Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 John Prins wrote:

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

I just think it’s a dangerous thing to downplay the importance of technology in war and lose perspective on how dramatically things can change in a short space of time. In fact, I suspect the reason people in the 60s thought we’d have cities on Mars by 2000 is because they and their parents had lived through equally dramatic changes. It’s not that they were stupid.

Counterpoint: We're still happily using the wheel, the screw, the pulley, the lever, the wedge. New technologies will appear, but some old ones will remain relevant and may never be replaced at all.

There's good reason soldiers didn't trust technological innovations. Trying new things in warfare gets you killed most of the time. It isn't like testing things out at a range under controlled conditions. Soldiers don't get 'do-overs' and will tend towards conservatism because that's how soldiers stay alive. Once a soldier was shown that things actually worked, they were generally for anything that would help keep them alive.

It's also worth noting that the Army has looked into replacing the M4 several times. They've never actually gone and done it cause the potential replacements offer no meaningful upgrade. It's not like anyone's slacking. There's just no real advancements.

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

And cities on mars by 2000 was stupid. A stupid idea I doubt many people actually thought was going to happen.

AK47s are crap honestly, they haven't been replaced because of 1 key factor. Durability.

An AK47 has 1 very redeeming quality and that is Durability. Yes you can break them, but compare them to an M16A4 or a M4A1 and you will notice that its not as susceptible to poor maintenance/care.

Compare the stats to the M16A4.

Accuracy: Point Target
AK47 - about 300-350 yards
M16A4- 500 Yards

Area Target:
AK47 - 400-500 Yards
M16A4 - 700-800 Yards

The AK47 is significantly heavier than the M16A4 and the ammunition is even heavier. The AK47 is harder to handle as well due to increased recoil which is why it is in fact very inaccurate except at short range.

As far as stopping power, believe it or not, an AK47 has LESS stopping power at range then an M16A4 firing a smaller 5.56 round, this is due to velocity.

In every category imaginable, the AK47 is worse. Except for its 1 great trait, durability. There is a reason you see the AK47 in all the 3rd world countries armies, its harder to break and is significantly cheaper to produce/purchase.

So why hasn't it been replaced by a better weapon? Simply put, it has, by any country that has the money/technology and cares about their soldiers performance on the battlefield. Russia doesn't use them anymore and relies on the 74 instead. What you see though is a holdover from the cold war where the russians allowed foreign countries to mass produce their rifles, it was literally a tool of diplomacy.

I'm pretty sure there's a term for that now that it's mentioned.

AK Diplomacy? Something.

SemperMortis wrote:
As far as stopping power, believe it or not, an AK47 has LESS stopping power at range then an M16A4 firing a smaller 5.56 round, this is due to velocity.

I more or less agreed with you until this. I don't believe it, because it's not true. The 5.56 is moving faster, no argument, but it also weighs about 1/3rd of the bullet weight. In terms of energy, the 7.62x39 delivers more energy at ranges typically seen in combat and eventually tapers off to more or less match the 5.56. There are benefits that the 5.56 has - the better velocity gives it a better chance to penetrate body armor and it has a flatter trajectory at longer range - but in pure stopping power it loses, period.

Of course, stopping power isn't everything, which is why as you said even the Russians went away from 7.62x39 pretty fast.

The AK is also perfectly accurate enough for what it's used for. The average shooters marksmanship will affect accuracy much, much more than the looser tolerances will.

I would find it strange that an army would invest massively in research and development of infantry rifles instead of the tools that actally win wars like aircrafts, surveillance systems, cyberwarfare specialists/softwares, artillery and ballistic missiles. Infantry is becoming more and more obsolete as a combat unit. Nowdays, infantry is mostly used to mop-up resistence after extensive bombings and as garrison in recently captured territory. Your infantryman is less fighting a war then he is doing high risk police work, looking out for partisan actions and securing logistical lines. We don't need better rifle because we don't really need better infantry. The very best infantryman in the world is completely irrelevent if he or she doesn't have good air and artillery support.

SemperMortis wrote:
AK47s are crap honestly, they haven't been replaced because of 1 key factor. Durability.

An AK47 has 1 very redeeming quality and that is Durability. Yes you can break them, but compare them to an M16A4 or a M4A1 and you will notice that its not as susceptible to poor maintenance/care.

Compare the stats to the M16A4.

Accuracy: Point Target
AK47 - about 300-350 yards
M16A4- 500 Yards

Area Target:
AK47 - 400-500 Yards
M16A4 - 700-800 Yards

The AK47 is significantly heavier than the M16A4 and the ammunition is even heavier. The AK47 is harder to handle as well due to increased recoil which is why it is in fact very inaccurate except at short range.

As far as stopping power, believe it or not, an AK47 has LESS stopping power at range then an M16A4 firing a smaller 5.56 round, this is due to velocity.

In every category imaginable, the AK47 is worse. Except for its 1 great trait, durability. There is a reason you see the AK47 in all the 3rd world countries armies, its harder to break and is significantly cheaper to produce/purchase.

So why hasn't it been replaced by a better weapon? Simply put, it has, by any country that has the money/technology and cares about their soldiers performance on the battlefield. Russia doesn't use them anymore and relies on the 74 instead. What you see though is a holdover from the cold war where the russians allowed foreign countries to mass produce their rifles, it was literally a tool of diplomacy.

And here we have (I'm guessing) an American service member who's been fed a ton of bad info by fellow soldiers or the military? Misinformation doesn't add anything to this thread.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:


To list a few drawbacks. It needs heavy ammunition to function. It’s inaccurate. It’s loud and gives away your position if you fire it. The weapon can cause collateral damage. It requires training to use. The weapon doesn’t really help you locate your opponent who might be taking lot shots at you in the valley.

-heavy ammunition is relative. My experiences in Iraq tell me that, unless you're a standard uniform wearing military, you aren't going to be carrying enough ammunition to make that much of a difference. . . Most of the time we captured someone, they had at most 3 magazines, usually it was 2: one in the gun, one on them.

-Its only as accurate as its user, and type/mode of fire. . . People are literally just as inaccurate with M-16/M-4s and it is hailed as being much more accurate.

-Congrats, you just described firearms to a T. Ive never heard of a sound suppressor that could eliminate this, and I've been on a few ranges where a person was using a suppressor.

-All weapons can cause collateral damage, I don't see how this is a point?

-The M-4/M-16 requires training, and arguably more training than the AK, so what's your point? There's the oft cited "field test" of an AK, where they found a nice mud puddle, buried an AK in it, waited a bit, pulled out the AK, wiped off a couple things, and shot it straight away. There's no way in hell you could do the same with an M-4/M-16, a major part of M-16 training is cleaning and maintenance because its a "precision machine" (lol), whereas if you're some 3rd world warlord, you can pop an AK into some kid's hand say, "point that end at the enemy, pull this bit here, squeeze that, and just make sure you come back for more ammo when ya need it"


Ultimately though, the military that spawned the AK-47 HAS moved on from the 47. . . According to google, the standard infantry rifle of the russian military is the AK-12 and/or AK-15.

-"standard" infantry rifle helps you locate an opponent, you have eyes and ears for that. . . . Most any other tech for the purpose of "locate an opponent who might be taking a lot of shots at you in the valley" are not going to be based on/around infantry rifles.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Totalwar1402 wrote:


To list a few drawbacks. It needs heavy ammunition to function. It’s inaccurate. It’s loud and gives away your position if you fire it. The weapon can cause collateral damage. It requires training to use. The weapon doesn’t really help you locate your opponent who might be taking lot shots at you in the valley.

-heavy ammunition is relative. My experiences in Iraq tell me that, unless you're a standard uniform wearing military, you aren't going to be carrying enough ammunition to make that much of a difference. . . Most of the time we captured someone, they had at most 3 magazines, usually it was 2: one in the gun, one on them.

-Its only as accurate as its user, and type/mode of fire. . . People are literally just as inaccurate with M-16/M-4s and it is hailed as being much more accurate.

-Congrats, you just described firearms to a T. Ive never heard of a sound suppressor that could eliminate this, and I've been on a few ranges where a person was using a suppressor.

-All weapons can cause collateral damage, I don't see how this is a point?

-The M-4/M-16 requires training, and arguably more training than the AK, so what's your point? There's the oft cited "field test" of an AK, where they found a nice mud puddle, buried an AK in it, waited a bit, pulled out the AK, wiped off a couple things, and shot it straight away. There's no way in hell you could do the same with an M-4/M-16, a major part of M-16 training is cleaning and maintenance because its a "precision machine" (lol), whereas if you're some 3rd world warlord, you can pop an AK into some kid's hand say, "point that end at the enemy, pull this bit here, squeeze that, and just make sure you come back for more ammo when ya need it"


Ultimately though, the military that spawned the AK-47 HAS moved on from the 47. . . According to google, the standard infantry rifle of the russian military is the AK-12 and/or AK-15.

-"standard" infantry rifle helps you locate an opponent, you have eyes and ears for that. . . . Most any other tech for the purpose of "locate an opponent who might be taking a lot of shots at you in the valley" are not going to be based on/around infantry rifles.

I did name the AK but I was more referring to firearms in the general having stagnated rather than a comparison between the M16 and AK. Which I imagine has been done to death. It’s really more a question about weapons development and comparing it to previous leaps in technology. Also the list is brainstorming hypothetical ways you could improve the gun.

Well, it has come up a few times by posters further up, but they suggest that infantry are an increasingly niche/support troops rather than the main offensive unit as they were in earlier centuries. Aircraft, missiles, nuclear weapons, tanks etc etc. I think you could make a comparison to the decline of cavalry and it becoming increasingly niche and marginal as time progressed. We don’t replace the guns for the same reason the cavalry didn’t update their swords over the centuries. That’s another way of saying the AK is near obsolete.

Some weapons cause more collateral damage than others. Poison gas for example. If some weapons are more dangerous then by the same token current weapons could be made less dangerous. Brainstorming, if you had a sonic weapon that incapacitated people or some form of AI in the gun which reduced the risk of hitting a civilian.

Well Iam basing the ideas on history. A musket was easier to train people with than a longbow, so an arguably better weapon system got left by the wayside. So that’s the principle. If you made any weapon system so intuitive to use that anyone could pick one up and use it that translates directly into an advantage.

What I'm finding interesting about this thread is the amount of bias you can see in a lot of responses. Not hateful bias, but a ton of "AK's are inaccurate cavemen tools" kind of stuff (as witnessed above). It's amusing how much this stigma exists in the US. I've found it's based on a couple of things.

1) The person has been drip-fed enough Cold War style propaganda to believe that an AK platform rifle is inaccurate etc. (see also: films throughout history down-playing the qualities of opposing military equipment)

2) The person has served overseas where they encountered AK platform rifles, often handled by non-combatants, guerrilla fighters with no marksmanship skills, or their idea of an AK rifle is similar to this:



3) They're in the U.S> and their experiences with an AK rifle are limited to things like Romanian WASR kit-builds that someone bought for $179. This is probably the biggest issue since the Cold War propaganda has taught us that an AK is an evil weapon used by terrorists and thus is intrinsically bad. This then colours how much we think one should be worth so people buy a WASR re-build from a pawn shop and think it's indicative of a proper arsenal-built AK platform rifle...then when it's unreliable, poorly built, and has a slap-your-fingers-to-death trigger they believe that's an actual AK.

The reality is that the overwhelming majority of AK pattern rifles in the US are just that - monkey-built parts kits which are cut-up rifles taken out of service by foreign countries and sold in bulk to the US market. Wholesalers then find companies willing to rebuild them on new receivers and sell them to US buyers for dirt cheap. The WASR for example is a cheap single-stack (yep!) AK model issued to national guard units...it's then butchered back into some form of AK rifle when it arrived in the US (often by companies like Century who are notorious for terrible guns). These guns have gak parts, worn out barrels, and are then assembled by really questionable people. One major flaw of the AK is that you actualy need machining and gunsmithing skills on some level to build it properly. You can't lego-swap parts like you can with something like an AR.

Couple cheaply re-built guns with sub-par companies like Tapco making garbage magazines and you end up with a "Russian piece of gak" which reinforces the classical Cold War era biases.

By contrast, take a modern arsenal-built (I mean factory, not Arsenal the company though they import good stuff) modern AK. New, out of the box. You have an exceptionally competent fighting rifle. Accurate and reliable. (Exception: 5.56 AKs are the least reliable because there was never a standard design for them, so I don't actively recommend them to people). Is an AK accurate? Yes. A 7.62 gun is accurate to 3-4 MOA easily, where a 5.45 gun is accurate to 2-3 MOA easily - all with basic ammunition, nothing fancy, and no special triggers. An average civilian "good" AR should get you to 2 MOA reliably. A government issued military spec M4 must be at least 4 MOA in order to be shipped out for comparison (though they should exceed that).

An AK in 7.62x39 is actually barely heavier than a normal 5.56 AR. Anyone who thinks otherwise must be playing around with milled receiver guns (which are not current service issue) like the Bulgarian Arsenal ones or the silly Centurion rifles. A 5.45 AK is actually heavier than a 7.62 one with the magazines removed. Why? because the Soviets were actually smart and used the same barrel blanks for each calibre. Thus the 5.45 ended up having a heavier barrel than the 7.62 model by default.

I'm not an expert, but I've run AKs for 10+ years and used to run a blog for serious shooters looking to get into AK's (including Law Enforcement use). I've only got a couple of work guns that I've had for a while (one Saiga, one Arsenal brand). Accurate, and reliable. When I say reliable, my primary rifle has gone 14,000+ rounds with exactly 2 malfunctions. One was after a gunsmith trip so it went back immediately and the other was ammo related. I'm not against ARs I just find I'm more comfortable running a chopped 5.45 AK. I carried M4's and M4A1's on duty for a couple of years. I don't mind them one bit, so it's not a bias thing (only beef with the AR was the way it started out). I'd gladly run a quality Bravo Company rifle any day, and on duty without hesitation.

I've found in general most people know feth-all about the AK pattern rifles outside of what they've seen on TV or in a pawn shop. I used to shoot the gak with Jim Fuller from Rifle Dynamics - if you ever want a crazy (admittedly now very expensive) high-dollar super AK, he's a great dude to go with. He did both of my guns originally when I wanted some mods done. That guys is some kind of AK guru/genius/whisperer. If you're looking for an amazing read (despite the silly title) look up a copy of Iannamico's AK-47: The Grim Reaper. It's an illustrated book of almost every AK pattern rifle in existence. Every country, every variant etc. It's a treasure trove of cool info.

I'm curious about this 'decline of calvary' concept being mentioned. WTF?

We (US Army) is actually getting ready to increase cavalry organizations at the Division echelon, and currently BCTs all field a full squadron of Cav troopers.

Oh you mean HORSE cavalry. You see, the reconnaissance and security missions have not gone away even though technology has made conducting these missions via horseback a bit difficult.

But I've done these missions dismounted, from a hummer, from a M3 Bradley, and used all kinds of 'stuff' t help me from pretty high tech thermal/LLTV optics, UAS, different electronic warfare support/SIGINT assets and so on.

Infantry and guys with AKs or other rifles ain't going away anytime soon. Not every conflict is a Nuke chucking total war scenario.

No we're (again US Army) looking at making the grunt more effective/more lethal. The next rifle we'll field is gonna be a caliber higher than 5.56 but not a 7.62, and will include optics and electronic fire control making first round hits more likely.

The problem is, each BCT set is going to be expensive. Not every army, insurgent group, county is going to be able to afford to field the tech. Heck, we (again, US Army) won't be able to equip each BCT with them initially. So AKs and similar rifles will exist well into the next century, and a solid, well trained trooper armed with one, will still be able to hold ground, clear complex terrain, and basically shoot bad guys and end them.

I'll just drop this here.
The finale word on AK47 accuracy.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QMBMdeN9dyg

I don't see how an M16 surpassing an AK-47 in terms of effective range (600m~ vs 300m-500m) is significant. Doesn't most modern combat take place at shorter distances?

Depends entirely on the environment. WW2 and Vietnam etc. the generally accepted "average distance" was somewhere in the 300M zone. However in Iraq the average distance was often 150M or less....but then in Afghanistan shooting from mountain-to-mountain you started seeing some 600-800M distance engagements. This is one of the reasons why the SCAR-17 and other .308 rifles were in vogue with special forces in Afghanistan. Neither the 5.45, 5.56, or 7.62x39 were ideal at those kinds of ranges.

Your average infantryman though is not actually engaging at those distances, more often dumping cover fire, firing at clusters of trees and calling in air support. (without a suitably decent optic you won't even see a target with the naked eye at 500+ meters...particularly one hiding from you)

As a civilian, outside of hunting there is almost zero genuine consideration for 500+ yard shooting with a small caliber rifle. This won't stop people arguing it on the internet. I've seen my share of 7.62 AKs hitting targets at 600-700 yards. Does that mean it's a practical tool for it? No. Same goes for 5.56 and 5.45. Seen plenty of videos of guys sitting at ranges, proned out with a nice bipod and huge scope, plinking steel at max distance. It's a neat idea, but how practical or useful is that? Hell I can hit steel routinely with my 9mm handgun at 100 yards. Is that really what I should concentrate on? Probably not.

But, if it's a stat you can use to try to make an argument, it always comes up. Same goes for guys who insist on .308 rifles over anything smaller. "Can you kill a bear at 800 yards!? Didn't think so!" etc.

Depends on where that combat takes place. The M14 made a comeback when the US needed to extend the operational envelope with better barrier defeating ammo.

 Elbows wrote:
Depends entirely on the environment. WW2 and Vietnam etc. the generally accepted "average distance" was somewhere in the 300M zone. However in Iraq the average distance was often 150M or less....but then in Afghanistan shooting from mountain-to-mountain you started seeing some 600-800M distance engagements. This is one of the reasons why the SCAR-17 and other .308 rifles were in vogue with special forces in Afghanistan. Neither the 5.45, 5.56, or 7.62x39 were ideal at those kinds of ranges.

Your average infantryman though is not actually engaging at those distances, more often dumping cover fire, firing at clusters of trees and calling in air support. (without a suitably decent optic you won't even see a target with the naked eye at 500+ meters...particularly one hiding from you)

As a civilian, outside of hunting there is almost zero genuine consideration for 500+ yard shooting with a small caliber rifle. This won't stop people arguing it on the internet. I've seen my share of 7.62 AKs hitting targets at 600-700 yards. Does that mean it's a practical tool for it? No. Same goes for 5.56 and 5.45. Seen plenty of videos of guys sitting at ranges, proned out with a nice bipod and huge scope, plinking steel at max distance. It's a neat idea, but how practical or useful is that? Hell I can hit steel routinely with my 9mm handgun at 100 yards. Is that really what I should concentrate on? Probably not.

But, if it's a stat you can use to try to make an argument, it always comes up. Same goes for guys who insist on .308 rifles over anything smaller. "Can you kill a bear at 800 yards!? Didn't think so!" etc.

That's kind of my point. I mean yeah, you can throw an ACOG on an M16A2 and ping away just fine at 600m, but if it doesn't happen, it doesn't happen. There are some environments where it makes sense, but my impression is that most combat over the last 40-50 years has been relatively close thus rendering the range argument sort of moot. The M16/M4 vs the AK-47 seems like a silly discussion. Is one really inherently better than the other?

As far as firearms technology not improving...haven't sniper rifles/anti material rifles improved tremendously over the last 50 years? I know ammo has as far as ballistics are concerned.

Yep, overall firearms tech has advanced, but unlike commercial stuff - military hardware rarely advances because of cost. There are plenty of modern cartridges which are probably better than anything used by modern militaries. I haven't followed them lately but I know 6.5 and 6.8 were really popular for a while.

Some fancy rounds (.338 Lapua etc.) can make it into military service because it's a small project that is going to a smaller portion of the military and many special forces branches have their own purchasing commands so they can circumvent massive amounts of paperwork and nonsense that the main forces abide by.

Consider also that NATO tries to keep standardized rounds between countries and it becomes even more impossible to shift dozens of countries away from an existing round (which they probably have huge stocks of). You do see the police market in the US more prone to adopt silly things because they're such small departments and agencies, often providing a couple dozen SWAT officers with new toys vs. an entire army. There was a period where a ton of police agencies/departments were excited by the P90 and the 5.7 round....it was subsequently abandoned by most after in-the-field failure to perform. Sometimes salesmen are really good...lol.

So yeah, the advancement of some tech is there, but primary firearms/calibers for major military forces is just...a massive fething mountain to climb

The Germans had an oversized Mauser bolt action rifle used to shoot down balloons in WWI, the round was used to develop the .50BMG round. The modern Barrett and such are just updated versions. Lol, what's old is new again.

SemperMortis wrote:
AK47s are crap honestly, they haven't been replaced because of 1 key factor. Durability.

An AK47 has 1 very redeeming quality and that is Durability. Yes you can break them, but compare them to an M16A4 or a M4A1 and you will notice that its not as susceptible to poor maintenance/care.

Compare the stats to the M16A4.

Accuracy: Point Target
AK47 - about 300-350 yards
M16A4- 500 Yards

Area Target:
AK47 - 400-500 Yards
M16A4 - 700-800 Yards

The AK47 is significantly heavier than the M16A4 and the ammunition is even heavier. The AK47 is harder to handle as well due to increased recoil which is why it is in fact very inaccurate except at short range.

As far as stopping power, believe it or not, an AK47 has LESS stopping power at range then an M16A4 firing a smaller 5.56 round, this is due to velocity.

In every category imaginable, the AK47 is worse. Except for its 1 great trait, durability. There is a reason you see the AK47 in all the 3rd world countries armies, its harder to break and is significantly cheaper to produce/purchase.

So why hasn't it been replaced by a better weapon? Simply put, it has, by any country that has the money/technology and cares about their soldiers performance on the battlefield. Russia doesn't use them anymore and relies on the 74 instead. What you see though is a holdover from the cold war where the russians allowed foreign countries to mass produce their rifles, it was literally a tool of diplomacy.

The average developing world guerilla fighter or conscript doesn't need long range accuracy. Guerillas snipers preferred WW2 era rifles, particularly the Lee Enfield for that purpose, as reliable as the AK and accurate to quite a ways for the fighter who has a mind to aim single shots over medium distances. Meanwhile accurate at 50 metres means accurate for general use. Besides its not like the main users of the M16A4 weren't firm believers in 'spray and pray' anyway.

 Chute82 wrote:
The makers of the AK-47 knew someday that man would need something to fight Skynet.

I am still waiting for my phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range.

With that power output? It's a middle-range flourescent lightbulb.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
With that power output? It's a middle-range flourescent lightbulb.

Hey if its good enough for AHNOLD its good enough for me!

Also, to the topic, who is not saying the AK 47 is not obsolete. Outside of third world militaries who use them because they are dirt cheap to buy, I am not aware of any military that uses them as their standard infantry weapon. Guerillas still use them for the same reason - they are dirt cheap and available.

Now back to off topic. Since clearly sharks with friggin lazers are the best option, but are of course water borne, could we develop a cart for the infantry where they could move around ad deploy sharks with friggin lazers on dry land?

 Frazzled wrote:


Also, to the topic, who is not saying the AK 47 is not obsolete. Outside of third world militaries who use them because they are dirt cheap to buy, I am not aware of any military that uses them as their standard infantry weapon. Guerillas still use them for the same reason - they are dirt cheap and available.

Just because they aren't the best option doesn't mean they are obsolete. People still drive Ford trucks...

Now back to off topic. Since clearly sharks with friggin lazers are the best option, but are of course water borne, could we develop a cart for the infantry where they could move around ad deploy sharks with friggin lazers on dry land?

I would imagine a Sharknado generator would be the springboard for that tech.

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


Also, to the topic, who is not saying the AK 47 is not obsolete. Outside of third world militaries who use them because they are dirt cheap to buy, I am not aware of any military that uses them as their standard infantry weapon. Guerillas still use them for the same reason - they are dirt cheap and available.

Just because they aren't the best option doesn't mean they are obsolete. People still drive Ford trucks...

Now back to off topic. Since clearly sharks with friggin lazers are the best option, but are of course water borne, could we develop a cart for the infantry where they could move around ad deploy sharks with friggin lazers on dry land?

I would imagine a Sharknado generator would be the springboard for that tech.

Going with 1 and 2 as my multiquoting is never good.
1. (obsolete). My point is that the AK-47 is not currently used by major or regional powers any more.
EDIT: I have to somewhat take this back. Pakistan appears to use the Type 56 still. While this supports my argument of why it is used, Pakistan is still a major country. Wiki says the Indian Army still uses the AKM as well, but I thought they had moved to their own internally produced piece of c&%p. I could be wrong.
2. Sharknado generator eh? NIIIIICE!

For my part, if we're talking "obsolete", a classic AK47 is about in the same place as a 1985 Honda Civic. It's "obsolete" in the sense that there are newer products with more features, but not in the sense that it is no longer fit for purpose.

It's not your first choice if top performance is desired or if one wanta nice features, but ultimately it does exactly what 99% of users *need* it to, with a minimum of maintenance and training requirement, and can be to some extent abused. You wont win a Fast and Furious race, you wont win any beauty contests, you aren't gonna be the greenest or most fuel efficient, but in the end it commutes just as well as anything else.

Looking at my own collection of rifles, if I had to grab something to fight with, my SAM7 (a Bulgarian made milled receiver semiauto 7.62x39 AK) would not be my first choice, but likewise I wouldn't feel undergunned if that's what I was given.

Ultimately, I'd take an AK47 with a functioning and properly zeroed red dot over *any* iron sighted rifle. I'd consider an optic much more important than any other factor as an individual shooter.

 Ouze wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
As far as stopping power, believe it or not, an AK47 has LESS stopping power at range then an M16A4 firing a smaller 5.56 round, this is due to velocity.

I more or less agreed with you until this. I don't believe it, because it's not true. The 5.56 is moving faster, no argument, but it also weighs about 1/3rd of the bullet weight. In terms of energy, the 7.62x39 delivers more energy at ranges typically seen in combat and eventually tapers off to more or less match the 5.56. There are benefits that the 5.56 has - the better velocity gives it a better chance to penetrate body armor and it has a flatter trajectory at longer range - but in pure stopping power it loses, period.

Of course, stopping power isn't everything, which is why as you said even the Russians went away from 7.62x39 pretty fast.

The AK is also perfectly accurate enough for what it's used for. The average shooters marksmanship will affect accuracy much, much more than the looser tolerances will.

5.56 has only a little less muzzle energy than 7.62 at short range - at 100 metres it becomes a big difference as a the larger projectile loses speed much less quickly. However most engagements don't take place at 100 metres plus so...it is a non factor. The m-16 wins in every other category except maintenance - for professional armies though - it's also a non factor. Keeping weight down on your soldier is the most important factor in warfare these days.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
So the Ak47 is 70 years old. That’s about as much time separating Waterloo and Rorkes Drift. That’s muskets to the Martini Henry rifle. How come despite our technology moving so much faster than it did during the 19th century has the AK not been rendered obsolete by more modern equivalents? Not just a “better rifle” like the M4, but to the musket/rifle comparison where it might be cheap and available but it’s just borderline useless against modern weapons.

Pretty sure it has, at least in the Russian Army. They've been using the AK-74 since 1974, and its only been last year that they started to phase it out in favor of the AK-15
The AK47 is used in third world countries because those places tend to have outdated weaponry, and as its famously reliable, it tends to outlive most other weapons from that time period.

SemperMortis wrote:

The AK47 is significantly heavier than the M16A4 and the ammunition is even heavier. The AK47 is harder to handle as well due to increased recoil which is why it is in fact very inaccurate except at short range.

Original AK-47 (milled receiver) weights about 3.8kg. AKM (stamped receiver) weighs about 3.1kg. M16A2/A4 weigh about 3.4kg. So differences are hardly huge. AK is about 13cm shorter than M16.

One thing which AK has going for it is the magazine. AK magazines are sturdy and durable, and magazine release is idiot-proof. By contrast, 5.56mm STANAG magazine is flimsy and magazine release is finicky and prone to freezing etc.

Backfire wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

The AK47 is significantly heavier than the M16A4 and the ammunition is even heavier. The AK47 is harder to handle as well due to increased recoil which is why it is in fact very inaccurate except at short range.

Original AK-47 (milled receiver) weights about 3.8kg. AKM (stamped receiver) weighs about 3.1kg. M16A2/A4 weigh about 3.4kg. So differences are hardly huge. AK is about 13cm shorter than M16.

One thing which AK has going for it is the magazine. AK magazines are sturdy and durable, and magazine release is idiot-proof. By contrast, 5.56mm STANAG magazine is flimsy and magazine release is finicky and prone to freezing etc.

Is that with ammunition or without? Because 7.62 rounds are heavier than 5.56. One of the reasons why they adopted that caliber even though its weaker, I believe.

5.56 weighs less but that’s so you can carry more ammo. I’d expect overall combat load to be similar.

Backfire wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

The AK47 is significantly heavier than the M16A4 and the ammunition is even heavier. The AK47 is harder to handle as well due to increased recoil which is why it is in fact very inaccurate except at short range.

Original AK-47 (milled receiver) weights about 3.8kg. AKM (stamped receiver) weighs about 3.1kg. M16A2/A4 weigh about 3.4kg. So differences are hardly huge. AK is about 13cm shorter than M16.

One thing which AK has going for it is the magazine. AK magazines are sturdy and durable, and magazine release is idiot-proof. By contrast, 5.56mm STANAG magazine is flimsy and magazine release is finicky and prone to freezing etc.

Without going too overboard into it, the cartridge/magazine are one of the primary components which leads to the reliability of the AK itself. If you design from a cartridge...then the magazine...then the rifle you end up with a better end product. The 7.62x39 and the 5.45x39 are cartridges which are more tapered than 5.56. This slight increase in taper aids in extraction (picture a triangle/cone being pulled out of a slot, vs. a cylinder being pulled out of a slot, etc.) It's exceptionally minimal difference, but present. The taper of the bullet is also why you have the standard "banana" shaped magazine, so the non-tilt follower (standard in AK magazines) can smoothly guide the bullets into the chamber without disturbing how they sit.

The rock-n-lock magazine design also means that the rounds don't "straighten" out when entering the receiver like an AR does. They keep in line with the follower and their own tapered design when being fed. Couple that with a spring which is about twice the length of an AR magazine spring (one reason why even the 5.45 AK magazine looks long - the follower inside is maybe 1.5-1.75 inches tall and houses a massive spring), a super robust design (outside of cheap commercial copy-cat magazines), and a strong and solid magazine locking tab...you're ahead of the game when it comes to reliability. One advantage of the rock-n-lock is that you know 100% when a magazine is seated.

When you really study the design you'll begin to appreciate how incredibly well designed the rifle is.