Proposed replacement for the M4: The AKM

Status
Not open for further replies.
hunter- as in a piston driven AR? there are allot of those on the market.


all you are talking about is a rifle that uses a gas piston and a bolt that doesnt require a buffertube. there are many designs that are close but i dont really see any advantage. if you dont have a buffer tube, its a gas piston, then whats left about it to be an ar-15?
 
Even if it would be a better and/or cheaper replacement; the US military would never go for it solely based on the basis of who made it.

That platform in any caliber they want. Why not(besides who made it)?
Be it government or large corporation bureaucracies, all seem to suffer from the NIH syndrome.
 
ok I'll bite.
REASONS THE AKM WILL NEVER REPLACE THE M4.
BY TAHUNUA001,
1. worse ergonomics(subjective)
2. less ambidextrous(fact)
3. more expensive materials, lets face it, the century centurion, which is the only us made akm is much more expensive than a budget brand ar15 and lower quality than an AR of equal monetary value, a military friendly design would be prohibitively expensive.
4. more complicated. I had to field strip my AKM at least once every 2 months, irregardless of whether it had been used or not to combat recurring rust issues with the internals. the rust is not one of my reasons because that's a maintenance issue that a well supplied infantry unit will likely not have to worry about however with all of that practice disassembling and reassembling the AKM, I could not do so in less than 3 minutes. until recently I had cleaned both of my AR15s once, one when I was first learning how to do so, the other to try and troubleshoot reliability issues(it was magazine related, not rifle related). 2 weeks ago I cleaned one of my ARs for the first time in 3 years and it took less than 30 seconds to field strip, less than a minute to reassemble, that is absolutely essential in a combat environment for rapid maintenance.
5. more modular, you can slap anything on a stoner based rifle and it feels like it was designed with that accessory in mind, such ease of modification does not come easy to the AKM.
6. optics ready, the top of the AKMs reciever is a thin sheet of metal that acts as a dust cover for the BCG, it is too loose and wobbly to offer a firm base for optics. some modified dust covers have been released which are good enough for a simple red dot for anyone with no real expectation of accuracy beyond minute of man but for precision scopes, they just don't offer enough stability. the front of the handguard is firm enough to mount optics but raises the optic too high and too far forward to be of practical use.
7. war dept is broke, they couldn't afford it even if they wanted to.

the AKM is a fine platform and I don't begrudge anyone that owns one but in my eyes it isn't even in the same league as a modern AR15 based design.

I would sooner outfit the US armed forces with an SKS than an AKM, at least with those the dust cover is firm enough to allow optics
 
ar-18, would be the best replacement imo, and probably should've gotten the nod over the ar 15 in the first place. Had it been the rifle that was put into service you would've seen the same amount of ergonomic and handling improvements to the system as you have with the Ar-15 and Ak families.

cheap to produce, shoots the nato 5.56, piston design, pretty light, and fairly accurate. Id love to see armalite reintroduce it like they did a few years back but without the stupid polymer lower receiver and non folding stock.
 
Never going to happen.

Likely replacement will house an M1A1 Abrams tank and multi directional mortar in a package based around a 7mm assault rifle and weighing no more than 7 pounds,,,
 
To say nothing of the AK clones: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-12

Inherent reliability is not the end of the story. Nobody mentioned such an advantage as the inherently cheap ammo. This is hardly relevant, though: you just can't revise the NATO standards, which have to fit all.

So I predict that nobody's going to change anything in the foreseable future. Expensive and pointless.
 
Having owned semi auto variants of both, I feel the M4 to be the superior weapon due to ergonomics and modularity. Having spent time with both, I came to the following conclusions, which may or may not be shared by others. I found the AR to be more of a "scalpel" capable of placing smaller bullets with extreme accuracy. I found the AK to be more akin to a sledgehammer....nowhere near as refined, but tough as nails, and capable of putting much bigger bullets on target, but without the precision of the AR. Recoil on the AK is more significant, and I think the M4 makes more sense as a weapon to be used by a wide range of people of various physical attributes and conditions. You get better long range accuracy with the AR, and ammo is significantly lower in weight, allowing for bigger loadouts. While I admire the AK for what it is, its country of origin is NOT why it isn't used by our military. In fact, a look at armament worldwide will show a trend of backing away from the AKM, instead looking at the many alternatives. Even the AK74 makes more sense, as ammo weight and range is more comparable between the 5.45x39 and the 5.56 than between the 7.62x39 and the 5.56.
 
Having owned semi auto variants of both, I feel the M4 to be the superior weapon due to ergonomics and modularity. Having spent time with both, I came to the following conclusions, which may or may not be shared by others. I found the AR to be more of a "scalpel" capable of placing smaller bullets with extreme accuracy. I found the AK to be more akin to a sledgehammer....nowhere near as refined, but tough as nails, and capable of putting much bigger bullets on target, but without the precision of the AR. Recoil on the AK is more significant, and I think the M4 makes more sense as a weapon to be used by a wide range of people of various physical attributes and conditions. You get better long range accuracy with the AR, and ammo is significantly lower in weight, allowing for bigger loadouts. While I admire the AK for what it is, its country of origin is NOT why it isn't used by our military. In fact, a look at armament worldwide will show a trend of backing away from the AKM, instead looking at the many alternatives. Even the AK74 makes more sense, as ammo weight and range is more comparable between the 5.45x39 and the 5.56 than between the 7.62x39 and the 5.56.

I suppose that's why the US serviced the M14 instead of the FAL back in the day before the M4. There are many reasons the AK isn't our service rifle, but those are irrelevant as no Russian, or any other country of origin for that matter, would ever be a US service rifle.
 
Because the M9, M11, M240 and M249 would be no proof at all that we procure weapons from other countries. Heck, the M4 is largly made by FNH, who also made the FAL which we passed up 50 years ago. We also have small amounts of SCARs in service.
 
I suppose that's why the US serviced the M14 instead of the FAL back in the day before the M4. There are many reasons the AK isn't our service rifle, but those are irrelevant as no Russian, or any other country of origin for that matter, would ever be a US service rifle.

Perhaps it had something to do with the fact that the M14 operated and handled almost exactly the same as the M1 Garand that every service member was very proficient in at the time, which had also proven itself with distinguished service in the greatest war of all time? Surely not...

You are also forgetting that during our military history we have used both British and Norwegian designs as our main frontline battle rifles. Not to mention the Springfield 1903 that we ripped right of the German drawing boards. No, I think we are more than willing to use foreign designs when they prove superior or vastly cheaper with equitable performance. Lets also not forget that our primary service pistol for the last thirty years was designed in Italy, and the Sigs that the Navy has used so much recently were designed in Switzerland...

No, the reason we have an American design instead of a Russian one is because the American design is simply superior. Much like we refused to use the hundreds of thousands of American made Mosin Nagants as a service rifle following WWI (because they were inferior to both the M1917 and the 1903), we would never select an AK based rifle over our very refined Stoner rifle. The M4 has proven itself in over a decade of constant combat against AK designs, and it has performed very well in comparison.

What will replace the M4? Most likely the M16 again. One day we will wake up and realize that losing 4" of barrel length is not worth sacrificing the muzzle velocity that is the 5.56's saving grace to begin with.
 
I suppose that's why the US serviced the M14 instead of the FAL back in the day before the M4. There are many reasons the AK isn't our service rifle, but those are irrelevant as no Russian, or any other country of origin for that matter, would ever be a US service rifle.

What difference would country of origin make? For that argument to work you'd have to ignore the Krag. The Springfield was a Mauser design. Wasn't Garand a Canadian?
 
If i were a guerilla fighter, carrying nothing into battle but my gun and ammo, with limited resources and the inability to regularly maintain my rifle i would definitely prefer an AK. If i were a soldier in a large mechanized army with readily available resources to maintain my rifle and was carrying around 50 lbs of armor i'd prefer the ligher M4 over the AK.

My favorite AR piston sysem though is probably the PWS as it actually incorporates a long stroke op rod akin to the AK. Another interesting design is the new ARAK-21 which actually utilizes an AR lower with an AK like upper. However, i'm of the opinion that the AK bolt is a better design as it is beefier and likely more durable so was dissapointed to see Faxon use an AR style bolt.

For those saying that an AK is less accurate than the M4, my Russian 74 holds 2" groups with 7N6 which is right on par with my Colt and M855.
 
Because the M9, M11, M240 and M249 would be no proof at all that we procure weapons from other countries. Heck, the M4 is largly made by FNH, who also made the FAL which we passed up 50 years ago. We also have small amounts of SCARs in service.

But they did not design it. ;)

And a great many have been made by Colt, who currently owns the TDP on the rifle.
 
Hunter125 said:
Just curious, has anyone ever tried to design a mix between the AK and AR? It does seem like they both have some features that would be desirable. I have always seen the buffer tube on an AR as a drawback. A mix between the two seems like a desirable rifle.
Any of the SIG55x rifles fit that bill perfectly. They all also use a long-stroke gas piston like an AK and also the bolt is just about identical in design and overall shape to an AK bolt, including using two locking lugs like the AK.

Its AR features are a monolithic top rail, a receiver that opens up like an FAL/AR, AR-15 like controls, although the selector lever is located a bit higher than an AR-15, and from what I understand the trigger is also very good.

The SCAR, ACR, and any of the similar next generation rifles do also offer the advantages of the AK and AR, although I would say that their lineage is closer to the AR-180 then it is to the AK.
 
Last edited:
Cal 30 sniper, there's no way we're going to go back to the M16 length guns. The only people that use them now are the Marines and even then, if guys can get M4's they do. The A2 stock has no place on the battlefield where different sized guys are wearing body armor, although it was awesome when I had to qualify with it on the rifle range wearing nothing but cammies.

I hoping the next main rifle is, or is very similar to the SCAR Mk. 16. Short stroke gas-op with AR type controls and a reciprocating bolt handle which negates the need for a forward assist and makes overall weapon operation faster and simpler. Left side please.
 
You won't see the AR platform replaced until something is SIGNIFICANTLY better. Some slight improvement will not warrant a change.
 
Because the M9, M11, M240 and M249 would be no proof at all that we procure weapons from other countries. Heck, the M4 is largly made by FNH, who also made the FAL which we passed up 50 years ago. We also have small amounts of SCARs in service.

Almost every one of these firearms (with the possible exception of the M11) is actually manufactured in the US to meet government contract requirements. The M9 is made in Maryland, and the M240, M249, SCAR, and FNH-made M16s come from South Carolina.

My guess is that if any AK variant were mass-produced in the US for military use, its cost would shoot right up (due to labor costs and US regulations) to the level of the M4, so the "cheaper" argument would go away immediately.
 
Any of the SIG55x rifles fit that bill perfectly. They all also use a long-stroke gas piston like an AK and also the bolt is just about identical in design and overall shape to an AK bolt, including using two locking lugs like the AK.

I never understood why people say this. Aside from firing the same round how is the Sig "AR" like? Yes, it has an upper and lower connected by two pins but that certainly isn't unique to the AR. I see the similarities with the AK such as long stroke, similar bolt and charging handle, but aside from the round nothing about it seems AR like.
 
Sights would be sufficiently bad to nix the deal for me. AR sights are are about as good as they come sans optics (or an M1) whereas the AK platforms are about as bad as they come and the platform is notorious for difficulty in mounting optics.

The AKM has it's place firmly established in history. I will not (and need not) replace the M4 to hold that place. It is, and will likely remain, second to the M1 as the greatest rifle ever built, with the M-16 following that. I put them in that order simply because the M1 was every bit as innovative in its day AND it was in the hands of the victors of a very big war. Not so much either of the other two.
 
Cal 30 sniper, there's no way we're going to go back to the M16 length guns. The only people that use them now are the Marines and even then, if guys can get M4's they do. The A2 stock has no place on the battlefield where different sized guys are wearing body armor, although it was awesome when I had to qualify with it on the rifle range wearing nothing but cammies.

I also enjoyed qualifying on the A2, though I would completely agree with your comments on the non-adjustable A2 stock. However, with the plethora of readily available excellent adjustable stocks, it would not be hard at all to add an adjustable stock to a flat-top M16A4, aka the rumored M16A5.

The 16" barrel is an oxymoron when used with the 5.56 cartridge. It's great for CQB, where ranges are generally less than 20 yards and maneuverability is the primary concern. Anywhere else, it's an unnecessary hindrance. I think you will continue to see the M4 serve alongside a new rifle similar to the M16A5, though the M4 will be less prominent as we continue to draw down in our current war. The Marine Corps has learned in Afghanistan that combat can frequently take place outside the capable range of the M4. Hence the pivot back towards the M16 and M14 rifles. If we were smart, we'd take our weapons cues from the people who continue to not only excel in CQB, but also still qualify on and engage point targets at 500 meters. Then again, nobody ever accused the Federal Government of being smart.

In an ideal world, we would have gone something along the lines of a combined issue of M4 and M16A5 rifles, both chambered for the 6.8 cartridge. Then again, that would have required surplusing the millions of rounds of 5.56 the feds are currently sitting on. That's a costly proposition, considering what we have now is working just fine. Switching to a new weapons platform would be even more cost prohibitive.
 
that would have required surplusing the millions of rounds of 5.56 the feds are currently sitting on.

I'm guessing that number is in the billions (with a "b"), not millions.

For that reason alone, I don't see the 5.56mm cartridge going away anytime soon (the same reason the .276 Pedersen could not replace the 30-06).

Also, could you imagine what our glorious president would say about billions of surplus 5.56mm rounds being released to the civilian market?
 
Currently some Army units are already replacing the stocks on their old M16A2's with M-4 type stocks.....it looks silly, but it's better than having a fixed stock for sure.

To clarify, I'm a Marine and I used an M4A1 whenever I used a 5.56mm which was not all that often. The 14.5" barrel makes for a really nice handling rifle and not too long when you put a suppressor on it. Currently we are addressing power issues with the 5.56mm round, but we're doing it with ammunition, not with barrel length. You may lose some velocity with a 14.5" barrel, but with the newer SOST and 77grain Mk 262 ammo that's becoming more widely used, the current M4 is more effective without the extra velocity than the M16A2 was in it's time.

The Marine Corps loves its rifleman heritage, but I can't help but see the M16A4 as being too big for what it does. I hope that they go the way the Army did and give M4's to guys on the front line. I don't think too many people would complain.
 
... as no Russian, or any other country of origin for that matter, would ever be a US service rifle.

Um, Krag Jorgenson (Norway designed)? Springfield 1903 (based on the Germany Mauser action)? M1917 (clone of British P14, except in .30-06)? Oh, and the SCAR designed by FNH Belgium?

Just saying' ....
 
JustinJ said:
I never understood why people say this. Aside from firing the same round how is the Sig "AR" like? Yes, it has an upper and lower connected by two pins but that certainly isn't unique to the AR. I see the similarities with the AK such as long stroke, similar bolt and charging handle, but aside from the round nothing about it seems AR like.
I'll take a crack at this: internally, yeah, the SIG has nothing in common with the AR. I think the main argument is from the control layout. You have a left sided fire selector right above the pistol grip that can be actuated with the thumb (more or less), and a last round bolt hold open like the AR. In the 556 series it also takes standard AR15 magazines and the last round bolt hold open is in a similar position to the AR-15. Lastly the H&K rotary peep sight setup is much closer to an AR15 then the AK's tangent sights. Overall most of these features put the rifle ergonomically much closer to the AR15 then it does to the AK.

Rugerdude: Side question, is there still much use for the Mk318 62gr open tip match ammo or has that been mostly overtaken by the Mk262 77gr OTM?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top