
Muzzle Velocity:710 m/s
Effective Range:300 meter
Feed:30 round banana cartridge or 75 round drum
Sighting:Iron sights


The AK-47 in Current Conflict
The AK-47 is the creator of 'Cheap War' as I like to term it. No war is cheap, and Human Lives are precious creation of God.
The AK-47 is often used by fighters, militia, and third-world armies for some basic reasons.
The AK-47 is reliable, simple to manufacture, easy to clean, and long-lasting. The rounds never jam in the chamber, and chromium plating improve the ruggedness of the weapon. Simple iron sights.
The AK-47 however doesn't have accuracy and penetration at ranges that the American M-16, or modern first-world weapondry.

The AK-47 allows a man, with a couple dollars or equivalent to purchase safety. The AK-47, since it is cheap to produce and available across the world, can provide rebels, insurgents, patriots, militia, pirates, and private security forces with firepower. The UN actually watches the black market on AK-47s, for when the price goes up, war is approaching.
The AK-47 allows men to enforce their will, intimidate, defend, and attack with ease. If something doesn't go your way, buy an AK-47 and force it to go that way.
The AK-47 has often been bought by rebels, who hope to guerilla their way into power and prominence. Many nations have produced variants, identical to the Soviet design.
Albania, Bulgaria, Germany, Egypt, Hungary, Iraq, North Korea, China, Poland, Romania, Yugoslavia.

The United States, China, and Russia often provided client states, rebels, and others with an AK-47 and ammunition, training and repair kits for the AK-47. The AK-47 has provided men with the cheap and deadly weapondry that few could really afford before.

Mozambique has an AK-47 on their flag, Hezbollah has one on their flag, and Kalash has been used for African boys names.
The AK-47 has provided the means for cheap, reliable, and rugged firepower. It has lasted, and will contiune to last until it becomes useless.
In Guns of the South by Harry Turtledove, the South Africans actually provide the south with AK-47s for the war.
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47

[yesdachi]

The military channels show, Top Ten: Combat Rifles listed the AK-47 as their #1 and I couldn’t agree more.

[Randarkmaan]

I think the AK-47 is built on the principle that in a REAL war you won't necessarily have the time or the resources to train the soldiers how to clean and maintain their weapons. Also it may also be based upon a theory the Russians had before and during and after WWII that (again) in a REAL war you will have to be able to re-produce your arsenal many times over in a short time.

[KrooK]

According to my information PPSH was just bad russian version of finnish machine pistol Suomi.

And I can't agree with theory that M16 is better than Kalashnikov.
1)If you throw M16 into sand, it rather stop working. Kalashnikov will be working well.
2)You can shot both in Desert and Noth Pole.
3)Some years ago I was into Central Police Lab and they told us that normal
bulletproof vest won't help against Kalashikov.
4)Kalashikov is better for non-trained soldiers. They can easy learn how to care about their gun and there is no risk that they gun stop working, cause they cleared it bad.
5)Notice that happy customers prefer Kalashikov than M16.

It's just like Dragunov - American keep telling that US sniper guns is better, but despite that CIA gave 10.000.000$ for each Dragunov. :)

[Kääpäkorven Konsuli]

If Kalashnikova would have born in west, he would have been a millionaire.

[Marshal Murat]

The M-16, and most modern Army arsenal weapons are for the highly-trained, modern American soldier. One shot, one kill. Every bullet is used for a purpose. While it will jam (from what I've heard, quite often), you can hit a soldier 500 meters away, while the AK-47 can get a good shot at 300 meters, if he doesn't spray the weapon.
Kalashnikov is a cheap, effective, rugged weapon that is meant for irregular, low-tech, inexperianced soldiers.
M-16 is for the high-tech, first world soldier.

The Suomi and PPSH are pretty much identical twins.

Um, also what was the point of the post? You pretty much added to or restated my main post.

Also, Kalashnikov made no money from the actual design since it was for his 'Motherland' and all that. At least, not in the beginning.

[Randarkmaan]

According to my information PPSH was just bad russian version of finnish machine pistol Suomi.

The PPSh was an easy to produce version of the Finnish Suomi SMG, it also had a higher rate of fire and was as said really easy to manufacture, it could be made quicker than the Sten gun. Also a very large number of German soldiers on the eastern front looted PPSh's from dead Russians (whole batallions of soldiers were armed with them in the Red Army) as it supposedly never jammed and was a hell of a lot better in most respects when compared to the German MP40.

If you want to compared the Suomi to the PPSh, then I have a book from the time I was really interested in WWII armies...

Konepistooli M31 'Suomi'
Type: Submachine gun
Calibre: 9mm Parabellum
Length: 87 cm
Length of barrel: 31,75 cm
Weight: 4,86kg (without magazine)
Muzzle velocity: 400m per second
Feed: 20-, 50-, and 71-round box or drum magazine
Rate of Fire: 450 rounds per minute

Pistolet-Pulemet Schpagina obrazets 1941 'PPSh41'
Type: Submachine gun
Calibre: 7,62mm
Length: 84 cm
Lenght of barrel: 26,9 cm
Weight: 3,5kg
Muzzle velocity: 490m per second
Feed: 35-round box or 71-drum
Rate of Fire: 900-1000 rounds per minute

The M-16, and most modern Army arsenal weapons are for the highly-trained, modern American soldier. One shot, one kill. Every bullet is used for a purpose. While it will jam (from what I've heard, quite often), you can hit a soldier 500 meters away, while the AK-47 can get a good shot at 300 meters, if he doesn't spray the weapon.
Kalashnikov is a cheap, effective, rugged weapon that is meant for irregular, low-tech, inexperianced soldiers.
M-16 is for the high-tech, first world soldier.

The AK-47s have many times been used by professional well-trained soldiers... Israeli special forces for an example continued to use AKs rather than the new Galils and the M16s, though some use them. And I don't think I would call the Soviet army an inexperienced irregular army. Also think about it, in a real slugging match between two roughly equal armies the ability to equip soldiers with a weapon that they are able to use with very little training is priceless. Though now in modern times what matters more is your ability to just carpet-bomb the enemy position with planes and missiles, rather than shooting him with a rifle.

[Sarmatian]

I also heard that M-16 didn't respond very well to humidity, and that american soldiers in vietnam often discarded their weapons for AK-47's.
Number #1 rifle of all times, IMHO.

[AggonyDuck]

To counter the American M-16, Kalashnikov created his AK-47.

I don't think this is true, especially when the AK-47 predates the M16.

[KrooK]

Actually I don't think that you can shot M16 and hit target from 500 metres in normal conditions without scope :) Same with AK-47.
Let's compare typical situations:)
We shouldn't compare that guns into perfect situation because on war situation is hardly any perfect.

BTW there is a joke about American army basic training.
"Our instructors were telling us into USA that M16 is 10 times better than AK47. Then they went to Iraq to check if they are right. When they got back, they learnt how to spell Kalashnikov.

[Marshal Murat]

Ah, AK-47 was created because Kalashnikov knew what the Americans were making!

Also, the Suomi had 9mm so that you could use pistol ammunition in them (that's what i've heard)

[Beirut]

The M-16, and most modern Army arsenal weapons are for the highly-trained, modern American soldier. One shot, one kill. Every bullet is used for a purpose. While it will jam (from what I've heard, quite often), you can hit a soldier 500 meters away, while the AK-47 can get a good shot at 300 meters, if he doesn't spray the weapon.
Kalashnikov is a cheap, effective, rugged weapon that is meant for irregular, low-tech, inexperianced soldiers.
M-16 is for the high-tech, first world soldier.

Debatable, sir.

Any regular soldier who can hit a man sized target, under stress, at 500 yards with a single shot from an iron sighted M16 (I assume you refer to at least the A2 version), is not a regular soldier. He's an irregularly fine shot. If not outstandingly fine.

Any regular soldier who can hit a man sized target at 500 meters, under stress, with a single shot from 4x scope mounted M16A2 is still an irregularly fine shot.

Any regular soldier who can hit a man sized target ay 500 meters, under stress, with a single round from any version of the M16A3 model with the short barrel is probably owed a favour from the Almighty.

There is no more likelihood of spraying with an AK-47 than there is with any model of the M16. The weapon operator either choses to fire full auto or he does not.

In modern urban combat, in the hands of a highly trained soldier, there is truly not a big difference between the two weapons.

[Marshal Murat]

Ah well, never mind. Its history. If you got more information, add it. I'm sorry about any personal injection of opinion.

[Julian the apostate]

what about the rest of the list, remarkably large number of regular rifles and nothing outside of the Stegyr that has been created anywhere near recently.
i think the G-11 is more recent as are some other prototypes but nothing really has the cost efficency the m16 and AK do. I'm glad the M-14 got put on the list though brilliant weapon in my humble humble humble opinion

[Beirut]

Ah well, never mind. Its history. If you got more information, add it. I'm sorry about any personal injection of opinion.

Not at all. Personal injection of opinion is what makes these forums colourful.

I was merely responding to a debatable point with my own injection of personal opinion, I was certainly not trashing you personally.

[Del Arroyo]

Debatable, sir.

Any regular soldier who can hit a man sized target, under stress, at 500 yards with a single shot from an iron sighted M16 (I assume you refer to at least the A2 version), is not a regular soldier. He's an irregularly fine shot. If not outstandingly fine.

Any regular soldier who can hit a man sized target at 500 meters, under stress, with a single shot from 4x scope mounted M16A2 is still an irregularly fine shot.

Any regular soldier who can hit a man sized target ay 500 meters, under stress, with a single round from any version of the M16A3 model with the short barrel is probably owed a favour from the Almighty.

There is no more likelihood of spraying with an AK-47 than there is with any model of the M16. The weapon operator either choses to fire full auto or he does not.

In modern urban combat, in the hands of a highly trained soldier, there is truly not a big difference between the two weapons.

Not necessarily true. The leaf sights on the AK-47 and the lower quality of the parts mean that it is not a very accurate weapon beyond 100 meters or so, at least not nearly as accurate as the M-16 or the M-4. The "max effective range" of 300 meters can be interpreted the same way as the "max effective range" of 450-550 meters on the M-16/M-4 family-- it takes an uncommonly good/lucky shot to hit something out that far.

While I am sure that an AK-47 in the hands of a trained and skilled soldier is an effective weapon, there is no comparison between it an the M-4. US soldiers in Vietnam sometimes opted for AKs out of frustration with the especially malfunction-prone early versions of the M-16. The clearest evidence possible is that the best trained and most deadly Special Forces in the world, those of the USA, use M-4s.

[Watchman]

The clearest evidence possible is that the best trained and most deadly Special Forces in the world, those of the USA...

Bet you this one is debatable. Not that "deadliness" was really the point of SpecOps anyway (they're not line combat troops, after all), but rather being able to handle demanding special missions that are too much for common soldiery to handle.

Anyway, unless the Kalashnikov copy our army uses is considerably more accurate than the original design (AFAIK the main difference is the wooden furniture having been replaced with metal and plastic) the thing is accurate enough as far as a soldier can now be realistically expected to even be able to see his target properly, by what I know of witness statements of its performance. Probably goes for any long-arm that doesn't have genuine design flaws in that regard, really.

However, one constantly reads and hears all kinds of endemic whinage about the M-16. "Unreliable", "not enough stopping power" (although given that I've never heard of for example the French, Brits and Israelis having this issue with their 5.56s I'm guessing this is a "problem between the ears", as they say in our army), and the recoil spring that telescopes into the stock is apparently a bit of a pain in some regards. In comparision the Kalashnikov, originally introduced soon after the damn World War Two (one look at the German StG44 gives a major hint of its immediate ancestry), has rendered lethal and reliable service in just about every conceivable condition since then and so far as I know the -74 updated version is even better.

The M-4 kinda sucks really, AFAIK. Sure it's handy, but with a munition whose terminal effectiveness is very much dependent upon high muzzle velocity cutting down the barrel is sort of shooting yourself in the leg isn't it ? One local military magazine (done by active military personnel) here recently discussed in an article the pros and cons of SMGs and assault rifle carbines for police use, and commented on the latter something of a "risk of being left holding a macho looking varmint rifle in a tight spot" due to this velocity drop-off...

Also given the amount of tinkering that seems to be constantly going on around the M-16 lineage to rectify assorted problems one cannot but wonder if the whole thing just plain wasn't badly designed compared to rather a few other 5.56mm NATO ARs (FA-MAS, Galil, Sig-Sauer...), many of which also see regular active use apparently without a hitch, to begin with ?

[Beirut]

Not necessarily true. The leaf sights on the AK-47 and the lower quality of the parts mean that it is not a very accurate weapon beyond 100 meters or so...

I would hesitate to say that the AK-47 has "lower quality parts". I would wager that there are more twenty and thirty year old AKs floating around in service then M-16s. Durability is a tangible quality and the AK has it in spades. A 1970 Chevy pickup with a V8 might be made of "lower quality parts" than a Porshe, but we all know which one lasts longer, can handle a beating, and can often be fixed just by kicking it hard enough. We're not talking fighter planes with ground crews and sophisticated technology - we're talking battle rifles that get handled very roughly in severe environments and more often than not are used at far less than maximum range.

Also, if we are going to discuss the newer A2 and M4 versions of the M16, then we should not be comparing them to the AK47 but to the AK74, AK100, and the other, newer offspring of the original design.

[Pannonian]

I would hesitate to say that the AK-47 has "lower quality parts". I would wager that there are more twenty and thirty year old AKs floating around in service then M-16s. Durability is a tangible quality and the AK has it in spades. A 1970 Chevy pickup with a V8 might be made of "lower quality parts" than a Porshe, but we all know which one lasts longer, can handle a beating, and can often be fixed just by kicking it hard enough. We're not talking fighter planes with ground crews and sophisticated technology - we're talking battle rifles that get handled very roughly in severe environments and more often than not are used at far less than maximum range.

I've heard one of the plus ploints about the AK is that it can be effectively used as a club, whereas on the other end of the scale an SA-80 breaks if you look at it the wrong way. So it has both great killing power and non-lethal power for when you need to deliver a lesson but don't want to kill the victim.

[Del Arroyo]

The higher manufacturing tolerances on the AK47 mean that it has lower accuracy, period. It is a trade-off for durability. The leaf sights are un-zeroable and less effective for long-range fire, period.

I was not trying to say that the M16 was superior to other weapons of its type, or that it was even necessarily superior to the AK47. My aim was to refute the misguided assertion that the AK47 is practically as effective as the M16 in all ways, which is simply not true. Yes, the M16 jams like a mother*, but if you aim it properly it will hit that 300 meter target every single time. The same applies out to 500 meters, I am told, though I have personally never shot that far.

The Soviet line of weapons is more durable and perhaps more practical, but bottom line, if you want to make one shot, one kill, they are insufficient.

And yes, SF's primary mission is not direct action, but CAG's is, and they do make use of M4s (as well as a variety of other weapons).

..

Also, it is good to keep in mind that the M16/M4 series weapons that most people have had experience with have seen very heavy use in training, combined with insufficient maintanence, and use very old, worn out magazines. I am told that a fresher, properly maintained weapon using new magazines is much more reliable. In short, modern M16 family weapons, in actual practice, do not live up their bad reputation.

[Randarkmaan]

Also, the Suomi had 9mm so that you could use pistol ammunition in them (that's what i've heard)

You could do the same with the PPSh as the pistol calibre in most Red army pistols in this time was 7,62mm (very unusual for a pistol I've heard) and this was the same bullet used in the PPSh. The Germans even reconfigured some of the PPSh's that they captured so they could fire the 9mm magazines made for the MP40, this spared them the difficulty of looting clips of the battlefield.

Anyway it is true that the AKs focus on durability does reduce it accuracy, but this is mostly because of increased recoil and it being heavy, when firing one shot in normal combat circumstances it shouldn't really matter much if you were armed with an M16 or an AK47, though the M16 generally is more accurate and it's also lighter, but what makes the AK47 great is it's simplicity, durability and general effectiveness. The AK-74 is basically (so I've heard) the AK-47 reconfigured to fire a different calibre (5,45mm similar to the NATO 5,65mm) though with some other configurations. Many of the newer AK variants, are not as simple as the original weapons and have not been put into heavy use yet because of this.

[Spino]

Little known fact about the AK-47 is that there are tons of cheap copies or 'knockoffs' on the market that don't possess the ruggedness, reliability or accuracy of the original. There is a thriving small arms knockoff industry in the towns of western Pakistan that has been around since the Soviet Afghan war. They produce knockoff versions of just about every modern assault rifle and machine gun you can think of; AK-47, M-16, PKM, Uzi, etc. I'd hate to be the poor sap who buys one of those thinking it's the real deal.

You could do the same with the PPSh as the pistol calibre in most Red army pistols in this time was 7,62mm (very unusual for a pistol I've heard) and this was the same bullet used in the PPSh. The Germans even reconfigured some of the PPSh's that they captured so they could fire the 9mm magazines made for the MP40, this spared them the difficulty of looting clips of the battlefield.

One of the biggest drawbacks to the MP-40 was the fact that you couldn't fire it from a prone position (this proved to be a huge headache for German troops in Stalingrad). Accuracy, reliability and penetrating power aside one of the great things about the PPSh was that thanks to its standard rifle stock, barrel hand grip and drum magazine the user could fire it from a prone position without a problem.

[Beirut]

A vibrant gun debate. Love it.

The higher manufacturing tolerances on the AK47 mean that it has lower accuracy, period. It is a trade-off for durability. The leaf sights are un-zeroable and less effective for long-range fire, period.

The AK-47 was not designed for long range fire so it's not really fair that it be accused of not being able to handle it.

Yes, the M16 jams like a mother*, but if you aim it properly it will hit that 300 meter target every single time. The same applies out to 500 meters, I am told, though I have personally never shot that far.

Sure, if you're a good shot, and you're benchresting a custom heavy barrel M16 rifle, and are using match ammo on a calm day, and have a clear line of sight through a scope, you just might hit a 500 yard target every time. But you'd do better with a 50year-old bolt action 30-06 than an M16.

I've shot a fair bit at 350 measured yards (max clear distance at the sandpit) with a McMillan M86 .300 Winchester Magnum using Federal Premium ammo and could cut 3" groups, but my rifle had a 24" heavy match grade barrel, a Leupold Tactical 3.5-10X scope, a premium trigger and action, and a Parker-Hale bipod. I shot prone and took my time. Anyone who could cut a group three times that size, offhand, with an iron sighted M16 is a superb marksman, not a regular soldier.

Any rifle that holds one minute of accuracy at 100 yards is a very good rifle. A standard issue M16 of any make will not hold to one minute of accuracy. Therefore, at best, locked in a vice, an M16 will shoot 5+ inch groups (probably 10"+) at 500 yards. Add the stress of combat, the often unstable shooting positions, the less than match grade FMJ ammo, the inherent drop and wind drift associated with a .223 bullet over 500 yards, and you have a situation where hitting a man sized target at 500 yards every shot is an illusion.

[Avicenna]

Time to be really annoying and picky. You refer to the Kalahsnikov as if it were a 3rd world country. However, "3rd world" is an outdated term which doesn't fit a Russian weapon. A 3rd world country is one that was not aligned to either the USA or the USSR during the cold war. Of course, the Kalashnikov was a Soviet gun, so that term is invalid.

[AggonyDuck]

Ah, AK-47 was created because Kalashnikov knew what the Americans were making!

Well the American contemporary for the AK-47 would be the M14, not the M16.

[KrooK]

As someon reminded earlier, we shouldn't compare AK47 (early version) with M16 last version. Let's compare AK 47 early version with first version of M16.
Latest version of M16 should be compared with latest version of Kalashnikov (if I'm sure its AK47 2 - Specnaz Edition) or with modified versions (like polish Beryl). There is absolutely no difference.
According to theory that American special forces are best in the world, please check what Americans were telling about polish special forces after mission on Haiti :) American Delta Force is quite big and good, but there is many units that can be compare with it like GROM, SAS, GSG 9 and maybe with Commando Alfa (but this very brave unit sucked into some missions).

[Marshal Murat]

The modern American rifleman is supposed to be a average to superb marksman. The Afghani who wields an AK-47 can hit something, but doesn't have the range of the M-16. If you could pick off maybe two guys before he can shoot you with a degree of accuracy, then I would say go with the M-16.
AK-47 is a great weapon if you want to mass-equip and irregular, un-trained to average army. The US Army relies on good marksmen and support.

[Beirut]

The modern American rifleman is supposed to be a average to superb marksman. The Afghani who wields an AK-47 can hit something, but doesn't have the range of the M-16. If you could pick off maybe two guys before he can shoot you with a degree of accuracy, then I would say go with the M-16.
AK-47 is a great weapon if you want to mass-equip and irregular, un-trained to average army. The US Army relies on good marksmen and support.

T'would be a mistake to question the marksmanship of the Afghanis. Back when the USSR was in Afghanistan, the Afghanis taught a Soviets a very nasty lesson with decades old Lee-Enfields.

Also, there is the story of the British parachutists (the Blue Devils, I think) who, in the last stages of WWII, were taken on in the woods of Germany by over-aged professional hunters armed with old hunting rifles. The British were shot to pieces.

The point being that it is far less the weapon that wins the fight - it is he who wields it.

As for the statement "... to mass equip an irregular, un-trained and irregular to average army", it is worth considering that some of the toughest armies in the world either fielded the "original" AK series or variants thereof. Israel and South Africa to name just two. I believe only the FN-FAL saw as much service for as long a time.

Regarding the US soldier's marksmanship, doubtlessly many are excellent shots. Also, many are not. But the scope of urban battle does not often allow for a one shot one kill scenario in either case. As for Afghanistan and wide open distances, I would refer you to my previous post about the accuracy of the .223 bullet at long range in combat situations.

If you look at the rounds fired per kill statistics from Vietnam to Iraq, it is probably, on average, in the thousands to one range. When a US soldier empties six magazines in a firefight, it is doubtful he has hit 180 enemy soldiers.

Sorry to constantly argue, but I was a serious gun collector for twenty years and I've read a huge amount about these things.

[Del Arroyo]

The AK-47 was not designed for long range fire so it's not really fair that it be accused of not being able to handle it.

Quite true, my friend, but I am not trying to be fair. War is not fair. I merely wished to point out that there are distinct advantages to the M16 family of weapons which continue to make them preferred weapons for some of the most feared fighting men in the world.

If you want a real test, talk to some infantrymen who've done a tour or two in Iraq or Afganistan, and I bet I can tell you what you'll hear-- some praise for the AK, some gripes about sand and malfunctions, but not one soul who would rather change out his M16 for anything fielded by the opposition.

[IrishArmenian]

I have one in the room, believe it or not. It is in the closet, no but a meter away.
One has to be awed by all the deviations on it. They have made submachine guns, light machine guns and my baby... the Dragunov SVd.