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.
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? 😉
This Ping List is for all things pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
Bkmk
He cheated.
AK-74M for the win.
Answer is mission-dependent.
For it’s time and era and based solely on usage, the AK47 is the most consequential firearm in history. It is “ugly”, crudely made with sloppy tolerances, and not very accurate at distance. It is also the most widespread, most reliable, and most manufactured firearm in history.
In other words, it is #1 in more than enough metrics by such a huge margin that it easily overcomes any deficiencies of design.
It is to firearms what the T-34 was to tanks in WWII.
No expert by any stretch but as I understand it the choice is between m16/ar accuracy but can malfunction in certain environments versus ak not near as accurate but you can drag it through the mud and it’ll keep firing. Just my 2 cent
The question is “better for what?” IMHO, as a standard-issue, mass-produced infantry weapon for individual grunts who spend their lives in the mud and dirt and who engage in fire fights almost always at a range of 30 meters or less, then the Kalashnikov is clearly the superior choice.
The best rifle is the one in the hands of the right people in the right place, at the right time.
Tavor
While it’s unique, I hate that heavy and nasty trigger and bullpups are not ergonomic by any means.
If I’m going to use an Israeli weapon, I’ll take the Galil any day over a Tavor.
It’s simple. AK47 is cheaper.
M-16 every time. 30,000 plus rounds and counting without cleaning.
www.filthy14
Does the SKS have a similar system as the AK? I have a Yugo SKS and the thing is pretty accurate. How are the gas systems different?
My AK is a BEAST. You can beat the hell out of it and it fires every time. With an AR, you have to be careful or it will jam and you end up with a $1000 club.
For mud hut types who spray and pray, AK-47.
For professional soldiers who aim, AR-15.
And the 7.62 has more penetration as Paul Harrell showed when he fired both at a Nissan Pathfinder.
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.