A colleague sent me this story on a weapon that I’m sure has many fans among DT readers.
It’s a video and text package on the AK-47 done for Al Jazeera network. There’s some good video and the story itself isn’t bad. But what I find particularly interesting is that it’s 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 Rushing’s Jazeera package. So if you have a few moments to watch, it’s worth a look.
(Read the entire Jazeera post for Part II of the report)
-- Christian
Comments
please unleash some weapon building plans for people who are battling...
Posted by: praveen alwis at February 14, 2009 11:10 PM
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.
Posted by: Laughing Gull at January 2, 2009 02:25 PM
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.
Posted by: Laughing Gull at January 2, 2009 02:21 PM
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.
Posted by: will at September 30, 2008 11:28 PM
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.
Posted by: TH at August 30, 2008 11:17 AM
I knew little about guns when I started collecting 9 months ago while supervised by experienced friends. I am the mechanically inclined type, work on my ex-military airshow jet, and decided to build up an AK from a Romanian G kit, and a Yugo RPK to see what they were about. I used DCI receivers, and they both went together flawlessly. With no adjustment after assembly I was getting 3 inch groups at 75 yards. What more could you ask for in a weapon that is the favorite of those aforementioned groups that fight from their gut, spurred on by their ideology? In a professional army the M16 when maintained is accurate and reliable - like American aircraft. But, when things get tough - say on a bombed airfields, an American aircraft will fod out, destroying it's engines, and in a trench in a sandstorm the M-16 will not be happy either, exposing the weakness of American war fighting ideology - that we will always be fighting on our terms. If we find ourselves up against the wall, say in a war with China, a country we will confront for natural resources one day soon, our delicate weapons will show their shortcomings... Reference the maintenance contracts sold with each new jet fighter we procure. It's time we took capitalism and congressional favors OUT of military procurement before our military personal pay for the greed that fuels the system. Ask a career military pilot - I have.
Posted by: BobJet at June 14, 2008 05:03 PM
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).
Posted by: Anthony at June 13, 2008 07:26 AM
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.
Posted by: T Trimper at March 1, 2008 04:34 PM
Had a chance to fire some AK47 variants for my pre-deployment training. Not really much of a kick (I grew up on an M1 carbine & 12 gauge shotgun). A simple weapon is a good weapon, our instructor called it a "peasant-proof" weapon. At urban conflict ranges (100 meters), being able to make a dime-sized shot group is not vital. What weapon you like depends upon what you want in it- ruggedness, accuracy, ability to carry a lot of ammo, etc.
Posted by: Robert Spohr at November 21, 2007 07:53 PM
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.
Posted by: Sgt Peck at October 21, 2007 09:53 PM
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.
Posted by: Edree at October 19, 2007 09:48 AM
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.
Posted by: Marcus at October 19, 2007 05:24 AM
I have used the M16/M16A1/M16A2, AK47, British L1A1, H&K G3/M91, and the Hakim in both military select fire versions and civilian semiauto only. I can say that each rifle has its strong and weak points. The original M16, actually an AR15, as fielded by the Air Force in Viet Nam worked beautifully. After being adopted as a general issue weapon it began having problems because 1) a cleaning kit was not included with the weapon and 2) minor changes were arranged for by the bean counters to cut production costs. Most problems were corrected in the A1. The AK is NOT a crude copy or derivation of the StG44 (originally titled the MP44). The Heckler & Koch Model 91/G3, however, is the culmination of that particular research/production project. The L1A1 is a member of the famed FN/FAL family.
I loved my M16A1 when I was in the service (and my custom built AR later on) but did learn it was not quite as durable as the G3 or the AK. I learned back in the late seventies that the G3 could be dropped from a height of 20 feet onto concrete and could still fire accurately. Try that with an M16.
When AK's started jamming in combat in the Afghan terrain the Soviet troops learned real quick the best remedy for that was to NOT oil their weapon after they cleaned it. In other words, reassemble it dry. The oil accumulated all that sand and grit causing stoppages. Oh, gee, that will happen with any firearm! Imagine that.
My only problem with the AK is a lack of a bolt hold open device. Balance? Slightly front heavy where it should be to help control recoil. Reliability? Never had a problem. Accuracy? Depending on ammunition used (date, manufacturer, FMJ or HP) I would get anywhere from 1/2" to 3". But then again, that can be applied to just about any weapon. Also, are we talking about whether the receiver is milled or a stamped?
Each of the M16's I was issued would print 1/2"-3/4" groups. My custom AR15 would put five shots inside of a dime. Of course, it had a 20" heavy barrel with a chrome lined bore. Lots of difference.
Recoil with any of the mentioned rifles was never a problem. It's all in the stance and how you handle the weapon. With basic marksmanship training you would learn that. For full auto fire you wrap the sling around your elbow and forearm, tuck your elbow in towards your midsection. Total control. You don't really need a foregrip if you know how to use the sling.
So, what do I use? My battery consists of one WWI (Eddystone Pattern 1917 in .30-06, semi-sporterized and scoped), two WWII (Enfield No.4 MkI and Russian Mosin-Nagant M1944) bolt action battle rifles and three SKS's (two Chinese and one Russian). The SKS is a simple, rugged, and quite accurate rifle with a 20" barrel. It is semiautomatic only and uses a fixed 10 round magazine. I am presently working on acquiring accesory rails for them that are finally availiable. My custom AR15 is history having been sold to meet expenses when in a financial bind.
The AK, or Avtomat Kalashnikov (get the spelling right, guys), is no better and no worse than any other select-fire or semiauto battle rifle currently being used. It is merely less expensive to manufacture.
Posted by: relisys45 at October 19, 2007 02:07 AM
Got to use the AKM (Ak-47 derivative), M-16, AK-4 (Swedish derivative of H&K G3) and AK-5 (Swedish version of the FNC) in the Swedish Army and if I had to choose one of AK/M-16, it'd be the AK-47. True, the M-16 is the lightest piece of kit and it does have almost zero recoil, but the stopping power (7.62mm is a helluvva' bullet) and sheer ruggedness of the AK made me take a shine to it, at least in our business (armoured recon, sabotage etc).
After that I'd probarbly go for the AK-4 & -5 due to them being almost as rugged (and well adapted for sub-arctic and arctic climates) and lastly the M-16. Of course, the designated marksman of my platoon wanted exactly the opposite. He loved the M-16 and it's 'sissy' recoil and was willing to polish it like the family silver every day. Also, he never shot as much as we did anyhow.
I guess that's the definition, for me anyway. The AK-47 is a warhammer, a heavy and rugged weapon for soldiers who are in the field without the time and luxury of cleaning (cleaning guns in -40 degrees is simply something you do not do). The M-16/M-4 is a specialists tool, like a surgeons scalpel. Both are very good firearms.
Oh, and you can be accurate with an AK-47. You just need to be able to handle the recoil of a 7.62 (something that took a bit of getting used to after years on the 5.56 blues).
Posted by: Sgt. Dave at October 18, 2007 07:38 PM
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.
Posted by: 22lr at October 17, 2007 09:37 PM
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...
Posted by: wes at October 17, 2007 10:01 AM
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.
Posted by: Mark Pyruz at October 16, 2007 05:17 PM
Whatever happened to the AK-74 (sic)? It never seemed to pick up much popularity outside official USSR/Russian use.
Posted by: Neil B. at October 16, 2007 04:18 PM
"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?
Posted by: Siconik at October 16, 2007 02:59 PM
The M14 is a piece of crap with swelling wood shafts abd poor handling ergonomics. Not really an endurable weapon. The Iran got the G3 just for two reaons: some sentiment for nazis by the islamo-fashists in generall and the wilingness of the nazi sons to sell to anybody. The G3 for itself is still far less realiable in operation then the AK. However it's not as bad as the M-16 of course. It's quite a formidable sniping weapon in fact. The Israelis took the M-16 in favour of their own AK clone just for one reason: the US did give it to them for free. About Iraq you are just ill informed. Most of the youtoobe videos show them holding polish AK variants fir for the 5.56 caliber. However apparently they now got ordered buy the masters to buy the M-16 junk. And as of general usage. Yes the russians and chinees are moving recently to newer designs. However only time will tell if this is really for the good. Right now there are numerous examples of armies still deplying the AK. In fact it's the most common weapon and still the one with a best track reckord in practical use.
Posted by: rosomak at October 16, 2007 01:56 PM
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.
Posted by: 22lr at October 16, 2007 12:06 PM
6 seconds time is the take apart time. The military drill is however taking apart until the firing pin is free and areassembling it back together. That's 15 seconds unless you love to run a lot with a gas-mask on. If you like it then feel free to take your time ;-). The high tollerance of the mechanical construction doesn't mater for the guns precision at all. This is determined mostly by the precision of the barrel and in esp. the precision of the rifling. However the working principle and the high tolerances of the parts in the receilver are the reason why the kalach is tolerant to low quality or old amunition and so durable in adverse conditions. The working principle of the M-16 is its unsurmountable idiocy. No wonder all modern weapons are basically cloning the kalach. However as always all the western variants are usually making away with the big tolerances - (G36 for example). I doubt they will work as reliable. A good modern derivative is the polish Beryl. However i wouldn't give much to the habit of attaching a lot of gadgets to the barrel - that costs firing ability (stands in way) and precision (changes in balance).
Posted by: rosomak at October 16, 2007 11:46 AM
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.
Posted by: 22lr at October 16, 2007 11:12 AM
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.
Posted by: narkis at October 16, 2007 10:18 AM
?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?
Posted by: florian at October 16, 2007 10:12 AM
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.
Posted by: Ed Blades at October 16, 2007 09:53 AM
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.
Posted by: 22lr at October 16, 2007 08:58 AM
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.
Posted by: Kevin at October 16, 2007 08:46 AM
I'm always amused when someone tries to explain how important it's to clean the M-16. I wish you a lot of fun doing it at -20 C in winter in a trench at dark night day by day for no other reason then just the idiocy of the repeater construction. And then there are those fairly tails about the supposed accuracy in comparision to the AK. Well with proper rigor it doesn't stand behind. BTW. The moviews are inaccurate - it's just 15 seconds for blind field disasembly of the Kalach.
Posted by: rosomak at October 16, 2007 07:58 AM
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. :)
Posted by: Doz at October 16, 2007 05:45 AM
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.
Posted by: Rix at October 15, 2007 06:51 PM
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
Posted by: Pantera at October 15, 2007 05:53 PM
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?
Posted by: 22lr at October 15, 2007 05:30 PM
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.
Posted by: Mark Pyruz at October 15, 2007 05:09 PM
"But what I find particularly interesting is that it’s being run by Al Jazeera in the first place – as if viewers in the Middle East need any education about the AK-47"
So American TV shouldn't show documentaries on fat people? There's certainly a higher ratio of fatties in the US than mid-easterners with guns.
Actually that whole statement is pretty asinine (not that mine is any better but that's beside the point :)
Posted by: dare at October 15, 2007 04:43 PM
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."
please unleash some weapon building plans for people who are battling...
Posted by: praveen alwis at February 14, 2009 11:10 PM