What's wrong with the AK? I'll tell ya.

[Destructo6]

It's clearances that M. Kalashnikov increased, not necessarily tolerances.

Clearance is the amount of space between two mating parts.

Tolerances is how close those parts are made to the print's specs.

For instance, a punch going through a die may have a width of .9950" +0" -.005" because it needs .005" clearance minimum to make it through the 1.000" die.

It is not an oxymoron to say you have tight tolerances and increased clearances.

 

[Badger Arms]

Actually, that's what I said and that's what I meant:

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.

The tolerances had to be loose because peasants were expected to build the thing. The fit had to be loose to allow for reliability. You can't have third-world slave labor meeting 1/1,000" tolerances on batches of hundreds-of-thousands of weapons and expect to be successful.

 

[max popenker]

Badger, what ya smoked when wrote that?

AK-47 is nothing more than the StG-45 reworked and refined with a larger cartridge

the StG-45 has NOTHING to do with AK! AT ALL! It was the Mauser late-war design, that latter evolved into the CETME and Heckler-Koch family of rifles, with roller-delayed blowback system, developed by Ludvig Vorglimler

If you meant StG-44, how in the hell you can convert this into AK? see.
a) The receiver designs are completely different: StG-44 receiver is open from the rear and below, with separate trigger unit, with pistol grip, hinged to the receiver. AK receiver is open from the top, with trigger unit mounted directly into receiver
b) gas system. long piston stroke both (at keast, found something similar ).
c) locking system - tilting bolt in StG-44, severely modified Garand-type bolt in AK. Nothing similar at all.
d) return spring: in the detachable butt in StG-44, inside the receiver and hollowed-out rear part of the gas piston in AK. Spring unit design also entirely different
e) magazine housing: MP-40 style in StG-44 (latter copied to M16 =), totally different on AK.

AK is indeed an amalgam of previously known designs, but none of those came from herr Hugo Schmeisser, the author of StG-44

Some other mistake, also:

30 Luger (now 30 Tokarev)

The 7.62x25mm Tokarev is a copy of .30 Mauser, not .30 Luger (7.62x22mm). Soviets bought large numbers of C96 "Bolo" Mausers in 1920s, and were so impressed with its properties, so retained this decent cartridge for TT and latter submachine guns.

 

[Badger Arms]

If you meant StG-44

Well, no. I didn't have the books in front of me and I was just trying to wing the points from memory. Memory didn't serve me that well this time. I meant neither the MP43/StG-44 nor did I mean the StG-45(m). The gun that I pictured was the MKb42(H). The constant recoil system in this gun was dropped in favor or a more conventional system and a bow to semi-automatic capability. Strange move in my opinion.

The receiver designs are completely different: StG-44 receiver is open from the rear and below, with separate trigger unit, with pistol grip, hinged to the receiver. AK receiver is open from the top, with trigger unit mounted directly into receiver

In reality, the AK-47 (prototype) and AKM rifles have receivers that are opened at the rear and then closed off with a trunion. The internals were moved inside the larger receiver of the AK-47 due to simplification of tooling. It's much quicker and easier to mill dies for the AK-47 than it would have been with the overcomplicated StG-44 from which it was based. I'd have to see the internals. Do you have any pictures of the internals of the StG-44? Anyhow, the redesign involved unifying many the assemblies and therefore simplifying design and manufacture drastically

locking system - tilting bolt in StG-44, severely modified Garand-type bolt in AK. Nothing similar at all.

Yep, that's the Garand/M-1 Carbine influence I was speaking about.

magazine housing: MP-40 style in StG-44 (latter copied to M16 =), totally different on AK.

This, too, was part of the receiver unification. Take three major subassemblies and make them into one very simple assembly and a receiver cover.

The 7.62x25mm Tokarev is a copy of .30 Mauser, not .30 Luger (7.62x22mm).

Yep, got me on that one. I get the 30 Mauser and 30 Luger confused all the time.

I'm of the opinion that the firm denials from Kalashnikov and other Soviets is a direct result of nationalist pride. I don't think that anybody would argue that the StG-44 was at the very least the inspiration for the AK-47 and the 7.62x39 was inspired by the 8mm K. Why is it that some would deny the obvious lineage of the StG-44 when speaking about the AK-47? There's nothing wrong with that. The US freely admits it's M-60 was directly descended from the MG-42 and FG-42 along with influences from other existing weapons. Heck, both the Soviet and US space programs were deeply rooted in German research and, later, expatriated German research. When I read and listen to Kalashnikov, it was HIS design and HIS ideas. Bah. I'd be more than happy to be proven wrong, but Soviet history is on my side of this argument. There is a long history of deifying politicaly correct individuals without regard to their acutal accomplishments for the purposes of role-modeling. Heroes of the Soviet Union seem to me to be very important... more important than truth and reality. Unfortunately, we'll never know.

Badger, what ya smoked when wrote that?

Hellfire... I only smoke hellfire. Filtered, of course with a touch of menthol.

 

[Badger Arms]

Oh, crap. I've been proven right by none other than the VPC:

http://www.vpc.org/studies/hosefive.htm

I'm about to get violently ill.

 

[Destructo6]

Here's the closest I could find on a strip-down STG44:

Wasn't the AK's cartridge, the M43, adopted in 1943? That would place it in use a year before the debut of the STG's 7.92x33 cartridge, making the argument that the former was based on the later somewhat anachronistic.

BTW, Badger, that last post wasn't necessarily directed at you. It's not uncommon for some to use "clearance" and "tolerance" interchangeably.

 

[max popenker]

Well, forgive my far from ideal English, but i see a distinctive difference between "Inspired by" and "copied from".

AK was by some part INSPIRED by the sucess of the Mkb/Stg idea (by the way, i think that MKb - Mashinenkarabiner - Machine Carbine is a more correct term, than a Styurmgewehr/Assault rifle, devised by not less than the Hitler itself.)

But it is no way that AK was COPIED from Stg.44, as well as Makarow PM was not copied after the Walther PP. Inspired - yes, copied - no way.

As for intermediate cartridges. Many countries worked on this concept before WW2. First version of the Soviet intermediate cartridge was made in 1943, but it gradually evolved into its present shape by 1947.

I suggest anyone interested to read excellent article by Anthony Williams, ASSAULT RIFLES AND THEIR AMMUNITION: HISTORY AND PROSPECTS

And about Mikhail Kalashnikov itself. Of cause, he was propaganda-made man. AK-47 was designed and especially refined into its AKM form by many and many people, with hundreds improvements suggested by others than MTK.
The worst thiong about M.T.K. is that he became the "authority" in small arms, forming some sort of "Kalashnikov lobby", that tried to block anything that went out of factory/design bueau other than IzhMash, M.T.K. and AK-47 "home".

There were plenty of much better designs, especially in 1959 and 1974 trials, when AKM and Ak-74 were respectively adopted. But, in both cases, Kalashnikov designs were preferred by the army top brass on the basis of familiarity (almost the same as with M14 vs FAL in US trials, i believe)

 

[Badger Arms]

Gotcha. The adoption dates for the 7.92x33mm Kurz and 7.62x39mm were 1941 and 1943 respectively. The Russians had been on the receiving end of early MKb-42 rifles and their devastating, portable fire. I'm not entirely sure the Russians were able to field any rifles in that caliber during the war, though.

 

[Badger Arms]

I never said copied, but that is a semantics issue. I said reworked. It's clear to me from the layout of the weapon that it is derivative... that is when the Kalashnikov team designed their weapon, they used the StG-44 as a model. They ditched those things that didn't work well like the tilting bolt and modular receiber. They added things from other Russian guns like the SVT-40 (Recoil spring, sight, etc.) and the SKS and built this around an innovation (rework) of the Garand twin-lug bolt, locking extension, and cam raceway.

I apologize for arguing about English and proper word use. The AK-47 was, as I have stated earlier, DERIVED from the MP-43/StG-44 with elements of other weapons and a distinctly Soviet flare of simplicity and economy of manufacture. I am sorry if I implied that it was copied, it was not.

While this isn't a pistol discussion, I will agree with you that the Makarov is most definitely NOT a copy of the Walther PPK. I much prefer the Russian design and the 9mm Ultra / 9x18 concept is perfection in a military sidearm if you ask me. The only complaint I have with the Makarov is the tiny sights, but these were common when the gun was adopted.

 

[Badger Arms]

There were plenty of much better designs, especially in 1959 and 1974 trials, when AKM and Ak-74 were respectively adopted. But, in both cases, Kalashnikov designs were preferred by the army top brass on the basis of familiarity (almost the same as with M14 vs FAL in US trials, i believe)

Well said. I think we'd be able to settle our differences and make a working firearm in about a year whereas governments may never get it right.

 

[max popenker]

I'm not entirely sure the Russians were able to field any rifles in that caliber during the war, though.

Soviet Army fielded at least several thousands SKS carbines during early 1945 against Germans as a troops live trials.

By the way, Yugoslavs officially used Stg.44 as a paratrooper weapons until 1981 or so, then replacet it with M.64 and M.70 AK clones.

 

[Kaylee]

So... why the change from the tilting to the rotating bolt? What did they gain?

 

[Badger Arms]

Tilting vs. Rotating bolts. One you make on lathes and screw machines, the other requires precision milling. It's cheaper working with round stuff. Also, the tilting bolt locks in the rear requiring a sttronger, heavier receiver between the rear of the bolt and the breech of the barrel. A tilting bolt also needs to be supported from both sides and from the bottom and is very loosely connected to the carrier assembly. This makes it necessary to build a more complex receiver and tends to make the overall design less reliable. The Kalashnikov uses this as a tradeoff allowing the magazine to flop all around while the bolt stays in nearly the same place through each cycle. Can't have them both flopping around. Remember that the AK-47 was designed with knowledge of many tilting bolt firearms including the SKS

 

[Sunray]

"...I'm saying that this is NOT the way to design a gun...." This is precisely why it works every time in Ivan/Chang/Ho/Ahab/Cetswayo's hand. It's not a target rifle. It's not precisely machined. It's not designed for one shot-one kill shooting. It's made for illiterate peasant draftees to use with minimum training. The calibre and when it was or was not introduced is irrelevant.

 

[Badger Arms]

Once again, if we can design a gun that is as reliable as the AK (which is not 100% reliable BTW) and yet is also accurate and ballanced so that full-auto bursts will be orders of magnitude more precise, why shouldn't we? If you design a rifle that's super-accurate and yet breaks every third shot, that's not a good design. If you design a rifle that you can run over with a tank and fire yet it can't hit the side of a barn, that is not a good rifle. If you build a reliable, accurate rifle that is uncontrollable on full-auto (read the M-14) then that's not the way to design a rifle. The M-16 is about as close to a reliable and controlable full-auto gun and they NEUTERED it with the 3-round-burst system. We can, however, design a gun that will be as accurate as the M-16, as reliable as the AK, and as controllable as the MG-42 was without any design or engineering voodoo using off the shelf technology.

The counter-argument seems to be, "Well, the AK-47 is reliable and they made lots of copies and it wasn't designed to be accurate." Fair enough, then why wouldn't you be interested in an AK-47 that was not only accurate but would hold a full-auto burst on target like a heavy machinegun does? It defies logic that nobody would be interested.

Why replace what works? If it works, don't fix it? Well, we have to replace the guns anyhow and we are replacing one Pretty Good design with another design (the XM-8) that is merely "Pretty Gooder" instead. The XM-8 is innovative, probably more reliable, and perhaps cheaper to build, but if we're doing the replacement anyhow, why not get it right?

I've never understood why there is so much resistance to change at the academic level. I can understand that, logistically at least, an Army would want to stick with what it has in terms of both tactical doctrine and machinery. But from a purely academic angle, why not explore improving what's there to make it better? Perhaps I just get too worked up over these things. I need to start taking Kava-Kava or Ginsing or something like that.

 

[Badger Arms]

BTW, there seems to be a misconception that a Balanced-recoil system has to be complicated. In reality, all you have to do is have a longer recoil spring and bolt carrier travel. This allows the bolt to overtravel what is needed to reliably feed the next round and the recoil spring then completely arrests the recoil energy without being fully compressed and resulting jolt when the bolt hits the rear of the receiver. In fact, the AK-47 with the receiver lengthened a few inches in the rear would seem to fit the bill nicely. While still as inaccurate on semi as the current AK-47ish weapons, it would greatly increase the full-auto reliability of the gun IMHO.

 

[Keith]

After you take that kava kava (and wash that down with three fingers of bourbon...), go back and look at the practical side of the issue. Again.

I'd love to have a controllable shoulder-fired full auto weapon, IF I was a soldier in a defensive position or working out of a big vehicle of some kind.

I just don't see how it would work for the average ground pounding infantryman. If you train those guys to shoot extended full auto bursts, they'll be out of ammo in minutes.
And it's physically impossible to carry enough ammo to feed that sort of tactical weapon in a sustained fight. And even an infantry division has to be mobile - how fast can they move if you increase the weight they must carry, and what kind of shape will they be in when they arrive at their destination?
You live in Anchorage, strap a 150 pound pack on and walk to Seward. And then when you get there, start a gun fight with the locals - maybe point out how fat some of those gals down there are... You'll be too tired, if you haven't stroked out somewhere on the way up Moose Pass!

That doesn't mean you shouldn't work on this as a project, or that it couldn't be a specialty weapon of some kind. I just think you may be missing the tactical side of things. The "muscle" of a modern army is in air and artillery, not small arms. Men on the ground are just there to contact the enemy long enough to call in the big muscle. If your foot soldiers can't get there quickly enough, or aren't mobile enough to feel out the enemy position, they're wasted.

Keith

 

[goon]

The guy may be on to something...
Don't get me wrong. I like the AK, and I like to be able to hit stuff. I have found that you often can't have both.
But lets look at something like a VEPR .223.
Keep the basic design with the heavy barrel, but stick a lighter forearm on the damn thing so you could actually use it for something other than a bench gun. It needs better balance.
Add an efficient compensator and some sort of buffer. Maybe make the recoil spring captive like the ones in some semi-auto pistols. The first spring would absorb the initial shock, and the rear spring would slow and stop the carrier before it hit the back of the reciever.
Issue a detachable bipod.
Make it select fire.
Train the troops to use semi-auto most of the time, using the FA fire only when warranted.
I have heard of "burst sniping" that was done back in the day with machine guns, so why not now?
Yes, FA fire would mean more heat and ammo, but not if your guys got enough trigger time to not just spray out a cloud of lead.

 

[Jim K]

The answer appears to me to be simple. Since apparently no current designs are good, and the folks posting all seem to know what is wrong, just design a better weapon and submit it for military testing. True, you might not succeed at first, but quality should win out. And you will not only have the satisfaction of providing your country with the best possible weapon, but will make a bunch of money to boot.

Jim

 

[Gabe]

If controllability is a primary goal, there's no reason to use bolts at all. Your main problem is the bolt carrier swinging back and forth. Instead of making spring contraptions for it, use a fixed bolt.

On top of my head I can think of the old Maxim machingun action, and revolver guns common on European fighter jets. With a revolver gun you could potentially fire a burst at 2000+ rpm, kinda like the HK G11.

 

[Badger Arms]

What you're suggesting is another way of tackling the problem of hit probability. What a balanced-recoil system does is allow you to aim your burst... kinda like "Burst Sniping" if you will like Goon suggested. The first few rounds allow you go get into the rhythm and compensate for the constant recoil and then you can direct the stream of bullets onto a target by observing them striking the target and/or through the use of tracers. A gun like this doesn't even need sights for this type of shooting. A lower rate of fire assures you that you'll have enough burst to kill the target once you get onto him. I'm thinking an average of a 10 round burst.

Here's a little inspiration. Has anybody ever shot them full-auto gallery guns? You know, the kind where you shoot BB's at a star and try to cut the star completely out of the target? Once you get the thing rolling, it's fairly simple to aim the burst where you want it to go, right? BTW, the way to win that is to shoot from point to point in one constant burst. The reason being that the first few rounds of the next burst will be off-target, just like my balanced recoil gun. In a situation where you have multiple targets, you can probably switch rapidly from one to the other and walk the fire across a formation before they have the ability to react.

 

[Glock Glockler]

Keith,

Just to play Devil's advocate, did the Germanrun out of ammo after 5 minutes by feeding a beast like the MG-42? It seems that what they did do was mop the floor with Ivan.

 

[CZ52GUY]

What's wrong with the AK?

Too much fun.

Too simple to work on and customize.

Too reliable.

Too cheap.

Too tempting to have just one (bought one, now have three).

This is interesting discussion, but I think you gotta' give some credit where credit is due.

What is the criteria for success, box office or critical reviews?

I guess it depends on your perspective.

For me, my perspective is the Homeland Security angle for one, and the sheer joy of getting out on the range and unloading 30 rounds at a target. I've added red-dots to two out of three, a new FCG to one, and plenty of full capacity mag's from various countries of origin (both polymer and steel).

If you're looking for the perfect engineering marvel...you might look elsewhere.

If you're looking for a terrific piece of equipment, look no further than the AK...

Best wishes,

CZ52'

 

[Keith]

Just to play Devil's advocate, did the Germanrun out of ammo after 5 minutes by feeding a beast like the MG-42? It seems that what they did do was mop the floor with Ivan.

No, but that was a team of three men! If you want to turn foot troops into three man teams - a gunner and two ammo bearers - you'd have a big job selling that to the army!

Keith

 

[Wanderer]

AK works, everytime. If it works, don't fix it.