And what is this 7.62 x 59 mm you keep going on about?
The weapon, though heavily modified, is actually now in use as an intermediate sniper system for the US Army as the SR-25. Several others use it as well, including the Aussies:
Not 7.62x59mm it’s 7.62x51
thank you I was thinking 51 but it did not seem right. But thanks!
semper fi- the .308 version of the ar series rifle is the ar-10,which actually preceeded the .223 variant,it is seeing an resurgence as a tactical rifle and as an advanced marksmans issue to both army/marine units. available to civillians
Both of you are wrong. The round fired by the AK-47 and also the SKS is 7.62x39mm.
Effectively the German Sturmgewehr 44 and the AK-47 were designed with the same experiences in mind (after all both sides, Russia and Germany were involved in the same battles), violent short to medium range battles in urban areas (Stalingrad).
In WW2, it was very early discovered that a full sized bolt action rifle firing a full sized round (like the K-98, the Mosin-Nagant or the Lee Enfield) and even full size semi automatic rifles, like the Garand, the G43 or the SVT-41, were too much of a rifle for most conscript soldiers. Unlike in WW1, it was not necessary anymore to take a pot shot at an enemy head popping up from a trench at a distance of half a mile, but fighting was much more mobile on short ranges up to 200-300 m.
The Germans started quite early to develop the Kurzpatrone, defacto a 7.92 mm round with a rather conical shorter cartridge case. Essentially they used the same bullet and a shortened version of their old 7.92x57 cartridge case (as not to have to modify their factories too much).
The Russians did about the same, keeping their old bullets of the 7.62x54R round of the Mosin-Nagant, but designing a new, shorter cartridge case (since the old, rimmed case was not really suitable for automatic weapons).
Both cases, the German and the Russian one, were rather conical, explaining the curved shape of the magazines used on both the AK-47 and the Stg 44.
The smaller rounds, with less propellant, while shortening the effective range of the weapons, permitted the individual soldier to carry more ammo, while the lower recoil made it easier to train recruits.
The design criteria of both rifles demanded the rifle to be shorter than the previous standard rifles. They should have full automatic capability to replace the submachine guns used previously, but should also allow reasonable range, bigger than a SMG’s.
Now, the designs were both gas operated, with the gas cylinder on top of the barrel (due to the magazine mounted on the bottom of the weapons. To get the biggest possible distance between the foresight and the rearsight, the foresight was mounted close to the muzzle.
But concerning the internal workings, both rifles were very different.
The Germans used a tilting breech block, in a bit similar to the Bren gun’s, while Mr. Kalashnikov had a close look at existing systems and used a rotating bolt similar to the Garand’s. One goal was to use as few parts as possible, especially those, which can be lost in the field.
He also designed the weapon to be as reliable as possible, e.g. the bolt carrier of the AK-47 moves on two lips of the lower receiver like on rails, but doesn’t touch anything else, so little chance for dirt blocking anything.
The original AK-47 prototype was manufactured from stampings, but at this time the technology wasn’t yet that advanced in Russia, so the first series introduced to the Soviet Army was using conventionally milled receivers. Later the design was improved and a lighter and cheaper version was built, the AKM, using a stamped and spotwelded receiver.
A while ago I bought a dectivate Chinese copy of an AKM, because I wanted to study the mechanism. It is a very simple design and anybody with access to a few standard machine tools can make one.
Jan
Jan, they are actually talking about the 7.62 NATO round, which is indeed 7.62 x 51mm. There was indeed a predecessor of the AR-15 (the AR-10) which fired this round, although the current AR-10 variants are descendents of the M-16 rather than directly of the original AR-10.
Sorry! Now where is the red faced smiley? I should have read the posts completely before replying.
Jan
The number one advantage of the AK-47 is reliability. You can plunk on in water and sand, run over it and the damn thing still works.
So if you’re not a regular, this weapon is ideal: cheap, learn & easy to operate, more rugged than any other gun I know of…a good stock on it for bashing heads, and you can fire the Nato rounds with it (but not the other way around). Ideal and hands down the best weapon for an irregular.
But the M-16…let’s be honest here, it kinda sucks compared with modern options and so there’s really no point to the weapon anymore. And any comments on it jamming? 
Yes well, ameteurs need guns too…
So if you’re not a regular, this weapon is ideal: cheap, learn & easy to operate, more rugged than any other gun I know of…a good stock on it for bashing heads, and you can fire the Nato rounds with it (but not the other way around). Ideal and hands down the best weapon for an irregular.
Those rounds have to be heavily modified. Not the province of “amateurs.” The only ones I’m aware of that did this extensively were Filipino Marxist guerrillas…
But the M-16…let’s be honest here, it kinda sucks compared with modern options and so there’s really no point to the weapon anymore. And any comments on it jamming?
Um, it doesn’t “jam” unless one is an arse’hole that doesn’t clean it or if one was using shitty Vietnam era 20-round box magazines (when I was in during the early 1990s) which all had worn feed springs. Most of the “jamming” stuff came out of the early Vietnam era where the US military issued the weapon without cleaning implements and really, really bad info for the soldier, and a change in cartridge powder to the one used by the 7.62X51 round which fouled the guns. This was resolved, and while not perfect, the M-16 is a very effective killing implement…
If the weapon “sucks” so much, than why has the Canadian forces adopted it? In fact, Canada produces a superior version IMO. Basically an M-16A3 for all instead of just for a few elites…
I have an AR 15 and I have NEVER had a stoppage attributable to the weapon, and only one attributable to a 30 round magazine (should have only loaded 28…)
Exceptions: when testing hand-loads and when setting up the lovely adjustable gas system that I put on the rifle.
Also, where do people get these ridiculous ideas that you can fire 7.62 x 51 in an AK chambered for 7.62 x 39? can the AK-47 bend the space-time continuum?
It can’t. However, the round can be cut down and remanufactured into a 7.62X39mm and this is no easy process. I’m aware of it being done in the Philippines by the communist guerrillas who sometimes captured stocks of 7.62mm NATO from gov’t forces as they still used the M-14 and M-60 until recently. From the photographs I saw, it looked like a time consuming process and had to be done in very secure production areas, by child labor of course…
How I would do it:
- Remove bullets, reclaim powder.
- Place case in a lathe, turn down the neck and web to the right diameter.
- Using a custom sizing die (or dies), size the case down into the correct form.
- Trim case to correct length.
- Recharge the case, seat and crimp the bullet.
This is what we Brits would call “a bit of a fag”.
I would not, however, expect great things from ammunition prepared in this way, particularly by unskilled labour. First of all, you are pushing a .308 bullet down a .311 barrel using a powder which is too slow for the application.
lol! I couldn’t help throwing some bait out there regarding the historical problems around M-16 jams. Not mentioned in the discussion thus far was the Vietnam era practice of duct-taping magazines together, upsidedown, to speed up reloading. However, this frequently damaged the magazine itself as it was slammed into the dirt --and filled it with…dirt. Shockingly, the dirty, bent magazines jamed. Whoops.
Good catch on the skilled mods of Nato rounds before they are at all useable. My main point being: AKs are for the underskilled with little access to proper equipment …so this kind of round modification is highly misleading. You’re right, it just plain doesn’t work in the field.
I said the M-16 sucked in comparison with more modern options that are now available and SHOULD be purchased by the Canadian military over C7s. And I stand by that. A SAR-21 is good example. A bullpup (and yes, to be considered, it’s got to be a bullpup IMHO) that is balanced (meaning better groupings), short (essential for urban combat and fast vehicle exits, handy for close combat and key for firing out of a vehicle), accurate (duh), superior egonomics, and the SAR-21 has transparent, indexed magazines so you can see instantly tell how many rounds you have left, excellent optics, and the damn thing can be field stripped in under 20 seconds without any tools (unlike some bullpups).
Can you refer us to any documents confirming this as a common cause of malfunctions and casualties apart from the well established ones caused by ball powder being substituted in early production for price reasons rather than the originally specified propellant?
How would this explain instances of men without duct taped magazines experiencing malfunctions?
That would be very handy for troops who weren’t trained, as was my generation, to count rounds fired and who would prefer to look at their magazine than to their front where the targets are.
Bullpups… Oh please!
Expect to see the gas piston AR 15 rifles to be in the inventory for the next 20 plus years (HK 416 having just been adopted by various US sneaky beaky people, as well as the Norwegians). Nobody has yet beaten the AR 15 layout for ergonomics and natural shooting, and the gas piston upper completely solves all reliability issues.
I never said that ball powder didn’t cause jams (or lack of proper cleaning training and equipment)… if you look at what I wrote, (paraphrase) “Not mentioned yet: the practice of duct-taping magazines together, upsidedown which frequently damaged the magazine itself as it was slammed into the dirt --and filled it with…dirt. And these dirty, bent magazines jamed.”
Do I really need to back up that taking a magazine, inverting it and and slamming it into the dirt will bend the lip of the magazine and get dirt in it? Or do you want proof that a dirty, bent magazine will cause jams??
When you misuse you equipment, it will fail. Jams were experienced by users of this poor practice or why would a small arms instructor (who’d gone 5 days in international military competition, shooting at 1000 yards, and never strayed into the 9 ring) warn against using taped, inverted clips? <— my source, not a document.
They still train you to count rounds, lol! Disengaging at target to look at your ammo isn’t recommended. It’s just the difference between being able to quickly check, visually, if you get distracted or even pick up another weapon mid-fight. Of course, not having the option is, in every way, better.
Man of Stoat: “Oh Please” isn’t exactly an arguement. Sure, it may take 20 years to phase out the cheaper, well-established weapon designs…but that doesn’t make them better. Just popular. The advantages I listed make for more effective troops, who will out perform identical troops carrying M16s. Just like the the M16 troops will out perferm identical troops with AK-47s. (Tries to steer this back on topic.)
Beam, it has been discussed on here ad nauseam that there is an enormous elephant in the room when it comes to bullpup designs: it is impossible to fire around the left side of cover without exposing yourself. This is one of the (several) reasons why relatively few armies have adopted them.
I have also yet to handle a bullpup which balances “better” than an out the box AR 15 – most of them are exceedingly back heavy which makes them seem easier to carry, but they are universally ghastly to shoot with.
Interestingly, the Israelis have adopted a bullpup and have done the opposite of what every other army in the world does with a new weapon system: they have issued it to new recruits rather than to the older professional soldiers who have grown up with the M-16/M4. A cynical view to take is that they have done this to avoid the inevitable bitching which ALWAYS happens when an army replaces a trusted conventional weapon with a bullpup, since the recruits don’t know any better. If there genuinely was an increase in performance, don’t you think the Israelis would have issued it first to their crack professional troops?
As for cost, don’t think for a minute that an HK 416 is cheaper than any of the bullpup designs currently in production – it is an extremely expensive piece of kit, yet the performance improvement is worth it. Provided the cost issue doesn’t put people off, expect the 416 to become the de facto standard.
I have seen one bullpup the ejects spent cartridges out the bottom of the weapon and I’d love to see a bullpup like the SAR-21 with that modification as the rest of the rifle is ambidextrous. (One final mod I would make would be to put in a selector switch in the same position and style as the M-16.)
Then you’d have a truly powerful weapon and since I can fire ambidextrously with minimal loss in performance, firing from the left side of a barricade would not have the unfortunate side effect of getting hot cases in your face. (It’s to distracting, I agree!)
I must admit, I feel in love with the FAMAS the first time I fired one and saw instantly saw the advantages of having a SMG legth weapon that packs the punch of an assault rifle for clearing rooms.
Incidentally, I will say I never liked firing the AK-47 and will concede the M-16 feels far more comfortable to shoot. That said, I find some bullpups way more comfortable to shoot and the balance agrees with me.
I will also say, I’d be hoping that a bottom ejecting bullpup would limit on disadvantage I have found: when firing a lot of rounds, the fumes sting my eyes… something I’ve never had with a long rifle.