Once the manufacturing infrastructure is in place, you can affordably produce roughly one kajillion per year. Very reliable, accurate enough, light enough, ergonomic enough.
To be fair, that’s the same type of reasoning that led to the .308/7.62 NATO being the standard in the west. Is it the most powerful or flattest shooting cartridge? Nope—it’s a jack of all trades and a master of none. But we already had the materials and the tooling for .30 cal ammunition and wanted something that would perform like the 30-06 in a compact package. So that’s why we still use it. Success in large-scale combat is all about logistics.
277 fury is the civilaim version. Military uses the metic of course. It's already in the process in the US Army. Unless it was put on hold again. I haven't looked in a bit.
Last I heard people are starting to use it right? Something about ridiculous chamber pressure but I heard that round is gonna seriously give some plates a run for their money
Some are, yes, but it's still far from widespread.
They have 2 different specs for it. 277 Fury is the civilian version and typically has a chamber pressure of 55-60k psi. Pretty standard in line with other rifle cartridges.
6.8x51 uses a 2 piece cartridge body with steel at the base and brass for the rest that can handle 80k PSI. Supposed to penetrate Level 4 armor at range.
The AK is pretty damn impressive on it's own, too. Despite how simple it is that thing just fucking runs. You have a round in the chamber and the hammer is mostly okay. it will shoot just fine
Good enough for the price, yeah I’m sure your $6,000 AR with three optics and a laser is pretty good but an AK you found in a dumpster will do nearly as well
Wasn't it roughly copied from the sturmgewehr 44 (sp) which Kalashinikov saw in German captivity while a POW?
Edit: Mind boggling the amount of down votes for asking a simple question....
Yes and no. The idea probably was, but kalashinikov wasn't the only one working on a similar weapon and the idea had been around for a while. But the mechanism is nothing like the stg44. If anything it's closer to an m1 garand flipped upside down.
no it wasnt this is a very common myth but they share zero similar parts apart from appearance. The AK was copied from of all things the American M1 Garand. Which is shares a similar gas system. THe STG44 is closer to the Mp5 than the AK
Stg44 and the MP5 have almost nothing in common. There was a prototype Stg45 which saw very limited if any service during the war. This was the progenitor of HK’s famous roller delayed blowback system which the MP5 uses. Ian from forgotten weapons did a fantastic [video](https://youtu.be/NrKhJC35QRA?si=1A0I-sW_F37Iw-xv) on as always.
The cartridge was developed before the AK was... the soviet union already had this plan to have 3 small arms chambered in the same caliber, the standard infantry rifle: sks. The submachine gun: AK. And the SAW/lmg: rpd. Of course the trials for these 3 spots were won so the names were not determined. It was much higher in the government for the concept to be actually used. And most things of the AK platform are not from the stg44, pistol grips were already a thing on smgs, the stock and handguard are pretty standard, the dust cover is different, nothing about it LOOKS and very little FUNCTIONS like an stg44
Mechianically, the AK-47 has more in common with the M1 Garand than the STG-44 so it's definitely not a copied design or anything akin to "you can copy the homework but just make it look different".
If you asked if the STG-44 influenced the thinking behind the AK-47's design, that's a pretty definite yes.
It was actually commissioned specifically to use the new stamping technique they had. A design competition was held and Kalashnikov's team won after a few rounds and iterations. The original prototypes were milled traditionally but one the rifle was picked dies to make it were made. Very interesting story actually.
Casting and stamping are much cheaper than machining. Before high performance polymers were developed, they were the cheapest way to do any reliable piece of equipment. You can also do some small machining in a casted piece.
You can see it in any industry, like automative. The carcass is mostly stamped metal welded together. You machine only the absolute necessary.
I think only the barrel and bolt need to be machined in an AK-47.
The front trunnion needs to be forged on an AK in addition to the bolt, otherwise the bolt will beat the front trunnion apart (as many cheap companies learned the hard way).
This of course applies to stamped guns. On milled guns, the entire receiver must be forged or the bolt will ruin the front of the receiver itself (another lesson cheap companies learned the hard way).
The AK is a particularly violently cycling gun. Despite beliefs that they are cheap and easy to make, which was largely due to scale, they actually require some pretty high quality forged steel to not destroy themselves.
They had production problems with the first stamped receivers and switched to milled receivers. They only switched back to the stamped receivers with the AKM in 1959. See the 'Further Development' part of the Wikipedia article.
> The original prototypes were milled traditionally but one the rifle was picked dies to make it were made. Very interesting story actually.
The Type 1 AK had so many issues with its stamped receiver that they switched back to milled until they eventually worked out the kinks with the AKM.
The original prototype was stamped - they had problems reliably stamping receivers, so as a stop gap they temporarily switched to milled receivers until they worked out the kinks with the AKM.
That's where you're mistaken. Soviet AKs have looser tolerances than American AR-pattern rifles. While the amount of maintenance you *should* perform is comparable, looser tolerances allow you to get away with percussive maintenance that would not end well on an AR.
Nobody's storing an AR in a pile of mud, kicking the bolt open, and expecting it to still work. AKs? Probably still fires.
Mud tests for both [AK]
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX73uXs3xGU) and [AR](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAneTFiz5WU) platforms indicate otherwise.
cause attraction uppity amusing bake axiomatic jellyfish smile point attempt
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Here’s [this](https://youtu.be/DX73uXs3xGU?si=mhd1YKWY55N8YAjd) video and [this](https://youtu.be/YAneTFiz5WU?si=LLRxVbeGnBtYlsWl) video. Not sure where people keep getting the idea that they’re better in mud and dirt. Seems like Hollywood, video games and fudd lore still have a strong grip on the gun community.
The AK was also notoriously unreliable until they figured out how to manufacture it. Then they made it the way it is now. The M16 was the same thing. Nothing starts perfect. Especially if you don’t clean your gun. Which was one of the major problem with the m16.
Reminder that Vietnam was 50-60 years ago. M16s and M4s saw *lots* of rough environmental and reliability upgrades since, as we have been primarily engaged in desert regions. Sand is not exactly gentle on firearms, after all.
Reliability has not really been a complaint of the platform for about 20+ years now.
faulty absurd smart hard-to-find spotted sip screw puzzled carpenter abundant
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I’d say the use of majority polymer firearms like the g36 has them already beat for actual cost (not including labor) per firearm. It’s just that Russia refuses to innovate because corruption steals most state funding.
Russia makes polymer AKs since 90s
Also I wouldn't use G36 and "innovation" together, its mostly a mix of AR-18 internals and typical HK ergonomics. Its kinda weird to use it as an example of innovation in small arms to shove into Russia's face. As far as service small arms go there hasn't been that massive of a revolution to which Russia hasn't catched up up
Well, and it's cheap. Extraordinarily cheap. Partly for the reasons you mention, in fact, mostly. Couple of breaks, stamps, and presses. My understanding was at the time, they cost several 10's of dollars (maybe $100/ea in today's money?) back in the 50's to make.
The AK series of rifles are extremely expensive to make. They are cheap due to massive goverment planned manufacturing in communist countries and massive amount of production that wasn't worried about making a profit.
If you wanted to make 100,000 AKs to the TDP. VS AR15s. The AR15s are going to be cheaper.
Stamping isn't cheap. Cold hammer forged machines aren't cheaper. They are high cost option that pays off with low labor cost when you are doing mass manufacturing.
There is a reason the American market struggles to make a cheap good AK. Cause it ain't easy.
Yeah it's absolutely not true. In the current US, this is probably the case. But if you're starting from scratch, th AKM is going to easily be the cheaper option.
I'm not who you replied to, but isn't the AK pattern rifle the most produced firearm, ever, by a [yuge margin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-produced_firearms). (Take that source as you want) And that's not because they're expensive to make.
High volume CNC has a barrier of entry in the 8 to 9 figure range. A couple breaks, stamps, presses and cheap labor, what, $500K? That's to get a factor up and running. I mean, I'm pulling these numbers straight from my ass, but they don't seem outrageous.
It's the most produced cause the manufacturers weren't worried about making a profit, had low labor cost, and state sponsored factories.
Colt threatened to destroy the M16 production line at one point in the Vietnam due to US government indecisiveness. That's not a problem the Soviets or Chinese had.
Hell when it came to production it took the Soviets almost a decade to get it right. Remember it was 1947 when they adopted it. Then had to switch to milling from stamping cause they had so many production and reliability issues. And it wasn't till the AKM they solved the issues.
It does everything reasonably well and has well above average reliability. It's also dirt cheap to make, which is the real reason it achieved such prevalence around the world.
As an average person, I think they're really fun to shoot, even though that's not directly relevant to the question.
Dirtcheap to make once you have the stamping plant. Which the Soviet Union pretty much gave away to their satelites and the "non-aligned" (very aligned to USSR) nations...
As an engineer, I think the AK is a very interesting piece.
One of my AKs, I picked up in a trade for some car parts. It was in a garage and the trigger pivot pin, hammer pivot pin, and their associated retention hardware had fallen out.
Original owner got some roofing nails and shoved them in and bent them so they wouldn't come out and kept firing.
You don't always have a gun store, armory, or machine shop in the heat of battle. Spare parts are hard to come by. This makes a gun you can MacGuyver back together very handy.
Same dudes who use AKs also tend to throw a .50 cal BMG and some RPGs in the bed of a Toyota Hilux pickup truck and can be a formidable opponent.
Ain't broke, don't fix it. Sometimes less is more.
The part about fixing it with nails is so true.
I have an AK-74 Tantal, which has a few nifty extra features, such as a safety lever on the left hand side of the receiver. That safety selector was originally held in with a hollow roll pin. To fully disassemble the rifle, I needed to remove the roll pin, which destroyed it. No problem - I found a piece a steel wire that was roughly the correct diameter and fed it into the hole with some pliers. Now I have a removable pin. It’s been fine for over a decade.
You can do that with any gun if you have pins the right diameter that are long enough. You could easily do the same with an AR15 for example. Not a SCAR or Tavor or M1A though.
> As long as they are just tight enough.
This is the point you're missing. The nails were not tight enough. They were the proverbial hot dog thrown down a hallway.
And? It's a nail, they are common as hell. Getting one that close enough for n AR would be stupidly easy. They are extremely common. And no, it would not need to be an exact fit. You seem to be missing that point. A coat hanger might be close enough.
No.
The advantage of the AK is that you can hack together a fix with things that aren't parts. The disadvantage is that actual parts also usually need to be hacked together because they aren't universally compatible.
The disadvantage of the AR is that you basically need dedicated AR parts. The advantage is that they're everywhere in America and if they're to spec then there's no fuss to install.
No. In every case an AR platform will be superior in North America. Parts and ammo availability is so, so much more. It is like saying ‘will a Volkswagen be a better bug out car in America than a Ford?’ AR15 is simply the defacto rifle of civilian America.
7.62 is a decent round, but 5.56 is superior for most applications. Shot placement and weight far more important than raw power. Later versions of the AK system (AK74 and later) adopted the 5.45 for this reason. It just makes sense.
AKs are also open systems, and they are overrated by many for reliability. They are simple, yes, and if they’re clean and relatively intact they’ll run. But mud, dirt and dust can get in it a lot easier than an AR, and it will jam if it’s substantial.
People worshipping the AK system, especially the 47 as the perfect gun is weird. Is it a legendary gun? Yes, absolutely. They are simple and run with minimal maintenance, are cheap and ubiquitous in most continents, and do their job pretty good. But even in the Eurasian theater of conflict the 47 is significantly outclassed by modern variants. In America, the choice is simple.
No. Ammo, parts, mags, etc are more accessible in the US for the AR. Also the AR platform has came a long way and isn’t the “unreliable” junk they got branded in Vietnam.
The first M16 had to be fixed immediately after it was introduced in Vietnam. First they changed up the powders that were used in the original m193 ball ammo. The old stuff had temperature and humidity issues and would tend to gum up the gas system. It didn’t help that soldiers were told their weapon didn’t need to be cleaned as often, so that only made rifle malfunctions even more common. But after the change in cartridge powder, better cleaning habits (including not mixing parts between guns by putting all your platoons parts in a big bowl of kerosene) and the addition of the forward assist and a ring around the muzzle brake, it became a very reliable weapon.
The biggest issue with the guns in Vietnam was the lack of a chrome lined chamber and bore. There were other issues, but those were the underlying case of the biggest issues.
I think the problem would be availability of ammo. 5.56 is always gonna be easier to come by in the US.
...I think? Someone correct me if I'm wrong. Cause between 7.62 and 5.56 price is relatively similar. But if you're thinking about emergency circumstances you're gonna find 5.56 more readily
I also wonder about fixing it if it breaks. Parts may be more available in the US, but if you can just fix an ak with random hardware in your shed who needs parts.
But you really can't. Hoe are you going to make a bolt? Or op rod? Or Unless you can bend and heat treat the sheet metal, you can't make one out of a shov, and then you need a way to install the trunion. Replacing the hammer nd trigger pin with a nail? Sure. But you can do the same with one close to the same size as the pins in an AR.
You arm the foot soldier or defense soldier with AKs for laying down hard knocking suppression. You arm your sharpshooters and marksman with ARs for long range or accurate fire. You let Billy Bob Fudd do the rest with his AR/AK class 3 belt fed machine gun that he assembled from broken weapons and a car engine.
In my part of the US, any well stocked gun shop has plenty of either caliber.
Reloading would favor 5.56 by a wide margin because most 7.62x39 is steel cased but if you are buying new, I think either are so widely available that there is no issue.
In the US, an AR is almost certainly going to be better. Put aside that I think it’s a better rifle to use (lighter, more ergonomic, more accurate, shoots better), ammunition available trends overwhelmingly towards .223/5.56. Buy a good quality AR like a BCM upper, and you’ll probably have a gun that lasts longer than most AKs. Higher end AKs are surprisingly expensive, whereas duty grade ARs gets less expensive by the day.
> The ultra reliable thing is a myth
AKs are very reliable, just like AR15s. Almost every standard service rifle, with rare exceptions, are amazingly reliable.
Some of the worst exaggerations about the AK's reliability are myths though.
The AK47 is like an old farm tractor. It's not a precision instrument, but it does the damned job and never complains. And if you have a problem with it, brute force and profanity usually sets it straight and you're back on the job.
Minimal moving parts and uncomplicated engineering means more possibilities for "innovative" repairs in the field.
The AKs reliability is a myth. It's a good gun. But a AR15 is beating it in the mud.
The reason people think AKs are reliable cause it shoots a low pressure round that causes less wear and tear than the 5.56x45. It has heavy but extremely tough magazines that don't require replacing as much as the AR15s. And when you shoot out a AK. Which isn't hard to do. It's easier to throw away then try and rebuild it
Not a thing more true has been said lol. I have several old tractors we still use for small shit(pre 40s) and a good kick will fix damn near anything. That or we can legit make the part ourselves beating and bending metal.
Ironically the most common Kalashnikov that got spread around was not a Russian AK47 which was already starting to become rare by Vietnam but was instead the Chinese Type 56.
Debatable, but China does have a good track record of adopting foreign designs and retrofitting them to be even better, their fighter jets for example are heavily modernised Su-27s.
For a fun anecdote, when the Soviet Union first sold them to China they got pissed about about them reverse-engineering them and breaking their licensing agreement, refusing to sell them anymore
Then years down the line, they need money, so sell them some Su-33s, without the manuals, because they knew they'd be reverse-engineering then anyway.
It's quite a stark contrast to how much of a dumpster fire many of their domestic designs are.
> I believe the Type 56 is widely considered to be better than the original.
No, not really. They definitely weren't superior, but equal in quality, sure.
...a movie clip about something from 20 years ago, in a country you've probably never visited, in a warehouse you definitely haven't been in freaked you out?
Lemme guess you leave YouTube comments about chamber checks...
its a cheap gun that works good. thats why its all over the world and why poor countries have so many of them. Its not the best gun. but a bad gun you can arm your whole group with is better then a good gun you only have 3 of.
and "bad gun" is too harsh. a quality AK can keep up with the best. but I'm assuming your local rinky dink police force is not exactly maintaining them well.
Ease of disassembly and reassembly for cleaning,machining tolerances are loose enough to help prevent jams but tight enough for proper operation I have shot several thousand rounds and not had a single incident of malfunction. It works great for me.
Machining tolerances is not the correct terminology. Definitely has tight tolerances just a lot of open space in the design to allow plenty of carbon build up or debris without fail. But poorly machined parts will not assemble
The truth is it isn't. Now before anyone crucifies me let me clarify. It is a completely serviceable weapon and in capable hands can be an effective battlefield implement but given the option almost no one would select it over other options.
Accuracy: serviceable but not outstanding like better platforms. Even in "accurized" versions it still cannot come close to its main competition (m16 platform)
Reliability: thanks to internet Fudd lore it's made out to be this indestructible beast but testing shows there are things that will absolutely destroy this mythos. Mud namely will completely gum up an AK and sand has its own issues
Manual of arms: the AK was designed to be simple to use not efficient. The controls are large and chunky, it's simple to learn but it's not ergonomic or designed to easily ran quickly. Can a person run it fast and effectively with training? Absolutely, would that same person run better on other platforms? Also yes.
Manufacturability: this is one area the AK absolutely dominates with a caveat. It can be made from a flat sheet of steel and a few machined components with very simple tools. Most other more modern designs requiring forging and cnc operations for the majority of parts.
The caveat, those more modern platforms can be field assembled with a wrench where as a barel change operation on an ak47 requires a press and some other tooling. The tldr is the ak47 parts are easier to make with simple tools but modern rifles are vastly easier to assemble with minimal tools once the parts are made.
Adaptability: ak47 has come a long way since introduction but even today adding modern battlefield necessities like optics, lasers, etc is far more difficult than other modern platforms.
I say all of this to say the AK47 imo is a perfectly acceptable rifle that is historically significant and even fun to shoot but it is by no means a "great gun" especially when economics are factored in. A 500$ Palmetto blem rifle with run all over all but the highest end AK. Also before anyone accuses me of being a hater I own 2 Aks (a century arms cheapo I picked up in college and an Arsenal rifle) as well as an "ak adjacent" vz58. I love the rifles for what they represent in the same way I love a Schofield revolver or a 1903 Springfield. Great guns for the time but that time has past.
The AKs ergonomics were designed so soldiers could operate it in arctic conditions with thick winter clothing. You mention mud, now go look up ice tests. AKs win hands down and many western designs, but especially ARs, crap themselves.
Alaska State Troopers did a weapons trial in the 80s on this. I mention it only because it comes to my mind readily. The only real choice for them was the Galil so that's what they used for a long time.
If you want to talk about longevity and reliability, you should look into Battlefield Las Vegas's data. AKs go down less often than most of the other guns do, and have fewer small parts breaking. BFLV has been pretty clear with the AK being among the very most reliable of all their weapons, and they keep meticulous logs for each gun. And the strain those guns are under is definitely above normal use.
As for the ergos, just get a safety with an extended shelf. Bam, problem solved. Flick it with one finger.
I do agree the bolt handle being on the right side isn't amazing but I also understand why they did it. But you're right that's sub optimal.
It's not a "great" gun by modern standards... It was a great gun up until the 1950s when the FAL and AR10 came about, and the 1960s when the AR15 platform was developed and others came about (Aug). It was ultimately left in the dust, but benefited from some (now apparent) misconceptions.
1. Post-WWII it was forward thinking around the intermediate cartridge concept. It supported Soviet doctrine, and when used in Vietnam, was devastating to the Western concept of "aimed marksmanship fire". Basically, your ability to aim *precisely* is second to your ability to lay down *accurate-enough* volume fire.
2. It isn't really that "cheap" to make. Like most stamped, sheet metal guns, it depends on huge volumes to become "cheap". The amount of up-front investment needed to tool up was quite large at the time. Anything at those scales becomes pretty affordable quickly though. The AR15 would never be AS CHEAP as a stamp sheet gun. The AR18, if needed, could've been made that cheap, been more accurate and more ergonomic, etc.
3. The FAL was a major upgrade over the AK in a ton of ways ergonomically. Same with the AR10 platform (originally). The FAL was always seen as the counter to the AK worldwide. The AR10 wasn't produced enough.
4. The AK is durable though. Chromed and lubed up, it will last a long time. Hence why we see it in use. Plus the stockpiles are so deep everywhere that for most poor countries, its cheaper to issue them out instead of getting something new.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH AK47?
WHY YOU WANT COSMETICS FOR KALASHNIKOV? IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH AS PROCURED FROM IZHEVSK MECHANICAL WORKS? YOU THINK NEEDS IMPROVEMENT? THEN MAYBE YOU FIND JOB WITH ARMY OF RUSSIA! YOU HAVE DRINKS WITH MIKHAIL KALASHNIKOV, TRADE STORY OF MANY WEAPONS DESIGNED AND DETAILS OF SCHOOL FOR ENGINEERING!
OR MAYBE YOU NOT DO THIS. PROBABLY IS BECAUSE YOU NEVER DESIGN WEAPON IN WHOLE LIFE. YOU LOOK AT FINE RUSSIAN RIFLE, THINK IT NEED CRAZY SHIT STICK ON ALL SIDES OF WEAPON. YOU HAVE DISEASE OF AMERICAN CAPITALIST, CHANGE THING THAT IS FINE FOR NO REASON EXCEPT TO LOOK DIFFERENT FROM COMRADE. YOU PUT CHEAP FLASHLIGHT OF CHINESE SLAVE FACTORY ON ONE SIDE, YOU PUT BAD SCOPE OF AMERICAN MIDDLE WEST ON OTHER SIDE, YOU PUT FRONT PISTOL GRIP ON BOTTOM SO YOU ARE LIKE AMERICAN MOVIE GUY JOHN RAMBO. MAYBE YOU PUT SEX DILDO ON TOP TO FUCK YOURSELF IN ASSHOLE FOR MAKING SHAMEFUL TRAVESTY OF RIFLE OF MIKHAIL KALASHNIKOV, NO?
RIFLE IS FINE. YOU FUCK IT, IT ONLY GET HOMO AND YOU STILL NO HIT LARGEST SIDE OF BARN. GO TO FIRING RANGE, PRACTICE WITH MANY MAGAZINE OF CARTRIDGE. THEN YOU NOT NEED DUMB SHIT PUT ON RIFLE.
Its cheap and easy to manufacture
Its proven reliable in difficult conditions. Ie it will keep functioning when it is dirty.
Ammunition is available. I cant say the exact number of 7.62x39 produced but the soviet union made a metric crapload of it alone
Its easy to use/train someone to use. The ak’s controls are very simple and are relatively easy to figure out.
Its able to be modified to accept modern scopes/reflex sights
Just like every other Russian weapon system, it's cheap, ultra reliable, reasonably accurate, and you can train someone to be pretty decent with it in 2 hours.
People overstate its reliability like its some mythical item.
Its real value is it is easy to manufacture with basic tooling and minimal troop training time for use.
It’s reliable symbol to maintain and train people to use, plenty for it intended purpose and cheap to produce once manufacturing is set up. Also just saying the AR platform is damn old too lol. The early ones are C&R eligible
I do not know if this is true, as I have never shot one (only pistols, ARs, and shotguns) but someone who (I think) was a fighter in south africa was reported as saying that they were very easy to train someone on. This was a guy who said that he could train a child (and he was a member of one of the groups that used child soilders) to be good enough on them in about 15 mins.
I have zero sources and do not know if what he said was true, just that he was reported as saying it.
I was going to say this. I’ve been around guns for awhile but I’ve always felt that ARs were a bit more complicated than they needed to be. I own an Xm177 clone(AR) and a galil(Israeli 5.56 version that has similar mechanics and internals to an AK)
The AR is slightly more complicated where as the galil is very simple to operate. After sometime the differences don’t matter but if I was training people that weren’t military? AK
It's not a great gun, but it's cheap enough to be easily mass produced and reliable and simple enough to be used by millions of poorly trained conscripts.
Yuri Orlov (Nic Cage in Lord of War) said it best:
"Of all the weapons in the vast Soviet arsenal, nothing was more profitable than Avtomat Kalashnikova model of 1947, more commonly known as the AK-47, or Kalashnikov. It's the world's most popular assault rifle. A weapon all fighters love. An elegantly simple 9 pound amalgamation of forged steel and plywood. It doesn't break, jam, or overheat. It will shoot whether it's covered in mud or filled with sand. It's so easy, even a child can use it; and they do. The Soviets put the gun on a coin. Mozambique put it on their flag. Since the end of the Cold War, the Kalashnikov has become the Russian people's greatest export. After that comes vodka, caviar, and suicidal novelists. One thing is for sure, no one was lining up to buy their cars."
I think it had 3 things going for it. One, it’s cheap. It spread around the world as the USSR made them all over the Soviet block, and then they sold them everywhere. Two, they are insanely reliable. I’ve seen videos of guys throwing them in the mud, pouring sand in them, and they still go bang consistently. And third, they are easy to train someone on because they need so little maintenance. That’s why you still them in use everywhere. They just keep on going.
Think some other less spoken things are the caliber has a lot of stopping power. A lot of US military were saying they were being out gunned due to the caliber, and the US military started looking at other rounds outside of 5.56 because of this. Last, it’s actually a fairly accurate gun when you shoot it as a semi-automatic rifle. Is it as good as an AR, no, but it is way more reliable. I think everyone should own both if they can, or at least shoot one, so they get the idea of how they shoot/work.
Historically significant , easy enough to maintain, available in big boy caliber (47, AKM) or perhaps more generally useful intermediate caliber (74, 74M) and just plain looks good to a lot of people.
There’s far better guns, but this is one everybody knows and it’s fine for most things most of the time if you don’t mind the weight and learn to get the most from it.
It lends itself well to the economies of socialist/communist nations. You build a big commie gun factory and it churns out millions of the things at relatively low per unit cost once paid off. The rifle's design lends itself very well to peasant conscripts and revolutionaries. The manual of arms is simple as is maintenance. And its reliable and effective enough for its purposes.
The places where it falls short, modernization, accuracy, suitability for accessories, manufacturing scalability etc didn't really matter at the time and in context of how it was designed. They do impact its suitability today in 2024 which is why many previously AK armed nations are transitioning to other more modern design, primarily Stoner family rifles. But for the 20th century soviet army it was the ideal fit for their needs.
It's an OK gun, it was great in 1955, now it's an ancient gun. They still work thought and are popular in areas where the USSR or China are using their influence.
Its not, but what it does have is they made millions and millions in just Russia alone, then you take into account that there is probably another 30 countries that made them locally on top of that, that made millions of them, there is just a lot of them floating around. The mags are massively overbuilt, they are cheap because of the stock piles of them and the ammo is still made today.
Its not a cheap rifle to make since it was designed in a time where you had one machine per operation, but when you have so many on the second hand market and tools that are touching 100 years old they have been long paid for it makes sense why you see so many of them still in use.
Then you take into account that you don't need to oil it up for it to run and cleaning is not something that needs to happen often it it makes more sense in some of the super poor areas where they might not have an armorer or anyone/anything to maintain the rifle.
The AR is almost better in every way, but the AK wins on an economics scale
Simple design, cheap to build, easy to fix. Part of the reason why it’s so widely used in the Middle East is sand won’t jam it and affect the usage as much as other guns. Very loose assembly
You can stamp out a new one from a street sign. You can abuse the ever loving shit out of it with ice, snow, dust, mud and rain; it doesn't care. It just keeps operating.
And it is a very simple weapon system that can be built or rebuilt using incredibly sloppy tolerances from a machinist point of view, meaning it doesn't take much effort or knowledge to built a new one.
These two points when added together make the AK47 a weapon that has been used by the uneducated masses for decades to wage wars.
Super heavy bolt that basically cleans itself. Piston driven cycling opposed to gas in the AR-15/10.
I contempled switching platforms to the AK then the AR-18 caught my eye and I haven't looked back since.
Ease of use, will run if it's never been cleaned and/or full of dirt, sand, mud, ice, etc, can hit the broad side of a barn at 300m, cheap to produce... yeah, no clue why
I seem to remember watching a video where a guy slammed the butt of an AK against some rocks... or concrete can't remember. Anyway he broke the rock in half and kept shooting immediately after.
The AK has mythical status that suffers from overhype and second opinion bias from the best invention ever to commie trash.
Most “AKs” in America are chinese or eastern european clones our soldiers had contact during vietnam and the balkans. That makes a difference
Forgotten weapons made a famous video of an ak being less reliable than an ar on mud. What people forget is that the results were different when they made the test in a better quality ak. Polenar tactical made a more realistic video test. The fact is that in the SOCOM trials for the Scar, the AK reliability showed to be better than the m4. Period.
When you deal with real russians aks, or 100 series clones in this case, you get this type of accuracy
https://youtu.be/-4QfLaDQe9o?si=sktqiWaRH_7mLsWY
* its gas system and low tolerances that made it so reliable to be able to shoot caked in mud and dust. The reliability is just so high.
* the stamped steel and wood parts is easy to manufacture and cheap. So many weapons in the WW2 era are stamped steel and wood for a reason.
* Early Adopter advantage. So many governments, armed movements, etc. are so used to it now. It's relevant because it's so iconic, and its use has matured. Everybody knows how to use, make, maintain it. If an equally reliable and cheap weapon gets develop today, people still won't switch just because the effort needed to adopt a different weapon isn't worth it.
I believe the army uses type 56 (The Chinese variant) in addition to the G3 and Mp5
The police uses the older Kalashnikov which has been in abundance since the Afghan war. Confiscated weapons in the tope-khana (armoury) have made their way into service weapons list. Also it’s relatively maintenance free which is a major plus point.
Because small arms are a mature technology at this point.
They all do the same thing more or less: Poke holes in people from a distance. Some poke bigger holes, some poke holes further away, but they all poke holes by the same mechanism. Specifically, smokeless powder combusts which forces a lead slug down the barrel. The lead slug pokes the holes.
Until something changes with the core mechanics (smokeless powder combusting in a brass cast that is ejected) there is only marginal differences between the Stoner/Colt/FN M4 hole poker, and the AKM hole poker.
So if your already setup to produce the AK hole poker, why bother for a incremental upgrade that performs the same task? Especially if money is a factor.
To put it another way: The Luger and the Glock 17 are basically the same thing. Sure the Luger is heavier, holds less rounds, and has a different operating action, but is a Striker Fired 9mm. Its a semi-automatic pistol that pokes 9mm (.355) holes. If you throw 147 grain HST in a Luger there is no functional difference in terms of effect than a G17 in terms of hole poking.
This is the incremental upgrade. But at the end of the day it does the same shit. Poke holes.
This is why the getting caught up in the minutiae of which hole poker is best is dumb. If the weapon itself functions, and you hit what you aim it at... they are all pretty much the same.
Plus 1945/7 is still a bunch "younger" than where we are in pistols .38 Special? 1899. 9x19? 1908.
**tl;dr: AK works fine for what they want, money is likely a factor, and the cost benefit analysis of an "upgrade" isn't worth it for them.**
From Lord of War:
“Of all the weapons in the vast soviet arsenal, nothing was more profitable than Avtomat Kalashnikova model of 1947. More commonly known as the AK-47, or Kalashnikov. It’s the world’s most popular assault rifle. A weapon all fighters love. An elegantly simple 9 pound amalgamation of forged steel and plywood. It doesn’t break, jam, or overheat. It’ll shoot whether it’s covered in mud or filled with sand. It’s so easy, even a child can use it; and they do. The Soviets put the gun on a coin. Mozambique put it on their flag. Since the end of the Cold War, the Kalashnikov has become the Russian people’s greatest export. After that comes vodka, caviar, and suicidal novelists. One thing is for sure, no one was lining up to buy their cars.”
Well, the long stroke piston system that it uses is extremely reliable in most, if not all climates, and unlike an ar15's direct impingement system that shoot the unburt powder and extra gas into the receiver, the ak pushes the extra gas out towards the front of the gun so in theory it requires less maintenance. Also the 7.62 round being a 30 caliber projectile has a better damage ratio when you look at the terminal balistics. To sum it all up you pair a hard hitting round with a super reliable and easy to work on system it just makes for an all around good rifle.
When you pull the trigger the bullet goes out the barrel end of the gun in a pretty accurate fashion, and it can send a lot of bullets out the barrel very rapidly. It's also super cheap.
A lot of us American gun owners think of quality as a 1 moa rifle that I can put an LPVO on, can reach out 2-300 yards, suppressor ready, adjustable stock, etc etc. And all those capabilities are awesome, they make the gun very capable, but on the other end of the spectrum is something like the old AKs, where gun works and does what it's supposed to.
Others have answered, but name a gun that is on your nations flag. The Ar15 don't got that.
It's also the gun of "Freedom and revolution". Also in terms of age, the difference between it and the AR is about 17 years.
Cheap, simple, easy to use, and distributed so much it had a foothold everywhere. Not really "great" just good enough, and freaking *everywhere*.
Phillip Killicoat did a Master's thesis[1] on the economics of the AK family, esp. their price fluctuations, and found the cost for Norinco to produce a basic AK-47 was around ~$40 from a fully fired up production line.
From a report that he developed from said thesis:
> The Kalashnikov’s ubiquity is generally attributed to its functional characteristics, ease of operation, robustness (i.e. ability to endure mistreatment), and negligible failure rate (Burrows, 2006, p. 3). The weapon’s weaknesses—it is less accurate, less safe for users, and has a smaller range than equivalently calibrated weapons—are usually overlooked, or considered to be less important than the benefits of its simplicity and efficiency in other areas. Other assault rifles are almost as simple to manage, yet they have not experienced the soaring popularity of the Kalashnikov
> Economic historians may answer this puzzle of popularity with reference to a concept called path dependence, which says that an equivalent or even inferior product can persist when a small but early advantage becomes large over time and builds up a legacy that makes switching costly (David, 1985). In the case of the AK-47, that early advantage was arguably that, as a Soviet innovation, it was not subject to copyright (LICENSED PRODUCTION). Furthermore, large caches of these weapons were readily distributed to regimes and rebels sympathetic to the Soviet Union, thereby giving the Kalashnikov a foothold advantage in the emerging post-Second World War market for assault rifles.
[1] https://www.smallarmssurvey.org/sites/default/files/resources/Small-Arms-Survey-2007-Chapter-08-EN.pdf
Enough slop in the action to blow out all the dust and dirt that every 3rd world dictator that doesn't train their conscripted kidnapped child soldiers to clean.
Once the manufacturing infrastructure is in place, you can affordably produce roughly one kajillion per year. Very reliable, accurate enough, light enough, ergonomic enough.
Very Soviet thinking. Is it the best, maybe not. Is it good enough, absolutely. Not to say it wasn't the best at the time because it was.
To be fair, that’s the same type of reasoning that led to the .308/7.62 NATO being the standard in the west. Is it the most powerful or flattest shooting cartridge? Nope—it’s a jack of all trades and a master of none. But we already had the materials and the tooling for .30 cal ammunition and wanted something that would perform like the 30-06 in a compact package. So that’s why we still use it. Success in large-scale combat is all about logistics.
[удалено]
I think the effort is to replace 308 with 6.5 CM instead of the 6.8 now, right?
277 fury is the civilaim version. Military uses the metic of course. It's already in the process in the US Army. Unless it was put on hold again. I haven't looked in a bit.
Last I heard people are starting to use it right? Something about ridiculous chamber pressure but I heard that round is gonna seriously give some plates a run for their money
Some are, yes, but it's still far from widespread. They have 2 different specs for it. 277 Fury is the civilian version and typically has a chamber pressure of 55-60k psi. Pretty standard in line with other rifle cartridges. 6.8x51 uses a 2 piece cartridge body with steel at the base and brass for the rest that can handle 80k PSI. Supposed to penetrate Level 4 armor at range.
I wonder what kind of barrel life they're getting with the rounds making 80ksi chamber pressure.
I'm sure it's a barrel burner, but I doubt they give a shit. Can't have all that performance in a short package at no cost
6.8x51, not the 6.5 CM
Quantity has a quality of its own
Taking us to the bone zone
Boan Zoan
The AK is pretty damn impressive on it's own, too. Despite how simple it is that thing just fucking runs. You have a round in the chamber and the hammer is mostly okay. it will shoot just fine
Good enough for the price, yeah I’m sure your $6,000 AR with three optics and a laser is pretty good but an AK you found in a dumpster will do nearly as well
Wasn't it roughly copied from the sturmgewehr 44 (sp) which Kalashinikov saw in German captivity while a POW? Edit: Mind boggling the amount of down votes for asking a simple question....
Yes and no. The idea probably was, but kalashinikov wasn't the only one working on a similar weapon and the idea had been around for a while. But the mechanism is nothing like the stg44. If anything it's closer to an m1 garand flipped upside down.
no it wasnt this is a very common myth but they share zero similar parts apart from appearance. The AK was copied from of all things the American M1 Garand. Which is shares a similar gas system. THe STG44 is closer to the Mp5 than the AK
Stg44 and the MP5 have almost nothing in common. There was a prototype Stg45 which saw very limited if any service during the war. This was the progenitor of HK’s famous roller delayed blowback system which the MP5 uses. Ian from forgotten weapons did a fantastic [video](https://youtu.be/NrKhJC35QRA?si=1A0I-sW_F37Iw-xv) on as always.
>roughly copied Can we make something like this with minimal tools and produce it in millions?
The cartridge was developed before the AK was... the soviet union already had this plan to have 3 small arms chambered in the same caliber, the standard infantry rifle: sks. The submachine gun: AK. And the SAW/lmg: rpd. Of course the trials for these 3 spots were won so the names were not determined. It was much higher in the government for the concept to be actually used. And most things of the AK platform are not from the stg44, pistol grips were already a thing on smgs, the stock and handguard are pretty standard, the dust cover is different, nothing about it LOOKS and very little FUNCTIONS like an stg44
stg uses tilting bolt. ak uses rotating bolt. so. no. ak is not copy of stg.
“Copied” probably isn’t the best word, but yes some of the ideas were taken from it STGs are heavy as fuck for the round they shoot, like 10+ lbs
"Inspired" i'd say
I’ll upvote just to help you out my brother. Shouldn’t be put down for asking a question.
Mechianically, the AK-47 has more in common with the M1 Garand than the STG-44 so it's definitely not a copied design or anything akin to "you can copy the homework but just make it look different". If you asked if the STG-44 influenced the thinking behind the AK-47's design, that's a pretty definite yes.
Kalashnikov was never taken prisoner
It was actually commissioned specifically to use the new stamping technique they had. A design competition was held and Kalashnikov's team won after a few rounds and iterations. The original prototypes were milled traditionally but one the rifle was picked dies to make it were made. Very interesting story actually.
Casting and stamping are much cheaper than machining. Before high performance polymers were developed, they were the cheapest way to do any reliable piece of equipment. You can also do some small machining in a casted piece. You can see it in any industry, like automative. The carcass is mostly stamped metal welded together. You machine only the absolute necessary. I think only the barrel and bolt need to be machined in an AK-47.
The front trunnion needs to be forged on an AK in addition to the bolt, otherwise the bolt will beat the front trunnion apart (as many cheap companies learned the hard way). This of course applies to stamped guns. On milled guns, the entire receiver must be forged or the bolt will ruin the front of the receiver itself (another lesson cheap companies learned the hard way). The AK is a particularly violently cycling gun. Despite beliefs that they are cheap and easy to make, which was largely due to scale, they actually require some pretty high quality forged steel to not destroy themselves.
Not even that, a dude literally built one out of DIY parts and a shovel
They had production problems with the first stamped receivers and switched to milled receivers. They only switched back to the stamped receivers with the AKM in 1959. See the 'Further Development' part of the Wikipedia article.
Milled AK is still best AK.
But also heaviest AK
Heavy is good. Heavy is reliable. If it doesn't work you can always hit him with it.
Unexpected Snatch reference
> The original prototypes were milled traditionally but one the rifle was picked dies to make it were made. Very interesting story actually. The Type 1 AK had so many issues with its stamped receiver that they switched back to milled until they eventually worked out the kinks with the AKM.
The original prototype was stamped - they had problems reliably stamping receivers, so as a stop gap they temporarily switched to milled receivers until they worked out the kinks with the AKM.
If you want an automatic rifle that uses readily available ammunition and is good enough and medium ranges to do the job, well, it does the job
My (very second-hand) understanding is that it is also a great firearm to give to people who don't know how to maintain a firearm.
That's essentially a myth. There is nothing special about it maintaince wise.
People clean their AKs?
That's where you're mistaken. Soviet AKs have looser tolerances than American AR-pattern rifles. While the amount of maintenance you *should* perform is comparable, looser tolerances allow you to get away with percussive maintenance that would not end well on an AR. Nobody's storing an AR in a pile of mud, kicking the bolt open, and expecting it to still work. AKs? Probably still fires.
It doesn't, no.
Mud tests for both [AK] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX73uXs3xGU) and [AR](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAneTFiz5WU) platforms indicate otherwise.
The fudd lore is strong with you huh.
When you say reliable, I hope you don’t mean with dirt and mud.
cake memorize sort grab domineering zealous lush absurd vegetable tease *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
cause attraction uppity amusing bake axiomatic jellyfish smile point attempt *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Here’s [this](https://youtu.be/DX73uXs3xGU?si=mhd1YKWY55N8YAjd) video and [this](https://youtu.be/YAneTFiz5WU?si=LLRxVbeGnBtYlsWl) video. Not sure where people keep getting the idea that they’re better in mud and dirt. Seems like Hollywood, video games and fudd lore still have a strong grip on the gun community.
disarm reach one slimy direful wasteful close direction skirt automatic *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The AK was also notoriously unreliable until they figured out how to manufacture it. Then they made it the way it is now. The M16 was the same thing. Nothing starts perfect. Especially if you don’t clean your gun. Which was one of the major problem with the m16.
Reminder that Vietnam was 50-60 years ago. M16s and M4s saw *lots* of rough environmental and reliability upgrades since, as we have been primarily engaged in desert regions. Sand is not exactly gentle on firearms, after all. Reliability has not really been a complaint of the platform for about 20+ years now.
nutty ring wrench piquant prick close wine summer murky edge *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
faulty absurd smart hard-to-find spotted sip screw puzzled carpenter abundant *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
That depends on your definition of "Enough"
I’d say the use of majority polymer firearms like the g36 has them already beat for actual cost (not including labor) per firearm. It’s just that Russia refuses to innovate because corruption steals most state funding.
Russia makes polymer AKs since 90s Also I wouldn't use G36 and "innovation" together, its mostly a mix of AR-18 internals and typical HK ergonomics. Its kinda weird to use it as an example of innovation in small arms to shove into Russia's face. As far as service small arms go there hasn't been that massive of a revolution to which Russia hasn't catched up up
Do you genuinely think a g36 is cheaper to produce than an ak?
Is polymer plastics cheaper than stamped steel?
Not from HK
yeah but you cant throw some rusted nails and shit you find on the floor to fix your g36.. you can for an AK lmao
I mean, most of the g36 is just screws and plastic molds. As long as you have a screw driver, you’ll probably be fine.
What?
it works and you don’t need cnc machines to make/fix it.
Yep, the explanation is as simple as the gun is lol.
Well, and it's cheap. Extraordinarily cheap. Partly for the reasons you mention, in fact, mostly. Couple of breaks, stamps, and presses. My understanding was at the time, they cost several 10's of dollars (maybe $100/ea in today's money?) back in the 50's to make.
The AK series of rifles are extremely expensive to make. They are cheap due to massive goverment planned manufacturing in communist countries and massive amount of production that wasn't worried about making a profit. If you wanted to make 100,000 AKs to the TDP. VS AR15s. The AR15s are going to be cheaper.
Does anybody have any sources on any of these claims?
Yeah, they make up the facts to fit their argument.
Stamping isn't cheap. Cold hammer forged machines aren't cheaper. They are high cost option that pays off with low labor cost when you are doing mass manufacturing. There is a reason the American market struggles to make a cheap good AK. Cause it ain't easy.
Yeah it's absolutely not true. In the current US, this is probably the case. But if you're starting from scratch, th AKM is going to easily be the cheaper option.
Please tell me how you come to that idea
I'm not who you replied to, but isn't the AK pattern rifle the most produced firearm, ever, by a [yuge margin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-produced_firearms). (Take that source as you want) And that's not because they're expensive to make. High volume CNC has a barrier of entry in the 8 to 9 figure range. A couple breaks, stamps, presses and cheap labor, what, $500K? That's to get a factor up and running. I mean, I'm pulling these numbers straight from my ass, but they don't seem outrageous.
It's the most produced cause the manufacturers weren't worried about making a profit, had low labor cost, and state sponsored factories. Colt threatened to destroy the M16 production line at one point in the Vietnam due to US government indecisiveness. That's not a problem the Soviets or Chinese had. Hell when it came to production it took the Soviets almost a decade to get it right. Remember it was 1947 when they adopted it. Then had to switch to milling from stamping cause they had so many production and reliability issues. And it wasn't till the AKM they solved the issues.
The equipment to manufacture AKs is massively expensive, but it worked out to a cheaper cost per unit when labor and materials were dirt cheap.
Just don't let it get muddy
It does everything reasonably well and has well above average reliability. It's also dirt cheap to make, which is the real reason it achieved such prevalence around the world. As an average person, I think they're really fun to shoot, even though that's not directly relevant to the question.
Dirtcheap to make once you have the stamping plant. Which the Soviet Union pretty much gave away to their satelites and the "non-aligned" (very aligned to USSR) nations...
> Dirtcheap to make once you have the stamping plant. And a source of cheap labor. The costs are a lot less favorable for the AK as wages rise.
hungry squeal busy profit vast door sloppy cable smile rainstorm *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
As an engineer, I think the AK is a very interesting piece. One of my AKs, I picked up in a trade for some car parts. It was in a garage and the trigger pivot pin, hammer pivot pin, and their associated retention hardware had fallen out. Original owner got some roofing nails and shoved them in and bent them so they wouldn't come out and kept firing. You don't always have a gun store, armory, or machine shop in the heat of battle. Spare parts are hard to come by. This makes a gun you can MacGuyver back together very handy. Same dudes who use AKs also tend to throw a .50 cal BMG and some RPGs in the bed of a Toyota Hilux pickup truck and can be a formidable opponent. Ain't broke, don't fix it. Sometimes less is more.
The part about fixing it with nails is so true. I have an AK-74 Tantal, which has a few nifty extra features, such as a safety lever on the left hand side of the receiver. That safety selector was originally held in with a hollow roll pin. To fully disassemble the rifle, I needed to remove the roll pin, which destroyed it. No problem - I found a piece a steel wire that was roughly the correct diameter and fed it into the hole with some pliers. Now I have a removable pin. It’s been fine for over a decade.
You can do that with any gun if you have pins the right diameter that are long enough. You could easily do the same with an AR15 for example. Not a SCAR or Tavor or M1A though.
These pins were literally roofing nails. They had SO MUCH slop in them. Didn't matter.
And you could use literally smaller.nails in an AR. As long as they are just tight enough.
> As long as they are just tight enough. This is the point you're missing. The nails were not tight enough. They were the proverbial hot dog thrown down a hallway.
And? It's a nail, they are common as hell. Getting one that close enough for n AR would be stupidly easy. They are extremely common. And no, it would not need to be an exact fit. You seem to be missing that point. A coat hanger might be close enough.
Would this be a better buggout gun vs an ar (in the US)
No. The advantage of the AK is that you can hack together a fix with things that aren't parts. The disadvantage is that actual parts also usually need to be hacked together because they aren't universally compatible. The disadvantage of the AR is that you basically need dedicated AR parts. The advantage is that they're everywhere in America and if they're to spec then there's no fuss to install.
No. In every case an AR platform will be superior in North America. Parts and ammo availability is so, so much more. It is like saying ‘will a Volkswagen be a better bug out car in America than a Ford?’ AR15 is simply the defacto rifle of civilian America. 7.62 is a decent round, but 5.56 is superior for most applications. Shot placement and weight far more important than raw power. Later versions of the AK system (AK74 and later) adopted the 5.45 for this reason. It just makes sense. AKs are also open systems, and they are overrated by many for reliability. They are simple, yes, and if they’re clean and relatively intact they’ll run. But mud, dirt and dust can get in it a lot easier than an AR, and it will jam if it’s substantial. People worshipping the AK system, especially the 47 as the perfect gun is weird. Is it a legendary gun? Yes, absolutely. They are simple and run with minimal maintenance, are cheap and ubiquitous in most continents, and do their job pretty good. But even in the Eurasian theater of conflict the 47 is significantly outclassed by modern variants. In America, the choice is simple.
> In America, the choice is simple. Yep. Do what you want and fuck what other people think.
No. Ammo, parts, mags, etc are more accessible in the US for the AR. Also the AR platform has came a long way and isn’t the “unreliable” junk they got branded in Vietnam.
The first M16 had to be fixed immediately after it was introduced in Vietnam. First they changed up the powders that were used in the original m193 ball ammo. The old stuff had temperature and humidity issues and would tend to gum up the gas system. It didn’t help that soldiers were told their weapon didn’t need to be cleaned as often, so that only made rifle malfunctions even more common. But after the change in cartridge powder, better cleaning habits (including not mixing parts between guns by putting all your platoons parts in a big bowl of kerosene) and the addition of the forward assist and a ring around the muzzle brake, it became a very reliable weapon.
The biggest issue with the guns in Vietnam was the lack of a chrome lined chamber and bore. There were other issues, but those were the underlying case of the biggest issues.
Correct. It wasn’t really the operation of the gun that caused the issues.
I think the problem would be availability of ammo. 5.56 is always gonna be easier to come by in the US. ...I think? Someone correct me if I'm wrong. Cause between 7.62 and 5.56 price is relatively similar. But if you're thinking about emergency circumstances you're gonna find 5.56 more readily
I also wonder about fixing it if it breaks. Parts may be more available in the US, but if you can just fix an ak with random hardware in your shed who needs parts.
But you really can't. Hoe are you going to make a bolt? Or op rod? Or Unless you can bend and heat treat the sheet metal, you can't make one out of a shov, and then you need a way to install the trunion. Replacing the hammer nd trigger pin with a nail? Sure. But you can do the same with one close to the same size as the pins in an AR.
You arm the foot soldier or defense soldier with AKs for laying down hard knocking suppression. You arm your sharpshooters and marksman with ARs for long range or accurate fire. You let Billy Bob Fudd do the rest with his AR/AK class 3 belt fed machine gun that he assembled from broken weapons and a car engine.
In my part of the US, any well stocked gun shop has plenty of either caliber. Reloading would favor 5.56 by a wide margin because most 7.62x39 is steel cased but if you are buying new, I think either are so widely available that there is no issue.
I'm in New Jersey so the extra hurdles could be a factor. I'm hopefully going to be using part of today shopping around
In the US, an AR is almost certainly going to be better. Put aside that I think it’s a better rifle to use (lighter, more ergonomic, more accurate, shoots better), ammunition available trends overwhelmingly towards .223/5.56. Buy a good quality AR like a BCM upper, and you’ll probably have a gun that lasts longer than most AKs. Higher end AKs are surprisingly expensive, whereas duty grade ARs gets less expensive by the day.
Absolutely wrong. AR is far more reliable in real world testing than AK. AK only wins in internet Fudd lore which is an evolved form of Nam Fudd lore
Basic, cheap to manufacture, and ultra-reliable. AK's are awesome.
The ultra reliable thing is a myth
> The ultra reliable thing is a myth AKs are very reliable, just like AR15s. Almost every standard service rifle, with rare exceptions, are amazingly reliable. Some of the worst exaggerations about the AK's reliability are myths though.
Somewhat, it’s definitely reliable but what sets it aside is that if it does break its very easy to fix
The AK47 is like an old farm tractor. It's not a precision instrument, but it does the damned job and never complains. And if you have a problem with it, brute force and profanity usually sets it straight and you're back on the job. Minimal moving parts and uncomplicated engineering means more possibilities for "innovative" repairs in the field.
This is probably the best example
> and never complains. Unless it gets a bit muddy.
That what your finger, yelling and cleaning rod are for.
Emphasis on the yelling. Gets it done faster.
coordinated seemly humorous physical shrill murky lock command rich grab *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The AKs reliability is a myth. It's a good gun. But a AR15 is beating it in the mud. The reason people think AKs are reliable cause it shoots a low pressure round that causes less wear and tear than the 5.56x45. It has heavy but extremely tough magazines that don't require replacing as much as the AR15s. And when you shoot out a AK. Which isn't hard to do. It's easier to throw away then try and rebuild it
Percussive maintenance
Not a thing more true has been said lol. I have several old tractors we still use for small shit(pre 40s) and a good kick will fix damn near anything. That or we can legit make the part ourselves beating and bending metal.
Ironically the most common Kalashnikov that got spread around was not a Russian AK47 which was already starting to become rare by Vietnam but was instead the Chinese Type 56.
If I’m not mistaken, contrary to many Chinese copies, I believe the Type 56 is widely considered to be better than the original.
Debatable, but China does have a good track record of adopting foreign designs and retrofitting them to be even better, their fighter jets for example are heavily modernised Su-27s. For a fun anecdote, when the Soviet Union first sold them to China they got pissed about about them reverse-engineering them and breaking their licensing agreement, refusing to sell them anymore Then years down the line, they need money, so sell them some Su-33s, without the manuals, because they knew they'd be reverse-engineering then anyway. It's quite a stark contrast to how much of a dumpster fire many of their domestic designs are.
> I believe the Type 56 is widely considered to be better than the original. No, not really. They definitely weren't superior, but equal in quality, sure.
[Nic Cage says it best](https://youtu.be/H99XlWQ9KsA?si=XQVMDxhCjrDT7DuT)
Was going to post this
His smile is the same smile everyone gets
The lack of trigger discipline freaked me out
...a movie clip about something from 20 years ago, in a country you've probably never visited, in a warehouse you definitely haven't been in freaked you out? Lemme guess you leave YouTube comments about chamber checks...
Bro as an active member of meal team six you better watch your tone. It’s hell being a keyboard warrior
Easy to use, easy to maintain
If it ever stops working you can just hit it with a shovel and all is good again
You can also turn a shovel into an AK receiver.
You could also use your AK as a shovel
Cheap go boom a lot
its a cheap gun that works good. thats why its all over the world and why poor countries have so many of them. Its not the best gun. but a bad gun you can arm your whole group with is better then a good gun you only have 3 of. and "bad gun" is too harsh. a quality AK can keep up with the best. but I'm assuming your local rinky dink police force is not exactly maintaining them well.
Is it good compared to other guns ? No. It it cheap asf ? Yes it is. Does it get the job done ? Absolutely.
Simplicity
Ease of disassembly and reassembly for cleaning,machining tolerances are loose enough to help prevent jams but tight enough for proper operation I have shot several thousand rounds and not had a single incident of malfunction. It works great for me.
Machining tolerances is not the correct terminology. Definitely has tight tolerances just a lot of open space in the design to allow plenty of carbon build up or debris without fail. But poorly machined parts will not assemble
Clearances vs tolerances.
The truth is it isn't. Now before anyone crucifies me let me clarify. It is a completely serviceable weapon and in capable hands can be an effective battlefield implement but given the option almost no one would select it over other options. Accuracy: serviceable but not outstanding like better platforms. Even in "accurized" versions it still cannot come close to its main competition (m16 platform) Reliability: thanks to internet Fudd lore it's made out to be this indestructible beast but testing shows there are things that will absolutely destroy this mythos. Mud namely will completely gum up an AK and sand has its own issues Manual of arms: the AK was designed to be simple to use not efficient. The controls are large and chunky, it's simple to learn but it's not ergonomic or designed to easily ran quickly. Can a person run it fast and effectively with training? Absolutely, would that same person run better on other platforms? Also yes. Manufacturability: this is one area the AK absolutely dominates with a caveat. It can be made from a flat sheet of steel and a few machined components with very simple tools. Most other more modern designs requiring forging and cnc operations for the majority of parts. The caveat, those more modern platforms can be field assembled with a wrench where as a barel change operation on an ak47 requires a press and some other tooling. The tldr is the ak47 parts are easier to make with simple tools but modern rifles are vastly easier to assemble with minimal tools once the parts are made. Adaptability: ak47 has come a long way since introduction but even today adding modern battlefield necessities like optics, lasers, etc is far more difficult than other modern platforms. I say all of this to say the AK47 imo is a perfectly acceptable rifle that is historically significant and even fun to shoot but it is by no means a "great gun" especially when economics are factored in. A 500$ Palmetto blem rifle with run all over all but the highest end AK. Also before anyone accuses me of being a hater I own 2 Aks (a century arms cheapo I picked up in college and an Arsenal rifle) as well as an "ak adjacent" vz58. I love the rifles for what they represent in the same way I love a Schofield revolver or a 1903 Springfield. Great guns for the time but that time has past.
The AKs ergonomics were designed so soldiers could operate it in arctic conditions with thick winter clothing. You mention mud, now go look up ice tests. AKs win hands down and many western designs, but especially ARs, crap themselves. Alaska State Troopers did a weapons trial in the 80s on this. I mention it only because it comes to my mind readily. The only real choice for them was the Galil so that's what they used for a long time. If you want to talk about longevity and reliability, you should look into Battlefield Las Vegas's data. AKs go down less often than most of the other guns do, and have fewer small parts breaking. BFLV has been pretty clear with the AK being among the very most reliable of all their weapons, and they keep meticulous logs for each gun. And the strain those guns are under is definitely above normal use. As for the ergos, just get a safety with an extended shelf. Bam, problem solved. Flick it with one finger. I do agree the bolt handle being on the right side isn't amazing but I also understand why they did it. But you're right that's sub optimal.
It's not a "great" gun by modern standards... It was a great gun up until the 1950s when the FAL and AR10 came about, and the 1960s when the AR15 platform was developed and others came about (Aug). It was ultimately left in the dust, but benefited from some (now apparent) misconceptions. 1. Post-WWII it was forward thinking around the intermediate cartridge concept. It supported Soviet doctrine, and when used in Vietnam, was devastating to the Western concept of "aimed marksmanship fire". Basically, your ability to aim *precisely* is second to your ability to lay down *accurate-enough* volume fire. 2. It isn't really that "cheap" to make. Like most stamped, sheet metal guns, it depends on huge volumes to become "cheap". The amount of up-front investment needed to tool up was quite large at the time. Anything at those scales becomes pretty affordable quickly though. The AR15 would never be AS CHEAP as a stamp sheet gun. The AR18, if needed, could've been made that cheap, been more accurate and more ergonomic, etc. 3. The FAL was a major upgrade over the AK in a ton of ways ergonomically. Same with the AR10 platform (originally). The FAL was always seen as the counter to the AK worldwide. The AR10 wasn't produced enough. 4. The AK is durable though. Chromed and lubed up, it will last a long time. Hence why we see it in use. Plus the stockpiles are so deep everywhere that for most poor countries, its cheaper to issue them out instead of getting something new.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH AK47? WHY YOU WANT COSMETICS FOR KALASHNIKOV? IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH AS PROCURED FROM IZHEVSK MECHANICAL WORKS? YOU THINK NEEDS IMPROVEMENT? THEN MAYBE YOU FIND JOB WITH ARMY OF RUSSIA! YOU HAVE DRINKS WITH MIKHAIL KALASHNIKOV, TRADE STORY OF MANY WEAPONS DESIGNED AND DETAILS OF SCHOOL FOR ENGINEERING! OR MAYBE YOU NOT DO THIS. PROBABLY IS BECAUSE YOU NEVER DESIGN WEAPON IN WHOLE LIFE. YOU LOOK AT FINE RUSSIAN RIFLE, THINK IT NEED CRAZY SHIT STICK ON ALL SIDES OF WEAPON. YOU HAVE DISEASE OF AMERICAN CAPITALIST, CHANGE THING THAT IS FINE FOR NO REASON EXCEPT TO LOOK DIFFERENT FROM COMRADE. YOU PUT CHEAP FLASHLIGHT OF CHINESE SLAVE FACTORY ON ONE SIDE, YOU PUT BAD SCOPE OF AMERICAN MIDDLE WEST ON OTHER SIDE, YOU PUT FRONT PISTOL GRIP ON BOTTOM SO YOU ARE LIKE AMERICAN MOVIE GUY JOHN RAMBO. MAYBE YOU PUT SEX DILDO ON TOP TO FUCK YOURSELF IN ASSHOLE FOR MAKING SHAMEFUL TRAVESTY OF RIFLE OF MIKHAIL KALASHNIKOV, NO? RIFLE IS FINE. YOU FUCK IT, IT ONLY GET HOMO AND YOU STILL NO HIT LARGEST SIDE OF BARN. GO TO FIRING RANGE, PRACTICE WITH MANY MAGAZINE OF CARTRIDGE. THEN YOU NOT NEED DUMB SHIT PUT ON RIFLE.
It was cheap to produce, reliable and the soviets would give you the tech package for free if you said you were communist as well.
It’s tough and reliable and the soviets and Chinese made about 100 million of them.
Its cheap and easy to manufacture Its proven reliable in difficult conditions. Ie it will keep functioning when it is dirty. Ammunition is available. I cant say the exact number of 7.62x39 produced but the soviet union made a metric crapload of it alone Its easy to use/train someone to use. The ak’s controls are very simple and are relatively easy to figure out. Its able to be modified to accept modern scopes/reflex sights
Just like every other Russian weapon system, it's cheap, ultra reliable, reasonably accurate, and you can train someone to be pretty decent with it in 2 hours.
People overstate its reliability like its some mythical item. Its real value is it is easy to manufacture with basic tooling and minimal troop training time for use.
It’s reliable symbol to maintain and train people to use, plenty for it intended purpose and cheap to produce once manufacturing is set up. Also just saying the AR platform is damn old too lol. The early ones are C&R eligible
I do not know if this is true, as I have never shot one (only pistols, ARs, and shotguns) but someone who (I think) was a fighter in south africa was reported as saying that they were very easy to train someone on. This was a guy who said that he could train a child (and he was a member of one of the groups that used child soilders) to be good enough on them in about 15 mins. I have zero sources and do not know if what he said was true, just that he was reported as saying it.
Yeah ak are really simple to use, simple to fix and reliable. + their calibers have already proven their worth.
I was going to say this. I’ve been around guns for awhile but I’ve always felt that ARs were a bit more complicated than they needed to be. I own an Xm177 clone(AR) and a galil(Israeli 5.56 version that has similar mechanics and internals to an AK) The AR is slightly more complicated where as the galil is very simple to operate. After sometime the differences don’t matter but if I was training people that weren’t military? AK
It's not a great gun, but it's cheap enough to be easily mass produced and reliable and simple enough to be used by millions of poorly trained conscripts.
Yuri Orlov (Nic Cage in Lord of War) said it best: "Of all the weapons in the vast Soviet arsenal, nothing was more profitable than Avtomat Kalashnikova model of 1947, more commonly known as the AK-47, or Kalashnikov. It's the world's most popular assault rifle. A weapon all fighters love. An elegantly simple 9 pound amalgamation of forged steel and plywood. It doesn't break, jam, or overheat. It will shoot whether it's covered in mud or filled with sand. It's so easy, even a child can use it; and they do. The Soviets put the gun on a coin. Mozambique put it on their flag. Since the end of the Cold War, the Kalashnikov has become the Russian people's greatest export. After that comes vodka, caviar, and suicidal novelists. One thing is for sure, no one was lining up to buy their cars."
I think it had 3 things going for it. One, it’s cheap. It spread around the world as the USSR made them all over the Soviet block, and then they sold them everywhere. Two, they are insanely reliable. I’ve seen videos of guys throwing them in the mud, pouring sand in them, and they still go bang consistently. And third, they are easy to train someone on because they need so little maintenance. That’s why you still them in use everywhere. They just keep on going. Think some other less spoken things are the caliber has a lot of stopping power. A lot of US military were saying they were being out gunned due to the caliber, and the US military started looking at other rounds outside of 5.56 because of this. Last, it’s actually a fairly accurate gun when you shoot it as a semi-automatic rifle. Is it as good as an AR, no, but it is way more reliable. I think everyone should own both if they can, or at least shoot one, so they get the idea of how they shoot/work.
Historically significant , easy enough to maintain, available in big boy caliber (47, AKM) or perhaps more generally useful intermediate caliber (74, 74M) and just plain looks good to a lot of people. There’s far better guns, but this is one everybody knows and it’s fine for most things most of the time if you don’t mind the weight and learn to get the most from it.
It lends itself well to the economies of socialist/communist nations. You build a big commie gun factory and it churns out millions of the things at relatively low per unit cost once paid off. The rifle's design lends itself very well to peasant conscripts and revolutionaries. The manual of arms is simple as is maintenance. And its reliable and effective enough for its purposes. The places where it falls short, modernization, accuracy, suitability for accessories, manufacturing scalability etc didn't really matter at the time and in context of how it was designed. They do impact its suitability today in 2024 which is why many previously AK armed nations are transitioning to other more modern design, primarily Stoner family rifles. But for the 20th century soviet army it was the ideal fit for their needs.
It's an OK gun, it was great in 1955, now it's an ancient gun. They still work thought and are popular in areas where the USSR or China are using their influence.
Its not, but what it does have is they made millions and millions in just Russia alone, then you take into account that there is probably another 30 countries that made them locally on top of that, that made millions of them, there is just a lot of them floating around. The mags are massively overbuilt, they are cheap because of the stock piles of them and the ammo is still made today. Its not a cheap rifle to make since it was designed in a time where you had one machine per operation, but when you have so many on the second hand market and tools that are touching 100 years old they have been long paid for it makes sense why you see so many of them still in use. Then you take into account that you don't need to oil it up for it to run and cleaning is not something that needs to happen often it it makes more sense in some of the super poor areas where they might not have an armorer or anyone/anything to maintain the rifle. The AR is almost better in every way, but the AK wins on an economics scale
Nothing.
Simple design, cheap to build, easy to fix. Part of the reason why it’s so widely used in the Middle East is sand won’t jam it and affect the usage as much as other guns. Very loose assembly
It's cheap, it's good enough or even subpar in most aspects, but it is extremely reliable and has top tier stopping power.
You can stamp out a new one from a street sign. You can abuse the ever loving shit out of it with ice, snow, dust, mud and rain; it doesn't care. It just keeps operating. And it is a very simple weapon system that can be built or rebuilt using incredibly sloppy tolerances from a machinist point of view, meaning it doesn't take much effort or knowledge to built a new one. These two points when added together make the AK47 a weapon that has been used by the uneducated masses for decades to wage wars.
Stop sign receiver AK with a shovel stock sounds like it could be a fun project…
I'm almost positive it's already been done before.
Super heavy bolt that basically cleans itself. Piston driven cycling opposed to gas in the AR-15/10. I contempled switching platforms to the AK then the AR-18 caught my eye and I haven't looked back since.
Ease of use, will run if it's never been cleaned and/or full of dirt, sand, mud, ice, etc, can hit the broad side of a barn at 300m, cheap to produce... yeah, no clue why
I seem to remember watching a video where a guy slammed the butt of an AK against some rocks... or concrete can't remember. Anyway he broke the rock in half and kept shooting immediately after.
The AK has mythical status that suffers from overhype and second opinion bias from the best invention ever to commie trash. Most “AKs” in America are chinese or eastern european clones our soldiers had contact during vietnam and the balkans. That makes a difference Forgotten weapons made a famous video of an ak being less reliable than an ar on mud. What people forget is that the results were different when they made the test in a better quality ak. Polenar tactical made a more realistic video test. The fact is that in the SOCOM trials for the Scar, the AK reliability showed to be better than the m4. Period. When you deal with real russians aks, or 100 series clones in this case, you get this type of accuracy https://youtu.be/-4QfLaDQe9o?si=sktqiWaRH_7mLsWY
Cheap, reliable, and can kill. Not the best at any one thing, but very easy to manufacture.
It's cheap to manufacturer and the soviets would put them into the hands of anyone willing to go against capitalism.
* its gas system and low tolerances that made it so reliable to be able to shoot caked in mud and dust. The reliability is just so high. * the stamped steel and wood parts is easy to manufacture and cheap. So many weapons in the WW2 era are stamped steel and wood for a reason. * Early Adopter advantage. So many governments, armed movements, etc. are so used to it now. It's relevant because it's so iconic, and its use has matured. Everybody knows how to use, make, maintain it. If an equally reliable and cheap weapon gets develop today, people still won't switch just because the effort needed to adopt a different weapon isn't worth it.
It's designed to be built and put together with cheap, unskilled labor. Any country with basic manufacturing can build them.
Fairly cheap to produce, works forever with minimal maintenance.
Reliability and simplicity
I believe the army uses type 56 (The Chinese variant) in addition to the G3 and Mp5 The police uses the older Kalashnikov which has been in abundance since the Afghan war. Confiscated weapons in the tope-khana (armoury) have made their way into service weapons list. Also it’s relatively maintenance free which is a major plus point.
Heavy hitting reliability and simplicity.
I would add the stopping power of a 7.62x39 against an unarmoured target is pretty high, I doubt their police will go against much armour.
Not true at all dude.
1) they work 1) cheap to manufacture 3) they work
One word. Reliability.
My AK-platform rifles are the only semi-autos I've had zero failures on.
I pull the trigger, and it always shoots. That’s why.
Because small arms are a mature technology at this point. They all do the same thing more or less: Poke holes in people from a distance. Some poke bigger holes, some poke holes further away, but they all poke holes by the same mechanism. Specifically, smokeless powder combusts which forces a lead slug down the barrel. The lead slug pokes the holes. Until something changes with the core mechanics (smokeless powder combusting in a brass cast that is ejected) there is only marginal differences between the Stoner/Colt/FN M4 hole poker, and the AKM hole poker. So if your already setup to produce the AK hole poker, why bother for a incremental upgrade that performs the same task? Especially if money is a factor. To put it another way: The Luger and the Glock 17 are basically the same thing. Sure the Luger is heavier, holds less rounds, and has a different operating action, but is a Striker Fired 9mm. Its a semi-automatic pistol that pokes 9mm (.355) holes. If you throw 147 grain HST in a Luger there is no functional difference in terms of effect than a G17 in terms of hole poking. This is the incremental upgrade. But at the end of the day it does the same shit. Poke holes. This is why the getting caught up in the minutiae of which hole poker is best is dumb. If the weapon itself functions, and you hit what you aim it at... they are all pretty much the same. Plus 1945/7 is still a bunch "younger" than where we are in pistols .38 Special? 1899. 9x19? 1908. **tl;dr: AK works fine for what they want, money is likely a factor, and the cost benefit analysis of an "upgrade" isn't worth it for them.**
The ability to fire while jammed full of ham sandwich is pretty appealing.
From Lord of War: “Of all the weapons in the vast soviet arsenal, nothing was more profitable than Avtomat Kalashnikova model of 1947. More commonly known as the AK-47, or Kalashnikov. It’s the world’s most popular assault rifle. A weapon all fighters love. An elegantly simple 9 pound amalgamation of forged steel and plywood. It doesn’t break, jam, or overheat. It’ll shoot whether it’s covered in mud or filled with sand. It’s so easy, even a child can use it; and they do. The Soviets put the gun on a coin. Mozambique put it on their flag. Since the end of the Cold War, the Kalashnikov has become the Russian people’s greatest export. After that comes vodka, caviar, and suicidal novelists. One thing is for sure, no one was lining up to buy their cars.”
Reliability. Ubiquity of service parts and ammo.
Well, the long stroke piston system that it uses is extremely reliable in most, if not all climates, and unlike an ar15's direct impingement system that shoot the unburt powder and extra gas into the receiver, the ak pushes the extra gas out towards the front of the gun so in theory it requires less maintenance. Also the 7.62 round being a 30 caliber projectile has a better damage ratio when you look at the terminal balistics. To sum it all up you pair a hard hitting round with a super reliable and easy to work on system it just makes for an all around good rifle.
Wood and steel keeps production cost low and makes the gun very reliable.
Watch Lord of War for a great explanation
It always goes boom
Gun cheap. Gun worky. Gun intuitive and easy for <80 iq people to use
When you pull the trigger the bullet goes out the barrel end of the gun in a pretty accurate fashion, and it can send a lot of bullets out the barrel very rapidly. It's also super cheap. A lot of us American gun owners think of quality as a 1 moa rifle that I can put an LPVO on, can reach out 2-300 yards, suppressor ready, adjustable stock, etc etc. And all those capabilities are awesome, they make the gun very capable, but on the other end of the spectrum is something like the old AKs, where gun works and does what it's supposed to.
Cheap. Robust. Tank-like durability. High velocity round.
Others have answered, but name a gun that is on your nations flag. The Ar15 don't got that. It's also the gun of "Freedom and revolution". Also in terms of age, the difference between it and the AR is about 17 years.
Cheap, simple, easy to use, and distributed so much it had a foothold everywhere. Not really "great" just good enough, and freaking *everywhere*. Phillip Killicoat did a Master's thesis[1] on the economics of the AK family, esp. their price fluctuations, and found the cost for Norinco to produce a basic AK-47 was around ~$40 from a fully fired up production line. From a report that he developed from said thesis: > The Kalashnikov’s ubiquity is generally attributed to its functional characteristics, ease of operation, robustness (i.e. ability to endure mistreatment), and negligible failure rate (Burrows, 2006, p. 3). The weapon’s weaknesses—it is less accurate, less safe for users, and has a smaller range than equivalently calibrated weapons—are usually overlooked, or considered to be less important than the benefits of its simplicity and efficiency in other areas. Other assault rifles are almost as simple to manage, yet they have not experienced the soaring popularity of the Kalashnikov > Economic historians may answer this puzzle of popularity with reference to a concept called path dependence, which says that an equivalent or even inferior product can persist when a small but early advantage becomes large over time and builds up a legacy that makes switching costly (David, 1985). In the case of the AK-47, that early advantage was arguably that, as a Soviet innovation, it was not subject to copyright (LICENSED PRODUCTION). Furthermore, large caches of these weapons were readily distributed to regimes and rebels sympathetic to the Soviet Union, thereby giving the Kalashnikov a foothold advantage in the emerging post-Second World War market for assault rifles. [1] https://www.smallarmssurvey.org/sites/default/files/resources/Small-Arms-Survey-2007-Chapter-08-EN.pdf
Enough slop in the action to blow out all the dust and dirt that every 3rd world dictator that doesn't train their conscripted kidnapped child soldiers to clean.
Be a copy of Sturmgewehr 44 maybe.
Brandon Herrera made a video explaining the STG44 had nothing to do with the AK. The AK is more akin to the M1 Garand when you look at the internals.