Posted on 12/16/2020 10:12:01 AM PST by PROCON
Image: Wikimedia Commons.
Like the M16 and many other rifle arms since the early 1900s (and a few pistols, most notably Israel’s Desert Eagle), the AK-47 is gas operated.
Here's What You Need to Remember: There is a relevant cultural and historical legacy at work here. American arms are informed by a history and a legacy in which a colonial farmer could shoot down a squirrel or a British officer with a rifled musket from a hundred yards. Russian arms, meanwhile, are informed by a history of a lot of peasant soldiers slogging through the mud to engage. No wonder, then, that the two have evolved such distinct comparative advantages.
Recently, Blake Franko of the National Interest published an article about the ubiquity of the Kalashnikov AK-47 and its variants. He focused on how its popularity is the result of its reliability in the hands of all kinds of shooters, in the toughest and dirtiest environments. This reliability made the AK-47 a formidable adversary and a valuable acquisition for American troops in Vietnam, when their M16s were jamming from shooting and local conditions.
But there is more to the story that is worth exploring. It might have been useful to go on for a few lines to explain why the AK-47 was so reliable in those conditions. The Kalashnikov’s success has to do with its gas operating system.
Like the M16 and many other rifle arms since the early 1900s (and a few pistols, most notably Israel’s Desert Eagle), the AK-47 is gas operated. That means that the recycling of the action after a round is fired is not the product of the blowback of the fired round, as in most pistols and a few submachine guns like the old Thompson, but by the pressure of the hot, highly pressurized gas in the barrel of the newly expended round. Through a little port in the barrel, this highly pressurized gas can push back to operate the action and reload another round for fire, whether automatic or semiautomatic.
But there is a big difference between the Kalashnikovs and the M16 types. The former use a plunger-type action, essentially a rod whose front end captures the pressure of the round ignition, pushing the rod back to recycle the action. This is called a long-stroke gas piston. The latter use a hollow tube to return the gas pressure to the action to be recycled, which is called direct gas impingement. The AK-47 is more reliable in dirty conditions than the M16 variants, while the latter is more accurate in combat situations. Here’s why: the AK-47 design protects the action from contaminating powder debris. That way, it doesn’t foul up so quickly—but it has a long metal rod bobbing back and forth that interferes with accurate shooting. The gas action design of the M16s doesn’t have that long rod bouncing in the way, so it is more accurate in automatic or rapid-fire semiautomatic action. But it brings the polluted gas back to the action, and therefore fouls more easily than the AK-47. We’ve dealt with this problem for decades now, and we are still struggling with it.
There is a relevant cultural and historical legacy at work here. American arms are informed by a history and a legacy in which a colonial farmer could shoot down a squirrel or a British officer with a rifled musket from a hundred yards. Russian arms, meanwhile, are informed by a history of a lot of peasant soldiers slogging through the mud to engage. No wonder, then, that the two have evolved such distinct comparative advantages.
The 74 is a neat little rifle. I picked up some cases of ammo when they were just about giving the stiff away in the Russian spam-can cases.
I’ll take it to the range because it has the coolness of the AK-47, and is cheaper to shoot.
... you’ve cleaned yours, right?
Big piston up top that pushes the bolt back. Mine came 100% filled with cosmo.
Whichever rifle fires ALWAYS, with ALL AMMO, in ALL weather and climate conditions...
And...
Whichever one you have at the moment you need it...
For people who cast their own bullets and reload their cartridges... there is only one choice. The M-16/AR-15 needs copper clad projectiles which are difficult to make yourself. The AK-47 is very happy using homemade cast, and heat treated bullets with gas checks made out of aluminum roof flashing. I have enough primers to last for years, but even those can be made at home if necessary. So far powder has not been that difficult to find, but I have a lot of that as well.
One for in-close down and dirty; one for open field engagement.
Cleaning the cosmoline out of those east-block guns is a venerated rite.
Can’t remember who the writer was, guy used to have an article at the end of field and stream or one of those.
Anyway he was asked, if you had to go to an unknown planet and could only bring one gun with you, which would you bring?
His answer was quick and to the point. He said he would bring an ak47. This seemed to stun everyone, coming from a renowned hunter. When asked why, he responded “because when I pull that trigger I know it will go bang.”
Enough said.
So what say you, do you prefer the All-American, red, white and blue M-16/AR-15 or the Commie-pinko, Russia-Russia-Russia AK-47?
==========+=======
All I know is I wouldn’t want to get hit with a round from either.
bkmk
Or you can combine the best attributes of the AK and the AR and get a hybrid that should be much more popular than it is/was; the Armalite AR180. It uses AR magazines (slightly modified), a gas system that uses a piston versus direct gas impingement, it can readily take an optic, has a side folding stock and is made to tighter tolerances than most AKs.
I’ve shot all types of rifles and nothing is more fun to shoot than a 74. Not to mention, reliable. The accuracy is not bad at all - at 100 yards you can still hit your bullseye with irons if you have good eyesight.
aw geez, not this * again
pew pew pew
Contrary to popular belief, the M16/AR15 system is actually significantly more durable than the typical stamped receiver AK-47 but the AK is more reliable in some climates such as very cold arctic conditions and in fine silt. On the other hand, the AR is often better in mud and grit.
Nothing beats the AR M4 style carbine for light weight and handling - it's the gold standard. The Swiss SIG 55X, Valmet series are the AK perfected.
same system, different parts...
AK has the piston as part of the bolt carrier, SKS two different parts
Exactly. There is no “world’s best” rifle. That’s like saying this screw driver is better than this wrench. Rifles, like all guns are, by and large, mission specific.
I heard that if the Soviet Union was running covert ops they used M16s in case they dropped one. Likewise the US but vice-versa.
I remember that very article.
I can’t remember who it was either, but it was Field & Stream IIRC.
Great memory!
InRange TV did a mud test of the AK-47, AK-74, and AR-15.
The AR-15 won hands down in their soupy mud test.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.