Proposed replacement for the M4: The AKM

Status
Not open for further replies.
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?
The krag served a very short lifespan, the springfield was based on the Mauser and I believe we had to pay a large sum of royalties(or something like that).

The reason the fal/m14 argument is different is because the newly formed NATO was looking for a standard rifle in which almost every country in the organization had accepted the FAL, however America wanted to field the m14. Was it to cut training costs for a new platform? Perhaps, however the short service life of the m14 would soon lead to that anyways. At a certain point the US army decided that Americans needed to be fielded with American guns, a topic that I'll grant you is debatable but at it's heart I don't think we'll ever have our service rifle designed by any non US company.

And more to the topic, we would certainly never field an AK variant no matter how good the design.( such as the AN-94, which is IMO an ingenious albeit expensive design)
 
We still don't use exclusively American designed guns. Our machineguns are Belgian designed and the sidearms are Italian.
 
The key point with the foreign designs currently used by the U.S. is that we have pretty good relations with these countries to the point that we let them set up manufacturing centers on our own soil. This just isn't the case for nations using AK platforms.

@ -v-: I believe the SOST is becoming more common rather than less. On my first deployment I'm not sure it even existed, but we heard about it and got issued it when we went back a year later in 2011. It appears to be pretty good stuff.

As far as Mk. 262 (AKA 5.56mm LR or Match), it's what we used my first deployment. I'm not sure how widely this stuff is used since I was in a Recon unit and we were typically given the newer stuff. The only failures I can recall having with my M4A1 happened with this ammo. I suspect it was a bad lot but my team had 3 guns go down at once in a canal in the middle of a firefight due to this ammo. We went back to using green tip after that happened. Also, Mk 262 and Mk 318 are both open-tipped rounds IIRC.
 
True however I think its reasonable to say that country of origin played a major role in the adoption of at least the m14 and m4, the respective primary service arms of their time.

I could be wrong but I do think it has played and will play a role in our primary arms
 
Most people with some trigger time behind both the AR-15 and AKM end up STRONGLY preferring the AR-15.

I suspect there is a reason that the M4 platform keeps getting chosen by elite units in countries that use other rifles for their main infantry. UK and NZ are two good examples, Israel prior to the Tavor was another. Israel had their Galil, basically a slightly modified AKM, and while they had it their elites used the M16 platform. For a time the M16 platform dominated their military, then the clean-sheet-design Tavor came in.
 
The arguments regarding foreign produced military arms have already been made, and quite well. You can argue the point as much as you want to waste the time doing so, but the truth is that the AR was chosen over the AK for MANY reasons, not solely country of design or origin. Its more accurate, easier for a wide variety of people to shoot, and has myriad other features making it a better choice for our forces. There will always be AK/AR fanboys by the dozens, but for many reasons already stated, the AR makes more sense for our military than the AK ever could. Its not a matter of pride, its about picking the best tool for the job, and I think ovewrall, the US military has done a pretty good job in its selection. I think the poiont I made previously....about military forces who previously equipped soldiers with AKMs backing away from that choice as time goes on, speaks volumes. The AKM is being phased out, while the AR series is still going strong and gaining in popularity. It doesn't make sense that the superior gun would be waning in popularity while its inferior competition was sweeping the world......does it?
 
"The arguments regarding foreign produced military arms have already been made, and quite well. You can argue the point as much as you want to waste the time doing so, but the truth is that the AR was chosen over the AK for MANY reasons, not solely country of design or origin. Its more accurate, easier for a wide variety of people to shoot, and has myriad other features making it a better choice for our forces. There will always be AK/AR fanboys by the dozens, but for many reasons already stated, the AR makes more sense for our military than the AK ever could. Its not a matter of pride, its about picking the best tool for the job, and I think ovewrall, the US military has done a pretty good job in its selection. I think the poiont I made previously....about military forces who previously equipped soldiers with AKMs backing away from that choice as time goes on, speaks volumes. The AKM is being phased out, while the AR series is still going strong and gaining in popularity. It doesn't make sense that the superior gun would be waning in popularity while its inferior competition was sweeping the world......does it?"

I disagree that the other countries' military forces switching from AK to AR is in any way related to each platform's capabilities. U.S. and Russia are the worlds largest small arms suppliers and not solely due to profit but also due to small arms shipments being used as a political tool. So whener a small country chooses an ally of the two, the ally gladly supplies them with all sorts of military hardware, including small arms. A good recent example of this would be Georgia, a small country near the border of Russia. U.S. was very eager to "democratize"" (read stick it into Russia's craw) Georgia so it sent its military advisors along with huge parties of... M4 carbines for the Georgian army. Georgia happened to have a war with Russia in 2008 for related reasons. I have read reports of Georgian soldiers getting rid of their M4 carbines as soon as they found a suitable AK replacement. Their claim was that m4 was harder to use. This makes sense to me considering previously Georgian army used AKs. So for me the statement that M4 is easier to use is plausible at best. Tell that to a soldier that has to take the m4 apart for cleaning every day in harsh/battle environments versus an African child soldier that can field-strip an AK with his eyes closed but never does b/c the AK will work regardless. So ease of use... meh. As for the waning popularity, it is still 100 million AKs vs. 8 million M16 types arms produced. Obviously there's more demand for one of them.

Also, noone said that AK can't be modified/improved before adoption. After all U.S. military does not use AR-15 with aluminum/steel barrels, 1/12 twist, unlined chambers, etc like Eugene Stoner envisioned it.
 
The key point with the foreign designs currently used by the U.S. is that we have pretty good relations with these countries to the point that we let them set up manufacturing centers on our own soil. This just isn't the case for nations using AK platforms.

Though I concur that the U.S. is not likely to adopt any variant of the AK/AKM platform, the above is just not correct as a global statement. The U.S, has excellent relations with Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, for instance. Yeah, there would likely be no small degree of stigma from adopting the AK platform specifically. But hostile relations has not stood in the way of weapons adoptin in the past. Frankly, we adopted the Mauser action from the Germans for the Model 1903 Springfield rifle (and the deteriorating relations with Germany before WWI didn't stop that - there's an interesting THR thread on that bit of history http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=678849). But, I digress, there are a host of budgetary/logisitical/operational reasons why the U.S. would not likely adopt the AK platform.

To the present, as for letting companies set up manufacturing centers - actually these companies were REQUIRED to set up production facilities in the U.S. - the foreign designed platform needed to be manufactured/assembled domestically to meet procurement requirements.
 
The U.S, has excellent relations with Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, for instance. . .

I know your point is that we have good relations with countries who produce the AKM. However, it seems it is more likely AR variants are going from us to them than AKMs coming from them to us.


Most pictures I have seen of Grom, they are carrying AR-15 variants.

I have seen pictures of Czech Special forces with AR-15 variants as well...or VZ-58 or CZ 805.

I've seen pictures of Hungarian Special forces with AR variants
 
Last edited:
Most people with some trigger time behind both the AR-15 and AKM end up STRONGLY preferring the AR-15.

Well I would be an exception to that. I carried an M16 in the Marine Corps and the agency I work for the past 17 years uses AR15s (Colts and FNs). We only fire 30 rounds a year in qualification and I have never seen the 18 or so shooters on the line fire 30 rounds without at least one of the ARs malfunctioning. This year I turned to the guy next to me to mention that and as we looked down the line TWO of the ARs were jammed. Yes there is a different manual or arms with the AK but I prefer it hand down over an AR for most serious purposes. I KNOW that isn't the majority opinion but there it is.
 
Why not go hybrid? AR ergos with AK reliability and piston style system, the Robinson XCR. I love my AKM, but as of late I've become very happy with the ability to just put a .22lr upper on my AR lower. Ammo prices are steep but I stocked up on .22lr so I'm good to go. The only thing that doesn't work on mine is the bolt release.

With weight as a consideration the M4/M16 is tough to beat. AKM's are great weapons, they just aren't so easily changed around as far as longer or shorter barrels and different calibers as the AR/M4-16 system. The AKM is dirt simple though, so easy a child can be trained to use it in a day or so. Both have their strong points and weak points. Everybody loves options though, the AR/M4-16 system just provides more easily configured and readily available options.
 
Well I would be an exception to that. I carried an M16 in the Marine Corps and the agency I work for the past 17 years uses AR15s (Colts and FNs). We only fire 30 rounds a year in qualification and I have never seen the 18 or so shooters on the line fire 30 rounds without at least one of the ARs malfunctioning. This year I turned to the guy next to me to mention that and as we looked down the line TWO of the ARs were jammed. Yes there is a different manual or arms with the AK but I prefer it hand down over an AR for most serious purposes. I KNOW that isn't the majority opinion but there it is.

I'm right with you jon, so no, you are not alone.
I have over 20 years trigger time with A1's, A2's and M4's in the army.
Even if you were a damned Jar Head.....lol....I agree with you 100%
Countless qualifications, live-fire exercises and a few real-world situations always had a handful of troops trying to correct malfunctions every single time.
I don't even own an AR as a personal weapon and most likely never will.
I do own an AK and it has been more reliable than any Stoner weapon I have ever fired.
 
Why not go hybrid? AR ergos with AK reliability and piston style system, the Robinson XCR.

from everything I've heard Robinson Arms is a horrible company. Not sure we want our military relying on them in any way...even if the specs are simply bought from them.
 
Last edited:
from everything I've heard Robinson is a horrible company. Not sure we want out military relying on them in any way...even if the specs are simply bought from them.


Yep. Robinson would be my very last choice too!!!!
The top 2 contenders right now are still the ACR and the SCAR.
But both of them still have some issues too.
 
Yep. Robinson would be my very last choice too!!!!
The top 2 contenders right now are still the ACR and the SCAR.
But both of them still have some issues too.

Neither of these are contenders for the military.

We are not going to see a replacement for the M4 for a long time. There are a number of reasons but the biggest one is that there is no reason to replace it.

Despite some anecdotal claims, the current M4 is just as reliable as the AK platform. I have had a chance to train with and swap stories with a number of people who have used the M4 in a combat role. They have had no complaints about reliability or functionality.

You can find a few stories online but in every case, once you dig deeper you start to see the rest of the story. Long stretches of sustained full auto fire, mistreatment of the weapon, etc, all can lead to failures. And this just isn't in the M4 platform but also the AK or anything else. These carbines are not made for this kind of use so it is no surprise that this can be a problem.

If there can be said to be a flaw in the M4 design it would be the magazine. The standard USGI mag is not as strong as AK mags. So after repeated use and abuse these can be a source of problems.
 
I only used the XCR as an example, maybe my sarcasm wasn't clear. If you read the rest you would notice that I said in a nutshell that the M4/M16 was tough to beat. I also said I liked and own an AKM. Both are the most popular in the U.S. for various reasons.

I almost mentioned the ACR and the SCAR but both from what I've seen come with pencil barrels to save weight, something that polymer frames were supposed to help with, as in polymer is supposed to be lighter. The only viable piston option that seems to work is the H&K 416 or the Marines M27. It is very hard to beat the AKM or variants for reliability or M4/M16 for modularity and accuracy, maybe H&K can make both a memory. I won't hold my breath for that to happen though.
 
....Despite some anecdotal claims, the current M4 is just as reliable as the AK platform...


TOTAL complete 100% BS my friend. But you keep drinking the cool aide all you like.
Unless something drastically changed since 2009 when I retired, I disagree 100% with that assessment.
A little more accurate...yes. A little more ergo-friendly...yes
Just as reliable....no fricking way. Period.
 
Last edited:
TOTAL complete 100% BS my friend. But you keep drinking the cool aide all you like.
Unless something drastically changed since 2009 when I retired, I disagree 100% with that assessment.
A little more accurate...yes. A little more ergo-friendly...yes
Just as reliable....no fricking way. Period.


You can't just say it is BS without providing data. I have personally owned ARs with around 10K rounds and no failures. I have also seen AKs fail.

For instance. Out of 60,000 rounds fired from 10 M4 in one test they had a total of 307 malfunctions. That is a fraction of a percent Failure rate. Other tests have provided similar results. Some being higher, although in that test it was a dry M4 Vs. lubed competitors so that test has been thrown out.

The people who have had problems with M4s in service tend to break down into 2 categories. Either they had a faulty weapon, or they didn't properly maintain their weapon. Sadly the latter is far too common. Much more so than the Former. It is interesting the difference in the stories you hear from an average grunt vs armorers, SoF types, etc.
 
I found this to be a pretty waaaaay out there, wild statement too.

To say that most people prefer the AR to the AK (experienced or not) is not a wild statement in the least. The AR platform is extremely popular. Look at the guys who shoot a lot, like competition shooters, law enforcement agencies and military units. An excellent point was already made that many times countries will purchase M4 platform guns for their special operations guys when they don't use it as the standard issue rifle. Surely they could have AK's if they wanted them.

Ask yourself, who uses the AK when they have other options available? Not very many people at all compared to the AR platform. The issue here isn't about individual tastes, but whether it would make any sense to replace our current-use rifle.

I can't weigh in on the reliability debate, but my M4A1 was awesome, and I ran it HARD. Marine Recon shoots quite a bit and I've failed to notice these alarming rates of failure.
 
I was recently shooting a SIG piston AR with 60 gr. Vmax handloads sighted in with a Burris 14x scope. We went 3 for3 on 12 oz water bottles at 200 yds.
 
By the way. I love the AK platform as well. I think it is a reliable and underrated weapon. The accuracy is better than people give it credit for and the design while old is still viable. But I refuse to as you put it "Drink the koolaid" for anything. I use what works. If it doesn't fit my needs I use something else. If it fails, I replace it. If something better comes along I will get that.

However the fact is that there are other options but not anyting that has proven better yet.
 
Despite some anecdotal claims, the current M4 is just as reliable as the AK platform. I have had a chance to train with and swap stories with a number of people who have used the M4 in a combat role. They have had no complaints about reliability or functionality.

The reports i've heard are different. Most said the weapon was reliable IF cleaned and lubricated regularly. Most i've spoken with also considred the M16 to be more reliable than the M4 which makes sense from a mechanical standpoint.

You can find a few stories online but in every case, once you dig deeper you start to see the rest of the story. Long stretches of sustained full auto fire, mistreatment of the weapon, etc, all can lead to failures. And this just isn't in the M4 platform but also the AK or anything else. These carbines are not made for this kind of use so it is no surprise that this can be a problem.

Maybe you've never heard of the RPK? It just an ak with a thicker receiver and a longer and heavier barrel to increase range and reduce effects on accuracy due to barrel heating. Short of melting it's barrel the AK is built to keep going under heavy, sustained fire.

There will never be a machine gun fielded that is based off a DI AR. The temperature of the bolt and internal receiver just becomes far too high to remain reliable. In addition to burning off the essential lubricant external contaminants at those temperatures will wreck havoc on the weapon's ability to function.

I like the AR but i do believe it requires a degree of pampering that a military weapon should not need. In semi auto form it's not such an issue but telling soldiers not to shoot so much when they're on the verge of being over run seems problematic.
 
If you put a heavier barrel and Gas tube on an M4 I am pretty sure it would hold up just as well. In fact this is one of the things they proposed after some of the tests. Still not the main purpose of the M4 or the AK.
Look at the tests that were done and what it took to make one fail. Hundreds upon hundreds of rounds fired non stop till the barrel was red and the hand guards caught on fire. I don't care if you are being over run. You are not going to shoot that much. LOL
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top