Everybody I’ve ever known in military service (or who is a gun nut) mostly agrees that the M16 (and its variants, like the Colt C7, which is the Canadian equivalent) is a piece of crap and that the AK47 is a much better rifle, mostly because the latter is the most reliable gun ever made and the former jams if you look at it funny.
So why hasn’t some gun manufacturer backwards-engineered the AK47, given it a fancy new name that is vaguely sexualized, and made a lot of money? Serious question.
Related Articles
20 users responded in this post
I’m not sure you can sexualize a Kalashnikov, really. It’s ubiquitous with modern combat on the cheap, and I don’t think something that’s become so lowest-common-denominator gets sexy. It’s like Unix. And it’s been reverse-engineered a ton of times, and there’s millions of illegally-manufactured 47s already out there.
It is a design marvel, though, an example of efficient engineering, for better or worse. (Though I think I’ll never be able to fully accept it as anything but an instrument of evil just because the Cobra Officers came with them.)
This is interesting, because — I should mention here that I am no kind of gun guy at all and know nothing of what I’m talking about — I read in Victor Milan’s excellent novel _Wild Cards XII: Turn of the Cards_ that the M16’s jamming problems had been fixed, that the AK was significantly heavier, and that the AK’s safety switch was too loud. Has Milan misinformed me, or was he only talking about the guns of the Wild Cards universe?
Last night, on the Discovery Channel’s FutureWeapons show, they showed a gun called the MAGPUL MASADA ASSAULT RIFLE [http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=975 has a sort of review of it] where it can be taken apart and put back together in various ways… including to use non-NATO rounds, such as those used by an AK-47.
Because it is not reliability and practicality that sells anything, not even weapons.
It is like asking why not reverse engineer a soda into normal water and sell it in a bottle with a fancy name because nothing gets rid of the thirst faster…
… wait a minute… they already did! Never mind then…
But seriously, because nobody would make money of it. The big everybody looking for big defense (or any) contracts is looking for… is not just something you can sell once, but for which you can supply an endless steam of upgrades and support. Anything that actually works in the long run would lessen the profit.
Just look at the computer industry.
Weapons in the west (excepting israel) are generally made for peace, not war.
So of course we end up with missiles misfiring while on the ground due to heat, things jamming because of dust or water, and planes unable to lift before a team of people sweep the runway for every little bolt that could get sucked into a jet engine… (gotta love the Mig29 in that respect).
Matthew, I’m not really a gun guy either, but I have friends who are, and the general impression I get from them is that the base design of the M16 is periodically upgraded, at which point those you would expect to exclaim “now it is the best rifle ever” do so, and that these exhortations are almost always uniformly bullshit and the gun still jams all the time, especially when it is put in a situation where it is likely to be wet or dusty (IE, “most of the world”).
The AK47 is certainly heavier than the M16, though, to be sure, because it’s a 7.62x39mm rifle as opposed to the 5.56x45mm ammo the M16 and its variants/descendants use. The other criticism the AK gets is that it’s a bit less accurate than the M16 is, but I’ve read a fair amount of debate on the topic – gun enthusiasts tend to pick sides on the issue of the AK versus the M16.
Well, MGK, the answer revolves around contracts. The m16 was initially developed as a weapon for air force MPs. Then money found it’s way into a senators or two back pockets, and with the way these things goes, the m16 makers got a huge contract in return, and that’s the way it’s been ever since.
Actually, the weight of the gun has less to do with its ammunition and more to do with its materials: the M16’s non-mechanism components (stock, etc.) are largely manufactured from what are, essentially, plastics. It’s light, it’s easy to tote around, is shatters like glass if you try to use it in close combat in cold climates. The AK is mostly wood, and heavy wood at that. In addition, it was manufactured by people that remembered the lessons of Stalingrad: sometimes, you’re going to run out of ammo, and you want a nice heavy club to hit a guy with.
I am equally terrified of them both. But I’m also afraid of BB guns. And super soakers. So, I actually don’t know why I’m posting in this topic…
The M16/C7 isn’t a piece of crap. It is much more accurate than the AK-47.
The advantage of the AK is that it’s easier to use by untrained militias and that it still fires when full of sand.
However, when you have professional soldiers with a rigorous cleaning discipline, the C7 wins any competition.
That being said, the Ross Rifle kicked the Lee-Enfield’s ass on the range. It wasn’t until it was used in mud filled trenches that its serious shortcomings became apparent.
Soldiers use M16s.
Farmers use AK-47s
You know who else uses AKs? Child soldiers in Africa.
That really has nothing to do with anything, but I just thought I’d throw that out there. One of the benefits of being easy to use in undisciplined traditional military conditions is that they’re a lot easier to sell on the illegal arms market. Like I said, that has nothing to do with this discussion, particularly. But it is interesting to note how certain technologies manage to fit perfectly into certain… well, let’s just say “messy” situations.
It seems like a tremendous advantage to be able to fire full of sand, or after being immersed in water, or to have fallen in the mud. I’m no soldier, but it seems like even the professionals with rigorous cleaning discipline can’t stop in the middle of a fire fight to clean out weapons that require they be immaculately clean to function. It seems like you would want soldiers who deploy by sea, or go into dirty conditions, to have a weapon that has the ability to retain functionality like the AK has. And if you’re going somewhere dirty, it seems like it’d be tough to keep the cleaning equipment and tools clean too.
Questions like this one are one reason why I watch FutureWeapons on the Discovery Channel. It’s hokey and overly jingoistic at times, but the weapons and weapons systems they show are often fascinating (and way kewl even to this non-gun-nut)–and since they can generally only show things that have been at least partially declassified, the actual state of the art is going to be a bit beyond what they actually show.
Episode guide at Wikipedia. On that show, I’ve seen a gun that can be fired on fully-automatic without jamming while being rotated 360 degrees around its long axis, a machine gun that can be fired without significant cleaning after being buried in sand, and a machine gun that can be fired without significant cleaning after being immersed in water. Several of the machine guns on this program have been described as the “successor” to or “replacement” of the M-16, though obviously that hasn’t exactly happened yet. The aforementioned Masada and the Knight PDW from last night’s episode are the latest to get that label on the show.
As I recall, a company did reverse engineer the AK-47. The Israelis did, and their weapons are based on the AK47. They even took the whole “beat people with clubs” aspect of the weapon, and made it with heavy-duty stuff.
I was in the U.S. Army for 6 years back in the 1970s. The M-16’s jamming problems occurred early in its production cycle and were the result of improper maintenance rather than problems with the weapon (specifically soldiers using far more oil and gun grease than called for, thus accumulating grit that jammed the weapon). It also had a problem with the early flash surpresor on the muzzle; the first models had an open muzzle surpressor that looked like an elongated crown, the next models had a tube-like supressor with openings along the side (the crown-like supressor had a tendency to snag booby trap trip wires).
It’s a good, reliable weapon, better than the AK-47 for professional military personnel. As several posters above have cited, the AK-47 is a more suitable weapon for militias, armed rabble, drug dealers, gang bangers, etc.
Also, apparently the Chinese among others did reverse-engineer and sell AKs into various markets — namely the Middle East — and in so doing obviated many of the reliability advantages. As one ex-Beirut resident told me, “You pulled the trigger a couple of times and then had a very excellent club.”
The AK-47 is a (relatively) simple piece of machinery. The parts are (relatively) loose compared to its contemporaries (this was to make it easier to mass produce, and so that it could operate in the worst environments that northern Eurasia had to offer). Of course, loose parts for weather adaptation makes for less accurate fire. Still, I’d rather have an operating inaccurate gun than an inoperative accurate one.
Really the trade-off is accuracy in favour of price and reliability.
The simplicity of its design has lead to numerous counterfeits, reverse-engineerings and improvements over the years, and (due to it’s affordability) it is now one of the most prominent assault weapons (particularly in the areas Bianca mentioned).
If everybody you know agrees that an M16 is a piece of crap, then you don’t know enough people. Because if you actually have a reasonable sample size, you will never get a unanimous response. It’s like saying “everybody I know is a Republican” or “everybody I know is Christian” or “everybody I know hates hip-hop.”
Some people prefer AK-47s (the people you know.) Some people prefer M16s (see reader responses above.) There is no right or wrong in this case — only subjective personal preference.
Sweeping generalizations tend to be a bad idea. And in this case, I think the generalization (M16s are crap) is an inaccurate one.
The majority of the buyers for AKs are what we’d call terrorists, and governments with… questionable practices. It’s hard to market to that, especially when they already have a pretty direct pipeline to the existing supply of Russian surplus and Chinese knockoffs.
Let me tell you a little story I recently heard about my uncle.
My uncle is a military equipment fanatic. He bought himself a rifle, added a dozen fancy attachments including a high-powered scope, decked himself out in military sniper gear, and now fancies himself a sniper.
He bought a very good rifle, as I’m sure he is aware. However, as this rifle is a close civilian approximation of the M4 carbine, a weapon used for close-range maneuverability that does not have any power or accuracy at a range, this is rather silly.
Keep this in mind when you’re talking to people who are ‘in the know.’ They often overlook specifics, in favor of which weapon is ‘better.’
I’m curious which model of M16 your friends used to make this judgment. Forced to choose between the M16A1 and the AK-47, I will take the latter. Offer me the M16A2 instead, and I’d go with that.
Bunny of doom is closer to the truth than most would care to admit. This isn’t to say the A2 or M4 are anywhere near as shite as the original, but every few years or so they are tested and found somewhat wanting against newer and improved candidates (the M4 came dead last in a dust test against three others, though admittedly one of them, the XM8, is shite in so many other ways that one must first worry about certain parts of it melting).
At a certain point, however, the larger issue becomes that of logistics, regardless of how unwholesome the politics to get to said point in the first place. I’m not sure how often you skim gun blogs, but a glance at the following is rather clear: http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2007/11/stuck-on-you.html
(This does assume the scope of your question strictly concerned replacing the M16 and M4 in the United States armed forces. If we’re talking about reverse-engineering the AK-47 for a civilian market, this has already happened for several entities, and cannot be monopolized if only for the sheer ubiquity of the original. Other modernized countries already do this so well that some US companies purchase their copies, and without needing to machine higher-quality internal parts, tack on tacticool accessories, call it ‘custom,’ and jack the price; Russia had come up with a shotgun using a similar design (the Saiga) and the civilian customer base for that back stateside is substantial enough to be considered a separate niche.)
A couple of police and military units in other countries. and to some extent even in the United States, have already adopted one of the rifles that have been tested. This is not without precedent–a significant part of how police weapons, especially duty pistols (excluding Glocks), are contracted involve being too expensive in the face of a military budget, yet just fine for local and federal law enforcement since the numbers aren’t nearly as large. Case in point: whether or not the Sig P226 is actually superior to the Beretta 92F, both were the only pistols that passed the 1984 trials to replace the 1911, and the latter won out simply because it cost a couple hundred bucks less to manufacture.