For the last 30 years or so the Russians have been mostly using the AK-74. A much different weapon. The Russians realized what a crappy weapon the 47 was. They designed a much tighter, more accurate weapon with a smaller lighter round. Sound familiar?
The differences between the AK-74 and the previous AKM-series are not as extensive as you seem to think. The primary difference between the two is the cartridge. The AK-74 and the AKM are more similar to each other than either is to the AK-47. All are variations on the Kalashnikov design.
I think you might be misinformed, old chap. I’m not saying the AK-47 is the Greatest Gun In The World Tribute, but there’s a reason it’s the most numerous military firearm ever produced (admittedly there are more versions of the Kalashnikov than you can shake a cleaning rod at, but even so) and it isn’t because it’s “crappy”.
I’m trying to think of another Korean War vintage gun still in service today and it’s not a very long list (Colt M1911, Browning Hi-Power, Lee-Enfield, FN-FAL, Grease Gun, and a few others).
The fact the gun has been “redesigned” a few times is not prima facie evidence of an inferior design, you know. Most firearms undergo several redevelopments in their operational life (even The Colt M1911A1 wasn’t perfect the first time) and the AK-47 is no exception- but even in its “original” form, it’s a very effective and functional gun.
I’m a die-hard Cold Warrior, myself. I’d really love to be able to say that the AK series is nothing but Commie junk. That, however, would be flatly wrong. Plenty of countries that could pick and choose whatever weapon system they wanted_and who had closer ties to the US than to the Soviets_went with Kalashnikov variants; often indigenously produced. Israel and their Galil is just one example.
Whether you want to consider the 5.45mm cartridge used in the AK-74 an improvement over the 7.62 used in the AK-47/AKM depends on what you want from a cartridge. Each cartridge has its strengths and weaknesses. There is no “best” cartridge. There is only which cartridge fits better into how you plan on your army fighting.
It is numerous because it is cheap. It is numerous because it can be used by an untrained force. It is not numerous because it is good or well made. For the time it was revolutionary. It remains because it is cheap. And easy for third world countries to make knock-offs. Yes I have fired a few. I would much rather have my M4. I bow to your superior knowledge of obscure guns and I respect your opinion on this, but I have formed my own opinion based on personal experience. My opinion is different.
In the US military, sniper weapons_and even designated marksman weapons_do use different ammo from “regular” weapons. For example, snipers use the M118 Special Ball cartridge in 7.62x51 mm weapons. This is different from the M80 Ball cartridge used in machine guns or in what few non-sniper 7.62 rifles still in use (the Navy I think still uses a few standard M-14 rifles). The sniper cartridge is assembled with the same care as match grade ammunition and uses a bullet of heavier weight than the M80. Yes, you could interchange the cartridges between weapons and they’d still function. You’d be wasting sniper ammo in an MG and not getting sniper accuracy with M80 out of a sniper rifle, though.
Your opinion, in this case, is wrong. You will find no reputable weapons historian or designer who agrees with you.
If it can be used by an untrained force and made cheaply, and function reliably without being maintained (or with minimal maintenance), then that would qualify as “Good” from a military standpoint, IMHO. I respect your right to your opinion, but I’m afraid I can’t agree with it.
ScumPup, you’re right about specialist ammo; the point I was making is that for the sort of stuff happening in a computer game the distinction isn’t that important and there’s no reason why a character in a PC game shouldn’t be able to use .30-06 ammo from an M1 Garand in a Springfield M1903 Sniper Rifle, for example.
Fair enough.
Here’s a long and rather colorful article from Dick Culver, who was an officer in one of the first Marine units to receive M16s in Vietnam. According to him, they really wanted to like this rifle. The idea of being able to carry larger amounts of ammo into the field was something any soldier could get behind. The big problem with the early ones was reliability - they jammed fairly often in the field. That plus a shortage of magazines (they were issued boxes of ammo and were supposed to reload their magazines in the field) made them less than enthused about it.
Another “how does this compare to real life” question: in FPSs, hand grenades are amazingly common. You have civilian police forces or even well equipped security guards with a supply of hand grenades available in the armory. In fact I’ve seen various fictional depictions of police having available on short notice not just automatic rifles but hand grenades, grenade launchers and shoulder launched rockets. Just how well armed is your average police headquarters, and would police even have grenades other than flash-bangs?
IME, handguns, shotguns, semiautomatic rifles, and teargas launchers are ubiquitous in police department armories.
A great many have full-auto weapons on hand. We’re talking about rifles, usually M-16 variants, and submachine guns.
I’ve never heard of a real world US police department using fragmentation grenades or any other kind of explosive grenade meant to inflict potentially lethal wounds.
Interestingly, even small town PD’s often have older full-auto stuff on hand. You not uncommonly see these PD’s selling off things like Thompson SMG’s or Browning Automatic Rifles in order to buy equipement that would actually be of practical use to them. The small town force on which my dad served sold off a tommygun, a Reising, an M-16 (not an M-16A1!) and a bunch of other stuff in the 80’s. They used the proceeds to replace their aging .38 revolvers with new 1911’s, get new walkietalkies, and load up on other non-gun stuff. None of the full auto toys had ever been used “for real” and the chief would seldom let them fire it even for fun out concern for safety and the ammo budget. In case you are wondering why they even had the stuff, the items like the tommygun were often obtained when some old timey chief was worried about worker unrest, or commies, or the like.
The Danish Navy operates a dogsleigh patrol in Northeast Greenland (the Sirius patrol - utterly crazy buggers), whose Gvt-issue rifle is the “5317”, basically an M1917 Enfield. For the same reason - it works well in -40C. Technologically, this was a considerable upgrade from their 1950s equipment, a Danish-produced bolt-action single-shot “Krag” rifle. From what I’ve read, attempts were made to drag them into the 20th century and issue M1 Garands, but they locked up in the cold and broke when the soldiers tried to work the action the by the time-honoured method of kicking the bolt handle.
This is just nonsense. The barrel is welded to the trunion, how is it going to flop around? Do you think it’s just held in by duct tape or something?
The idea of the AK-47, AKM, or AK-74 as wildly inaccurate weapons are myths created during a time when we wanted to decry opposition weapons as garbage. Realistically, an AKM will shoot somewhere between 3-6 inutes of angle which roughly translates to putting rounds in a group that’s 3-6" in diameter at 100 yards. Is this wildly inaccurate to anyone? Most people can’t even shoot well enough to do that with more accurate rifles.
The M16’s accuracy is also overstated. People home brew “race gun” AR-15s that are customized for high accuracy so they can shoot groups of like 1-3 MOA. But comparing customized rifles against military issue ones is unfair (there are also well made AKs that can shoot sub-2 moa). M16s will typically shoot in the 2.5-5 MOA range. The M4 shoots a little looser than the M16 while the AK-74 shoots tighter than an AKM.
So we’re talking about a difference of maybe an inch to an inch and a half of group size at 100 yards. Yet one is the Super Accurate Awesome Go USA WOO gun, and the other is wildly inaccurate commie garbage that can’t hit the broad side of a barn.
The M16 does have a greater effective range than the AKM, but the more modern variants, the M4 and the AK74 are nearly identical. The AK74 is more reliable (although the M16 isn’t nearly as bad as most people think), has better controllability (the AK74 has a very predictable steady muzzle flip, the M4 goes all over the place, and the AK74’s standard issue brake is superior), and a more lethal round (especially since they started the 1-in-7 SS109 stuff). It has inferior ergonomics and sights (both being u-notch and having a shorter sight radius).
One could reasonably argue that the design of the Kalashnikov makes it a poor platform for magnifying optical sights, since it requires a cumbersome mount attached to the lower receiver, but widespread use of magnifying optical sights on standard military rifles is a pretty recent innovation.
I don’t know that the Kalashnikov’s ergonomics are necessarily worse. I think the Kalashnikov is easier to operate than the AR while wearing thick gloves, to be honest, but 90% of ergonomics is just muscle memory and it’s hard to say that either one is appreciably better or worse.
Starting at about 0:10:
The cleaning rod, in its storage slot under the barrel, is visibly flexing in that video. The barrel is not. You misinterpreted what you were seeing.
Just watched that video again, this time with sound. The reason you misinterpreted what you saw is because of the voice-over who told you to think it was the barrel flexing. Watch it again with the sound off. Pay very close attention to the barrel. You’ll see it doesn’t visibly flex. It is the cleaning rod rattling around in its storage slot that is doing all the moving and flexing. Discovery channel and History channel shows aren’t usually the best source of information about guns.
I put a piece of paper under the barrel so that I couldn’t see the cleaning rod. The barrel still looks like it is bouncing all around to me.
The entire gun is recoiling. That is a legitimate gripe comparing the AKM/AK-47 to the M-16. It does recoil more. The barrel doesn’t “flop around” though.