A colleague sent me this story on a weapon that Im sure has many fans among DT readers.
Its a video and text package on the AK-47 done for Al Jazeera network. Theres some good video and the story itself isnt bad. But what I find particularly interesting is that its being run by Al Jazeera in the first place as if viewers in the Middle East need any education about the AK-47 and the reporter who filed it.
You may remember that Josh Rushing was a Marine Corps PAO during the invasion of Iraq and was prominently featured in the controversial documentary Control Room. He left the service to become a correspondent with Jazeera.
There are some interesting insights into the world of arms smuggling and supplying guerrilla wars throughout Rushings Jazeera package. So if you have a few moments to watch, its worth a look.
(Read the entire Jazeera post for Part II of the report)
– Christian
I had a chance to fire the AK-47 when I was stationed in Germany.I was so impressed with the sheer simplicity of the weapon.It should have the same motto as GEICO,“So easy a caveman can use it.”
“But what I find particularly interesting is that it
From my local public library, I checked out AK-47: The Weapon that Changed the Face of War by Larry Kahaner. The work contained historical flaws so I put it down.
A reminder. The Finnish Valmet M-76 was based on the AK-47 and the Israeli IMI Galil was based on the Valmet.
During the Iran-Iraq War, the Iranian manufactured HK G3 proved superior to Iraq’s AK-47 in nearly all combat situations, particularly in open fields but also urban settings such as the siege of Abadan.
The AKs “reliability” is largely an urban myth. Fueled by anti American media who tries to make anything American look bad. Vietnam is the war by which the M-16 is judged to this day, while the currant M-16a2 is no way near the same weapon. The AK is a “spray and pray” weapon at best. Its balance is way off, accuracy sucks, and it is often made out off cheap metal which break fairly easy. The M-16a2 leave a bit to be desired but is balanced, very accurate, and made out of a good quality metal that wont break to easy. AK also gets attention because maintenance is almost nil, I say any soldier who doesn’t clean his weapon at least once a day, doesn’t deserve to carry one. The gun I trust my life on, is worth it. If you think you can take a AK and never clean it, and still depend on it, you will end up dead. If you take a M-16 and don’t clean it, and trust your life to it, you will end up dead.
Im sick of people spreading the myth that the AK is so reliable when the fact is, it is all up the user how reliable his weapon is.
Also something ain’t right if Arabs need to be tough how to use the weapon, they have only been using it for how many years?
Huh, I thought Kalishnikov had died by now. I think he’d eighty-something this year.
They named the AK-47 as the greatest rifle of all time on the Militeray Channels top ten. Followed by the M16
The AK is the best weapon for what it is: the simplest and cheapest device that can work as a modern automatic rifle. The AK is not designed for soldiers. It is designed to be an instrument that you can give to illiterate peasants to give them a chance against trained soldiers.
The piece is generally good, though it makes a pretty big error when talking about Chavez’ purchase — it claims the 100,000 AKs were from Soviet stockpiles. They’re not. Those 100,000 AKs are actually 100,000 AK-103s (ie the modernized version derived from the AK-74M, hence the AK-74 style muzzle brake and the new black plastic furniture, and the side plate for optics). And Chavez is building a plant for them in Venezuela.
As to the AK vs the M16. It’s always so amusing when people apologize for the M16s finnickiness by trying to make out the AK is just as bad. Pahlease.
This film is a pure rubbish anti-american propaganda.
The AK-47 as a weapon has being successfully used only against the non-military targets.
LOL a TV show said its true so I guess im wrong. Gosh. I love how people hate anything American made. A soldier has a responsibility to be able to take basic care of his firearms, if he cant maybe he don’t need to be a soldier. A person treats a gun like his life, if he bangs it up, drops it, and doesn’t clean it, he doesn’t care if he lives or dies. On the other hand a professional soldier will carry his gun in a manner that he wont drop it, he will cover it during a storm, and will clean it before he himself eats. Weapon maintenance, it gos all the way back to when you had to wipe the blood off your sword, and clean the rust off. AK is a decent weapon if made correctly, but most of them are not.
The venerated AK-47 is not a Russion creation.
During the last two years of WWII, the Germans fielded an assault rifle; the Sturmgewehr ’44.
The AK-47 is a crude copy of the German weapon.
So in truth, old Andre is really just a design thief.
?The venerated AK-47 is not a Russion creation.
During the last two years of WWII, the Germans fielded an assault rifle; the Sturmgewehr ’44.
The AK-47 is a crude copy of the German weapon.
So in truth, old Andre is really just a design thief.“
you ever take both guns apart side by side to look at their parts and seeing exactly how similar they are?
As a 15 year old in Soviet Union I had a school record for disassembly of AK-47 = just over 6 seconds. Never had a chance to shoot the thing since never made it to the shooting range. I knew the gun inside out and was the kid that always was asked to “fix” the classroom AK’s, and not have to go practice marching. I agree that it is very simple.
During the last two years of WWII, the Germans fielded an assault rifle; the Sturmgewehr ’44.
The AK-47 is a crude copy of the German weapon.
Please dont disgrace a fine german weapon by saying that. LOL just kidding, ya but the AK was a lot better, and more durible.
You get tolerance for cheap bullets at a price. But no army who can offord better even eses the AK anymore. Heck even Iran has the G3, isreal got rid of the Galil going back to the M4 and the new Tavor (or what ever the name was), Iraq bought M16s. Only poor countrys, and terrorists still use em. There are better, like the SCAR, heck I think the M-14 is/was better than the 47.
“The venerated AK-47 is not a Russion creation.
During the last two years of WWII, the Germans fielded an assault rifle; the Sturmgewehr ’44.
The AK-47 is a crude copy of the German weapon.
So in truth, old Andre is really just a design thief.“
I would have thought that if audience of any website would be beyond this ignorant nonsense, Defense Tech would be it. Then again, why wouldn’t someone conclude that two rifles with similar front sights and banana clip would not be mechanically identical?
Whatever happened to the AK-74 (sic)? It never seemed to pick up much popularity outside official USSR/Russian use.
Iran purchased an HK G3 factory because the rifle was found to be the best in the world at the time. Iran financed the F-14 Tomcat program for Grumman and submitted orders based on the same criteria, it was the best fighter plane in the world at the time. Both weapons provided extraordinary service during the Iran-Iraq War.
During most of the 1970’s, it was an open secret that Iran maintained a tripartite economic alliance with Israel and South Africa.
Other Islamic nations use the HK G3, such as Pakistan and Turkey.
AMAZING, isn’t it that so many civillians “know” the M-16 is “junk”.
Those of us veterans who have fired many thousands of rounds through the rifle know better.
As do most of the world’s Special Forces units, which overwhelmingly use the M-4. The SAS uses the M-4 derived Canadian built SFW, and they can buy ANY rifle they choose…
Right on Wes. TV does weird things to the human mind. Like how great Dragon Skin was, how bad the V-22 is, how bad the HUMVEE is, how good the AK is, need I go further. If people would actually ask a soldier what he thinks about his gear. Nothing is perfect, nothing ever will be. Ive shot ARs and AKs, you just cant really compare em, the AR is so superior. Like Glock pistols and the 1911, both are great pistols, but nothing will ever match the almighty 1911 the holy grail of the shooting world. Dragon Skin is awesome, until you take it to Iraq and heat it up. The HUMVEE is the best SUV ever made, do jobs with it that it was never designed to do, and ya it will suck.
Never mind which is the best rifle.
Think caliber, and with 5.56mm a lot more rounds for the same weight can be carried, and that’s the important bit for the infantryman who has to carry and fight with his combat load.
The target shooters/gun collectors might disagree, if so ask yourself when was the last time you were in combat?
So it’s got to be the 5.56mm weapons that win, be it M16A2/M4, SA80A2, G36 etc.
Give all the absolute and judgemental statements a rest, guys. Accuracy, reliability, overall operability, etc., is dependent on the combination of design amd maintenance. A good operator can make a poor device function well, and a good device can make a poor operator look good. The situations underwhich weapons are employed aren’t constant, either.
Every comment I read about any of this can be qualified. My observations date from experience with M-4 & Beretta M-92 back through M1911A1 & M17 Enfield, and a lot of the stuff in between.
By-the way, I will put my money on the operator every time, kowing the quality of the individual US Soldier, Marine, Sailor, and Airman.
Ten years(1983–1993) using either the M16, M16A1 or M16A2. I was happy with the overall performance. Last week I spent 5 days in a very remote area accompanied by a friends Romanian made AK47. My first experience with the AK47.With fully loaded mags it did seem pretty heavy (maybe I’m just getting old). I was quite impressed with the accuracy and the penetration through various matter densities and thicknesses. Impressed enough that I’ll be adding one to my collection for the inexpensive cost and availability.
Americans have not and cannot grasp what makes the AK-47 the better combat weapon. It’s not a better gun, but is a better weapon because of its reliability and the mentality of those who carry each weapon (the AK-47 and the M-16).
Americans aren’t willing to die for their cause. It doesn’t matter how much the US and its citizens and soldiers talk about “home of the brave”, Americans are petrified of being martyrs. Consequently, Americans obsessively want and expect weapons (rifles or otherwise) that insulate them from the dangers of combat.
In all the countries where the AK-47 has been widely used, it’s holders have been part of ideologies where the individual was insignificant compared to the cause. Whether it’s blind obedience to communism, blind obedience to islam, or an unwillingness to surrender one’s home to an invading force, those who carry the AK-47 are willing to die and in vast numbers. In Iraq, 4,000 US soldiers have died while over 500,000 Iraqis have died, and the US is still nowhere near quelling the resistance.
(It is not an “insurgency”, it is a resistance. An insurgency is a battle against a legitimate government, a resistance a battle against an invading and occupying army.)
The US and its soldiers think of weapons and armour in terms of survival, not winning. This is why the US has never been able to force its ideology on other countries. Superior technology without an unflinching will to do whatever it takes to win is useless; the inferior technology of the AK-47 and its ease of use and repair, combined with the kamikaze-like willingness to die of its users, is next to unstoppable.
I own both rifles, and I have to say, if the shtf, I’d grab them both. They both serve a purpose. The ar (m16) can help you reach out and touch somebody on the first shot. I trust mine to do just that. Now, that said, if I want to tear a man down inside 100 meters, or need to shoot thru something to hit my target, I’d use my cheap but reliable romanian wasr 10/63.
By the way, the guy who said the ak and ar are equally reliable is either misguided or ignorant. (no offense buddy).
My nieces husband just got back from Iraq, he’s done two tours with the Marines. I asked him about their weapons the M4 and the Navys version of the AR10 that the Navy seals sniper teams use and the AK47. He told me he’s seen men he shot in the arm with the 5.56(223), back in the fight the next day when they finally killed him. The AR10 shot the 7.62 Nato(308) he thought that was the rife they should have been issued, he didn’t have any complaint about the AR10. He thought the AK47 was deadly some are using them as sniper rifles, confirmed by HQ Intel sources.
i would like to comment on all of the “soldier, cleaning his weapon crap” yes, it is very important to take care of whatever piece of equipment that you have to rely on.…no matter what your proffesion. lets all be practical and stop trying to be hardasses. while in iraq i cleaned my weapon daily whenever possible, and applied a very light coat of oil, because dust sticks to the oil.…after me being a “soldier” and taking care of my stuff, it really irritates a person to be trying to unjam your sh*t after all your efforts, while you are being shot at from some guy that just picked his weapon up out of a ditch. i will take the ak any day. and im far from unamerican, thats just my experience. you can have a hand in it, but you cant associate reliability in every aspect on your care of a weapon, if thats the case we would all by high points and just keep them really clean.
Very interesting flick, and posts. I’m going to make a couple of posts.
First, I served a couple of tours in the Marines where I became very familiar with the M14, M16 and various other weapons. I purhased a Hungarian made AK47 about a year ago to begin a pursuit in ‘riflery as a hobby.’ It’s not the best rifle for this hobby if you’re shooting (no pun intended)for consistency in accuracy, but I’d definitely take it into combat if I had to (unlikely at my age).
I can get consistent bulls at 300 yards both with iron sights and using a 9x scope. I’m using a 12″ diam. bull. Some days they’re tight groups, other days they’re not. Probably more dependent on my skills on the particular day of shooting as well as my skill in using a scope.
My preference is, hands down, using the scope at that distance because it’s a lot easier to adjust the scope than the iron sights. I’ve found the iron sights difficult to calibrate when you’re faced with different wind conditions/distances. The scopes are far easier to use to adjust the impact zone.
If I can consistently fire and score a ‘head shot’ at 300 yards, this rifle is fine in my humble opinion.
Trash talk about it being no more than a 75, 100 or 150 yard rifle is just that, trash. I’m referring more to posts on other forums mostly, not on what I’ve read here.
On this second post I just want to say I find this forum very interesting and helpful. It’s great to hear what others say about the AK when they obviously know some of what they’re talking about.
If you shoot from the hip, crank off more than 1 round every couple of seconds, don’t know how to shoot, or are trying to see how fast you can shoot, don’t talk about accuracy.