<< If you want to compare the AK vs. the AR/M16 you need to understand how they each were designed and what manufacturing, tactical, and training philosophies they were meant to meet. It soon becomes an apple-to-oranges comparison. >>
Agreed. Tactics dictate technology, and technology dictates tactics. The AK and AR are excellent examples of this. The AK is a submachine gun that can also be used as a rifle. The AR is a rifle that can also be used as a submachine gun.
<< The AK47 is a cutting edge design based on lessons that were being learned by the Germans and Russians during WW2. Kalashnikov got his basic idea from combat studies done by the Soviet military, (the Germans did the same types of studies that came to the same conclusions which lead to the G43), that demonstrated that small-arms combat takes place at ranges of typically less than 300 meters. The Soviet Ordinance Board had made the determination, (due to such studies), that a new round, the 7.62x39 would replace the much more powerful 7.62x54R as the standard small-arms rifle round. This helped to make it much easier to design a weapon that could become the AK47. There is little doubt that Kalashnikov got his basic design premise from the German G43. Other aspects, such as the gas operating system, he got and refined from the SVT40 rifle and SKS45 carbine, (the SKS45 was in combat field-trials before the end of WW2). And as some of you have alluded to, the actual manufacturing methods are based upon the then current technology available during WW2. Kalashnikov would have available, manual lathes, mills, and punch-presses run by poorly educated and poorly trained workers working under very tough war time conditions. So it has to be simple, fast, and easy to make. That's why it they can be made in a basement or candy-shop with the crudest of tooling. >>
(Some clarification is in order here - when you write G43, I take it that you are referring to the MP42/43 - NOT the Gewehr 43, which was a full powered (8mm Mauser ctg.) semiauto rifle which had a design similar to the later Russian SKS.)
Contrary to popular believe, the AK47 was not designed by Mikhail Kalashnikov. He headed the design team that did the work, but the rifle as a whole was not his original idea.
Surprised? Dont be. Keep in mind that by the end of WWII, the Soviets had captured almost all of Nazi Germanys arms and ammunition manufacturing centers. Not only did they get machine tooling, but they also got blueprints, prototypes, and in many cases, the actual workers and designers who made these weapons. At the end of the war, a large number of these German arms technicians were sentenced by the Soviets as war criminals and forced to work for the USSR. The AK47 was actually designed by a group of captured German arms technicians headed up by Hugo Schmeisser, who also designed the MP42/43/44 series, later known as the StG44, or Sturmgewehr 44 (Storm or Assault Rifle 44) for the German firm of Haenel. A young tank sergeant / part time arms designer, Mikhail Kalashnikov, was selected by the Soviets as the nominal head of this group that were working on one version of the Soviet Avtomat . The AK47 is primarily a German WWII design built to post WWII Soviet manufacturing standards. The AK is not the only example of this - other examples of Russian weapons that were in fact German designed would include the Makarov pistol and the RPG. Even the 7.62x39 cartridge is a pre-war German design. BTW - the original chambering for the AK47 was intended to be 7.62x41mm, again another German pre-war design. (Seems the Soviets had their own advocates for long range and powerful rifles.) However, Soviet battle doctrine was geared around mass firepower at very close range, (a tactic retained to this day) so the smaller and less powerful 7.62x39 cartridge (chambered in the SKS) was used instead.
Although they share the same cartridge and are both gas operated, the design of the SKS had very little to do with the development of the AK. The SVT even less.
<< It also had to meet the design criteria that, at that time, the average WW2 Soviet soldier had little formal education beyond reading and writing, (think conscripted village peasants), and often even less military training before being sent into combat. It wasn't going to get much maintenance by these guys. It had to be rugged to stand up to the field conditions it would be deployed in, from snow to sleet to mud to dust. To this end, the AK47 is renowned. >>
For any soldier, of any nation, simpler is always better. This is especially true with weapons. Training time is reduced. Maintenance time is reduced. Manufacturing time is reduced. Also, a simple weapon is generally stronger and much more reliable than a complex one. All good things.
<< And finally, it had to meet the Soviet tactical philosophy of combat. Simple, yet brutal, close with the enemy. Eyeball to eyeball. Add in urban combat, and you can see why 500 meter accuracy isn't needed or even desired, but fire power is. >>
Very true. It is no accident that the first position off safe on an AK is full auto. It is also no accident that the first position off safe on a M16 is
..semi.
<< In the end, the AK47 design is from a whole different era, designed for a whole different tactical premise, and a whole different type of soldier. That it remains a viable weapon today is a testament to the designer for getting it so right the first time. >>
Again, very true. I would say that the AK is a generation and a half behind the AR in terms of manufacturing technology. However, this German designed and Soviet manufactured rifle is still the most popular assault rifle in the world today for some very good reasons - it is strong, it is simple, and it is reliable.
<< The AR/M16 platforms came along almost 40 years later, (hey, nobody said we were smart), and takes advantage of far more modern technology. Eugene Stoner came from an areo-space background and was accustomed to working with more advanced materials and manufacturing methods. Investment-cast aluminum receivers and fiberglass/plastic stock parts require a much more advanced industrial base than the Soviets had back in the day. It's far more difficult and costly to make AR/M16's. But we can afford to and we can do it. >>
And if Stoner and Johnson hadnt been so intent on utilizing aerospace derived materials and technology in the AR10/15, we might have gone to Vietnam with the far simpler and easier to make AR18, which is a very close cousin to the AK. LeMay and McNamara saddled the military with the first girl who kissed em
..
<< The AR/M16 can be a very accurate rifle. It appeals to the "every US soldier is a marksman" mythos that we ascribe to. I'm not really sure how true that is anymore. But, in any case, US soldiers are very well educated and very well trained. So they can be issued a more complex and harder to maintain weapon than some poorly trained conscript and have it function well. >>
Yes, but that accuracy comes at a cost - reliability. In the hands of a skilled rifleman, the AK is not as inaccurate as some people think. There is a difference between mechanical accuracy (what the weapon will do) and practial accuracy. (what the weapon will do in the shooter's hands) You would be right about the myth of a "Nation of Riflemen". Many of the high tech doo-dads now fitted to the M4 are an attempt to "buy practical accuracy".
And about the education of the US soldier..... in peacetime, Id say you are right. However, any long war tends to lower personnel standards. As I type this, I have in front of me a FM for the M16 on Operation and Preventive Maintenance
.printed in comic book form.
<< Still the US Army had to be forced to adopt the M16. They were still stuck on the idea that only a full powered "real" rifle would do, like the M14 at that time. But general trends in tactical thinking from lessons learned in Afghanistan and Iraq were urban combat is the rule, seem to be leading to a need for a slightly more "punchy" round than the 5.56 and less need for long range effectiveness. The AR/M16 platform could easily be adapted to a bigger round. It is a testament to the versatility, and adaptability of the basic design. >>
The US military tends to be conservative about personal weapons. They would much rather have funding for a new weapons systems than for something as mundane as a rifle. Weve kept the M16 more out of inertia than anything else. It works, after a fashion - but it is far from the best rifle of this type available. The 73 years we kept the 1911A1 pistol in standard A service would be another example of this.
<< Which is better? My opinion is neither is better than the other. They both meet their respective design constraints well. Which do I own? Neither. I've used them both, and I frankly have little need to own either of them. I'm more into fine upland SxS shotguns than rifles of any kind. I do have a Yugoslav M59/66 SKS though. So pay your money and make your choice, you won't really be wrong. Dalee >>
I own many examples of both rifles, and have used both types in a wide variety of circumstances. I take my ARs to the range. I play games with them, punch paper, and sometimes think nostalgically about my time in the service. I dont look down on the rifle. Its fine - as long as the operator understands its limitations.
However - for ME - if I were back on a battlefield, Id want an AK.
TR Graham
The Glocksmith
