Why U.S. didn't adopt the AK-platform?

[the Javid]

With the military issued M-4 and military ammo I have personally seen soldiers in my unit hit targets out to 800 meters. I personally can not produce this level of accuracy due to my current level of skill but I see it done often enough. The military version of both the ak and ar/m16 series are what this discussion is about not the shittiest ar build you can find versus a match grade AK.

 

[white rabbitt]

During the conflict in Vietnam GIs would often take the AK47s off dead Viet Cong and toss their M16s. Just saying

 

[the Javid]

Because the old M-16's jammed more than Bob Marley on weed and a weapon that fired was better than one that might fire. Now that this problem is fixed I would only pick up an AK in the field if I ran out of ammo.

 

[Happa Haole]

Afghan gunsmiths can produce a functioning AK entirely by salvaging parts from burned out cars using mostly hand tools. I don't think the same could be done with an AR. The AR platform is the weapon for a professional warfighter tight tolerance precision machined parts. The AK is a cheaply produced conscript's weapon to be handed out on mass in the hopes that sheer numbers of weapons on the field will carry the day. But to its credit the AK has replaced the pitchfork as a peasants weapon of choice.

 

[DarthZed]

Wasn't as familiar with them back then.

And agree with Chad's statement.

IIRC, during Fallujah - Marines were taking so many headshots on insurgents, the upper brass actually investigated to make sure they weren't executing them. It was determined the shots were made at hundreds of meters, since the head was the only real target a insurgent would provide to Marines from inside a building via a window.

AK may have more power, but power isn't anything unless you can accurately place it on something.

I would guess a lot of the accuracy attributed to the AR in the Middle East, vs the AK has to do with the better training of the average American soldier, and the better optic systems that most mount on their rifles. Rather than significant accuracy advantages of the AR platform. (plenty of videos showing decent AK accuracy at distance, just like there are plenty of videos showing AR reliability in adverse conditions)
If you put someone with an AK using iron notch sights, up against someone using an AR with an ACOG or EoTech/Aimpoint + magnifier; I know who my money would be on.

I have no doubt the AR is a more accurate platform, just saying that there is more going on than the inherent qualities of the two systems.

 

[Kinbote]

The Soviets went with their version of the STG44 round because they realized a mid-range cartridge would suit their doctrine, which was to mass infantry and suppress the target with a high volume of marching fire. That was why, after WWII, they had Hugo Schmeisser and other German firearms engineer dumb down their STG 44 so the Soviets could mass-produce it and simplify it enough that their uneducated, conscript army could use it. It was the perfect weapon for poorly-trained troops. It still is.

Comparing it to the M16A2 is like comparing a Model T to a Corvette. The AK does not begin to approach an AR when it comes to actual rifle distance accuracy. Even the Motor T, water-purificators, and air wingers in the USMC qualify with the M16 at distances up to 500 yds, on man targets, with their issue rifles and issue ammo. Those are among the MOS's in the Corps that receive the least marksmanship training and live-fire, far less than the infantry. Good shooters can hit man-sized targets well past 500m, with the issue iron sights. There is no AK that can do that, nor is it designed for that.

The standard 5.56 round will penetrate most barriers at most ranges better than the 7.62x39, and in all instances better than the 5.45. There are advantages to the AK, as there are to the Model T; cheaper, easier to make, doesn't require high-grade aluminum or high tolerance machinery, ease of use for those with little or no training. For a well-trained rifleman, the AK is as useful as a Model T would be to a well-trained driver. That is why the US has never issued, or considered issuing the AK.

 

[Nemesis]

The Soviets went with their version of the STG44 round because they realized a mid-range cartridge would suit their doctrine, which was to mass infantry and suppress the target with a high volume of marching fire. That was why, after WWII, they had Hugo Schmeisser and other German firearms engineer dumb down their STG 44 so the Soviets could mass-produce it and simplify it enough that their uneducated, conscript army could use it. It was the perfect weapon for poorly-trained troops. It still is.

Comparing it to the M16A2 is like comparing a Model T to a Corvette. The AK does not begin to approach an AR when it comes to actual rifle distance accuracy. Even the Motor T, water-purificators, and air wingers in the USMC qualify with the M16 at distances up to 500 yds, on man targets, with their issue rifles and issue ammo. Those are among the MOS's in the Corps that receive the least marksmanship training and live-fire, far less than the infantry. Good shooters can hit man-sized targets well past 500m, with the issue iron sights. There is no AK that can do that, nor is it designed for that.

The standard 5.56 round will penetrate most barriers at most ranges better than the 7.62x39, and in all instances better than the 5.45. There are advantages to the AK, as there are to the Model T; cheaper, easier to make, doesn't require high-grade aluminum or high tolerance machinery, ease of use for those with little or no training. For a well-trained rifleman, the AK is as useful as a Model T would be to a well-trained driver. That is why the US has never issued, or considered issuing the AK.

here you are vomiting up this crap again...

 

[BradMacc82]

I would guess a lot of the accuracy attributed to the AR in the Middle East, vs the AK has to do with the better training of the average American soldier, and the better optic systems that most mount on their rifles. Rather than significant accuracy advantages of the AR platform. (plenty of videos showing decent AK accuracy at distance, just like there are plenty of videos showing AR reliability in adverse conditions)
If you put someone with an AK using iron notch sights, up against someone using an AR with an ACOG or EoTech/Aimpoint + magnifier; I know who my money would be on.

I have no doubt the AR is a more accurate platform, just saying that there is more going on than the inherent qualities of the two systems.

I'll grant you that, better training with good optics does make that more feasible for our guys.

Although there's also a lot of people out there that shoot straight irons and have proven the rifle is capable of the accuracy, even out to quite respectable distances, provided the shooter is.

I like my AR's, I like AK's as well. They both have their strong suits, and areas that they could do better in.

 

[the Javid]

My question to the original poster is why the hell would they?

 

[04RWon]

i love ar's and hate ak's. 04rwon is soooo much better than me. Im going to give him all my ammo, my ar's, and my glocks. Im also going to reload ammo in all my free time just for him.

Really buddy?

 

[Kinbote]

If there's a specific statement you deny is true, just tell me. I admire your enthusiasm, but I don't think you fully understand how outclassed the AK is by the AR. I know you talk about shooting your AK at 50 yds and how you would like to have tested it at 100yds, but we are not talking about shooting rifles only at 50-100yds. The inherent accuracy of the AR, the better trigger, the immeasurably superior diopter sights with an 800m drum, usable safety, lighter mags, a much flatter-shooting cartridge that penetrates helmets at longer ranges, any one of these qualities would make the AR superior to the AK; the accretion of all of them utterly outclasses the AK.

You are still claiming the M16 is used by the US because it was not developed here. I pointed out to you last time that the MAG, the M249, the M9, the M11, the SMAW, Benelli M4, the 120mm cannon on the M1, the AT4, the SRAW, the current 81mm and 120mm mortars, hell, even the Mameluke sword, are all foreign weapon designs. They are all very effective in fulfilling their roles, however, while the AK can not begin to compete against the M16A2/4 with respect to Marine Corps requirements. That's why the AK is not going to be adopted by the US. Our military is not composed of illiterate rabble, so we don't need something tailored for that demographic.

You said:

its not unrealistic to think of guys sitting 500-600 yards off mortoring rounds with their aks while our guys are unable to punch through the walls and such to reach them.

I just want to point out that this is madness. When the guys with AK's meet men with AR's at 500-600 yds, the fellows with AK's are dead men.

 

[Nemesis]

you and i have been through this long ago, you couldnt make a solid point then and youre just reusing the same stuff...ill give you this much...you do a good job of sounding like you have a point...but thats about it

 

[Nemesis]

Really buddy?

yea buddy, sure...


at least then you would have a g23...

 

[04RWon]

yea buddy, sure...


at least then you would have a g23...

And a gen 4 at that!


Low blow lol. Ill have mine before i move...i hope lol

 

[Nemesis]

And a gen 4 at that!


Low blow lol. Ill have mine before i move...i hope lol

if not you can just leave it to me

 

[smores]

I understand that it would not look good for the "free" U.S. to adopt the "bad commy" gun. The Israelis did it when they built the Galil, though. We could have claimed that we were "inspired" by the Sturmgewehr instead.

Now it looks like using the AK-like piston in an AR-platform is the key to having a truly successful "weapon system" - thinking HK416 here.

Looking forward to your point of view on this.

Thanks.

Thanks.





Si vis pacem para bellum

follow me @DiscipleofJMB

 

[clandestine]

If there's a specific statement you deny is true, just tell me. I admire your enthusiasm, but I don't think you fully understand how outclassed the AK is by the AR. I know you talk about shooting your AK at 50 yds and how you would like to have tested it at 100yds, but we are not talking about shooting rifles only at 50-100yds. The inherent accuracy of the AR, the better trigger, the immeasurably superior diopter sights with an 800m drum, usable safety, lighter mags, a much flatter-shooting cartridge that penetrates helmets at longer ranges, any one of these qualities would make the AR superior to the AK; the accretion of all of them utterly outclasses the AK.

You are still claiming the M16 is used by the US because it was not developed here. I pointed out to you last time that the MAG, the M249, the M9, the M11, the SMAW, Benelli M4, the 120mm cannon on the M1, the AT4, the SRAW, the current 81mm and 120mm mortars, hell, even the Mameluke sword, are all foreign weapon designs. They are all very effective in fulfilling their roles, however, while the AK can not begin to compete against the M16A2/4 with respect to Marine Corps requirements. That's why the AK is not going to be adopted by the US. Our military is not composed of illiterate rabble, so we don't need something tailored for that demographic.

You said: I just want to point out that this is madness. When the guys with AK's meet men with AR's at 500-600 yds, the fellows with AK's are dead men.

He likes to argue about things he really shouldn't. Your posts are informative, accurate and TRUE but nothing you say or show with evidence/experience will sway him.

I think him abandoning the AK and buying AR's that he talked ill of for years speaks volumes, yet he still has blind bias for the AKM.

 

[Nemesis]

i find it funny that because i wont say or agree with the idea that the ar is so far superior in every single way that its the best thing since the wheel, electricity and sliced bread combined that i have been "speaking ill" of it...i just dont get it...its either one way or the other with you people, but i guess i shouldnt be surprised...and frankly, im not.

whatever...keep bashing the ak for all i care, nothing you say makes it any less of a strong platform.

 

[04RWon]

Nem has always said both are equally great rifles. Each has its pros and cons, something else hes always said. I wouldnt call the AR leaps and bounds beyond an Ak. The ak is a great platform, its just a different way of doing it. I wouldnt call it a model t to a vette. More like a Mustang to a Camaro. Direct competition.

 

[Markp]

Nem has always said both are equally great rifles. Each has its pros and cons, something else hes always said. I wouldnt call the AR leaps and bounds beyond an Ak. The ak is a great platform, its just a different way of doing it. I wouldnt call it a model t to a vette. More like a Mustang to a Camaro. Direct competition.

In some ways the AK is leaps and bounds above the AR and vice versa.... It all depends on what you are trying to accomplish.

If you are trying to arm as many people as you can as inexpensively as possible, the AK is leaps and bounds above the AR.

If however you're trying to engage targets beyond 300 yards, the AR has it all over the AK in their typical as issued military configurations with iron sights.

It's not much more complicated than that.