Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: null and void

There are other aspects besides performance. The AK-47 was subsidized to the tune of 25 million of them given away.

The AK-47 failed when it first came out. The stamped metal technology was ‘not ready for prime time’ in Soviet Union. The Soviet Union selected the SKS as superior.

They went back to milled receivers, but that made it expensive. Eventually they got the stamped receivers right. Schmeisser had a lot to do with that.

M-1 carbines had over 6 million made during WWII. They are still in production today. Copies (Mini-14) in other calibers are also made, and are sold for a lot more than AK-47 clones. If it costs twice as much, then that is an argument that it may just be better, unless you think a volkswagen is superior to a porche.


35 posted on 12/27/2012 4:09:12 PM PST by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]


To: donmeaker

“If something costs twice as much...”

In the case of the AK vs. the Mini-14 it would be the labor costs.

And FWIW we own an example of each; th Mini-14, an M1A, a Romanian WASR AK clone, an M1 Carbine, and a couple of AR pattern rifles. It is our considered opinion that of all of them of that if the SHTF the AK patterns are wht is coming out of our safe first.

It is quite simply the best “out of the box” fighting rifle ever designed bar none.

As I said before, God speed Dr. Kalashnikov. And thank you.


38 posted on 12/27/2012 6:53:05 PM PST by Lurker (Violence is rarely the answer. But when it is it is the only answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson