Author Topic: Iraq shows AK-47 is still the best, says Kalashnikov... (Read 2457 times)

K Frame · « **on:** April 17, 2006, 09:22:05 AM »

MOSCOW (Reuters) - 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 (JESUS!) 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.

Justin · « **Reply #1 on:** April 17, 2006, 10:12:57 AM »

Too bad he worked under the wrong political system.

Just imagine what the royalties on that many guns would be...

Fudgieghost · « **Reply #2 on:** April 17, 2006, 10:41:25 AM »

Well, if he had lived in the US, I'm sure the Ordanance (sp?) Dept would've pooh-poohed his design----wasteful of ammunition don't you know!

see: Misfire by Callahan (can't remember his first name) They seem never to have met a design they didn't like. Lucky we got the Garand to be approved by them. . .

The Rabbi · « **Reply #3 on:** April 17, 2006, 11:59:30 AM »

How much money did Stoner make on the M-16?

Yeah, AK is a great gun for reliability. But if it was all that wonderful, how come the guys using it in both Iraq and Afghanistan got their tushies kicked by guys wielding Stoner-designed guns?

jefnvk · « **Reply #4 on:** April 17, 2006, 12:27:32 PM »

I'd still bet a large part is cost to manufacture each. I would think that the AK is much easier and cheaper to manufacture than the M16.

Guest · « **Reply #5 on:** April 17, 2006, 02:07:39 PM »

Quote from: jefnvk

I'd still bet a large part is cost to manufacture each. I would think that the AK is much easier and cheaper to manufacture than the M16.

That view is a little too one-dimensional. I wouldnt be at all suprised if the total cost for the U.S. to manufacture an AR15 wasnt too different from the cost for Russia to manufacture an AK-47. The two weapon designes exploit the unique circumstances of the industrial nations that make them. In an American system the AK would cost more to make than the AR, and visa versa, thats why there arent any AKs that are entirely made in the US, its too expensive.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #6 on:** April 17, 2006, 04:09:57 PM »

Isn't Kalashnikov just being taken in by rumors? What TV is he watching that has American soldiers using AK's every day?

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #7 on:** April 17, 2006, 04:11:37 PM »

Quote from: c_yeager

I wouldnt be at all suprised if the total cost for the U.S. to manufacture an AR15 wasnt too different from the cost for Russia to manufacture an AK-47. The two weapon designes exploit the unique circumstances of the industrial nations that make them. In an American system the AK would cost more to make than the AR, and visa versa, thats why there arent any AKs that are entirely made in the US, its too expensive.

Could you elaborate on that, or tell us where we could read about this?

Guest · « **Reply #8 on:** April 17, 2006, 04:58:32 PM »

Quote from: fistful

Could you elaborate on that, or tell us where we could read about this?

Its based on observation. Look at the higher end AKs out there, the ones that are partly made in the US, they cost more than AR15s because they are more labor intensive. One can assemble an AR from parts with few if any tools and no real experience, assembling an AK takes significantly more work.

RevDisk · « **Reply #9 on:** April 17, 2006, 05:26:54 PM »

Quote from: The Rabbi

How much money did Stoner make on the M-16?

Yeah, AK is a great gun for reliability. But if it was all that wonderful, how come the guys using it in both Iraq and Afghanistan got their tushies kicked by guys wielding Stoner-designed guns?

Oh, I dunno. Air support, good tanks and better logistics, maybe?

jefnvk · « **Reply #10 on:** April 17, 2006, 08:51:57 PM »

Quote

Its based on observation. Look at the higher end AKs out there, the ones that are partly made in the US, they cost more than AR15s because they are more labor intensive. One can assemble an AR from parts with few if any tools and no real experience, assembling an AK takes significantly more work.

I doubt the AK's that are being referenced though, the ones that are made by the millions, are the ones that are milled to high tolerances. Even so, if you want to compare high end stuff, the AR's could be made to a lot higher price tags then they currently are, and much higher than any AK I have seen.

Even so, you are talking about the final assembly. I completely agree with you that putting the parts together is easier for the average person in a garage. I don't think it is that much more labor intensive for a factory with the equipment to assemble an AK. I am looking at the fabrication of the parts. Stamped sheet metal recievers are going to be cheaper to manufacture. Wood stocks are going to be cheaper than plastic ones.

What is the price of a standard M16 (somewhere around $500, IIRC), and what is the price of a stamped/riveted AK (I don't really know, but my guess is significantly lower).

The Rabbi · « **Reply #11 on:** April 18, 2006, 05:08:05 AM »

My recollection is that an AK factory direct to the tin-pot dictator buyer costs something like $24.99 a piece.
I am not certain how valid the thesis is about production costs in each place. But I do agree that each gun was designed to capitalize on strengths in the relevant economies (AK--cheap labor, AR--cheap capital).

mfree · « **Reply #12 on:** April 18, 2006, 07:41:36 AM »

If I were in theatre somewhere, and I managed to successfully kill an enemy with my rifle, and he didn't succeed in killing me with his, why the hell would I take his rifle over mine?

RadioFreeSeaLab · « **Reply #13 on:** April 18, 2006, 08:28:57 AM »

Having shot both an AR and a semi-auto AK, I prefer the AK. But that's just me.

Quote from: The Rabbi

Yeah, AK is a great gun for reliability. But if it was all that wonderful, how come the guys using it in both Iraq and Afghanistan got their tushies kicked by guys wielding Stoner-designed guns?

Perhaps because they can't shoot.

brimic · « **Reply #14 on:** April 18, 2006, 10:07:48 AM »

Quote

Yeah, AK is a great gun for reliability. But if it was all that wonderful, how come the guys using it in both Iraq and Afghanistan got their tushies kicked by guys wielding Stoner-designed guns?

Piss poor tactics
lack of technology
lack of air superiority
outdated equipment

If Americans were armed with AK-47s and the Iraqis and Taliban were armed with M-16s, the course of events over the last few years wouldn't have changed in the slightest.

K Frame · « **Reply #15 on:** April 18, 2006, 10:21:33 AM »

"Piss poor tactics
lack of technology
lack of air superiority
outdated equipment"

Add lack of competent leadership.

If having the "better" piece of equipment truly made all the difference in the work, the Germans would have conquored the Soviet Union in 1941.

Guest · « **Reply #16 on:** April 19, 2006, 08:16:47 AM »

I make my living with tools. Expensive german tools in some cases. And the much vaunted "German Superiority " is a load of doo-doo. After working on some of them, I can well understand why they lost the war. Typical example- Austrian 20" planer, 10hp. Uses a urethane coated contact/friction drive off the main motor shaft, to drive a belt and pulley system, to drive a sprocket, chain system .What a Rube Goldberg contraption. Any American would have used a variable speed gear drive and had done with it. We have been sold that exotic and foriegn = effective and advanced, and it ain't nessesarly so.

As a side note- almost every AR I have every fired had some dinky problem, for example the other day I got one thinking I had finally beat the gremlin. Clean, lube, first outing- Insert mag, release bolt. Bolt won;t go to battery. Release bolt again, bolt goes to battery. Fire one shot, then fire again. oops, trigger has not reset.Recock bolt, trigger does not reset. open weapon, fuss about, gun runs fine thru the rest of the mag. Release mag, oops, it won't come out., I mean, it will not come out with the mag release comepleately disengaged and both hands pulling. Finally get it out by wiggling and resolve to never again buy a AR. By the way , this was an as new factory gun.
This little scenario has been repeated with every AR i have ever been around, they have all been high maintainance items that needed to be finessed to work right.
In comparison, I have never shot an AK that did not function perfectly, right out of the box or any other place it came from. And the accuracy issue- sure, an AR will outshoot a Cheap AK every time, but try it againt a Valmet .223, or maybe even a Vepr. If you were given a choice of an AR and an AK in two separate boxes and had to chose one, untested ,to defend yourself, you would have to be the worlds biggist optimist to chose the AR.

seeker_two · « **Reply #17 on:** April 29, 2006, 02:48:55 PM »

All well and good, Comrade Kalashnikov.....

...but can you put a pink stock on an AK-47?... Tongue

jefnvk · « **Reply #18 on:** April 29, 2006, 05:02:28 PM »

Quote

If you were given a choice of an AR and an AK in two separate boxes and had to chose one, untested ,to defend yourself, you would have to be the worlds biggist optimist to chose the AR.

Call me the world's biggest optimist then.

Winston Smith · « **Reply #19 on:** April 30, 2006, 07:33:17 AM »

haha AK vs AR

mfree · « **Reply #20 on:** April 30, 2006, 09:00:56 AM »

Let me remind you that the rights to the AK are contested and supposedly still belong to Russia, meaning that Mr. Kalashnikov may be in for a chunk of change here if the rifles' popularity continues.

If Mr. Stoner were still alive today, he'd likely issue a rebuttal.

News:

Author Topic: Iraq shows AK-47 is still the best, says Kalashnikov... (Read 2457 times)

Guest

Guest

Guest