AK-47 inventor: U.S. troops in Iraq prefer my rifle to theirs

[TorchMan]

My friends that were in the military, especially those in the army, liked the AK better for reliability and simplicity. AR was better for distance and accuracy. They own both as civilians, and recommended the AK to me. Just their opinions.

I also seem to remember that the original Stoner rifle had a lot of chrome plating, and that the first M16s did not, as McNamara was trying to save money?

 

[HarryN]

I read a report (cannot remember where) that the reason some US troops were using AKs was not so much the "gun" issue, but that they could not carry enough ammo. The idea was that they could capture additional AK ammo during a raid and continue on instead of having to be re-supplied.

 

[Lee1959]

The powder the M16 was designed to use was also changed to a dirtier burning powder that along with the lack of achrome plated bore hurt the performance of the first M16's. It was not designed for a chromed bore and the army wanted one, but it was nixed by Mcnamara by saying if it needed one, Stoner would have designed it with one

. Add to that the fact that the first troops issued them were told that the M16 did not need cleaning and were not issued cleanings rods, well you had the recipe for a diaster.

Neither the M16 or AK are perfect, and are built around some different ideas of battle tactics I believe. The US Army still adhears to aimed accurate rifle fire more than the older Russian mass tactics.

The Isreali's thought neither was perfect but both good, which is why they adapted ideas from each into the newer Gallil rifle isnt it?

 

[guncollector]

I read a report (cannot remember where) that the reason some US troops were using AKs was not so much the "gun" issue, but that they could not carry enough ammo. The idea was that they could capture additional AK ammo during a raid and continue on instead of having to be re-supplied.

My cousin, who is a Navy Doctor (assigned to 1st Marine), did 2 tours in Iraq in recent years.

When we last chatted, he told me as an officer he was only issued an "M9" (Beretta 92). He advised me that on both tours his first task was to pick up a locally-sourced AK-47 to supplement his M9. He advised that his command was completely aware of his small arms "supplement".

Depending on what branch, unit, and specialty, I believe you can get away with having non-regulation firearms on your person there in theater. My understanding though is that not all units permit it, in fact the greater percentage does not.

 

[Zigzago]

I used to own an AK clone (Bulgarian) and liked it, but the ergonomics of the safety lever seemed poor. You have to move one of your hands from the firing position to operate it and it makes a loud sound.

I always wondered if troops patroling in combat areas carried the AK with the safety on or off.

 

[Mike Painter]

JM,

Yes, I'm looking for the actual reports on Jam/Misfire info. We've been at this for more than 3 years, I'm thinking that by now, there should be some fairly detailed analysis of the problem, if there is one.

Especially in light of the militaries penchant for demanding reports!!

Bill

Probably won't see to many of those. We were using m-14's when in basic and they were still used for the most part in Viet Nam at the time. We went from barracks and squeeky clean M-14's to a night fireing exercise with rain, wind and sand (Fort Ord, CA) Within five minutes no weapon could be fired without jamming the bolt home with your hand. Failure to do so caused a jam that could only be "cleared" by standing up and smashing the bolt on the edge of something to release it. We went back to barracks within 20 minutes and tried it later on a night with no wind and no rain.

I saw a .45 jam once but somebody had left a part out.

 

[Navck]

I have a video of people really abusing two AK47s, including opening it up and stuffing dirt into it. The gun still fired.

 

[magic79]

One issue that hasn't been touched on (well sort of in one post) is that the AK is a LOT heaver than the M-16 and so is the ammo. You can physically carry a lot more 5.56 NATO than 7.65x39.

If that's important...

Personally, I think the AR-15/M-16/M-4 is the best rifle ever designed.

BTW: Navck's post reminded me of the site where a guy takes a Glock and fills it with sand, mud, water, drops it off a building, freezes it in a block of ice, etc. and it never fails to fire. (huh...I searched for it and it's no longer on the web...it's for sale as a video!)

 

[nerdgineer]

Even the Soviets changed over from the AK-47 to the AK-74 because they liked the American idea of a small, high velocity bullet better.

Under 200 meters the 5.56 will tumble, separate at the channelure, and partially fragment making for devastating wounds starting about 6" deep in soft tissue. The Soviet 5.6mm round has an air pocket in tip behind the jacket which deforms instantly upon hitting soft tissue so the bullet will tumble in the first 3 inches or so of soft tissue, making for much more disruptive shallow wounds.

I think the 74 is still was basically the AK design though (one piece gas piston/operating rod/bolt carrier/bolt unit which makes for a VERY large recoiling mass in the gun, which improves reliability and reduces accuracy) vs the AR design with it's much lighter bolt/bolt carrier recoiling group which does the opposite.

The US design pays a price (in lighter recoiling mass) for its very, very extraordinary accuracy in a light weight military rifle. The AK pays a price for its extraordinary reliability (less accuracy, carry fewer rounds for the same weight - running out of ammo can kill you too).

Too bad you can't be like a flashaholic and carry both.

 

[guncollector]

Under 200 meters the 5.56 will tumble, separate at the channelure, and partially fragment making for devastating wounds starting about 6" deep in soft tissue. The Soviet 5.6mm round has an air pocket in tip behind the jacket which deforms instantly upon hitting soft tissue so the bullet will tumble in the first 3 inches or so of soft tissue, making for much more disruptive shallow wounds.

Neither the current issue ammunition for US Forces, M193 (55-grain) and M855 (62-grain), does much tumbling anymore. This is an acknowledged problem, as often rounds are completely perforating their intended soft targets--instead of dumping the energy into them.

This was particularly noteworthy as one of the harsh lesson of the fighting in Somalia, the so-called "Black Hawk Down" incident. All too many of the Somalis were "walking-dead"--shot multiple times but not bled out yet, and able to continue returning fire. This was exacerbated by the disproportionate use of M855 ammo by the Rangers at the time.

Now, in Vietnam, in its original configuration, the M16-platform did truly overstabilize ("overrifled" would be more accurate) the 55-grain round; leading to truly devastating wounds. Sometimes, however, rounds would simply disintegrate in thin air (the centrifical force applied them surpassing the physical integrity of the bullet projectile). In this original format, it was a one-shot stopper <200 meters. Reports of horric founds and limbs blown completely off by 1 round, etc. This led the Vietnamese to actually file a Diplomatic appeal to the UN; which led to the redesign of the ballistic qualities of the M16/M193 platform to be more "humane".

Not that a current M193 or M855 round can't tumble given the correct conditions, rifle with correct rifling-twist, etc.; but in its current format it is not designed to tumble...

Sorry for the longwinded reply.

 

[TorchMan]

Also heard that the U.S. military lowered the rate of fire for the AR in Vietnam because soldiers using it on full auto expended all ammo rapidly, especially the newest troops. And now it's three burst and no full auto?

Mechanical remedies for poor training issues is almost never a good idea; and 3-burst-option didn't prove any different. Most of the new M4 Carbines have back the full-auto option.

 

[jeep44]

My son is over in Iraq right now,serving in a MITT team, fighting with the Iraqi army. He called me the other day, and told me about a large weapons cache they had captured-there were examples of almost any Soviet-type arm you can name. I asked him if it was possible to bring any of the semi-auto rifles home, and his comment was, "Ahh,it's all crap-we smash 'em all against a tree"

He could carry any weapon he chooses,including an AK (all of his Iraqi Jundis carry them,of course),but he carries an M4. Lighter,simpler, with vastly superior optical sights,with all sorts of add-ons like M203 grenade launchers and IR laser sights.
Lately, he had added to his firepower by ALSO carrying his Benelli shotgun-things are pretty rough there right now.

 

[Mike Painter]

<snip> This was particularly noteworthy as one of the harsh lesson of the fighting in Somalia, the so-called "Black Hawk Down" incident. All too many of the Somalis were "walking-dead"--shot multiple times but not bled out yet, and able to continue returning fire.

Re-learned.

In response to problems encountered by American units fighting Moro insurgents during the Philippine-American War, the then-standard .38 Long Colt revolver was found to be unsuitable for the rigors of jungle warfare, particularly in terms of stopping power as the Moros had very high battle morale and frequently used native drugs to inhibit the sensation of pain.

We were taught about this in 1962 in MP training. (In basic we were taught that an army could never succeed over a guerilla force if the people supported it. They stopped teaching that to the grunts as Viet Nam escalated and now have started teaching it to the officers only.)

 

[chevrofreak]

The AK has the more reliable action and gas system design, while the AR has better ergonomics and accuracy.

AK accuracy, has been exagerated for years, and is often due to the ammo used. With good brass cased US made ammo an AK is very accurate.

The latest and likely best AK action evolution would probably have to be the SIG 550. The SIG 550 is considered to be as accurate as an AR and as reliable as an AK.

Some other rifles I like are the Daewoo K2, FN FNC and Robarm XCR, any of which I would prefer over the AR15/M16.

 

[guncollector]

The AK has the more reliable action and gas system design, while the AR has better ergonomics and accuracy.

AK accuracy, has been exagerated for years, and is often due to the ammo used. With good brass cased US made ammo an AK is very accurate.

The latest and likely best AK action evolution would probably have to be the SIG 550. The SIG 550 is considered to be as accurate as an AR and as reliable as an AK.

The evolution to an AK-piston-style action is inevitable in the next issue Service Rifle. No one in their right mind would continue with Stoner's chamber-venting system. I believe the current iteration, H&K G36, is already in field-testing in Iraq.

Some other rifles I like are the Daewoo K2, FN FNC and Robarm XCR, any of which I would prefer over the AR15/M16.

All beautiful rifles. The FNC is a personal favorite of mine.

 

[CM]

Neither the current issue ammunition for US Forces, M193 (55-grain) and M855 (62-grain), does much tumbling anymore. This is an acknowledged problem, as often rounds are completely perforating their intended soft targets--instead of dumping the energy into them.

This was particularly noteworthy as one of the harsh lesson of the fighting in Somalia, the so-called "Black Hawk Down" incident. All too many of the Somalis were "walking-dead"--shot multiple times but not bled out yet, and able to continue returning fire. This was exacerbated by the disproportionate use of M855 ammo by the Rangers at the time.

Now, in Vietnam, in its original configuration, the M16-platform did truly overstabilize ("overrifled" would be more accurate) the 55-grain round; leading to truly devastating wounds. Sometimes, however, rounds would simply disintegrate in thin air (the centrifical force applied them surpassing the physical integrity of the bullet projectile). In this original format, it was a one-shot stopper <200 meters. Reports of horric founds and limbs blown completely off by 1 round, etc. This led the Vietnamese to actually file a Diplomatic appeal to the UN; which led to the redesign of the ballistic qualities of the M16/M193 platform to be more "humane".

Not that a current M193 or M855 round can't tumble given the correct conditions, rifle with correct rifling-twist, etc.; but in its current format it is not designed to tumble...

Sorry for the longwinded reply.

You guys ever heard of Mk262 ammo? This addresses all the shortcomings of current issue M855 which is a pretty mediocre round unless you're trying to pierce light body armor. Mk262 is basically a 77gr open tip match ammo loaded HOT. For those not familiar with high power competition, the heavy rounds similar to Mk262 are the ones dominating the 1000yd line at competitions. Mk262 is not common as it is issued only to SF as well as some contractors.

 

[nerdgineer]

Neither the current issue ammunition for US Forces, M193 (55-grain) and M855 (62-grain), does much tumbling anymore. ..

I'm sorry to hear they changed the M193 design. The original classic article specifically referred to 1980's version of both the M193 and SS109 as being capable of tumbling/fragmentation.

Since we're actually at war now, maybe we should think of going back to the original design...

 

[guncollector]

I'm sorry to hear they changed the M193 design. The original classic article specifically referred to 1980's version of both the M193 and SS109 as being capable of tumbling/fragmentation.

Fackler is ballistician's ballistician!

It wasn't so much they changed the M193's design, as they changed the M16's rifling. Any bullet shape-weight combination, is capable of tumbling and fragmentation given they're fired out of the right rifle length & twist; the M193 & M855 no exception.

The original Colt XM-15's and early M16-A1's (think early triangular forearms) with 20" barrels and 1:16 (?) twist were perfect examples of the "tumbler"-launching rifles if you will--with the M193 ammo, mind you (the M855 is a more recent cartridge development).

Today, most M16-A2 (20" barrels) and M16-A4 carbines (16" barrels), and M-4 carbines (14" barrels) are rifled with a lower rate 1:7 or 1:9 twist; resulting in overall greater stability of the exiting (M193 and/or M855) projectile optimized for longer range shooting--consequently there's less of a "tumbling" characteristic.

Also, a bullet can tumble upon hitting bone, and so will one which is slightly deflected--not uncommon occurences I imagine on the battlefield.

 

[tvodrd]

In the spirit of this thread, I was in I-corps Vietnam in '68-'69. I never saw a fellow Marine carrying an AK! (You could bring an SKS back, but they were really scarce, and ammo was unobtainable stateside at the time.) Damn, have things changed! I had a Chinese AK abt 20 yrs ago. There was a pin that retained the the forestock. It would burn your fingers 2/3 way through a magazine! IMO, POS!

Larry

 

[zulu45]

+1 to perfer the AK-47. I own one, and I perfer it over the AR-15 anyday. I even perfer my FAL over the AR-15. Don't get me wrong, the AR is a fine rifle, but it just isn't the gun for me.