What's wrong with the AK? I'll tell ya.
- Thread starter Badger Arms
- Start date
- Status
Keith
Member
Well, I certainly didn't suggest that Kalashnikof was a genius! He was better than a genius - he was a pragmatist!
He (and his team, if you wish) took the best ideas around and incorporated them in one rifle. It's a mistake not to give Kalashnikof his due. He was a combat vet and he KNEW what was needed.
He didn't have any illusions about the need for pinpoint accuracy or elegant and clever design innovations.
If "X" amount of force was required to drive the bolt rearward - double it.
If a milled part had to be "X" thick and required "X" amount of hours to machine - substitute a stamped metal part twice as thick.
If close tolerances were difficult and expensive to achieve in mass production - loosen the tolerances, and reap the rewards of a more reliable rifle.
And when you think about it, there isn't a whole lot of USEFUL innovations you can apply to a self-loading rifle. It's all been done, and that was true in 1945 as well. You can change things simply for the sake of change, but you can't really improve on an aspect of the design unless you are willing to sacrifice some other aspect. More moving parts means more things to fail. Tighter tolerances means a loss of reliability when the rifle gets dirty - and it will get dirty!
I'd trade a dozen Stoners for one Kalashnikof!
Keith
He (and his team, if you wish) took the best ideas around and incorporated them in one rifle. It's a mistake not to give Kalashnikof his due. He was a combat vet and he KNEW what was needed.
He didn't have any illusions about the need for pinpoint accuracy or elegant and clever design innovations.
If "X" amount of force was required to drive the bolt rearward - double it.
If a milled part had to be "X" thick and required "X" amount of hours to machine - substitute a stamped metal part twice as thick.
If close tolerances were difficult and expensive to achieve in mass production - loosen the tolerances, and reap the rewards of a more reliable rifle.
And when you think about it, there isn't a whole lot of USEFUL innovations you can apply to a self-loading rifle. It's all been done, and that was true in 1945 as well. You can change things simply for the sake of change, but you can't really improve on an aspect of the design unless you are willing to sacrifice some other aspect. More moving parts means more things to fail. Tighter tolerances means a loss of reliability when the rifle gets dirty - and it will get dirty!
I'd trade a dozen Stoners for one Kalashnikof!
Keith
Badger, I agree in theory. Take a look at the links Max provided, the AK 100 system takes into account some of the things you talked about, and it is not as complicated as the AN94. It uses a balanced system that pushes a weight forward over the gas system during recoil. Simple and elegant. I would love to try on out, it seems like a pretty good compromise to controllability with out having to deal with the problems related to a recoiling barrel.
However in practice, for all of us non full-auto types, a high quality AK can be extreamly effective under rapid fire, and very accurate and controlable out to 200 yards. I shoot my Vepr K in 3 gun matches all of the time, and I'll hold my own against anybody. All of that fish flopping in the high speed video really isn't noticeable when you are actually using the gun.
I would still love to see Saiga import a sporterized AK100 series gun. I would snatch it up in a heart beat just to see if it really did work better.
However in practice, for all of us non full-auto types, a high quality AK can be extreamly effective under rapid fire, and very accurate and controlable out to 200 yards. I shoot my Vepr K in 3 gun matches all of the time, and I'll hold my own against anybody. All of that fish flopping in the high speed video really isn't noticeable when you are actually using the gun.
I would still love to see Saiga import a sporterized AK100 series gun. I would snatch it up in a heart beat just to see if it really did work better.
NevadaPistolero
Member
I dont think Ive ever heard of anyones AK falling apart from being "shot to death" or having to replace the internals for being "beat to death". I think you can find fault with every FA gun ever made....give me an AK anyday and at least I know it will go bang each and every trigger pull. Some of what you said about the AK might be applicable only on full auto weapons...we only get semis here so I dont think there really is a problem, and if they were FA it still wouldnt worry me.
Hazwaste
Member
What's Wrong w/ the AK?!?!
It's too inexpensive: Allows low-income folks to have an effective homeland defense rifle.
It's too reliable: Always works, doesn't break. Forces me to shoot too much ammo and to have too much fun, instead of waiting for it to come back from the shop.
Ammo's too cheap: Gives me a bruise in the shoulder when I shoot 300 rounds per day.
We can nitpick the AK until the cows come home, but let's face it, it's a 50+ year old design that's still in active use with a large portion of the world's armed forces. Can't be that bad, right?
It's too inexpensive: Allows low-income folks to have an effective homeland defense rifle.
It's too reliable: Always works, doesn't break. Forces me to shoot too much ammo and to have too much fun, instead of waiting for it to come back from the shop.
Ammo's too cheap: Gives me a bruise in the shoulder when I shoot 300 rounds per day.
We can nitpick the AK until the cows come home, but let's face it, it's a 50+ year old design that's still in active use with a large portion of the world's armed forces. Can't be that bad, right?
OP
OP
Badger Arms
Member
I'm thinking that some of you are missing the point. I agree that the AK is reliable. I agree that looser tolerances will result in a more reliable mechanism. I'm aware that brow-beating a mechanism into working and then overbuilding it results in a gun that can withstand a nuclear blast at ground zero. The problem is, once you get it there, will it hit what you want it to hit? My criticism of the AK lies completely with its ability to hit what it's shooting at on full-auto.
I believe that a reliable gun can be made that is much more effective than anything available today. A full-auto weapon with a balanced recoil system will allow infantry to AIM their bursts and HIT what they are aiming at. I'll admit that the subject line was merely a hook and using the AK-47 as an example was partially a ploy to get people to read the thread. Don't read into what I've said and think that I'm advocating a clockwork mechanism that you can't pick up without breaking.
Kalashnikov's team took working principles from at least two weapons and combined them with Russian loose-tolerance, loose fit philosophies to come up with cheap and reliable bullet hose. In Soviet mass-armor attack philosophy, this was a perfect gun.
There are workable, simple, and reliable concepts out there that can be combined into a weapon that can match the AK's reliability and yet can hit with the accuracy of the MG-42 on full-auto. What's wrong with boiling these down to an optimized weapon? Wouldn't you like a full-auto rifle that you can aim with a scope and carry on your shoulder all day long?
The Advanced Combat Rifle trials of the late 80's attempted to better a principle of hit probability. The goal was to double the probability of a soldier hitting his target over the control weapon, the M-16. My opinion is that they did this the wrong way. The four designs used duplex ammunition, caseless ammo fired in three-round bursts, and flechette ammo. None of the concepts utilized the constant recoil principle. The HK G11 is close, but misses the point. They attempted to lower recoil, they attempted to delay it, or shoot more projectiles with the same recoil impulse. Why not just live with the recoil and tune it like a musical instrument?
Here's the G-11 in full-auto: http://www.hkpro.com/video/g11-1-150.rm
I spent 10 years as an Aircraft Structures mechanic. One thing I noticed when riveting might help some understand. Riveters use bursts of about 10 to 15 hits on the air-hammer (rivet gun) to shoot a proper rivet. The first two or three hits allow the riveter to get into a tempo and finalize the position of the bucking bar. No riveter will be successful unless he uses the art of tuning the bucking bar with the rivet gun to attain a comfortable rhythm. The same is true of a gun that shoots bullets. The smoother the hammering cycle, the better the rivet. The smoother the firing cycle of a gun, the more accurate it will be.
Rifles are often 'tuned' with weights on the muzzle to attain a 'sweet spot' where the rifle bullet will leave the barrel at the same point with each shot. The same can be done with a full-auto firing cycle. The bullets can be made to leave the barrel at the same point in the recoil cycle with little effort.
Again, the bolt will recoil and, instead of striking the rear of the receiver, it will be gradually slowed by a long recoil spring that never fully compresses but rather halts and is gradually pushed forward. The carrier stops on the forward end as the gun is fired thus partially attenuating the recoil. The sharp spike in recoil can be counter-acted by the secondary spring buffer and the bolt carrier again gets gradually slowed and its course reversed to fire another shot. It seems somewhat difficult to get across what is happening in the cycle, but in my head it works beautifully. Not just in my head either, production infantry weapons have used these principles, but the idea has never taken off.
I believe that a reliable gun can be made that is much more effective than anything available today. A full-auto weapon with a balanced recoil system will allow infantry to AIM their bursts and HIT what they are aiming at. I'll admit that the subject line was merely a hook and using the AK-47 as an example was partially a ploy to get people to read the thread. Don't read into what I've said and think that I'm advocating a clockwork mechanism that you can't pick up without breaking.
Kalashnikov's team took working principles from at least two weapons and combined them with Russian loose-tolerance, loose fit philosophies to come up with cheap and reliable bullet hose. In Soviet mass-armor attack philosophy, this was a perfect gun.
There are workable, simple, and reliable concepts out there that can be combined into a weapon that can match the AK's reliability and yet can hit with the accuracy of the MG-42 on full-auto. What's wrong with boiling these down to an optimized weapon? Wouldn't you like a full-auto rifle that you can aim with a scope and carry on your shoulder all day long?
The Advanced Combat Rifle trials of the late 80's attempted to better a principle of hit probability. The goal was to double the probability of a soldier hitting his target over the control weapon, the M-16. My opinion is that they did this the wrong way. The four designs used duplex ammunition, caseless ammo fired in three-round bursts, and flechette ammo. None of the concepts utilized the constant recoil principle. The HK G11 is close, but misses the point. They attempted to lower recoil, they attempted to delay it, or shoot more projectiles with the same recoil impulse. Why not just live with the recoil and tune it like a musical instrument?
Here's the G-11 in full-auto: http://www.hkpro.com/video/g11-1-150.rm
I spent 10 years as an Aircraft Structures mechanic. One thing I noticed when riveting might help some understand. Riveters use bursts of about 10 to 15 hits on the air-hammer (rivet gun) to shoot a proper rivet. The first two or three hits allow the riveter to get into a tempo and finalize the position of the bucking bar. No riveter will be successful unless he uses the art of tuning the bucking bar with the rivet gun to attain a comfortable rhythm. The same is true of a gun that shoots bullets. The smoother the hammering cycle, the better the rivet. The smoother the firing cycle of a gun, the more accurate it will be.
Rifles are often 'tuned' with weights on the muzzle to attain a 'sweet spot' where the rifle bullet will leave the barrel at the same point with each shot. The same can be done with a full-auto firing cycle. The bullets can be made to leave the barrel at the same point in the recoil cycle with little effort.
Again, the bolt will recoil and, instead of striking the rear of the receiver, it will be gradually slowed by a long recoil spring that never fully compresses but rather halts and is gradually pushed forward. The carrier stops on the forward end as the gun is fired thus partially attenuating the recoil. The sharp spike in recoil can be counter-acted by the secondary spring buffer and the bolt carrier again gets gradually slowed and its course reversed to fire another shot. It seems somewhat difficult to get across what is happening in the cycle, but in my head it works beautifully. Not just in my head either, production infantry weapons have used these principles, but the idea has never taken off.
Don't believe everything you see on TV.
You really need to shoot more and see which one works for you.
It's not the gun it's the guidance sys that is the true variable.
Start shooting 3 gun comps and you will find that the most iportant thing with any rifle is that it works 100% and that particular rifle works for you as far as ergonomics, reloads, weight and swing. etc.
I like a 20in ar HBAR turned dowm under the handguards to a2 specs with a full stock and a2 rear sight with a a1 front. It works for me and that is what counts.
Realistically most domestic rifle fights are within 100yrd. Try shooting out to 300 yrd sometime with iron sights. The most important factors in a rifle then are trigger and sights.
"There are the experienced riflemen and then there are the armchair commandos." -Anon
You really need to shoot more and see which one works for you.
It's not the gun it's the guidance sys that is the true variable.
Start shooting 3 gun comps and you will find that the most iportant thing with any rifle is that it works 100% and that particular rifle works for you as far as ergonomics, reloads, weight and swing. etc.
I like a 20in ar HBAR turned dowm under the handguards to a2 specs with a full stock and a2 rear sight with a a1 front. It works for me and that is what counts.
Realistically most domestic rifle fights are within 100yrd. Try shooting out to 300 yrd sometime with iron sights. The most important factors in a rifle then are trigger and sights.
"There are the experienced riflemen and then there are the armchair commandos." -Anon
Keith
Member
Hmmm, your concept might actually work (what do I know?) in an engineering sense, but I don't think you're grasping the tactical and practical realities fully.
Battle rifles are not meant to be "bullet hoses" like squad machine guns. Your MG 42 (for example) had to have the barrel changed every 300 rounds - that's about every 20 seconds at the 900 rpm rate of fire, and required a crew of at least two, and usually three men to handle the ammo and extra barrels. etc.
A battle rifle is meant to be fired in two or three round bursts and any attempt to turn it into a bullet hose would find a man out of ammo or with a ruined rifle in very short order.
No doubt, you could overcome many of the engineering obstacles in some fashion, but what would the cost be? How heavy would such a rifle have to be for a man to control it in extended full auto fire? How much ammo could a man carry? How many extra barrels?
And why? The current small unit doctrine calls for a heavy gun as a base to fire on the enemy position, while the men with light weapons to manuever to the flanks of the enemy. Now you've got everyone weighted down with ammo, barrels and heavier weapons - how do they maneuver?
Keith
Battle rifles are not meant to be "bullet hoses" like squad machine guns. Your MG 42 (for example) had to have the barrel changed every 300 rounds - that's about every 20 seconds at the 900 rpm rate of fire, and required a crew of at least two, and usually three men to handle the ammo and extra barrels. etc.
A battle rifle is meant to be fired in two or three round bursts and any attempt to turn it into a bullet hose would find a man out of ammo or with a ruined rifle in very short order.
No doubt, you could overcome many of the engineering obstacles in some fashion, but what would the cost be? How heavy would such a rifle have to be for a man to control it in extended full auto fire? How much ammo could a man carry? How many extra barrels?
And why? The current small unit doctrine calls for a heavy gun as a base to fire on the enemy position, while the men with light weapons to manuever to the flanks of the enemy. Now you've got everyone weighted down with ammo, barrels and heavier weapons - how do they maneuver?
Keith
OP
OP
Badger Arms
Member
Keith:
Getting a little more realistic, the rate of fire can be under 500rpm. The MG-42 was a sustained base-of fire weapon, not an assault rifle. By way of comparrison, it's about the most accurate full-auto weapon out there being capable of firing decent 'groups' on full-auto. The barrel and gas mechanism heats up quickly on this gun because of the rate of fire, not because of controlability.
And I doubt that the current doctrine is the correct or best doctrine. If every infantryman were to have an M-249, the squad would be much more effective, much less mobile, correct? Full-auto has its place in the M-16 now, but this is limited to ambushes, suppressive fire, and they like. The reason? The M-16 isn't controllable enough in full auto to reliably engage point targets. If an infantryman can be assured of a hit on a point target at 300 yards with full-auto, he'd better darned well be shooting full-auto. Semi-auto engagement would require several aimed shots. Why not use the first few rounds to get in a rhythm and then walk the rounds onto the target like an machinegunner does? Sure, we can't expect the assault rifle to take the place of a machinegun, but we can expect it to perform short-burst engagements of, say, 10-15 rounds at a time. An effective ballanced recoil weapon will allow him to engage whereas he'd need a SAW under current doctrine to accomplish the same task.
There is a paradigm shift that must occur. Conventional wisdom would tell us that the infantryman will be overburdoned by ammo and it's wasteful to shoot full-auto. I've heard this before. It delayed adoption of the rifle repeating rifle, of the semi-automatic rifle, of the M-16, of the 30 round magazine for the M-16. At every step of the way, nay-sayers were complaining that conservation of ammo was important. In the end, they were right when it came to spray-and-pray tactics used with the AK-47 and M-16. The Germans, however, utilized a squad concept where the light machinegun (MG-34 and later MG-42) formed the backbone of a squad with the other infantry there to carry ammo and support the LMG. Their effectiveness casued a switch in thinking where firepower was thought to be the answer. I'd argue that it's not firepower alone, but concentrated, accurate bursts. Later in the war, the Assault Rifle was born of the desire to make every infantry soldier a Machinegunner. Their FIRST EFFORT was a ballanced recoil weapon. In fact, the reputation it got for controllability was as much due to it's constant recoil bolt-carrier as it was due to the weight of the rifle.
Thinking in modern Western and Eastern tactical terms limits us to the weapons we have today. We can, however, restructure the infantry to be more effective. My vision is that roughly two out of every three soldiers carry an assault rifle. The third should be a Grenadier (equiped with a grenade launcher or launching attachment), a Machinegunner, or a designated marksman. My optimum squad would be six riflemen (with ballanced-recoil guns of course), two grenadiers, one machinegunner, one designated marksman, and a squad leader who also carries a Balanced assault rifle. All of the weapons can be versions of the same gun. Yeah, Gene Stoner thought the same thing and look where it got him! Use a heavy barrel for the LMG and Marksman rifles and just strap a launcher to the Grenadier's standard rifle. All guns fire the same ammo from the same gun and magazines interchange. What a concept.
There is no logistical reason why we cannot do this. The Russians even have a similar squad concept with light automatic rifles taking the same magazines and essentially a heavier AK design.
One final note: You say battle rifles are not meant to be bullet hoses. Why not? If we can do it logistically, and heck, the Nazi's did, then what is keeping us from doing it?
Getting a little more realistic, the rate of fire can be under 500rpm. The MG-42 was a sustained base-of fire weapon, not an assault rifle. By way of comparrison, it's about the most accurate full-auto weapon out there being capable of firing decent 'groups' on full-auto. The barrel and gas mechanism heats up quickly on this gun because of the rate of fire, not because of controlability.
And I doubt that the current doctrine is the correct or best doctrine. If every infantryman were to have an M-249, the squad would be much more effective, much less mobile, correct? Full-auto has its place in the M-16 now, but this is limited to ambushes, suppressive fire, and they like. The reason? The M-16 isn't controllable enough in full auto to reliably engage point targets. If an infantryman can be assured of a hit on a point target at 300 yards with full-auto, he'd better darned well be shooting full-auto. Semi-auto engagement would require several aimed shots. Why not use the first few rounds to get in a rhythm and then walk the rounds onto the target like an machinegunner does? Sure, we can't expect the assault rifle to take the place of a machinegun, but we can expect it to perform short-burst engagements of, say, 10-15 rounds at a time. An effective ballanced recoil weapon will allow him to engage whereas he'd need a SAW under current doctrine to accomplish the same task.
There is a paradigm shift that must occur. Conventional wisdom would tell us that the infantryman will be overburdoned by ammo and it's wasteful to shoot full-auto. I've heard this before. It delayed adoption of the rifle repeating rifle, of the semi-automatic rifle, of the M-16, of the 30 round magazine for the M-16. At every step of the way, nay-sayers were complaining that conservation of ammo was important. In the end, they were right when it came to spray-and-pray tactics used with the AK-47 and M-16. The Germans, however, utilized a squad concept where the light machinegun (MG-34 and later MG-42) formed the backbone of a squad with the other infantry there to carry ammo and support the LMG. Their effectiveness casued a switch in thinking where firepower was thought to be the answer. I'd argue that it's not firepower alone, but concentrated, accurate bursts. Later in the war, the Assault Rifle was born of the desire to make every infantry soldier a Machinegunner. Their FIRST EFFORT was a ballanced recoil weapon. In fact, the reputation it got for controllability was as much due to it's constant recoil bolt-carrier as it was due to the weight of the rifle.
Thinking in modern Western and Eastern tactical terms limits us to the weapons we have today. We can, however, restructure the infantry to be more effective. My vision is that roughly two out of every three soldiers carry an assault rifle. The third should be a Grenadier (equiped with a grenade launcher or launching attachment), a Machinegunner, or a designated marksman. My optimum squad would be six riflemen (with ballanced-recoil guns of course
), two grenadiers, one machinegunner, one designated marksman, and a squad leader who also carries a Balanced assault rifle. All of the weapons can be versions of the same gun. Yeah, Gene Stoner thought the same thing and look where it got him! Use a heavy barrel for the LMG and Marksman rifles and just strap a launcher to the Grenadier's standard rifle. All guns fire the same ammo from the same gun and magazines interchange. What a concept.There is no logistical reason why we cannot do this. The Russians even have a similar squad concept with light automatic rifles taking the same magazines and essentially a heavier AK design.
One final note: You say battle rifles are not meant to be bullet hoses. Why not? If we can do it logistically, and heck, the Nazi's did, then what is keeping us from doing it?
Tamara
Senior Member
Badger Arms,
To echo what Kaylee said, we're talking about rifles, not pistols or tripod-mounted LMG's.
To echo what Kaylee said, we're talking about rifles, not pistols or tripod-mounted LMG's.
Keith
Member
Well, to grasp the most important reason (among several); weight. An infantryman could simply not carry enough ammo to sustain a firefight of more than a few minutes. And remember, he'd also have to carry a heavier weapon, along with the extra barrels that any sustained fire weapon would have to employ. Even at a rate of 500 rounds per minute, you'd still need to swap barrels before very long. And all that weight along with his regular kit - I don't think so!
It isn't conservation of ammo, it's about still having ammo five minutes after the fight breaks out!
Now, I can envision special groups operating out of Bradley's or something like that. The vehicles could carry all the spam and beans, and leave the trooper free to just worry about his ammo and weapons. So... maybe it would work in a fully mechanized recon outfit or something. The troopers could dump out and become a very formidable base, while the vehicles did the end run... I'm no infantryman, but that strikes me as a workable tactic - and probably a very formidable one since the vehicles have considerably more speed than a squad of foot soldiers, not to mention firepower and armor! That would be a pretty scary combination - a hundred or so soldiers dumped in your lap, all armed with accurate sustained fire weapons, while a dozen Bradleys spin out on each of your flanks...
Keith
Keith
One issue I have with recoiling barrels is the possible degradation of accuracy in semiauto fire. Otherwise, I'm all for reducing felt recoil. There are quite a number of solutions that don't require major rework. Look at the aftermarket Counterpoise kit for AR-15, I remember it was designed by the same guys that did the Ultimax 100 constant recoil machinegun.
Also, the Japanese have a low initial impluse piston on their Type-89 rifles. The front part of the piston is smaller in diameter. The idea being by the time gas makes its way down the tube, it has already exerted some force on the front, starting it in motion.
So far as ammo weight is concerned. We should really lobby for aluminium alloy casing like what they use on aircraft guns. Expensive, but if you really want to save weight. . .
Also, the Japanese have a low initial impluse piston on their Type-89 rifles. The front part of the piston is smaller in diameter. The idea being by the time gas makes its way down the tube, it has already exerted some force on the front, starting it in motion.
So far as ammo weight is concerned. We should really lobby for aluminium alloy casing like what they use on aircraft guns. Expensive, but if you really want to save weight. . .
OEF_VET
Member
Yep, the AK is inaccurate when fired full-auto. However, full-auto isn't used for anything near accurate fire. Fully automatic fire is properly used for grazing fire or spraying a beaten zone. It's also great for causing an enemy gunner to take cover, such as when you're reacting to a close-contact ambush or trying to break contact with a superior force. As long as the AK can spray hundreds of rounds per minute in the general vicinity of where it's aimed, then it's achieving the purpose of firing it on full-auto. If you want sub-MOA accuracy, try a designated sniper rifle. If you want to accomplish 'one-shot, one-kill', an AK will do so, within its' range limitations.
Anyone who expects accuracy when firing full-auto, out of a combat weapon, in a combat environment, is in the midst of a pipe-dream. It's an unnecessary waste of ammo. If you're shooting accurately, one or two rounds should be sufficient. There is no need to fire full-auto at a single, man-sized target.
Just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Anyone who expects accuracy when firing full-auto, out of a combat weapon, in a combat environment, is in the midst of a pipe-dream. It's an unnecessary waste of ammo. If you're shooting accurately, one or two rounds should be sufficient. There is no need to fire full-auto at a single, man-sized target.
Just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Marko Kloos
Moderator Emeritus
Uh, the MG42 and MG3 do not have a gas mechanism. They utilize the roller-delayed blowback principle.
Stg 44 and Ak the same rifle?Now way a german would design a rifle with 4 moving parts held toegther with wire springs and rivets. It's far too uncomplicated.
Neat video though.. you'll also notice with all thet flopping around of bolt carrier and rear sight the operator is holding the rifle pretty much in the same place.
Neat video though.. you'll also notice with all thet flopping around of bolt carrier and rear sight the operator is holding the rifle pretty much in the same place.
jrhead75
Member
If you are talking about a human sized target at 200 meters or so...yes.
It unerringly does what it was designed to do...always!
OP
OP
Badger Arms
Member
Speaking on the MG42, it does have a gas-assist cup at the muzzle which will overrheat to the point of glowing before the barrel will overheat. It's fun to watch. While not a gas piston in the traditional sense, the Germans felt it necessary to increase the reliability of the weapon under adverse conditions. Also because they didn't so much trust the roller lock system to completely do the job. The end result is that the entire system had a much higher rate of fire on the order of 900-1200rpm depending on many factors.
Either this is true, or I'm slipping. Haven't been that wrong in years.
OEF_VET:
You are right on with current doctrine. Current doctrine is wrong though, guaranteed. Something can and will replace it. In fact, machinegun doctrine is nearly a century old and still evolves. What would be wrong with a gun that can shoot 3MOA groups on full-auto? How about putting half of a magazine into a pie plate at 300 meters? The quantum leap in firepower is possible.
The Johnson 1941 rifle comes to mind. While not as good overall as the Garand, it was a substitute standard and was fielded by the Marines, I believe. Some still swear by the Johnson. The LMG version was highly controllable. It fired from closed-bolt semi or open bolt on full-auto and was reputed to have excellent controlability.
Keith:
Yes, the gun will heat up, but in practice, they heat up rather quickly anyhow with bursts and full-auto strings. The same argument was made against full-auto fire for the M-14 and M-16. In practice, soldiers tend to swing the selector to full-auto anyways. Why not give them what they want?
Well, now, I'm not FN here! But know that the gun has already been made. The FG-42 had the recoiling stock, Melvin Johnson had a workable recoiling barrel, the Ultimax 100 has a constant-recoiling spring, and we can get Jimmy Carter in to negotiate a peace with all of the died-in-the-wool defenders of the AK and AR weapons. What we need is a hacksaw, some super glue, a few host weapons, a case of beer, and maybe a rubber band or two and we'll have this thing built tonight!
bad_dad_brad
Member
My favorite THR catagory is the Rifle Country. Most eclectic and interesting as the rifle is the ultimate in hand held weapons sans a 40mm grenade launcher or Cap't Kirk's phaser.
That video was really interesting by the way.
This subject certainly has been discussed many times at great lengths.
I have an AK a SAR1 - love it, kick it around, have fun, seems to always shoot, and I never seem to have to clean that Romanian b*tch.
I have a Mini-14 Ranch type. Well, I can't say I love her, but she is a capable and accurate weapon as long as you don't shoot too much too fast. And for god's sake you better clean the thing after every shooting or that carbon build up will really start to affect accuracy.
But I really am in love with my AR15, a Bushy 16" A2 Shorty. She handles wonderfuly, is quite amazingly accurate for a semi-auto, or bolt action for that matter, and as long as you maintain her, she is very reliable. Heck, what women worth her salt isn't high maintenance? Charlene is my AR15's name.
But seriously ladies and germs. The AK47 is a highly effective third world rifle. She is ugly, low maintenance, fat, and squirms around. Sure she does not satisfy in the looks department, but she is always willing.
I have oft read that the evolution of the assault rifle has reached it's pinnacle with the current breed, AR, VEPR, GALIL, H&K caseless, etc. I believe that is true, and so our debates sometimes seem silly as todays weapons are quite good. Whatever our soldiers will carry in the future, if indeed we field soldiers instead of robots, will be a quantum leap in technology.
That video was really interesting by the way.
This subject certainly has been discussed many times at great lengths.
I have an AK a SAR1 - love it, kick it around, have fun, seems to always shoot, and I never seem to have to clean that Romanian b*tch.
I have a Mini-14 Ranch type. Well, I can't say I love her, but she is a capable and accurate weapon as long as you don't shoot too much too fast. And for god's sake you better clean the thing after every shooting or that carbon build up will really start to affect accuracy.
But I really am in love with my AR15, a Bushy 16" A2 Shorty. She handles wonderfuly, is quite amazingly accurate for a semi-auto, or bolt action for that matter, and as long as you maintain her, she is very reliable. Heck, what women worth her salt isn't high maintenance? Charlene is my AR15's name.
But seriously ladies and germs. The AK47 is a highly effective third world rifle. She is ugly, low maintenance, fat, and squirms around. Sure she does not satisfy in the looks department, but she is always willing.
I have oft read that the evolution of the assault rifle has reached it's pinnacle with the current breed, AR, VEPR, GALIL, H&K caseless, etc. I believe that is true, and so our debates sometimes seem silly as todays weapons are quite good. Whatever our soldiers will carry in the future, if indeed we field soldiers instead of robots, will be a quantum leap in technology.
The AK is definitely not a match peice.
Factor in the slop in the action, the loose tolerances and the less than perfect ammo that you generally shoot out of them, and you have a gun that is only really good out to around 250 meters.
Yes, you might have a good one, or be a good shot, or be lucky and be able to hit something farther away than that, but for practical purposes, that is what you have.
But you do have reliability.
You can slather the thing with mud, dirt, sand, fouling and rust, and it will keep on shooting.
That is what makes it a good weapon.
BTW- Anyone who has ever shot a VEPR with good ammo can tell you that an AK can be accurate.
Factor in the slop in the action, the loose tolerances and the less than perfect ammo that you generally shoot out of them, and you have a gun that is only really good out to around 250 meters.
Yes, you might have a good one, or be a good shot, or be lucky and be able to hit something farther away than that, but for practical purposes, that is what you have.
But you do have reliability.
You can slather the thing with mud, dirt, sand, fouling and rust, and it will keep on shooting.
That is what makes it a good weapon.
BTW- Anyone who has ever shot a VEPR with good ammo can tell you that an AK can be accurate.
clint1911a1
Member
Take a look around...
I think that all the AK spinoffs and derivatives is something of a testament to its sound design, i.e.; Israeli Galil, Finnish Valmet, South African R-4,
Czech CZ-2000, Hungarian AMD-65, Indian Insas, Iraqi Tabuk, Polish Tantal, Swedish FFV-890C, and Chinese Type-56 just to name a few.
I think that all the AK spinoffs and derivatives is something of a testament to its sound design, i.e.; Israeli Galil, Finnish Valmet, South African R-4,
Czech CZ-2000, Hungarian AMD-65, Indian Insas, Iraqi Tabuk, Polish Tantal, Swedish FFV-890C, and Chinese Type-56 just to name a few.
jrhead75
Member
Bad_dad...I'm a SAR-1 owner myself. It's my SHTF weapon, and a good shooter. Imagine that...an assault weapon that's good from 300 meters in... who'da thunkit?
20 million or so angry commies can't be wrong...can they? 
20 million or so angry commies can't be wrong...can they?
Kaylee
Member
You mean... aside from buying Communism in the first place, right?
- Status
