AK 47/74

[Vern1968]

Hopefully this isn't considered blasphemy, but would an AK section ever be considered? Last few months been researching and finally purchased as Arsenal sgl-21. I do own an a Rock River AR15 also, so I'm not just an AK guy. Also loving Haley Strategic stuff and can't wait to see his Adaptive Kalash DVD. The professional opinions on this website are second to none. Thanks.

[TomInProv]

Nice plug......
Why would you own a budget AR, and choose to buy an expensive AK?
That seems disproportionate.
I would this thread more believable if you were looking at having two items for someone with a similar budget, like a WASR and a Rock River would be more likely.

[jaqattack02]

Rock River isn't really a budget AR. Granted, it's not a top of the line, but I certainly wouldn't consider them budget. You have to consider that "expensive" is relative as well. That "expensive" AK is still cheaper than most ARs, even the mid range ARs. That's always been the draw of the AK. You can buy a top of the line AK for the same price as a mid range AR.

[Vern1968]

Nice plug......
Why would you own a budget AR, and choose to buy an expensive AK?
That seems disproportionate.
I would this thread more believable if you were looking at having two items for someone with a similar budget, like a WASR and a Rock River would be more likely.

Without being disrespectful your comment doesn't make a lick of sense. I purchased a like new Rock River Entry form a neighbor for $750 that had some extras on it. I have at least $1,500 into it after I added some things that I wanted to it. I purchased my Arsenal SGL-21 for $750 plus tax and added a Vltor stock adapter, Vltor collapsible stock, Ultimak gas rail, US Palm grip. That's about $1,200 into it so far and I'm not done yet. Why do two separate weapon systems have to be of the same tier anyway. I'm not plugging anything either. I love AR's but just wanted to change it up a bit. I would consider a Rock River to be low-middle in the AR world.

[lamarbrog]

Dedicating a section on a website called " Weapon Evolution" to a rifle that is LONG past its prime, when that rifle was really outdated when it hit the hands of the first illiterate peasant to be issued one doesn't make the least bit of sense. The Kalashnikov design is just regurgitated, stolen ideas cobbled together hurriedly and with apparent ignorance to the fact that more modern operating mechanisms were already in use at the time. (Why anyone would think a long stroke piston was a good idea, when only two years earlier the superior short stroke piston had been adopted as used in the SKS45 is profoundly confusing.)

The Stoner system is more modern. In my opinion, as well as the opinion of many other more knowledgeable folks, it is the current height of rifle development. The Kalashnikov design (if you want to call it that, given none of the features are his own creation) was not even using the best technology available at the time it was introduced, never mind the last 65 years of advances in technology.

The Kalashnikov series already gets FAR more credit than it is due. Furthering that here serves no purpose.

You know, just in case anyone cared what I thought about it.

[Vern1968]

Dedicating a section on a website called " Weapon Evolution" to a rifle that is LONG past its prime, when that rifle was really outdated when it hit the hands of the first illiterate peasant to be issued one doesn't make the least bit of sense. The Kalashnikov design is just regurgitated, stolen ideas cobbled together hurriedly and with apparent ignorance to the fact that more modern operating mechanisms were already in use at the time. (Why anyone would think a long stroke piston was a good idea, when only two years earlier the superior short stroke piston had been adopted as used in the SKS45 is profoundly confusing.)

The Stoner system is more modern. In my opinion, as well as the opinion of many other more knowledgeable folks, it is the current height of rifle development. The Kalashnikov design (if you want to call it that, given none of the features are his own creation) was not even using the best technology available at the time it was introduced, never mind the last 65 years of advances in technology.

The Kalashnikov series already gets FAR more credit than it is due. Furthering that here serves no purpose.

You know, just in case anyone cared what I thought about it.!

[Vern1968]

Dedicating a section on a website called " Weapon Evolution" to a rifle that is LONG past its prime, when that rifle was really outdated when it hit the hands of the first illiterate peasant to be issued one doesn't make the least bit of sense. The Kalashnikov design is just regurgitated, stolen ideas cobbled together hurriedly and with apparent ignorance to the fact that more modern operating mechanisms were already in use at the time. (Why anyone would think a long stroke piston was a good idea, when only two years earlier the superior short stroke piston had been adopted as used in the SKS45 is profoundly confusing.)

The Stoner system is more modern. In my opinion, as well as the opinion of many other more knowledgeable folks, it is the current height of rifle development. The Kalashnikov design (if you want to call it that, given none of the features are his own creation) was not even using the best technology available at the time it was introduced, never mind the last 65 years of advances in technology.

The Kalashnikov series already gets FAR more credit than it is due. Furthering that here serves no purpose.

You know, just in case anyone cared what I thought about it.

The AK isn't perfect, but has had some pretty good success over the years. I would suggest looking up the "advantages" of the long stroke piston system. I love learning about a bunch of different systems and try not to bash any of them. Youtube the video of Stoner and Kalashnikov sitting down together and dicussing each others design. Have you ever held, shot, taken down, or seen up close a quality AK? They are a pretty cool rifle, but certainly not as advanced as the AR.

[brit]

Vern, good news! Given the small amount of kalashikov discussion on the site, this forum is the most appropriate place to post.

[Vern1968]

Vern, good news! Given the small amount of kalashikov discussion on the site, this forum is the most appropriate place to post.

I assumed "small arms" included the AK platform as well. I thought I saw a review on the Midwest Industries rail for the AK on this site by Stickman. Didn't mean for this thread to turn out nasty. My apologies.

[brit]

My response was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. We need an emoticon for that.

There's nothing wrong with asking questions! Don't apologize for being curious. :)

[lamarbrog]

The AK isn't perfect, but has had some pretty good success over the years. I would suggest looking up the "advantages" of the long stroke piston system. I love learning about a bunch of different systems and try not to bash any of them. Youtube the video of Stoner and Kalashnikov sitting down together and dicussing each others design. Have you ever held, shot, taken down, or seen up close a quality AK? They are a pretty cool rifle, but certainly not as advanced as the AR.

It has had good success over the years because the Soviet Union and satellite states produced them en masse. When you look at the design, there is nothing innovative. There are no real advantages over countless other designs, and certainly many shortcomings.

People seem to equate "manufactured in large numbers" with "good design". This is not the case. It happened to be the first real "assault rifle" to fall into the Soviet Union's lap. And, at the time, it was probably the best rifle of its type in the world... but that doesn't mean that, even in 1947, it could not have been better. If Simonov had been paying more attention to certain "cosmetic" features that were coming into popular use, such as detachable magazines of a capacity greater than ten rounds and a pistol grip, and had included say a rotating bolt and a simpler trigger mechanism, rather than focusing on just continuing to develop the AVS36, I fully believe that the AK47 would have ceased to exist, and that a more AK-like SKS45 would have taken its place.

Now, is the AK47 a "bad" rifle... no, not at all. It gets the job done. Is it historically significant? Of course. Is the quantity produced impressive? Yes. Is it innovative, revolutionary, creative, or particularly impressive in any design aspects? No, not at all. In the grand scheme of "weapon evolution" (as opposed to, say, "historical impact") the AK47 is bordering on not even being noteworthy.

I'm not trying to put you or your rifle down. It does the job it proposes to do, that's admirable. (I'll just throw in that I even own one, and it is fun to shoot.) I just see no justification for it having a section devoted to it.

[Vern1968]

It has had good success over the years because the Soviet Union and satellite states produced them en masse. When you look at the design, there is nothing innovative. There are no real advantages over countless other designs, and certainly many shortcomings.

People seem to equate "manufactured in large numbers" with "good design". This is not the case. It happened to be the first real "assault rifle" to fall into the Soviet Union's lap. And, at the time, it was probably the best rifle of its type in the world... but that doesn't mean that, even in 1947, it could not have been better. If Simonov had been paying more attention to certain "cosmetic" features that were coming into popular use, such as detachable magazines of a capacity greater than ten rounds and a pistol grip, and had included say a rotating bolt and a simpler trigger mechanism, rather than focusing on just continuing to develop the AVS36, I fully believe that the AK47 would have ceased to exist, and that a more AK-like SKS45 would have taken its place.

Now, is the AK47 a "bad" rifle... no, not at all. It gets the job done. Is it historically significant? Of course. Is the quantity produced impressive? Yes. Is it innovative, revolutionary, creative, or particularly impressive in any design aspects? No, not at all. In the grand scheme of "weapon evolution" (as opposed to, say, "historical impact") the AK47 is bordering on not even being noteworthy.

I'm not trying to put you or your rifle down. It does the job it proposes to do, that's admirable. (I'll just throw in that I even own one, and it is fun to shoot.) I just see no justification for it having a section devoted to it.

The reason it has been produced in large numbers is because it is a good design. The AK is basically the same rifle as it was introduced much like the AR is. I think the AK doesn't lend itself to accesories as much as the AR but that is changing rapidly. Like I said, I own both rifles and admire them both. The AK market is really taking off right now, and I just thought it would be cool to dabble in another platform for awhile. If you own an AK it's as much your rifle as it is mine. We just differ on opinions a bit. I certainly don't agree that the AK is bordering on barely noteworthy.

A weapon can only evolve so much. I would not consider rails, charging handles, optics, collapsible stocks, and muzzle devices much evolution. The fact that both the AK and the AR have changed little since inception is proof that they are both of great design. As far as borrowing/stealing technology from the Germans, I don't think anyone has benefitted more than the U.S. in that regard.

[tac40]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kD5kQbBHPjE&feature=player_embedded

The latest AK variant. The AK 12.

[Wideglide]

Dedicating a section on a website called " Weapon Evolution" to a rifle that is LONG past its prime, when that rifle was really outdated when it hit the hands of the first illiterate peasant to be issued one doesn't make the least bit of sense. The Kalashnikov design is just regurgitated, stolen ideas cobbled together hurriedly and with apparent ignorance to the fact that more modern operating mechanisms were already in use at the time. (Why anyone would think a long stroke piston was a good idea, when only two years earlier the superior short stroke piston had been adopted as used in the SKS45 is profoundly confusing.)

The Stoner system is more modern. In my opinion, as well as the opinion of many other more knowledgeable folks, it is the current height of rifle development. The Kalashnikov design (if you want to call it that, given none of the features are his own creation) was not even using the best technology available at the time it was introduced, never mind the last 65 years of advances in technology.

The Kalashnikov series already gets FAR more credit than it is due. Furthering that here serves no purpose.

You know, just in case anyone cared what I thought about it.

I respectfully but most assuredly disagree with this idea that the AK has not evolved and as of late with improved iron and optical sights bringing the AK up to being very competitive with the AR. We now have improved safeties "Krebbs" etc which If I'm not mistaken was viewed by Larry Vickers to be as good or better than the AR safety when he reviewed the version he had. We can now add Aimpoints and other optics witch greatly increase the speed and accuracy of on target hits. We even now have an AK that breaks down and can be stowed in a case. There are now rails and collapsible AR stocks etc to bring this weapon system to modern day times and as stated above there is a new AK being brought out. Many of the importation laws bans etc have held the AK back and the focus to be put on the AR. I have both systems and love them both by the way.


Edit..In addition what real further "Evolution" are we gonna see with the AR platform? Isn't it considered for the most part done advancing and other systems like the SCAR and ACR type systems being viewed as the possible future battle rifle. I'm personally not a huge fan but I think it helps with my point.

[lamarbrog]

I respectfully but most assuredly disagree with this idea that the AK has not evolved and as of late with improved iron and optical sights bringing the AK up to being very competitive with the AR. We now have improved safeties "Krebbs" etc which If I'm not mistaken was viewed by Larry Vickers to be as good or better than the AR safety when he reviewed the version he had. We can now add Aimpoints and other optics witch greatly increase the speed and accuracy of on target hits. We even now have an AK that breaks down and can be stowed in a case. There are now rails and collapsible AR stocks etc to bring this weapon system to modern day times and as stated above there is a new AK being brought out. Many of the importation laws bans etc have held the AK back and the focus to be put on the AR. I have both systems and love them both by the way.

And no matter how many times you drag it through a Tapco catalog, it still relies on an inferior mechanism, and for the most part inferior controls.

The Kalashnikov has not evolved significantly. If it evolves very much it ceases to be a Kalashnikov. I would loosely consider the VZ58 to be an "evolution" of the Kalashnikov design. It carries forth the same basic external appearance and controls (more or less) while using a short stroke mechanism. That is real evolution of the design. If we want to include that in the "Kalashnikov" category (not sure why we would, Kalashnikov had nothing to do with it as far as I know, aside from probably providing the inspiration, but that could just as easily have come from German influence) then, okay, the "Kalashnikov" (assuming we are using the term that loosely) has evolved in a meaningful way.

You could also include the SIG556 as a "Kalashnikov" variant. It even takes a STANAG magazine and has modern controls. Again, though, how loose are we going to get with the term "Kalashnikov"? At a point, we can just say everything is an "evolution" of the MKb42, even the Kalashnikov.

The AK47, AKM, AK74, and direct descendants that are variations in cosmetic features without altering their basic operating principles are not evolving in ways related to the design. They have stagnated.

The "evolution" you are talking about is just cosmetic band-aiding in an effort to bring an obsolete rifle up to par with modern designs.

[Wideglide]

And no matter how many times you drag it through a Tapco catalog, it still relies on an inferior mechanism, and for the most part inferior controls.

The "evolution" you are talking about is just cosmetic band-aiding in an effort to bring an obsolete rifle up to par with modern designs.

lamarbrog your comments are very close minded as well as anyone else who doesn't think there has been an evolution with the AK format. A mechanism that works and keeps working is never truly inferior actually quite the opposite you keep what works and you eliminate or improve upon what doesn't. The newest trend in cars is the super tuner foreign import cars with their high tech motors but the old outdated big block still kicks their asses. People can now use quality parts these days and avoid Tapco like the plague. Improving the function of safeties, sighting systems, charging handles(several options now available now) to be more efficient and useful as well as eliminating some or most of the deficiencies if not all depending on the view point of the operator IS NOT COSMETIC. The modern AK is not longer just a weapon its a weapon system.

[lamarbrog]

A fundamentally inferior weapon system with substantial design shortcomings. It is not a modern firearm, period, no matter who wants to pretend it is, and no matter what drop-in cosmetic modifications are made.

The Kalashnikov is not nearly as modular as other designs. It lacks a bolt hold open, and the reloading procedure is slower. It is substantially more difficult to rebuild and keep running than the competition. The way the dust cover and safety are one part is an inferior design. The fact that having the rifle ready to fire opens up a huge area with direct access to operating parts is a major design flaw.

These issues have been overcome. But, in order for a forum on it to be created, you'd have to include the evolutions under the same category. Anything described as a "AK" at this point is an obsolete design. If you want to loosen the parameters and include VZ58 and SIG556, then I could see a forum being justified. Those are, in my opinion, the evolutions of the basic AK. I would bet most people, though, would say they don't belong in that category. This is an issue of public perception more than anything, and common use of language. Most people understand "AK" to be an AK47, AKM, AK74, AMD65, WASR10, etc. Those rifles are based on inferior and obsolete principles.

I really am having a hard time believing this is that difficult to grasp. Is the AK a bad rifle? No. It is far from being the best, though, and if you consider it to be "evolving" in any meaningful way at this point I really don't think further discussion is necessary... you'd be hard pressed to convince me of it.

[Mamba6]

The Kalashnikov design is just regurgitated, stolen ideas cobbled together hurriedly and with apparent ignorance to the fact that more modern operating mechanisms were already in use at the time. (Why anyone would think a long stroke piston was a good idea, when only two years earlier the superior short stroke piston had been adopted as used in the SKS45 is profoundly confusing.)


I will agree that the AK-47 was a compilation of ideas, yet any engineer will atest that this is 80% of what modern engineering is: utilizing previous developments in new ways. Mikhail Kalashnikov had interfaced with two iconic designs (M1 Farrand and StG. 44), and basically took the best features from both to make a better battle rifle. The StG. 44 especially played a large role in the design layout because of the reputation it had earned. The long-stroke piston design from both firearms is used, as well as the rotary bolt and trigger design from the M1.


A fundamentally inferior weapon system with substantial design shortcomings. It is not a modern firearm, period, no matter who wants to pretend it is, and no matter what drop-in cosmetic modifications are made.

The Kalashnikov is not nearly as modular as other designs. It lacks a bolt hold open, and the reloading procedure is slower. It is substantially more difficult to rebuild and keep running than the competition. The way the dust cover and safety are one part is an inferior design. The fact that having the rifle ready to fire opens up a huge area with direct access to operating parts is a major design flaw.

These issues have been overcome. But, in order for a forum on it to be created, you'd have to include the evolutions under the same category. Anything described as a "AK" at this point is an obsolete design. If you want to loosen the parameters and include VZ58 and SIG556, then I could see a forum being justified. Those are, in my opinion, the evolutions of the basic AK. I would bet most people, though, would say they don't belong in that category. This is an issue of public perception more than anything, and common use of language. Most people understand "AK" to be an AK47, AKM, AK74, AMD65, WASR10, etc. Those rifles are based on inferior and obsolete principles.

Usability also cannot be compared directly. Soviet weapons design and military doctrine centered on a triad: reliability, simplicity of operation and maintenance, and suitability for mass production. The idea was to design weapons that required little skill and training to operate and maintain. In the design of the AK this is apparent. A bolt catch adds steps to the manual of arms, and can create confusion among poorly trained troops. This could be remedied by training but Eastern warfare did not identify individual soldier skills as a priority. The AK focuses on more of a procedural reloading manual of arms simplifying training, while the M4/M16 allows for multi-tasking (even if it is just dropping the mag while extracting a fresh one from kit). By integrating the ejection port cover and safety, again, the use was simplified. Again, for maintenance the AK excels. The firearm can be field stripped down into what, five main parts? Reciever cover, op spring, bolt carrier, bolt and reciever? The M4/M16, stripped to the same level, has 8 parts: upper, lower, charging handle, bolt carrier, firing pin, firing pin retaining pin, bolt cam, bolt. Not to mention the speed and steps required to do both. Speaking on the idea of the open receiver when in battery, I have never, both here and while deployed, seen that be an issue, and I have seen a lot of really poorly maintained AKs. So does the AK sport a lot of prefered design features? No, but it was purposely designed that way to fill a doctrinal role. Note that the triad does not mention accuracy or ergonomics, as they were not considered of [large] importance.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk

[lamarbrog]

I will agree that the AK-47 was a compilation of ideas, yet any engineer will atest that this is 80% of what modern engineering is: utilizing previous developments in new ways. Mikhail Kalashnikov had interfaced with two iconic designs (M1 Farrand and StG. 44), and basically took the best features from both to make a better battle rifle. The StG. 44 especially played a large role in the design layout because of the reputation it had earned. The long-stroke piston design from both firearms is used, as well as the rotary bolt and trigger design from the M1.



Usability also cannot be compared directly. Soviet weapons design and military doctrine centered on a triad: reliability, simplicity of operation and maintenance, and suitability for mass production. The idea was to design weapons that required little skill and training to operate and maintain. In the design of the AK this is apparent. A bolt catch adds steps to the manual of arms, and can create confusion among poorly trained troops. This could be remedied by training but Eastern warfare did not identify individual soldier skills as a priority. The AK focuses on more of a procedural reloading manual of arms simplifying training, while the M4/M16 allows for multi-tasking (even if it is just dropping the mag while extracting a fresh one from kit). By integrating the ejection port cover and safety, again, the use was simplified. Again, for maintenance the AK excels. The firearm can be field stripped down into what, five main parts? Reciever cover, op spring, bolt carrier, bolt and reciever? The M4/M16, stripped to the same level, has 8 parts: upper, lower, charging handle, bolt carrier, firing pin, firing pin retaining pin, bolt cam, bolt. Not to mention the speed and steps required to do both. Speaking on the idea of the open receiver when in battery, I have never, both here and while deployed, seen that be an issue, and I have seen a lot of really poorly maintained AKs. So does the AK sport a lot of prefered design features? No, but it was purposely designed that way to fill a doctrinal role. Note that the triad does not mention accuracy or ergonomics, as they were not considered of [large] importance.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk

While I certainly agree that many designs borrow from others, what does the AK have that is specific to just the AK? It doesn't offer anything unique as far as I am aware. Does the AK possess any features that were not found on previous designs?

It always seems to be the battle cry of Kalashnikov's congregation that any illiterate peasant can make an AK work. I am not an illiterate peasant, so that doesn't matter to me. Apparently, a lot of AK shooters don't feel they have a skill level beyond that of a Communist cannon-fodder conscript. I tend to pride myself as being more skilled than that.

You also point out another shortcoming of the design. A field strip only takes it down to relatively few parts. With the Stoner system, you can choose how far you need to take it apart. If you have no fired the weapon extensively, maybe all that is needed is to remove the bolt carrier group and wipe off environmental debris from the exterior and apply new lubricant. A full field strip can be saved for instances where you have time and a decent work area, or when parts need to be replaced.

Turn the tables around- and compare the time it takes to access an AR extractor or firing pin compared to an AK. Maintenance on an AR is much more efficient. Wear prone parts are easier to access and replace.

They fill different roles, obvious... the role the AK fills has never been of any use to me, and as large, untrained armies of conscripts fall out of favor in the modern world there will be an ever-diminishing number of people who do have a use for a rifle that fits that bill. Why, if you have access to training and information, would anyone choose to limit their potential by choosing a weapon designed for the lowest common denominator?

The AK is not evolving, it's going extinct.

[Mamba6]

Interesting points... And yes there are definitely some questions there that I can't answer, such as "Why does the Russian Ground Forces continue to use the AK74M?" Although I would love to know.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk

[Jack Kardic]

If you look closely just under the logo at the the top of the page, it says "...for the AR-15 and emerging small arms technologies." I'm not going to say that the AK as a platform hasn't been evolving, but it seems very much that most of that evolution is to catch up to the things that AR's were debuting the year or two before. The last time I saw something on an AK that I instantly knew I had to have on an AR it was a piston. That doesn't mean the AK isn't a good gun, and it doesn't mean it's not changing, it's just not incorporating new technology in a way that changes how it's employed or how it functions.

To take some license with Frederick Douglass and women voting, I hold that the AK, as well as the AR, has a place for discussion, but that discussion rests upon a different basis that on which ours rests. On this site, that's in this very category. Personally, I'd like to see a section for handguns, which have changed a lot in both theory and design in the last 25 years, many times pushing the boundaries of what we thought weapons and materials capable.

[lamarbrog]

If you look closely just under the logo at the the top of the page, it says "...for the AR-15 and emerging small arms technologies." I'm not going to say that the AK as a platform hasn't been evolving, but it seems very much that most of that evolution is to catch up to the things that AR's were debuting the year or two before. The last time I saw something on an AK that I instantly knew I had to have on an AR it was a piston. That doesn't mean the AK isn't a good gun, and it doesn't mean it's not changing, it's just not incorporating new technology in a way that changes how it's employed or how it functions.

To take some license with Frederick Douglass and women voting, I hold that the AK, as well as the AR, has a place for discussion, but that discussion rests upon a different basis that on which ours rests. On this site, that's in this very category. Personally, I'd like to see a section for handguns, which have changed a lot in both theory and design in the last 25 years, many times pushing the boundaries of what we thought weapons and materials capable.

I think this actually articulates the issue very well.