Mikhail Kalashnikov, designer of the world’s most popular assault rifle, says that U.S. soldiers in Iraq are using his invention in preference to their own weapons, proving that his gun is still the best.
“Even after lying in a swamp you can pick up this rifle, aim it and shoot. That’s the best job description there is for a gun. Real soldiers know that and understand it,” the 86-year-old gunmaker told a weekend news conference in Moscow.
“In Vietnam, American soldiers threw away their M-16 rifles and used [Kalashnikov] AK-47s from dead Vietnamese soldiers, with bullets they captured. That was because the climate is different to America, where M-16s may work properly,” he said.
“Look what’s happening now: every day on television we see that the Americans in Iraq have my machine guns and assault rifles in their armored vehicles. Even there American rifles don’t work properly.”
Some U.S. troops in Iraq have reportedly taken to using AK-47s in preference to the standard-issue M-16. The Cold War-era gun, renowned for its durability and easy handling, is plentiful in Iraq.
Kalashnikov designed his first weapon in 1947 and is still chief constructor at Izhmash arms factory in Izhevsk in the Urals mountains.
The factory’s director Vladimir Grodetsky told the news conference that around a billion rifles had been produced around the world using parts of Kalashnikovs or based on the same design, only 10-12 percent of which were made in Russia.
By christian on Jan 16, 2008 | Reply
AK 47!!!!!!!! THOUGH AS HELL!!!!!!
By christian on Jan 16, 2008 | Reply
whatever you say people……. ak 47 is what I call primitive yet effective weapon…. I’ll still trust this weapon with my life …. I’ll rely my life with this weapon, it’s proven effective by both enemies and soldiers. You have no idea how this rifle become so popular and beside it’s allo about the user, not the weapon!
By Jacques on Jan 16, 2008 | Reply
Hi, I am in the british army(On leave) and would like to clear up a few things being said by a lot of prats on here.
Firstly, saying that the 7mm round in the Kalashnkov wont go through body armor is just a wrong thing to say, why? do you say, because body armour comes in different levels of protection ( think there are 4.), and they aree kind of modular (the top 3 use removable “kevlar pads” with other stuff in or varying thickness in, we can also put these hard, flexible plates behind them for extra protection. Saying that any armour is “bullet proof” is just wrong, because the suits are not “classed” like that. It works like this: HG2 lvl3 (or whatever its called) will usually survive up to 3 7mm rounds in half a foot diameter at 30yds. This means that even the highest rated armour you can get, if you get shot enough times in a small area, SOME WILL PENETRATE. Another thing they -DONT- tell you is HOW MUCH IT HURTS!! I have been hit twice (1 in back, 1 in chest area) and they both knocked me down, the chest hit winded me and hurt like hell! By thee way, the PAGST helmets are not designed to repel small arms fire (a 7mm round will probably penetrate depending on aoe), it designed to protect the head from splinters produced from IEDs.
It IS true that most soldiers die and get wounded by IEDs, usually when we are -not- fighting. I usualy felt safer when in a confrontation (they never seem to hit us..?) than when patrolling!
As for the AK47/M16 argument, i’ve never seen US troops using them, and neither have I, although we ARE trained to use them back at home. The M16 IS more accurate than the AK47, the AK47 IS more reliable than than the M16 in desert cond. But the accuracy diff is neglible at the ranges that they are used for, and considering the people we are fighting are usually not trained as well as we are. The one thing that people are not saying is that the m16 is quite nice to shoot, and the recoil is less harsh thean the AK. It is also quite difficult to mount reddot sights and scopes to the aks (apparently, according to people ive spoken to). To be honest i personally dont like the m16, the (improved) sa80 is much more accurate, reliable, powerful (not much more, due to longer barrel in sa80) and much more wieldy in urban conditions due to its bullpup config (more barrel due to magazine in stock and receiver much farther back than usual), the only downside is that you HAVE to be right handed :S.
The old vs new argument is crap. how can you alste the m16 for being old!, it’s newer and better built than the ak (i think), also, many of the firearms used todday are really old. The pistols that the british use are the old Browning HP and the Sig p226. Th browning design is nearly 90 years old! It is SAO too! (I had the BHP, but swapped it for the sig, because i like da/sa). Dont forget that the popular 1911 45auto american pistol is very popular other there, even now, it is a proven design!
The last thing athat i can think of is evryone saying that the AK is better because it is used in loads of countries blah blah, because it is great.. This is not so, it is because it is CHEAP, ak47 can cost from 30, to 200 quid! an sa80 costs loads!
The ak47 comes in 3 general types:
The short version, is about the size of a regular smg. has no stock
The normal version, with wire or wood stock
and the “heavy” version, with dual drum magazine and massive barrel.
(i’m pretty sure that there is no DRM ak47, probaly because (i think) it is open bolt, or just plain crap at 70m+ that it has the accuract of open bolt lol.
Hope ive been of some help
By Brent on Jan 17, 2008 | Reply
How many of you can say you read every single post from the top?
Let me tell you something. Most of you are arguing that the ak is a better gun. Its been posted I don’t know how many times in this thread. Most of you all have been in agreement. Not like your back here to read this post. But if you ask me you all sound like you are upset with the last persons post.
This is life. We are human. Humans all have their differences. I prefer to wear hugo boss jeans. Others may like a pair from walmart.
Who cares. Just as long as you have your night and shinning armor that appeals to you is all that matters. Obviously American troops as per your posts are not forced to use M16’s. Sounds like AK’s are plentiful for them too. I bet some of them over there keep there M16’s clean and lubed up daily. They work for them so thats good. Others prefer an AK that they do not have to worry about. It works for them. Thats great too!
The main thing is. We are all just tiny specs of dust walking around this world. Man is no animal. Man is intelligent. This was not all just created from nothing. We live then we are born again into a new life. Anyways those of us that make it.
God is the ruler of the world. Not any army or there petty guns. You will see.
I Promise you.
God Bless You All!
By Theoil on Jan 17, 2008 | Reply
History and facts.
The M16 was issued to “friendlies” in vietnam until yank regular forces demanded the lighter shorter rifle with the lighter amunition that could be better carried and suited the close jungle fighting.
The high incedence of unreliablity was largely due to a cost cutting measure when the cordite was swapped for a more modern propellant which left more resedue…hence the adoption of a block striking pin (mushroom headed), still seen today. The tollerences are made to finely for rough use.
The adoption of new wepons by the American military is always politicised due to the large amounts of money involved.
M16 costs <$2000
AK$& costs <$200
For the purposes of sniping there are plenty of better cheaper more acurate choices than either of these.
House to house could be more acurately be described as house to rubble with the use of tanks inside cities. No suprise that the response comes with shocking tactics.
I know which rifle I would be arming my friends/familly with if my country was invaded by a hord of overfed oversexed bloodthirsty savages hell bent on instituting a puppet government and stealing our mineral resources.
Mr Kalashnikov certainly is brilliant to have come up with a design so simple and reliable and built with rudimentary tooling.
credit where its due…
By RussianStyle on Jan 17, 2008 | Reply
The AK-47 is by far the best weapon in the world. It saved my great uncle’s life many times over in the Viet nam War. he swore by it, and now days so do i! He used the M16 and wouldnt use it. Dont get me wrong i also admire the Colt M4 carbine, its a beautifuly designed weapon. however My AK protects our house to this day, its a very nice sleeping pill when you live in the city. and the range is just fine on the Kalashnikov AK-47 if i wanted to shoot any further id have me a Dragunov “SVD” to pick off my targets with. The AK family is growing more and more. There is an AK for every situation. If i had the money i would have a model of Every single AK ever made. The AK-47 has more stopping power than the M16 aswell!
I will stick with AK’s for life, they are The greatest Family of weapons in the world.
By Michael Conner on Jan 17, 2008 | Reply
It’s amazing how many Vietnam-era conscripts and video game players consider themselves experts(not) on weapons. You guys need to take a hint from Clint… “A man’s got to know his limitations”.
Any real gunfighter knows that YOU are the weapons system… the bullet dispenser is far less important than the man (or woman) behind the gun. I hate to break any bubbles, but most gunfights (including Iraq) are short distance affairs. If you take on to the head, your pumpkin isn’t going to care if you were hit by a .22 long rifle or the latest SOCOM whizbang… you will still be dead, dead, dead.
By Joe on Jan 17, 2008 | Reply
THIS IS HOW IT IS.
The Ak-47 has a advantage in terms of stopping power at any range, and a practical advantage at anything less than 200m.
The M-16 has a advantage at any range in terms of accuracy and and AK-47 loses most of its own accuracy beyond 300m
M-16s since Vietnam have been made far more reliable.
M-16s are much lighter the AK-47’s
M-16 are in almost all cases much better suited to attachments(acog,lasers,etc.)
7.62mm bullets, just as a side note, can be stopped by the kevlar worn by some American troops, this armor uses inserted ceramic plates and is currently being used to replace the older versions.
m-16 stopping power is sufficent under 200m and most combat engagements take place under 250m.
By Cet on Jan 17, 2008 | Reply
The AK47 is for sure a “wunderwaffe”.
By TerryTate on Jan 17, 2008 | Reply
A quality AK and quality AR are ery acurate and very realible period, the difference is you and the make, you get what you pay for, the market is flooded with cheap Romanian $ 300 ones in 7.62, how many of you are willing to spend over $ 1000 for converted Russian Saiga in 223 or over $ 1600 for Colt?
Personally speaking, if my life depends upon it, then I’ll spend whatever it takes to have the best, and hope the other guy bought the piece of junk. Sometimes it is about luck of the draw, but why not buy some luck if you can.
By Patriot on Jan 17, 2008 | Reply
Talk is cheap, many people out there will be bragging and repeating like a parrots the AK is not acurate blah blah. You can’t stereotype. I hate when people buy some run down and poorly made domestic 1998 Dodge Neon and turn around and start bashing the domestic cars saying the American cars are junk and the Japanise are much better, to those i will say you are comparing apples to oranges, wy dont you buy new buick Lacross or Chevy Impala and compare that to a Japanise 98 Suzuki Swift???
Fow those of you out there who stereotype the AK out there do you know ow many third world countries out there are making the AK? Do you realize that there is a huge diderence like day and night between a Chinese AK and a Rissian one? I do own all the different makes of AK ever brought into the US and i can tell you there is a hige difference . Yes with the Chinese one you cant hit s… at a 100 yads, but for those who say the AK is not acurate, i dare you to take a oranege round target stiker ( the bull’s eye ) stick t on yout fohead and stand at a 100 yards ( but make sure you have a will and life insurance) I will take a russian AK a conversion of Saiga in a 223 with Eotech, if i miss you get to keep my AK , if i dont miss i get to keep your life insurance .
Stop bashing and steraotyping the AK , you cant putt all the manufactures in the same category, all American car are NOT bad, all Japanise cars are not all good. Same goes for the AR type rifles too, they are so so bad they are unrealible and jamming WRONGGGGGGGG you cant be futher from he thruth , I collect andf evaluate AR (s) too, yes the flaky ones out there yes they will but the good quality ones i never had one jum yet on me even with very very little or no cleaning at all yes you hurt me right NO cleaning on the AR and thousands of rounds thru it ( here s the secret keep them oiled with thing gun oil and they will function flowlessly.
A quality AK and quality AR are ery acurate and very realible period, the difference is you and the make, you get what you pay for, the market is flooded with cheap Romanian $ 300 ones in 7.62, how many of you are willing to spend over $ 1000 for converted Russian Saiga in 223 or over $ 1600 for Colt?
By Fisch on Jan 17, 2008 | Reply
I don’t know if anyone will bother reading this…but…the AK 47 is not the horrible rifle it’s made out to be in western literature and propaganda. It’s bullet will go through kevlar body armor, and penetrate cinder blocks, wooden beams, and many other materials easily, where as the 5.56 round will be stoped. Furthermore, it’s as accurate as a combat rifle needs to be, at least in the conditions seen in Iraq. It will hit a man sized target from 200 yards, maybe not in the precise spot you’re aiming, but if you aim center of mass it will hit the target.
As for the argument on why the Soviets adopted the ak-74, there are many theories out there. Kalashnikov himself was asked the question on a documentary, and his response was simply “I thought it was a bad idea, but since the west was using a smaller caliber the higher ups in the USSR thought we should too”.
By Justin on Jan 17, 2008 | Reply
Ok, here’s my take. I speak with some experience due to the fact that I’m in the Marines and an avid gun collector. I Own both the m4(3 of them) and ak-47 (5 of them). They are both great weapons, no doubt. I’ve shot thousands of rounds through my m4 without a hiccup and minimum cleaning. It’s just as reliable as the ak-47. The m4 is a far better rifle in the accuracy category, especially for distance. If one uses the ak-47 in it’s semiautomatic form, it can be extremely accurate as well, but not as accurate as it’s counterpart. The 5.56 round lacks knock down power but it makes up for it in the wounding factor due to the rounds tumbling ability. The 5.56 penetrates kevlar better than the 7.62 rounds however it’s my belief that the ak round penetratesd steel a little better.
The ak-47 is a time proven and battle tested machine. It’s easy to operate, cheap, with plentiful ammo due to it’s popularity around the world. Thus is why so many countries use this weapon.
M4 is expensive. It’s aslo used by elite froces around the world, (U.S., Israel, Britian, etc.) Also it’s the weapon of choice for SWAT, FBI, and police forces throughout the U.S. the M4 is much more user friendly. It weighs a good deal less than the ak, easier to shoot than the ak and it can be simply accessorized.
I would much prefer an m4 on patrol to an ak anyday. These weapons are both ideal for their intended purposes. The only reason our troops use ak’s in Iraq is due to the fact that the 7.62 round is so plentiful. Anything beyond 100 yards should be left to the m4. 100 yards and below the ak could come out on top because of it’s easy point and shoot ability and it’s devastanting round.
By sr on Jan 17, 2008 | Reply
A comment from a soldier with far more sustained combat experience than any of us are likely to see!
“One of the bulldozers uncovered the decomposing body of an enemy soldier, complete with AK47. I happened to be standing right there, looking down into the hole and pulled the AK out of the bog. “Watch this, guys,” I said, “and I’ll show you how a real infantry weapon works.” I pulled the bolt back and fired 30 rounds — the AK could have been cleaned that day rather than buried in glug for a year or so. That was the kind of weapon our soldiers needed, not the confidence-sapping M16.”
Col. David Hackworth
By 9ak on Jan 17, 2008 | Reply
AK is accurate. In Croatian army conscripts hit human silhouette at 250m, all you need to do is to adjust hight at sights.
By Harry B. Dick on Jan 17, 2008 | Reply
The U.S. military was experimenting with the XM8 rifle & they planned on adopting it as the standard infantry weapon of the U.S. army. The weapon experienced to many problems though, was put on hold in mid 2005, & the project was cancelled october 31, 2005. One of the problems was that the handgaurd would melt after firing to many rounds.
By DaGroaner on Jan 17, 2008 | Reply
I have many AKs and the stories of their inaccuracy is overstated all the time. I even have a WASR-10(cheapest of the cheap) that my 14 year-old son can hit a 20-oz. soda bottle with at 100m with ease, admittedly this one is probably a fluke, but my Izhmash(Saiga) AKs are both equally accurate. I also have an Izhmash Saiga S-308 AK chambered in .308 Win. I can easily hit a pie plate at 500m with it all day long. Also adding a decent optical red or green dot sight either on a side mount or using an Ultimak mount makes a huge difference due to the AKs relatively short sight radius.
By jsmatt on Jan 17, 2008 | Reply
Icarried the m16 in vietnam and used an ak whenever i could the m16 was and still is UNRELIABLE
If the NVA carried m16s and we had ak47s the war would have been over in 2 years!! Also the US has not had to fight a Iwo Jima type battle -long time in the field and continuous fighting No time to clean your weapon the m16 couldnt stand up.
Check the army times publications 1967-1968 the M16 FAILED 100% humidity reliability test and helmet penetration tests but these tests were waived by a general who went to work for Colt -this is in the army’s monthly magizine. the ak still penetrates two 4×4s the m16 CANT.
By dman on Jan 17, 2008 | Reply
The main difference between the M16 and ak47 is that when an m16 bullet hits flesh and organs it seperates into many pieces and also spins through the body causing maximum internal damage instantly or eventualy from later infection ….whereas the ak’s 7.62 round will most of the time “go right through” from its tremendous velocity and larger caliber. They are both killers made for different situations……the far superior weapon to both of these is an m-14 which wa sdeemed to “good” and “expensive/heavy” to suply to all our troops. long story short……M16 precise,surgical weapon it is a Riffle….AK47 spray and pray, reliable, shoot trough trees it is a Machine Gun….Hope i diddn’t repeate to much Peace……..And if i had to choose a riffle it would be the bad guy weaponof choice the Steyr AUG ….peace
By man on Jan 17, 2008 | Reply
I would like all of you to know that on july 28 2003 Iwas involved in a shootout with police officer who had an ar 15 assault rifle and i had egyptian misr receiver a copy of the ak47 assault rifle and his weapon was inferior to mine he almost lost hie life when his weapon jammed after 10 shots if you dont believe this stor go to the fort worth star telegram website and look it up
By Smeg Veerco on Jan 17, 2008 | Reply
i was told by some family friends of mine that alot of the ak47s accuracy problem is due to the untrianed people who use the gun and also because of the iron sights mounted. worse sights = worse accuracy. also more people dye from m16 wounds becuase the people shot by the americans dont have a good medical service to patch them up, americans shot by aks do and are only wounded. while im sure the m16/m4 are bnoth still more accurate depite this i still prefer the ak47 becuase most modern combat us not fought at huge lenths nowdays. as for the kevlar debat i have no idea im a hunter, im not looking to buy an ak-103 with a red dot scope becuase its new improved (hopefully more accurate) but still has the reliablity of the ak47 and because of the dirt cheap ammo. i need a gun i can take to the bush and will kill not wound a pig or deer.
By mammal on Jan 17, 2008 | Reply
No doubt, the AK is a beautifully designed weapon.
But its for amateurs.
The M4 has almost zero reliability problems.
It has much greater stopping power and force impact.
It is more accurate from greater range. (allows user to engage at greater distance with more probability to hit)
It requires less bullets to do the job than the AK.
If the AK is such a grand weapon…. why was Fallujah such a supremely one sided affair? Seems the AK should have shined in such close quarters environment.
In most combat scenarios, troops know if they engage an enemy using AKs as primary weapon at greater than 100m, then they have the proverbial turkey shoot.
By Guerrilla 1 on Jan 17, 2008 | Reply
M-16 is rifle based, so accuracy and precision construction are required, this means a tight rifle with close engineering tolerances. very deadly and very accurate in the right conditions and right hands.
AK47 is machine gun based thats why auto is the first selection with single shot being an afterthought.(M16 has single first)Ak was designed for severe conditions, to do this tolerances are very loose which makes for a sloppier rattling rifle that will fire even with sand in the breach. the better rifle depends on the conditions, its like asking which is better car or plane, well are you going down street or around the world????
as far as penetrating power Force= Mass x Acceleration (no diameter) heavy slow bullet can have same force as light fast bullet (someone need to retake high school physics) i have seen AK split engine block at close range of 20ft. but i have seen a head slpit at 250 yuards with a M-16 (and scope)
By Guerrilla 1 on Jan 17, 2008 | Reply
When I first got to Iraq on my first tour, I had an M16 A2 and the son of a bitch jammed up on the second clip while I was in a fire fight and I had a trusty ol’ AK at home that had never jammed on me for the good 15 or so years I had it so went to the closest Iraqi and picked up an AK 47 and got three confirmed kills with it and carried that same exact rifle with me through the whole year I was there.
By V_NEMESIS on Jan 17, 2008 | Reply
I have to agree with the AK 47 guys. I have always heard that the M16 wasn’t designed for the conditions Vietnam. The M16 wasn’t designed for the conditions of Iraq. The M16 wasn’t designed for the conditions of Afganistan. Since most military conflicts aren’t being fought in 68′F temperatures, on astroturf, indoors, without dust, dirt, and humidity, maybe we need the drop the pride and just start making and caring AKs into battle.
By Scandinavian AG3 on Jan 17, 2008 | Reply
AK47, M16… who needs them when the can have an AG3! The Ag3 is more piercing, more accurate and just as reliable as the AK47 with a
minimum of maintenance. And m16 only exist because the americans cant make anyting better at a reasonable price.
It maybe a prize issue, or the fact that most nations with the AG3 rifle as the standard issue regular handweapon does not frequently participate in large scale war operations (another indication of higher national intelligence)
By Dennis Schneider on Jan 17, 2008 | Reply
I am retired USAF, and very familiar with the M-16; and always, ALWAYS, during training, we spent most of our time learning how to use the weapon in positions that would prevent it from getting dirty. I had an AK-47 until I sold it recently, and I never had to worry about getting a little bit of dirt in it. To all you M-16 freaks out there: didn’t you hear about Jessica Lynch and her group getting the shit shot of them when they took the wrong turn at al Nasiriya? The M-16s were jamming up left and right, while the AK-47s kept blazing merrily away. Piss on your M-16s! I’ll take an AK-47 any day.
By Dennis Schneider on Jan 17, 2008 | Reply
I am retired USAF, and very familiar with the M-16; and always, ALWAYS, during training, we spent most of our time learning how to use the weapon in positions that would prevent it from getting dirty. I had an AK-47 until I sold it recently, and I never had to worry about getting a little bit of dirt in it. To all you M-16 freaks out there: didn’t you hear about Jessica Lynch and her group getting the shit shot of them when they took the wrong turn al Nasiriya? The M-16s were jamming up left and right, while the AK-47s kept blazing merrily away. Piss on your M-16s! I’ll take an AK-47 any day.
By Trofo-Doc on Jan 17, 2008 | Reply
For me, reliability of my weapon is foremost when my life is on the line. I prefer the AK-47.
By n.y. on Jan 17, 2008 | Reply
the 7.62×39mm does not go thru kevlar with the metal plate sitting behind it. it wont go thru the kevlar helmet that our soldier’s use. the 5.56×45mm goes right thru. this is a known fact.
Comment by BEAN
i think that is an urban legend.
-where is this tested? 7.62 have more muzzle energy, so it is more powerful, that’s known fact too.
(i doubt that test was unjust; maybe 7.62 have tested on low-power bullets and 223 have tested on powerful armor piercing bullets. yeah, i have read about 223 and 7.62×39 accuracy comparisations, where 223 were used very expensive qualitybullets and 762 were used some cheap bullets, that make sure that 7.62 won’t win or do good in any conditions). this kind a test makes 223 look good in people eyes - we can’t admit that enemy have more powerful rifles than ours.
By Drew on Jan 17, 2008 | Reply
When it comes down to it, it is ALL dependant on the conditions of the habitat… We use the M16/M4 because we make them in america, we can afford them, and we like them. The iraqis use AK47s because they are cheap, plentiful, and reliable for where they live… In perfect conditions both guns are about the same, with a modern AK-100 and a M-16, both with match barrels they both would do about the same…
By Guy Chiasson on Jan 17, 2008 | Reply
I have owned both the AR-15 and currently own several AK-47’s. I also build AK’s from surplus parts kits. The AR-15 was a great gun, very accurate and never had any real problems with it, but I cleaned it after every shooting session. But design wise, the AK-47 is my favorite. It’s simpler to strip and assemble, more robust and in all of my shooting experiences, just as accurate at 100 meters, I can’t see a whole lot past that anyway. On one occassion I went shooting and got called out on a job overseas, so I quickly put the gun away and left. I forgot about it for 6 months, shooting other guns instead. When I pulled the AK out to go shooting, the bolt was frozen shut. I put it in my cleaning stand, grabbed a 2X4 and bashed it open with 1 hit, the gun performed flawlessly after that, of coarse I clean them constantly now. I’m totally sold on it. Kalashnikov is a genius. My personal opinion on why the U.S. hasn’t adopted the design is strictly out of stubborn pride. Simplicity is the way to go, too many people tend to forget that. I live in the swamps and just treking out for a leisurely shooting session can get my guns full of dirt, gunk, tree sap, water and God knows what else, the AK’s always shoot without a problem. Ammo is another consideration on accuracy, some of the surplus ComBloc ammo is not as good as handloaded or U.S. made mass produced ammo. I’ve shot 1″ branches off of trees at 50 meters, don’t have a clear enough line of fire to go past that, but that’s not bad. Granted, with the M-16 you could probably hit a squirrel at 1,000 meters with a scope, the 5.56mm round has a straighter trajectory and higher velocity than the 7.62X39, but I’m not a squirrel hunter and I really don’t like scopes because they get beat to death where I go and it’s not my thing. For general shooting or self defense, the AK-47 is my choice.
By William on Jan 17, 2008 | Reply
If you want a good comparison of shooting a gun in real life or playing a game. Socom 3 or Ghost Recon series would be the most accurate. To stay with my professionalism i would say that the AK47 would be an excellent weapon to brandish when in a fierce combat scenerio, but having an m4 or m16 would prove a realization of one shot, one kill ( or incapacity). Since the US troops wear Intercepter armor with highly tempered ceramic plates give a degree of protection of IV(even though Dragonscale armor should be mandatory for the troops as what the secret service and the president wears(bringing back medieval times)). The only way the m16 would jam is if you were to lazy to clean it yourself. Accuracy, less recoil (even with front grip capabilities), and the seperation of the 5.56 bullet when it enter the body proves to be more effective. The AK is a hell of a gun, but the new AN94 eclipses it. Still used to day and made since 1947 make the AK and Mikhail Kalashnikov a legend
By jesse on Jan 17, 2008 | Reply
Over 100 million Kalashnikov style weapons have been manufactured all over the world, there must be something right about its design!
Its unswerving reliability has not been equaled by any western assult rifle. It is the weapon of choice.
By Man of the AK-47 on Jan 17, 2008 | Reply
The Ak-47 is far suppior to any other rifle in the world.
look at the facts,over 50 nations uses the Ak47.Why?
Accuarcy-Medium
Reliability-Second to none
Terminal Damage-Hard hitting
all in all the Ak-47 is the best rifle for any mission.
The M4 Carbine is a good wepon but lacks relibility,
just think your in a close quarter fight no side arm your M4 jammes-Your dead
Think It might just save your life
By Jose Escalada on Jan 17, 2008 | Reply
To Whom It May Concern :
The AK-47 is the best assault rifle in the market .
The M-16 is good too but I like better the AK-47.
Myself presently I do own 5 guns but my best is a China AK-47 .
I am a gun collector .
Now the bullets for the AK-47 cost $8.00 for a box of 20.
But the price and quality there are no other weapon in the market better than my AK-47 from China .
Thanks.
By Timatom on Jan 17, 2008 | Reply
@ lol
Uh larger round does not necessarily mean more momentum; momentum is dependent on both mass and VELOCITY. Also, a bullet’s ability to penetrate kevlar(or any material) is dependent upon the momentum of an object and also the surface area that the object impacts upon. The 5.56 hits on an area 5.56 mm in circumference; the 7.62 hits on an area 7.62mm in circumference. The 5.56 travels at a much higher speed, and it impacts on a smaller surface area. (This effect is similar to the effect that snowshoes have; your weight is spread over a larger area, so u dont sink in.) Furthermore, there was a report of some british soldier getting hit 4x in the helmet by AK rounds; none penetrated (this was at the beginning of the ‘war’).
By schwing on Jan 17, 2008 | Reply
oh ya were talking about guns…hmm
i think that gun from the killer clowns from outer space would pwn the AK. it has the
craziest accuracy!
our troops should use it
By Cheeselicker on Jan 17, 2008 | Reply
Counter Strike is the number one worst place to get weapon handling characteristics from. Anyway, rifle preference there is based on the user. All the weapons are equally deadly in the right hands. I’ve seen teams of AK-47′d up terrorists get wiped by a few people with Desert Eagles. Myself, I prefer the M4 to the AK. Less recoil, and silencer for surprise kills. Slightly less damage, but that doesn’t matter when it takes the same amount of shots to kill someone. Counter Strike is not realistic, and it never will be. If it was truely realistic, it wouldn’t be fun. You’d play one round, and then be locked out of the game forever.
By Kevin on Jan 17, 2008 | Reply
The whole reason the military uses the 5.56 round is because when it hits the human body it shatters and riccochets/tumbles inside the body. This causes massive internal damage which end up killing the person….but not at first. Their philosophy is wound a man, and u take three people out (2 to drag him to saftey and work on him) kill a man and u only take out one.
As far as American soldiers using AK’s in iraq? heh yah right. I held an AK a handful of times while i was in iraq and they were all for pictures. I loved my M4. It NEVER jammed on me. As long as you wipe the dust off the thing before u go to sleep at night youre not gonna have jams unless you have a seriously malfunctioning rifle. Sure the AK can take sand much better but i still prefer the feel, the round size, everything to the AK. Mind you i own an AK as well. Not to say the AK isnt a great weapon but yah as an infantry soldier who was patrolling 10 hours a day in the sunni triangle, gimmie my M4 with its eotech any day of the week. As far as the RPK goes though….i gotta say i love the feel of that weapon over a 240b. I havnt fired it but wow it sits in your shoulder so nicely.
Btw that plate we use, SAPI plate, you can shoot that thing with an AK at close round and it’ll still stop 7 or 8 bullets. I know this because we tested it. Youre prolly gonna have some major chest pains. The plate saved one of our guys’ life when a sniper hit it dead on.
Yah and theres no way you could tell if the AK was accurate or not by looking at iraq. Iraqi’s and insurgents cant aim. half of them cut off the buttstock for comfort. They fire the weapon one handed half the time. If you look at deaths via small arms youll notice the number is incredibly smal. What’s killing soliders is VBIEDS.
By Discipulus04 on Jan 17, 2008 | Reply
7.62×39mm goes through kevlar like butter. as its a larger round and has more momentum (would be a good idea for you now to go back and finish that high school physics course) the rifle round goes through nearly any type of body armor fine. it might have lower range because it has more drag and because the ak isnt built as precisely as the m16, but it is not a weak weapon. the aforementioned “metal plate” - what metal plate? you do not wear metal plate behind kevlar. certain types of body armor have ceramic plating underneath them, and even this would be unlikely to stop a rifle round except at extremely long ranges. it may prevent a fatality but in warfare, its about incapacitation and being hit by a rifle round in the trunk, body armor or no, is incapacitating. in any case, modern warfare is not about cowering behind a mattress of body armor, it is about mobility, since that is a better defense than armor. the standard issue body armor for today’s armed forces contains none of the aforementioned ceramic.
and as to the m16’s reliability, the A4 model has fixed a majority of the flaws that made it infamous in the A1 version, although it’s been awhile since the gun has had an automatic mode.
By Bean on Jan 17, 2008 | Reply
the rifle’s name btw is the xm-8 made by h&k. it is basically the m16 with a supoosedly better gas operating system which is suppose to make fouling less than the rate on the m16 because of the design. if the m16 was such a poorly designed weapon we would not be using it. it has its flaws like any weapon but, i would rather have a weapon that needs more maintainence that is accurate and pushed a more powerful round than a weapon that you can just leave laying around with no maintainence that is no where near as accurate or powerful
By Raven on Jan 17, 2008 | Reply
I think one point is being overlooked here. The AK is cheap. Its cheap to build and to operate, ammo is plentiful, almost anyone can understand the mechanism, its easy to repair and easy to obtain anywhere. I think I recall reading someplace you could get an AK in the mid east in some places as cheap as two or three pigs, with one magazine of ammo. You have to really work at breaking it. As far as spray and pray goes, I suppose if you clip a ~70 round drum magazine on it, buried your finger in the trigger and pointed it in the general direction of the enemy, you have a good chance of prayers being answered. Doubt the barrel would survive much of that though….
By Watcherzero on Jan 17, 2008 | Reply
The ak47 has a firing variance of 3-4mm alone, at 100 metres thats 0.4 metres purely from mechanical inacuracy, then you factor in the larger kick of the 7.62mm caliber ammunition, the lack of a stock on most models except those in service for conventional military forces (lighter, easier to conceal) and you quite easily hit over a metre from the target.
Its true that in an urban enviroment, specifically inside buildings the larger ammo and better reliability produces better results, however in the open streets and specifically with high cover the weapon is quite inferior, nevermind in an open battlefield enviroment.
The reason for better results when used in militia hands is due to the major action being ambush of an exposed target (e.g. a convoy, foot patrol or troops exiting their vehicle) in these cases the attacker has cover and the element of surprise favouring them heavily in the opening moments, however in prolonged encounters, when the target has a oppurtunity to take cover its inacuracy at range translates in an inability to hit opponents in medium-heavy cover except through numerical concentrated firepower “spray and pray”.
By Biscuit on Jan 17, 2008 | Reply
The Iraqi militias rarely score kills with small arms because they “spray and pray”, they maintain a mentality of “if god wills it, it will happen” rather then a practical outlook of aiming their firearms.
Secondly, whilst deaths are rare, a very large number are severely wounded by such small arms, it’s less a matter of them never hitting a target as it is the US having very excellent retrieval & medical services.
Lastly, they make Dragonovs because a specialized weapon is always preferable to a jack-of-all in specialized roles. It’s something of a mystery to why they made the AK-74, I’d attribute it to cold war- “if they are doing it maybe we should to” If the Russians make an IFV, the west makes an IFV. The west makes a new round or weapon; the Russians make a new round or weapon.
By Michael on Jan 17, 2008 | Reply
“the ak does not have a bigger round. the 556 is a better round than the 762 and goes thru kevlar whereas the 762 cannot. the 556 is a better round at distance, power, and accuracy.”
Learn your facts, bud. A 7.62 mm AK bullet goes right through kevlar without any problem. Don’t believe me? Ask any American soldier who’s stationed overseas.
By Timatom on Jan 17, 2008 | Reply
THe AK-47 cannot compare to the M16A2/M16A4. Many of the facts/comments in this article are distorted. Here are some points about the M16/Ak47 debate that should be examined:
1. “In Vietnam, American soldiers threw away their M-16 rifles and used [Kalashnikov] AK-47s from dead Vietnamese soldiers, with bullets they captured. That was because the climate is different to America, where M-16s may work properly.”
-Mikhail Kalashnikov
True, the M16 used in Vietnam did jam and had a lot of problems, but that was the M16A1, not the current M16A2/A4, which is much more reliable (one reason is that US soldiers in Vietnam had been told that the M16A1 was “self-cleaning”; thus they never cleaned their rifles, leading to jams.) Soldiers in Vietnam did not throw away their M16’s; read any Vietnam war memoir such as Guns Up! or Marine Sniper to validate this. Special Forces (LRRP’s) did use Ak47’s but only because they spent so much time out in the bush that they couldnt be resupplied with the 5.56mm ammo that the M16 used. They were the ones that relied on captured ammo but ONLY B/C THEY COULDNT BE RESUPPLIED. (source: Dirty Little Secrets of the Vietnam War).
2. [@ i9ub]
“First of all, the AK is as accurate as US troops in Iraq need a gun to be.”
-i9ub
The AK cannot compare to the M16 in this aspect. IF the AK is so accurate and so great, then why have the Russians, who made it, switched to the AK-74 (which uses the smaller 5.45mm ammo which has similar performance to the M-16’s 5.56 ammo). Also, the Russians are constantly redesigning the front aiming block of the AK-47; why do so if it’s accurate enough? (see AK-103 characteristics)
3. [@ smokey]
“I think the US forces need an upgrade and has been wanting to replace the M16 line for a while now but nobody has stepped up to the plate yet and presented a design that wowed the brass enough to merit the expense of an entire new weapon issue.”
-smokey
All i have to say is: XM-8 project… (which was scrapped b/c the M-16 was found to be fine. Don’t fix a problem that isn’t there.)
4. [ @ omsil ]
“The myth of the AK’s incredible inaccuracy is propagated by it being used by untrained militia’s all over the world…. The AK can actually be converted into a better sniper rifle than the M-16 can (mostly because the AK has a larger caliber).”
-omsil
First, if the AK-47 is so accurate, then why can’t Marine scout/snipers hit a car at 100 yards with it? (read Jarhead. Idk if this part is in the movie or not.) Second, when you say “sniper rifle”, i believe you mean Designated Marksman Rifle. Once again i will allude to the Russians, if the AK-47 can be converted into such a great DMR, then why do they use the Dragunov to fill that role?
5. [ @ dak ]
The AK hasn’t really done anything for the militias besides for the intimidation factor that one has when one possesses a gun. Most US casualties are from IED’s, not small arms fire.
Oh yeah, i almost forgot: WHERE ARE THE PICTURES OF US TROOPS WITH AK-47’s!?!?
By Gunchyy on Jan 17, 2008 | Reply
Its a good thing the army uses m4’s now, none of this m16 crap
By Soulonfire11 on Jan 17, 2008 | Reply
I agree with Moose. H&K are the best weapons avaliable. still for a gun that was made in 1947 and still works today the same way it did when it came off the assemble line is incredible. I would take the AK over any american made gun because America is too damn stuborn to learn from anyone else like Mikhail Kalashnikov or H&K
By Moose on Jan 17, 2008 | Reply
Pretty well known fact that the M-16 is a crap weapon which was built for one purpose: low maintenance - but not much worse than the AK-47. If you want a reliable and precise weapon, although it requires slightly more maintenance, get the H&K AG-3.
By dak on Jan 17, 2008 | Reply
The AK do have less accuracy, even though
Enough people have been killed with it already.
We have been in Iraq for a number of years now.
We have not yet neutralised the malitias based there.
Not totally because of the weapons used, but obviously,
the AK’s are doing their job.
By Omsil on Jan 17, 2008 | Reply
The myth of the AK’s incredible inaccuracy is propagated by it being used by untrained militia’s all over the world. The average operator of an AK (starving fanatic, small child, pregnant woman, etc) can’t shoot worth a darn. AKs can be modified to improve specific characteristics for many different uses. The AK can actually be converted into a better sniper rifle than the M-16 can (mostly because the AK has a larger caliber). Some weapons are just well designed, others are only used because of political/corporate interests.
By smokey on Jan 17, 2008 | Reply
“If i wanted to spray and pray I’d take an AK47, if I wanted to make sure I hit the person I was aiming at, not my comrades advancing on the flank or some innocent bystander running for cover I would take a western weapon.
Guess that doesnt matter to US troops though.”
You’re talking about using an M16 under ideal conditions.
US soldiers in Iraq are dealing with the desert, the sand, and the heat clogging up their M16s and causing reliability issues.
Would you rather be able to spray out bullets not as accurately or get shot or see your mate get shot because your weapon got jammed?
Those are the real world issues. Looks like you haven’t been to the frontlines of Iraq.
If someone chooses a more reliable weapon over a more accurate weapon that does not work well in extreme conditions, that doesn’t mean they’re stupid, they are just playing it safe.
Under ideal conditions the M16 would be preferable, but the harsh deserts of Iraq hardly provide ideal conditions for M16 usage.
I would have thought the US army would have upgraded to a better standard issue weapon by now though. The M16 came out when? I believe 1960 right.
I think the US forces need an upgrade and has been wanting to replace the M16 line for a while now but nobody has stepped up to the plate yet and presented a design that wowed the brass enough to merit the expense of an entire new weapon issue.
By i9ub on Jan 17, 2008 | Reply
@Watcherzero
First of all, the AK is as accurate as US troops in Iraq need a gun to be. They are not firing on enemies from distances of “100 metres”, they are fighting in urban environments. Second of all, I would hardly call shooting from less than 100 meters “spraying and praying”. The AK is not nearly as inaccurate as you make it up to be. It’s not going to consistently hit the same millimeter wide spot like some of it’s western counterparts, but it isn’t going to miss completely either, let alone hit “comrades advancing on the flank or some innocent bystander running for cover”. I realize you probably didn’t mean that comment literally, but rather as a shot at the American troops fighting in Iraq. However, being as that would mean your a smug, ignorant fuck, I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant it. In which case, your just wrong.
By Watcherzero on Jan 17, 2008 | Reply
The AK’s are the most relible, cheapest and easily maintened guns, but they cant hit a target at 100 metres precisley because of their design which is based off simplicity and simple engineering rather than the precise engineering of precision weapons. If i wanted to spray and pray I’d take an AK47, if I wanted to make sure I hit the person I was aiming at, not my comrades advancing on the flank or some innocent bystander running for cover I would take a western weapon.
Guess that doesnt matter to US troops though
By Bahjat Tabbara on Jan 17, 2008 | Reply
The AK series have always proven to be the best despite the age of smaller calibres & synthetics. Although the M-16s (the arch rival in the eyes of many) is supposedly superior in certain aspects it is reliability & durability that count. Although the M-16 has many ‘advantages’ it is inferior in real combat conditions & no Western rifle to date has proven superior except in evaluations where erogonomics & accuracy are heavily weighted. The AK-100 series as it were are the ultimate evolution of the AK series not in so much as real modifications but options offered. It does of course depend on cultural issues, however, on the field reliability comes first & the AK series have always ensured that a soldier can fight the enemy & not the weapon.
By jen on Jan 17, 2008 | Reply
both of this rifle are deadly. so make sure to use them well.
By Doodee on Feb 1, 2008 | Reply
Thanks for sharing