AK-47 vs. AR-15

Hi,

Thanks for the correction falnovice, I did mean to type "about 20 years", but I had a senior moment from the looks of it!:eek:

TR, I do agree that Kalashnikov was influenced by the German StG44, (my apology for incorrect nomenclature), to an extent. But the AK47 design was worked out by Kalashnikov starting in 1943/44. He did eventually head a design group to finalize his design and manufacturing methods needed to produce the AK47. Though it could also be argued that he was also influenced by the AVS36 or the even older Fedorov Avtomat, both Russian/Soviet designed select-fire rifles that predated any German development. Though admittedly, neither of those designs were very successful. Kalashnikov had plenty of home grown examples to learn from too.

If you look at the gas systems of the SVT40 and SKS45 with their top of barrel mounted gas block and gas piston operation and then look at the AK47. Now tell me, were did the idea for the gas system come from?

I cannot comment on the 7.62x41 cartridge, nor the development of the Makarov pistol. What I can say is, firearms development is incremental. New ideas are mostly refinements of what has gone before.

A quick comment on the manufacture of the AR/M16. While the use of investment cast receivers and plastics is often derided as costly and difficult. There are advantages to them in a service rifle if you can afford the up-front costs of manufacturing facilities and higher skilled work force. Plastics of course, are virtually maintenance free, and very fast to make by injection molding and require little to no extra machining. Investment casting of receivers is meant to yield what is called "near net shape". A few fast secondary operations, like drilling, reaming, and tapping and you can be done. Much faster than machining from sold stock. And I do agree with you, the army has taken a very nice, handy, light weight little carbine and ruined it.

And I'm with you on the combat thing. Make mine an AK too.

dalee
 
SIFU1A,

In any topic of conversation there is always “common knowledge”…..

However, that does not mean that “common knowledge” gives the whole story, or that it is even right. If you dig a bit deeper than a half hour History Channel program, a slightly different story on the origins of the AK emerges.

Here are some sources of my information:

“Sturmgewehr“ - Hans-Dieter Handrich.
“The German Assault Rifle 1935 - 1945“ - Peter R. Senich
“German Small Arms“ - AJR Cormack
“Guns of the Reich - Firearms of the German Forces, 1939 - 1945“ - George Markham
“Kalashnikov - The Arms and the Man“ - Edward C. Ezell
“Kalashnikov Arms“ - Alexei Nedelin
“The AK-47 and AK-74 Kalashnikov Rifles and Their Variations” - Joe Poyer
“The Black Rifle” vols 1 & 2 - Edward C. Ezell and Christopher R. Bartocci
“The AK 47” - Chris McNab
“The Ultimate Makarov Guide” - Walton H. Cude
“Small Arms of the World” - 6th, 10th and 12th edition - W.E.B. Smith and Edward C. Ezell

Now if you are really interested in finding out how the AK (and AR) were developed, I invite you to read these books. (And there are others as well)

My information is not just what I have read, however. I am a gunsmith by trade, and am a life-long student of firearms design. Through my prior military service and my career as a gunsmith, I am very, very familiar with the AK and the AR rifles, their use and construction.
I work for a company that manufactures AK rifles. I also have been fortunate enough to have closely worked with Ivan Kolov, the one-time head of arms design at Arsenal of Bulgaria, a major producer of AK rifles. We have had many detailed discussions about the AK, its origins, tactical role, and various manufacturing processes.

Ok…..now, to address some of your statements -

<< *kalashnikov did design the AK, him not a committee or team..(according to the history channel) >>

Sorry, but the History Channel got it wrong - partly. Kalashnikov, a humble tank sergeant and part-time gun designer, was the “Soviet face“ shown to the world. The communist Soviet bureaucratic system actively discouraged individual effort in favor of “collective effort“. Everything went through a committee or team. (just like bureaucrats of today, eh?) Although Kalashnikov did have some input into the design, the AK was largely developed by a team of captured German arms workers. Of course, this was all kept a highly guarded secret. In war, the victor wins the spoils - and gets to write the history. The Russians did both of these. After all, it would never do to let it be known that the great Soviet “Avtomat Kalashnikova obrazetza 1947g” - the most advanced rifle of its kind in the world - was actually a German design!

<< *the german StG had nothing to do with the design of the AK. i used to think the same thing and thats not correct, at least according to the history channel they specifically stated that although that was a common misconception due to the similarity in looks it was not true.. >>

Again, the “History Channel” gets it wrong. Although there are major differences between the two rifles, there are also a great number of similarities in design and construction. After all, the same designer (Hugo Schmeisser) worked on both rifles. The AK47 could be called a simplified and modified version of a rifle that combines design elements of both the Haenel MP44 and the Walther MKb42.

<< *if ya ever seen the 7.92 kurz its nothing like a 7.62X39. IIRC the 7.92 is a shortened 7MM (or 8MM??) mauser the 7.62X39 is something totally different. >>

Yes, I’ve seen (and shot) both rounds.
I never claimed that the 7.92 Kurz (which is 8mm, BTW) was like the 7.62x39 round. I DID say that the 7.62x39mm cartridge that the AK uses was originally a pre-war German design.

<< *the AK74 came out in '74 and is about the same thing as an AKM except the calibre, they didnt change anytthing because it already worked pretty well, IIRC soviet soldiers bitched because they preffered the larger round. >>

Over Kalashnikov’s strenuous objections, work on what became the AK74 started in 1969, headed by team leaders Alexey Kriakushin and Azariy Nesterov. The rifle had to be almost completely redesigned for the new cartridge. There were a number of changes made to the receiver, bolt, bolt carrier, and magazine. The finalized design was adapted by the Soviets in 1974, and is still in wide use today.

<< the original AK47 also was machined/forged rec'r, which they changed to stamped rec'r thus the AKM, so the AK has also evolved thru the yrs like the AR. >>

No, sorry - this is wrong. The ORIGINAL design for the AK47 called for a stamped sheet steel receiver, just like its German forbearers. Unfortunately for the Soviets, their technology for manufacturing a stamped steel receiver during peacetime was not as efficient as the Germans were during wartime…cracking and warping were problems…so, soon after production started they reverted back to the “ol tried and true” - receivers milled out of solid blocks of steel. You start with a 6 pound block of steel. Run it through a number of milling operations. (This takes around 3 to 4 hours on average on manual machines, NOT counting gauging.) When you are done, that block weighs a little over 2 pounds. The rest is on the floor. Wasteful and time consuming, even for communists…..
Starting in the mid-1950’s, a team (yep, there’s that word again) of IZHMASH engineers worked three to four years (reports vary, and some sources claim that the production techniques for this were stolen from Sweden.) to finally perfect stamped receivers for a new lightweight rifle, the Modernizirovanniy Avtomat Kalashnikova, or AKM.

<< *the AK47 predates the AR by ~ 2o yrs not 40 yrs. >>

I never said it did.

<< *anyone who has used an AK knows its not less accurate than commonly thought its MORE accurate and is plenty capable of hitting anything ya want to up to around 350 to 400 yards. both of my AK's will easily hit an 18" plate at 300 yards, with iron sites, while my AR's might be a little more accurate its not that much difference which suprised the heck outta me. folksa on the 'net would have you believe that over 250 or 300 yards ya might as well be throwing rocks if ya have an AK, very very much not true lol, and anyone who thinks that hasnt ever tried to hit anything at that range w/a AK. >>

My friend, you are preachin’ to the choir. In a well made example, an AK rifle is far more accurate than most people expect. (and not every AR shoots MOA, either)

<< now did the USSR steal the idea for a full auto rifle shooting an intermediate round from the nazis? i can buy that. >>

Ironically, it was the other way around. The “father” of the assault rifle was a Russian gent by the name of Federov. His 9.7 lbs rifle had a 600 RPM cyclic rate, a 25 round magazine and was chambered for a low recoiling “intermediate round” - the 6.5x50.5 Semi Rimmed cartridge - a Japanese round used in the bolt action Ariasaka rifle.

He did this in 1916.…..

TR Graham
The Glocksmith
 
<< TR, I do agree that Kalashnikov was influenced by the German StG44, (my apology for incorrect nomenclature), to an extent. But the AK47 design was worked out by Kalashnikov starting in 1943/44. He did eventually head a design group to finalize his design and manufacturing methods needed to produce the AK47. Though it could also be argued that he was also influenced by the AVS36 or the even older Fedorov Avtomat, both Russian/Soviet designed select-fire rifles that predated any German development. Though admittedly, neither of those designs were very successful. Kalashnikov had plenty of home grown examples to learn from too. >>

From 1942 to 1943, Kalashnikov was working primarily with a rather clumsy and complex submachine gun design, which was not adapted. From 1944 to 1945 he was involved with a self loading carbine similar to the SKS. It was not adopted either. I think you will find that the earliest “AK” design started in 1946.

<< If you look at the gas systems of the SVT40 and SKS45 with their top of barrel mounted gas block and gas piston operation and then look at the AK47. Now tell me, were did the idea for the gas system come from? >>

The earliest rifle I can name (and I could be wrong) that used a gas piston in its design was the Mexican designed and Swiss-built Mondragon of 1908. From my reading I know that this rifle was closely examined by arms designers in both Germany and Russia.

<< I cannot comment on the 7.62x41 cartridge, nor the development of the Makarov pistol. What I can say is, firearms development is incremental. New ideas are mostly refinements of what has gone before. >>

It came as a surprise to me as well.
However, I absolutely agree - firearms development is incremental. Look at Kalashnikov’s early designs. Where is the AK? There are SOME design elements, but overall the rifle seems to owe more to Schmeisser than Kalashnikov…..

<< A quick comment on the manufacture of the AR/M16. While the use of investment cast receivers and plastics is often derided as costly and difficult. There are advantages to them in a service rifle if you can afford the up-front costs of manufacturing facilities and higher skilled work force. Plastics of course, are virtually maintenance free, and very fast to make by injection molding and require little to no extra machining. Investment casting of receivers is meant to yield what is called "near net shape". A few fast secondary operations, like drilling, reaming, and tapping and you can be done. Much faster than machining from sold stock. And I do agree with you, the army has taken a very nice, handy, light weight little carbine and ruined it.

And I'm with you on the combat thing. Make mine an AK too.

Dalee >>

Again, I agree with you. I’ve often thought how the AK would look and function if it were made using “modern“ production methods and materials…..I have some design drawings of my own along these lines.

The less said about the M4 and “doo-dads” the better, and like you, I’ll still keep my AK. Shake?

TR Graham
The Glocksmith
 
Which AK maker do you work with, TR?
 
Absintheur said:
They why has no one ever shot one in the service rifle class at Perry? Th AK is a good firearm but not in the same class with the AR as far as accuracy. It is as accurate as it needs to be for the purpose it was designed for but out past much over 200 yards a good hit is not nearly as likely as it is with the AR and a headshot through a window would be a matter of luck more than skill.



Actually they are very similar as far as specs,

7.62X39-
bullet diameter: 311
bullet weight: 123gr
velocity: 2300 fps

7.92 Kurtz-
bullet diameter: .323
bullet weight: 125gr
velocity: 2247fps
Click to expand...

have you ever shot an AK at ranges over 200 yards??
i have.

also an AR and M4, i dont know about camp perry but believe me an AK will do just fine at that range, in combat, which is what the thing is designed for, and it will do it long after the AR has stopped functioning due to being dirty.

imho a head shot at 300 yards with any military style rifle with irons is gonna be a lotta luck lol mostly due to the sights, for an average rifleman anyway.

believe it are not most folks in the military arent gun nutz and really arent that great a shots (most of the guys i know arent anyway, & i know a mixture of USAF, nat'l guard, army and USMC, active, & reserve and retired) and imho maybe 10%(probably less than that FWIW) could actually take advantage of the superior accuracy of an AR at that range the rest of them simply arent good enough shots, my best bud works for dyncorp, has been a contractor in iraq, been to air assault school, 15 yrs active duty, and he does good to hit an 18" plate at 300 yards 7 outta 10 shots with an AR or an AK, makes no differnce to him and i'd wager it wont to most folks,

imho thats probably part of the reason the US army doesnt still general issue the M14 even though its more accurate at longer distances the average rifleman cant shoot good enough to take advantage of it, thats what snipers are for FWIW.

now to me, if i can hit something like that plate at 300 yards, with irons, off hand, consistantly, to me thats good enough for combat, which, IIRC thats what the AK was designed for, not camp perry. if ya dont think i cant take my stock maahdi and get 10 straight hits, on a 18" plate, at 300 yards, with irons, next time ya are in my neck of the woods and ya wanna put your money were your mouth is give me a shout cause i've BTDT already lotsa times lol.

imho its hard to argue with success and i dont think anyone is saying the AK isnt very successfull at combat, cemetaries the world over are full of examples FWIW.

i swear you AR fans, lol, always with the "superior accuracy" , i guess ya tout that cause thats really the only way the AR is superior in any way, not as reliable, harder to clean, more expensive, more finicky, not as good a calibre/doesnt hit as hard, i guess its easier to hang doo dads of off lol, & yes i have a doo dad or 2 on mine lol.

and again, i love my AR, really do, but anyone who doesnt think an AK is just as good for what its designed for, imho doesnt know WTF/hasnt actually shot one, plain & simple.
 
Last edited:
I know this post will be taken out of context and misquoted just like every other post I have made in this thread has but I will give it one more try.

I never said the AR was a superior firearm to the AK, I said (repeatedly I might add) that both are equally good with each having qualities that surpassed the same qualities in the other firearm. Is the AR more accurate?...yes. Will it function after gross maltreatment and failure to do adequate maintenance?...no. With a minimum of proper care will it function as well?...yes. Will the round used by the AR platforms, specifically the 5.56 stop effectively?...yes. Is the 7.62X39 effective?...yes.

As I stated both work well, my objection is the fact some seem to feel the AK platform is better and while it is a better weapon for some people it is not superior in design. Overall both are about equal.
 
I own both an AK and an AR, and they have been equally reliable; zero issues with either. If I had to pick one, I suppose I would have to choose the AK simply due to the larger size of the round.
 
TR Graham said:
Elk River Tool & Die in Houston, Texas. (Formerly known as Global Trades/Armory USA)

We manufacture receivers and complete rifles in both 7.62x39 & 5.45x39.

TR Graham
The Glocksmith
Click to expand...

Ah, excellent. I've owned a Global gun in the past. I've also used Chris at AK103.com to do some work for me. I can't decide which of the 3 AK's I like the best, so of course I'll simply have to buy a few more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top