Best ever battle rifle

[Sim G]

What, the Spanish cooperative? Why?

[snayperskaya]

I know I am biased but the AKM (not the early Ak-47) has got to be the best rifle as it is tough, reliable, easy to use and maintain and is widely available.You can teach a person to load,fire and maintain it in 3 hours (the muscle memory will last a lifetime) and it can be used by anyone from 8-80.The AKM and its variants are the real Weapons of Mass Destruction out there on the battlefields of today.No matter where there is conflict you will find a Kalashnikov, whether it is a Somali with beat up milled receiver 47 or a Spetsnaz trooper with a Ak-105 in the Ukraine.

You could say the same about any weapon. The AK's proliferation has absolutely nothing to do with the "all round greatness" of the rifle, but everything to do with the Soviets and their allies, and later Russian politics.

"Reliability" comes from tolerances so sloppy that even mediocre quality ammunition will make it work. But they certainly do suffer from stoppages. The ergonomics are appalling. The folding stock version is one of the most uncomfortable weapons I've ever shot. An intermediate cartridge that's no good after 300yds, but that's not important as the short sight radius does nothing to aid accuracy.

Thankfully our enemies have not been equipped with better weapons or we would have had a lot more casulaties!

The Rk62, R4 and Galil are vastly improved AK designs, but they still fall short... Even the best small arms designers in the Soviet Union, the Czechs, based their rifle on the outward appearance of the AK only. Internally they are utterly different....

On top of which, it's a strong possibility that Kalashinikov didn't even design the weapon that has imortalised him! Kalashnikov did develop an SMG whilst recovering from wounds, but it was never adopted. It did get him moved into the armaments arena of the Soviet Union, and the eventual AK bears no resemblance at at all to his initial design.

But what's better Soviet propaganda? A tractor come tank mechanic, son of a peasant brought up hunting with his father's gun to feed the family, whilst recouperating from sustained war wounds, hears from his comrades the victories they could win with a rifle like the Germans, then goes on and designs the rifle that will save the Soviet Union!

Or, a weapons designer who developed his first semi auto in 1930, then had a rifle adopted in 1936, with a design that showed influences of John Garands ideas, then after the war has a second rifle adopted whilst refining a design again which has Garand influences, hailed as the Saviour of Soviet rifles? Simonov, he designed the rifle that bears another mans name.

There is very strong evidence that the myth surrounding the rifle and the man who made it, is more myth than any would have thought....

The proliferation of the AK does have something to do with Soviet politics and its supply to Combloc allies, but also because it does what it says on the tin!.And which enemies are you talking about???, British or NATO troops have not come up against a regular well trained AK equipped enemy as far as I am aware.

Granted the Ak round is most effective from 0-300m as that is what it was designed for, it came from a desire for a powerful intermediate round after the urban combat experiences of Stalingrad etc.The M43 round is not to be underestimated beyond 300m, the Vietcong were dropping GIs at 500m plus in the paddy fields.Often US special forces would carry an AK in the field in preference to an M16, this is widely documented.If you look on YouTube there are videos of steel plate targets being dropped at 1000m with a scoped Ak-103!!!.Anyway, beyond 300m the Russians have the Dragunov for that.

It is reliable because the tolerances are generous, and its designed to be used everywhere from the Artic to the Sahara.But if it keeps shooting long after more precision matched weapons have ceased to function who gives a rats ass?.If it goes bang and the others guys doesn't because its full of crap then its all good.I don't think the Russian thought people would like to admire the precision machine work and fine tolerances,they would rather it ran until the handguards catch fire (at which point you would put the handguards out,wait for it to cool down and then stick another mag in!!!).

The whole thing about Kalashnikov not designing it is Western propaganda, and is usually bandied about by AR fans.
Granted there are elements of other rifles but the same goes for most things, you take cues from whats come before and improve on the good points.There is no denying the fact that if it didn't work and was not effective in the role it was designed for it would not be in such widespread use today,
whether you are a Russian soldier or a rebel in Syria you want a weapon you can rely on.

With regard to the Czech Vz-58, it is not as effective as an AKM and internally has a similar operating system to the Dragunov with a short-stoke gas system.The Czechs only stuck with the Vz because they were stubborn SOBs and it was more of a political decision than a military one.

[Sim G]

You seem to have elivated the weapon to that of the mythical Excalibur! Likewise, the propaganda in your post is almost as if it was lifted from Pravda.....

I know a bloke who can ring a four foot steel gong with a handgun at five hundred. I've also seen a six foot gong rung at 700 with a .32-20. Doesn't mean they are adequate war rounds.

And an enemy has to be regular and well trained to be an enemy....?

Should the hero Kalashnikov have actually designed the weapon or be the "genius" purported to be, what else did he design? Very little from what I see. The RPK and the Saiga-12 are just scaled differently, a la Glock. Simonov on the other hand was a genius. From small arms to jet aircraft, most of which saw service... Not one rifle from the Soviet era who'se propaganda machine gave us "Germans eat babies" and "they queue for bread in the West...."

At the time with close to a million mechanised infantry, you could skimp on their weapon as they would keep on going and eventually over run you even if they were only carrying sticks! The AK is the answer to a problem of the time. It abounds because of Communist idealogy and Russian dabbling throughout the world. It is inaccurate, crude and awkward.

And if symbolism is important to you, it should be reviled. Every nasty little dicatatorship, ganster, dictatorial regime and insurgent or terrorist group is armed with such a weapon. It's profile surrounds wherever evil prospers....

[dromia]

Come on Simon, it does have wooden bits on some them.

[Sandgroper]

IMO, the question is unanswerable because even the best battle rifle (?) is useless in the hands of badly led, poorly trained and inadequately supplied troops. In the same manner well led, trained and supplied troops can cover the deficiencies in a poor design.

Personally, I don't believe in a best ever battle rifle as they all had advantages and disadvantages. Quality of the soldiers, IMO, is more important - but that is another unanswerable question.

[snayperskaya]

Sim.....I haven't elevated it to any mythical status, it just works and works well.The point I was making about an enemy is that one that is well trained and disciplined (ie a Russian soldier) will use an AK more effectively than a poorly trained terrorist.And the belief that it is inaccurate is when it is taken out of the context of what it was designed for.It may not be as accurate over longer range as an AR/M16, but the M16 was designed for more precise shooting in single shot or semi auto mode.
The fact an AK is effective is not propaganda, Pravda or otherwise, but plain fact that it gets the job done.The fact that every nasty little dictatorship etc used them is because even nasty little dictators want a weapon that works!.
Regardless of symbolism why should it be reviled?, it doesn't pull its own trigger or decides who uses it.

[Sim G]

Regardless of symbolism why should it be reviled?, it doesn't pull its own trigger or decides who uses it.

That is very true, it's an inanimate object, but, as you pointed out, the AK is featured in all sorts of symbolism, even a national flag. So to my mind, as far as symbolism goes, it's one that represents tyranny and terrorism.

And....









They fail alot more than people give them credit for....

[Demonic69]

Why has nobody mentioned the SA80?... :-P

I don't read my own signature!

[Sim G]

Why has nobody mentioned the SA80?... :-P

Probably because it has many failings.....

The A2 may now be ultra reliable and it's purported to be one of the most accurate battle rifles in the current crop, it's a long way from being the best ever battle rifle.

[snayperskaya]

Sim.....regarding the proliferation of the AK don't forget the tens of thousands of AKs (mostly Chinese Type 56s) that the CIA supplied to the Mujahiddeen in the 80s that later fell into the hands of the Taliban.The same thing happened in various African nations during the Cold War, the US would supply numerous factions with Aks in an effort to halt the Communist influence.And I totally agree that AKs can and do fail, sometimes spectacularly, the same that anything can fail regardless of how well it is made.As with any firearm sometimes this is down to the ammunition quality as much as the rifle itself.One interesting point to make is that none of the AKs in the videos you posted are Russian, the first is a US built .223 (built on a US made receiver),the second is a Yugoslav variant, the third is an Egyptian Maadi with an incorrectly fitted dust cover and the fourth bears the hallmarks of a poorly produced Kyhber Pass copy.