doublegunshop.com - home Forums I want an AK47 and don't know anything about them

I had several of these including ones which took detachable mags. I never converted one myself but my understanding is it's relatively easy.
And yes converted they take standard AK mags.
Jim

I own and have built a number of Kalashnikovs.

The best AK-47 quality I have personally seen are the Polish AK-47s, followed closely by the Russians, Yugos and Bulgarians. The Chinese are varying in quality but very good and sometimes great. In AKMs again I would rate them Polish first and Russian second.

If I were closer to Amarillo I would assist and supervise you building one for yourself from a kit. I have the tools and such.

If I were purchasing one a new today, I would buy a Yugo PAP M92 as a pistol, and submit a Form 1 to the BATFE, and upon approval Install a Butt Stock and have a good example of a "Krinkov" style Kalashnikov will all Zastava Parts !


Here is a Polish AKMs Unfolder I assembled a year or so ago.



If you really want to be effective out to 500 yards go with a AK-74 in 5.45x39, at 500 a 7.62x39 is running out of steam.


The weak points on any AK are the US 922r compliance parts.

The following is my opinion. Based on my 27 years of using the AR platform in the form of the M16A1, M16A2 , M4, AR 15 and limited use of the AK47. I have been a certified instructor of the M4/AR series for more than 15 years. I have carried the AR platform on numerous deployments including 4 years worth of tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am a gun guy and have always looked, listened and learned during these tours, asking users, operators and shooters about their weapons performance and gear.

The short answer is that its not so much the weapons system but the training you have or get and the proper maintenance of the weapon and magazines. That being said, I am not a fan of the AK. Its okay, I just like the AR platform better. I know that the tactical gun cognoscenti regale the reading public with tales of the rusty old AK that keeps on ticking. Hell, the joke goes that when the inventor of the AK 47, Mikhail Kalashnikov died, he was buried and a week later he was dug up and put back to work designing guns. Get it? I guess you had to be there.


Anyway, the AK was designed for production in factories that made farm implements and designed to be used by soldiers with 3rd grade educations. While some of the American made Ak�s are fairly accurate, they don�t compare to an AR platform.
The caliber controversy will always be with us. The 7.62x39 has a nominal 123 gr bullet and is a 30 cal (.310) bigger hole means more leaking. Or use the 5.56 and choose a quality round designed for self-defense. The Hornandy TAP or Black Hills MK262 77 gr or similar rounds are good.

But the basic rifle platform is the question. Ergonomically, there is nothing out there that comes close to the AR platform. The controls are intuitive and easy to reach and manipulate. The AR system allows for much easier, faster and more positive magazine changes than the AK. Now granted, training is the key but in and out is easier than hook and pull back. You also use the firing hand to release the magazine when using the AR instead of having to use the weak hand that has the spare mag to dump the empty mag out of an AK while manipulating the other mag at the same time.

Safety manipulation is much easier with the AR. Sights are better on the AR. Weight goes to the AR (provided that you don�t hang a ton of useless crap on the rails) The trigger is better on the AR, accuracy is btter with the AR.
Reliability is considered the one thing that separates the AK form the AR. In the world that all of you live in, you are not going to be conducting mounted and dismounted patrols in dust storms, rain storms, snow storms, etc. You will not be getting into protracted fire fights. You are going to want a weapon that allows you to engage multiple targets with multiple shots to stop a threat. You need to be able to have a couple of extra magazines and be able to hit with some certainty.
Try both of them. Stay away from the under folder AK�s. They look cool but that stock sucks. It�s the worst of all of the folding AK stocks. Not rigid at all.

My recommended set up would be an AR 15 SBR with 10.5� barrel, a good suppressor by Gemtech or AAC, or of similar quality, MagPul MOE buttstock, Aimpoint T1 in a Larue mount and a good set up back up iron sights (BUIS) and half a dozen MAG PUL magazines and some other magazines (all numbered) for training. If I lived where terrain is more open and shots may present themselves over 100 yards, I would put a Trijicon ACOG TA31 on it. (I can use the T1 for up to about 75 yards and then I want an ACOG. My eyes aren�t what they used to be and I get a comet tail on the unmagnified dot which makes precision hard. A good 2 point sling from Vickers Blue Force and a battle belt with mag pouches, dump pouch, a couple of CAT tourniquets and a blow out kit with basic first aid gear. A good folding knife and find a good place to train and get some training. And then get some more training. And then at least a yearly refresher; from a reputable trainer.

Bottom line: training is more important than the platform you choose. As long as it is reliable, either will do.

Just my 2 cents in an abbreviated response. It gets way deeper than this but I am trying to keep this brief.

Excellent information from both postoak and Brian. I have no real disagreement with either of your opinions.
I maintained both AKs and M16s in a tough environment in that these were rental guns receiving far more use that anything you'd ever expect from a service rifle.
I don't remember the round count on any of these but as I stated earlier one of the 28 Thompson rentals had over a million rounds through it.
We get bus loads of tourists in and sometimes these rentals would have to run through a couple of thousand rounds without even a cursory cleaning. This was particularly true on weekends when the gunsmithing area wasn't staffed.
The bottom line was the AKs were simpler and quicker to maintain then the M16s. The platform tradeoffs in accuracy, ease of use etc. have been well covered by the two gentlemen in the previous posts.
I personally would not feel undergunned with either of these weapons in a situation where I had to be able to defend myself and my family.
Jim

I have Kalashnikovs and Armalites - when it absolutely must go bang I will go with a Kalashnikov or maybe a FAL.

I have a question that someone like Brian could maybe shed a little light on. Why didn't the military ever develop a rifle specific to close quarters combat? I, a never having served civilian, suspect a short, large handgun caliber rifle would have been supremely useful in an urban setting-think something along the lines of the Ruger .44 magnum carbine, not a true military rifle as such, but, the closest example of what I am trying to illustrate. I would think a rifle similar to those dimensions, and using .44 magnum or perhaps .45 ammunition would take the fight out of a close quarters situation fairly rapidly and perhaps with more authority than either .22 or .30 caliber weapons. Perhaps one or two guys in a squad using the short, big caliber rifle, would be efficient.
Anyone?

Best,
Ted

One possibility, ammo. From manufacturing, same case head size as the 9mm, cross compatibility, weight the foot soldier has to carry. I'd worry about being the one fellow with the odd sized round when supplies are running low.

A definitive stopper is likely preferable in many situations. My understanding was the .22 cal is more likely to strain troop support and morale of the enemy rather than just kill efficiently. Only two cents here.

Ted:
Both the Thompson SMG and the M1 Carbine were developed as short range defensive weapons for close quarters combat.
IMO: To this day: If you have a bunch of low lifes to deal with within 100 yards a Thompsom SMG would be hard to beat.
Jim

The Thompson makes sense, but, I don't believe it has been in theater for many years.

I have a friend who's youngest son was actually on the ground in Bagdad, about a week and a half before we saw G.H.W. Bush light the sky up on the evening news. His story is not a good one, but, I digress. His issue weapon for initial building clearing was a military shotgun. His opinion was that it was a little bit too effective, and lead to loss of life that was unwarranted in the beginning, and that firing a shotgun indoors brings on a whole host of problems specific to that weapon, particularly at night. I'm not positive the results would be much different with the Thompson, at least on the full auto setting.

There, but for the grace of God....


Best,
Ted

Given the recent price drops of ARs, Why would you want an AK? True, its very robust, I used one during my OPFOR days out at the NTC, but the AR is clearly a higher quality weapon. They're only $630 now at my local Wal-Mart...