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

[Glock Glockler]

Wanderer,

Who's talking about match rifles, I don't know if they were discussed even once on this thread? We are talking about combat rifles, and the purpose of which is to assist in creating causalties among the enemy, and would that objective be better performed in a rifle that was smoother and more balanced during firing?

The AK 103 is a step in this direction, yet it does not sacrifice the excellent Kalashnikov reliability.

Keith,

From all accounts that I've read, the German Stg44 had a very balanced recoil that allowed it to be extremely controllable during full-auto fire, and they were not supporting those rifles like they were the MG42, yet those on the recieving end of the Stg44 quickly learned to respect it. I don't have the detailed accounts at my fingertips but it was given a baptism by fire, airdropped to Germans who were completely enveloped by Soviets and the Germans then cut through the Soviets back o their own lines.

The Ultimax light machinegun is also supposed to be extremely controllable on full-auto, and it was developed by Jim Sullivan, who was one of the architects of the Counterpoise system (supposedly reducing recoil on semi-auto by 50% and full auto by 80%). Sullivan apparently rediscovered the formula used on the Stg to create the balanced recoil mechanism.

From what I can tell the empirical data, limited as it is, supports a controllable mechanism for delivering fire.

 

[Wanderer]

I'm confused, I woke up too early, sorry for bein stupid.

 

[MAKOwner]

Couple pictures of the MKb-42 at the site below, as well as a video down at the bottom of a Stg-44 firing a couple shots... Hadn't seen that before. http://web.freebooters.org/zetazot/mkb42.html


I think alot of this argument is fairly moot as we have no other high speed, open action videos of other current rifles being fired to directly compare it to. The AK is probably a little more sloppy than most but I don't think most other guns are completely without any magazine wobble and the such either... The AKs sight movement seems to be caused just by the initial shock of the round going off, the sight design is not unique, any rifle with a flip up sliding adjustable sight would probably see similar movement. If you watch most of the videos of pistols you'll notice the slides flopping around pretty good (along with the barrel...), the slide "smacking" when it reaches it's rearmost travel, etc... I would love to see some similar videos to see directly how the FAL, G3, AR, etc behaved.

I personally don't think the AK is that much more inaccurate than any other 16ish inch barrelled rifle shooting similar cheap ammo... Or should I say it doesn't HAVE to be. It needs some tweaks with the sights and good ammo and it would shoot pretty well. And that ammo is the half the problem, 7.62x39 was never great, even good loads are marginal, but that shouldn't be a slam on the AK action, it could use just about anything with very little changing. I mean you put a AK74 up against a M4 and the difference isn't huge, and that is with a better sighting system on the M4 with better ammo, even milsurp US .223 is better than the cheap commie 5.45... No reason why someone couldn't take an AK, and make very few design changes and come up with a dead nuts reliable rifle that competed well with similarly priced short barreled carbines when ammo quality was equal... Does not the Sig 550 series compare well with pretty much anything out there? Some of the changes they made I don't think are necessarily must-do changes either...

 

[Badger Arms]

Once more, this thread has focused on controlable full auto which is a result of how well the rifle places a second shot. The video clearly illustrates that the gun jumps all over the place in a seemingly random way which tends to put each bullet on its own path instead of the path that the shooter intends.

If you want to talk single-round accuracy of civilian versions of the AK, that's a completely different thread. For some reason, people have looked at the thread title and just rattled off a response. Feel free to be critical of dubious opinions, but my beef with the AK lies almost completely with kinetics and controlability of full-automatic bursts. This is a machinegun, rihgt?

 

[CaesarI]

Misconceptions

The best thread EVER that everyone desiring to discuss this topic ought to read is here:
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=62148

You get intelligent discourse, and discourse from a man who served in the Russian military. Rather a lot of information on the AK.

-Morgan

 

[AK103K]

Once more, this thread has focused on controlable full auto which is a result of how well the rifle places a second shot. The video clearly illustrates that the gun jumps all over the place in a seemingly random way which tends to put each bullet on its own path instead of the path that the shooter intends.

Are you basing this on a gun being held to be filmed as the clip shows, or on someone who has been taught to shoot one properly and is also holding it properly? Any rifle, semi or full will "jump all over the place" if not shot properly, just look at all the knuckeheads "bump" firing their guns. With proper tecnique, most, hand held full auto guns, are easily controled and are easy to make good hits with. If you cant do it, your doing something wrong. Its not the guns fault if you cant shoot them. Knowing how to shoot them also means knowing when to use what they offer. Just because it offers full auto capability doesnt mean you use it all the time. I dont think it will matter if you get them to a point of no recoil in full auto, if you still dont teach your people how to shoot them and when to use it, nothing will change, except maybe your ammo expenditures.

 

[Badger Arms]

Until Badger Arms gets his up and running and accepted, perhaps we should just learn how to work what we have now instead of bitching about them. Its been my experience, its usually not the weapon thats lacking, reguardless of who makes it.

Let me take a deep breath before responding to your posts. I'm not BITCHING about it, I'm pointing out a serious area for improvement. Training will NOT cause the AK-47 to shoot bursts that are as small as an M-16. No amount of training will allow an M-16 to shoot groups like a proper crew-served MachineGun will. However, a balanced system such as the MKb42(h), the Ultimax, the Counterpoise system for the M-16, or one of a few Russian designs will make bursts more accurate by evening out the jarring of the rifle during recoil.

AGAIN, WE HAVE THESE SYSTEMS ALREADY, RETROFITING THEM TO EXISTING DESIGNS IS SIMPLE, AND IT IS the guns fault if it jumps around on full-auto because it wasn't designed to be smooth.

If you cant do it, your doing something wrong. Its not the guns fault if you cant shoot them. Knowing how to shoot them also means knowing when to use what they offer.

Your argument is flawed. Obviously a 10 pound gun firing 50 caliber is going to be impossible to control. A 100 pound gun firing 22 short will be a breeze to control. Somewhere within this range, there should be a medium where a balanced system would be unnecessary. If you opine that the AK-47 is not in need of some sort of mechanical device to make it more controlable, then you are about the only one out there who does. This includes the Russian Army who replaced the AK-47 with the AKM which had a slant muzzle 'brake' and subsequently with the AK-74. The AK-74 solved most of the problems by essentially taking most of the recoil out of the equation.

What is obvious in the design of the AK is that it amplifies off-axis recoil for several reasons. Even the strongest of holds will still have downward velocity on the muzzle and mechanical variations shot-to-shot which will struing the bullet vertically.

 

[Glock Glockler]

Badger and Max,

From what I read on Valery Shilin's page, the Ak-103 was designed with this concept in mind, to balance the recoil mechanism to make the gun far more controllable in full auto, who well does it do it? Would a gun being a bull-pup make any difference in the effort to achieve balanced recoil?

I've heard about several "better" designs that have come from Russia/USSR but have not taken off for a variety of reasons, including a bull-pup that had a bottom eject. Any info on these girls?

Thanks, Gentlemen

 

[max popenker]

The "Abakan" trials, that resulted in adoption of AN-94 in 1994, are somewhat mystery thing. The actual trial results are still classified, as far as i know, which is a real pity for me.

The balanced recoil system can be easily adopted for bullpup layout, but russian army top brass apparently does not likes the bullpups at all. There was at least one bullpup, designed by Stechkin, which competed with Nikonow at "Abakan" trials but failed. It uses dome sort of lafetted design, with barrel/receiver group recoiling inside the housing (like the AN-94 or HK G11) and dual hi/lo rate of fire, and, being a bullpup, also featured an "ambidextrous" forward ejection. From what i know, it wasn't reliable enough.

the balanced guns are AK-107/108 (not -103, which is essentialy the same old AK-74 inside), and the AEK-971. I plan to attend a large Russian arms expo mid-november this year, and so i'll be able to report the latest state of such designs.

 

[Badger Arms]

Max. Thanks for that info. Do we get pictures after the expo?

 

[max popenker]

Do we get pictures after the expo?

of cause. that's i bought my Olympus C350 digicam for