If the AK-47 is such a good gun, then why does't America use them? Or at least reverse engineer one?

Question

It may be unamerican, but its better then being "unintelligent".

What about reverse engineering the AK-47 instead and learn to create a better american made assault rifle?

Answer 1

To some extent, it has to do with military doctrine and history. The Russians have learned some pretty hard military lessons. One lesson that they learned well is that most military rifle engagements are at short range (< 200 m) and the rifle must be absolutely reliable. If the range is short, accuracy is not important and they can use a design that is not inherently very accurate but is VERY reliable.

The US military has a different approach. They have a number of objectives.

1. Long range accuracy. The US battle doctrine has always wanted rifles that would allow the American soldiers to engage targets from 0 to 500 meters+. This goes way back to Sergeant York and the Springfield rifle.

2. More ammo. A soldier can carry twice as many M16 rounds as AK47 rounds. This means that US soldiers can lay down more fire per pound carried than those soldiers that use AK-47.

3. Light weight. The M16 is very light. It is easy to carry.

Answer 2

The AK-47 is not a 'good' weapon, especially not by today's standards. The AK-47 was/is a cheap to produce and deliver weapon, and could be dipped in mud, then fired.

It was the guerilla's assault rifle.

The US used reverse engineered AK-47's when they developed the M-16, and probably know more about how they work and why they are so reliable when dirty than the Russians.

As for that guy who says the M-16 is best, wake up. Soldiers in Vietnam would use AK-47's instead of M-16's because the M-16 was the US equivalent of a mass-producable piece of s***. Whilst the M16A1 has been replaced by the A2, its only advantage remains stockpiles, cost, and low training overhead.

The current *mainstream* US assault rifle with the best statistics is the M4A1 assault rifle. It beats the AK-47, AK-74, and M-16 in every way bar contaminated firing reliability (AK-74), and cost (AK-47). The US has more expensive weapons which are more reliable when dirty than the AK-74, also.

The reason so many people use AK-47's is because after the fall of the USSR, there were millions of the weapons, stored all around an area rabid with debts. They were sold for less than a dollar each, by the shipful. So every two-bit guerilla, rebel, or terrorist organisation can easily procure a lot of these weapons.

Answer 3

There are advantages and disadvantages to all weapons, the AK-47 included. The advantage of the AK is that it is a cheap weapon to make, it's receiver is of stamped steel. The tolerances in it are very loose and it takes alot to jam the weapon. The downside of loose tolerances is, loss of accuracy. The M-16 does much better at longer range.

The downside of the M-16 is tighter tolerances, which means that it's subject to fouling and it requires extra attention in dirtier climates. If the weapon is not clean, it will not work.

Both weapons are good as far as hitting power. The AK has less effective range, but puts up a nice wall of bullets. The M-16 is more accurate, and the wound channel left by the 5.56mm cartridge is pretty severe. Statistically, the M-16 puts more shots on target than an AK.

I see the U.S. going to a bullpup design sometime in the future, incorporating a 40mm grenade launcher attachment. This adds additional firepower to any infantry squad.

I think the Israeli Tavor design, perhaps with a 40mm launcher would be a good design to work from. It is much more accurate, and probably just as efficient as the AK design.

Michail Kalashnikov knew what he was doing, and there is nothing wrong with the AK. And that design will probably outlive all of us. But I don't see the U.S. adopting a Soviet designed weapon.

Answer 4

The Russians Designed the AK-74 to use a smaller round to be more like the M-16.

The US uses better weapons than the AK-47.

The AK is Durable and Cheap, those are it's only advantages.

Answer 5

The question is "Good at what?"

Essentially the AK-series weapons are engineered in such a way to fire almost every time you ever pull the trigger. To do so, it employs loose tolerances, a gas system that operates at a much higher force than usually necessary to function it, and a simplification of design to minimize excess parts. Manufacturing one is simple and--if it hasn't been done already--construction in the US is easily viable. Additionally, it is designed to be tolerant of abuse by poorly trained conscripts.

Why don't we use them?

Simple: The US military requires a weapon with better ergonomics and "long range" accuracy while providing the training for US soldiers to take advantage of it. All US Army recruits are required to have at least a GED and most are from a culture with enough of a technological background to handle a simple machine like an M16 without resorting to the simpler AK-series.

Additionally, the AR15/M16 series is a modular design that is easily modified, repaired, remanufactured, and accessorized which allows the weapon to be tailored for the tactical or operational needs such as the addition of a night vision sight and infrared laser to allow night fighting.

Answer 6

I don't know about the AK47. It's a cqc ONLY gun. It's just way too inaccurate outside 300 yards. Plus with that kind of recoil, its hard to hit anything with full auto.

BUT, the AK74 (No thats not a typo, there is an AK 74. Look it up.) seems like a better choice. The only reason why we don't use them is probably because of the hatred between us and Russia after the cold war.

Although, I'd pick a M16A2 over the ak74. (A shiny HK416 would be perfect. Look it up.) The only thing that makes the ak74 better over the M16A2 is reliability, and as long as you keep the m16 clean you don't really have to worry about that. The m16 could be better though.

Answer 7

like all things, the AK-47 has advantages and disadvantages. it's advantages include being very reliable (you can use it straight away after pulling it out of a swamp where it lay the past 6 months...), rust resistant, having hight rate of fire and using powerful rounds. it's main disadvantages include it being highly inaccurate for an assault rifle, partially due to it's heavy recoil, and relatively heavy (including having heavier ammunition).

many tried to reverse engineer it, but it's nearly impossible without knowing the exact composition of the metals used to cast it's parts, which gives the firing mechanism it's sturdiness. there are some close matches, though, namely the Israeli "Galil".

Answer 8

America does use the AK-47....or at least did, because at the time the only U.S rifle we had was the Browning assault weapon, but the U.S doesn't use the AK47 anymore. Now the U.S Armed Forces(Spec ops) uses the newer AK called the AK74 and the AK109.

Answer 9

Its not very accurate, and its been replaced by newer models. The Russian army switched from 7.62 rounds to 5.45 and adopted the newer AK-74 and its variants years back.

Answer 10

the circa 1945 Kalashnikov is the best firearm ever produced but, 7.62 by 39mm round is not a NATO and can not be purchased any where in the world on the other hand the 5.56 NATO and the 7.62 NATO or more commonly known as the 223 and the 308 you can get any where in the world. the 7.62 by 39 round is accurate up to about 250 yards if u know what your doing the 7.62 NATO is accurate up to 1000 yards with a stable shooting platform and a scope that compensates for wind and yardage. the Russians also produced a 7.62 by 54mm round that is similar to the 7.62 NATO