OT AK-47's used by US soldiers

I recall a one year old experience. My friend and I went to a gun range to shoot an AK-47 clone (one of the better ones, wilth milled receiver and muzzle brake). At the gun range, there is a "pit" full of junk where people usually take their semiauto rifles for some relaxation and good time.

There were a few fit looking young men with short haircuts who had some AR-15s with them.

So we had fun shooting at pumpkins, both us and them. They would hit a pumpkin maybe 75% of the time, and we maybe 50% of the time. What's interesting is the effect our shots had on the pumpkins. Their bullets would simply go through a pumpkin. Our bullets would explode a bug pumpkin chunk off the pumpkin. So they would be shootin and shootin and the pumpkin would still be there, and we'd shoot at it a few times and it would be all disintegrated.

I am not saying that somehow that proved our gun to be superior in battle, it did not, I am sure that the pumpkin-soldier would be just as dead from being punched through as she would be from having a chunk blown off her. But it was fun to see a very obvious diff.

i

That prob should've read "..are most effective when subsonic ammo is used," because all a suppressor does is to significantly reduce the muzzle blast -- as Mr. Glickman implied below, it cannot affect the 'crack' of the projectile breaking the sound barrier -- if you want total silence, you must use sub-sonic ammo.

AK 47s were made in many different places.It was designed by a Russian officer named Kalishnakov. The Soviets made them. So did the Czechs, the Red Chinese, Hungary, and East Germany.

They were not all exactly alike. It's a typical Russian design-simple,cheap to manufacture, rugged, and not fussy about different makes of ammo.

I shoot the semi auto verson called the SKS, which uses the same ammo.I love it.

The SKS and the AK47 use the same ammo, but that is about the extent of their similarities. The SKS is a gas operated bolt action, like the M1 Garand, with a milled receiver. The AK47 receivers, while they can be milled, are normally stamped. The SKS was designed to only be a semiauto, while the AK47's genesis was as an machine gun. I love my SKS too!

Not really. An SKS is a totally different design than an AK-47. Here are some pictures:

It is pretty obviously not the same rifle. Same ammunition, tho.

Mike Eberlein

Joe Bruno wrote:

Actually, I doubt that's the reason at all. US troops want something that works, and are pretty inventive when they have to be. And they don't wait for "permission" to be inventive.

Mike Eberle> Lawrence Glickman wrote:

As I understand it, there are two reasons that they are getting popular. Urban close quarters shooting causes miserable echos. It's hard to communicate over the noise, and allows the soldiers to shoot and still retain their hearing for tac purposes. Second is that the actual shot location is much more difficult to determine when dealing with a sonic crack echoing off surrounding objects. Advantage to the shooter, subsonic ammo or not.

Cheers Trevor Jones

I am posting my answer to you here too. I already sent it to your email address.

Have you sat through any ROE or Law of Armed Conflict (Law of War, in the US) briefs? It all gets covered in pretty gritty detail.

Use of unauthorised weapons in other than desparate times is a biggie for getting too deep in shit to contemplate. Picking up the enemy's dropped weapon during a firefight is considered within the reasonable, though potentially unwisedue to potentials for booby traps, while carrying the enemy's arms during regular supported operations is only going to happen if there has been some command level authority given.

I dug around online and found the actual Rules of Engagement card that is issued to the troopies over in Iraq. It differs not a whole lot from what I was given when I went to Bosnia. One of the things on the ROE card, is a reminder to comply with the Law of War, and to report violations. One of those laws is to not use unauthorised weapons.

The LOAC/LoW cover pretty much the things that are covered by the Geneva convention, plus a pile of other stuff that relates to culturally sensitive buildings or sites, and a whole pile more. In my world, ROE's and LOAC are annual briefs, of about 4 hours total, and that is ramped up considerably during pre-deployment training, and further reinforced with updates while in theater.

I sat through a total of about 16 hours of briefings on ROE's prior to my last deployment (Bosnia 2005), including many scenario talkthroughs, and some practice excercises,and was required to sit through another brief within 24 hours of arrival in theatre. I have no doubt that the requirements are as thouroughly applied to the US troops.

I have no doubt that the troops are inventive. They are also well supported and equipped in a manner that will keep themselves and their commanders from getting thrown into a military prison for violating the Law of War. They are professional soldiers, well trained, and suitably equipped. If they are using other than a US issued weapon, someone authorised it.

The comments I have found online mostly reflect that the US soldiers are a competent, professional force, that is fairly well satisfied with the tools they have. I have seen some refs to Armored troops being underequipped, and authorised to use captured weapons after they (the weapons) had been inspected, and after the troops had demonstrated a level of competency with them. I have also seen some of the "Lessons Learned" type documents that discussed what worked well or poorly, and what could be done to improve the lot of the grunt up front. AFAIK much effort has been put forth by the US military to speed the procurement and adoption of such as they have determined themselves to be lacking.

Cheers Trevor Jones

Here is a bio of "Sargent" Kalashnikov he was at highest military rank in combat a tank commander. However he was self-taught inventor/ engineer of the highest caliber.

Some time if you catch it re-running on history channel or discovery, you can see a video that was made in the 1990s where Eugene Stoner went to Russia to meet Mikhail T. Kalashnikov, where they meet and disscuss things in general and guns in particular, and the history of their inventions -- through an interpreter, Mr. Kalashnikov does not speak English and Mr. Stoner did not speak Russian. Eugene Stoner (inventor of the AR-15 family of weapons) died soon after that.

They also did some shooting at a range and showed off some of Kalashnikov's newer creations trying to capitalize on western civilian market and his name (semi-auto shotguns). He also now sells a brand of Vodka. Stoner was a multi-millionaire who owned his own plane that he flew to Russia, Kalashnikov is doing much better than the typical still living Russian WWII vet, but the difference in wealth was enormous and very visible. I think Stoner paid to have the film made as much as anything to aknowledge Kalashnikov's achievements.

The first photo on this site is from that film and shows Kalashnikov and Stoner each holding the other's design weapon.

FYI in that video Kalashnikov thinks like most of you that the smaller caliber weapon is a bad idea as an infantry rifle, and was very vocal with party bosses about it when the USSR started making the AK-74 design that copied his mechanism but used a 5.45mm cartredge (about the same size as the M-16 5.56mm), rather than the 7.62 Russian. He said they were copying the Americans just to be copying.

Stoner respectfully disagrees, and thinks that smaller caliber weapons are better from the perspecive of the Army as a whole.

The tolerences on the parts are actually pretty tight I understand. The thing is the clearances between moving parts are large enough to not be jammed by nearly all dirt or sand particles. Some people who do not understand think the tolerences are loose. It is jsut that the clearence between parts is large enough that most girt will not jam it, while with most other design weapons it will.

No that was a different rifle designed by another fellow that Kalashnikov worked for for a while at the Red Army weapons development facility. See the last site I posted for his name, it is in that site and lists him as the designer of the SKS.

Actually, there is not a lot of difference. At least according to a couple of AFIP pathologists at a pathologist convention I attended. While larger, AK rounds mostly just punch on thru, while 223 tumbles, fragments, and transfers its energy more efficiently, resulting in "explosive" effects. According to the studies, it is pretty much a draw in terms of stopping power overall.

It might be an advantage to the soldier in the field. But it won't take long for the enemy to figure out what is going on. Then they will be making and using them. It is so simple to make one, that I'm afraid to post any details here for fear of being arrested. Not that I have any use for such a thing myself. It is just something I picked up over the years ... 40 years of shooting sports.

One might note that if you even have the materials to make a silence/sound suppressor, you may be arrested and jailed for THAT! It has happened before. Perhaps many times.

It doesn't make any difference to me one way or another what soldiers use to kill eachother. I didn't start this war, and I won't be fighting in it. Let the gladiators decide how they're going to do their jobs.

Lg

On 12 Apr 2007 17:06:33 -0700, with neither quill nor qualm, "Al Montestruc" quickly quoth:

Both the AK/SKS and AR videos on The History Channel were great. My newest acquisition is an SKS and I already love it from just a few mags of practice. 'Twas DAMNED well worth the $100 I paid for it.

Especially the early AR-16s, huh? We lost a lot of men in 'Nam due to that. I got lucky and didn't have to go.

Like I said, US troops are pretty impatient with "orders" without merit.

Mike Eberle> mikee wrote:

Orders without apparent merit are a fact of life. The soldier on the ground is rarely in the loop with enough information to be running the show, and it's not his job anyway.

These days, being a cowboy and willfully disregarding orders on the level of the Law of War or the ROE's is a fast ticket to a jail cell or worse. A commander that did not land like a ton of shit upon the offender might well end up as a cellmate.

A lot of the enforcement is a direct result of incidents that have scarred the reputations of the forces' in the past.

I think most of the guys deployed these days are better disciplined and more proffesional that that. Like it or not, these are the realities of going to war these days. The breakdowns in discipline and professionalism are very public in this day and age, and it is far too easy to go from looking like a hero, to looking like a zero, just from the spin that can be put on a fairly simple incident, if the media outlet chooses to do so.

Cheers Trevor Jones

My original comment was based on that there seemed a very hard official line about even acknowledging that such devices existed, let alone that they were in common use. It was a bit of a dirty word, as it were, even in the US military, other than for "special" purposes.

In Canada, where the government itself seems to support the UN's vision of a happy dissarmed world (Yeah, right!), I have been seeing enough images in the press, out of Afganistan, that showed silencers in apparently normal operational use, that it really is worth commenting on. Mounted on everything from sniper rifles to smg's.

Sadly, I don't think it will bring on a relaxing of the current party line on use or ownership, but it is interesting to see anyway.

Cheers Trevor Jones

The AK that was recoiling more was a "short" model - just look at the length of the forend grip/heatshield. Longer length + more mass = less recoil Flash

Trevor, if you have ever discharged a firearm inside a room, you will immediately grasp the reason for the supressor, even though the round itself may NOT be subsonic.

BTW, I'm told that firing a bazooka (or an RGP) from inside a closed room will probably be the LAST thing you will ever do - much akin to standing directly behind a 1950-vintage 75mm recoillessrifle while firing it

Flash

The Zionist Occupation Government has so cowed citizens that they are fearful of even exercising mundane First Amendment rights.

Hint to Larry: Several of those 10,000 E-Books you say will be "useless" describe how to improvise sound-suppression devices. Including ones evey bit as what were considered state-of-the-art when Ciener sold them to LE and military in 1970.

It ain't rocket science, but it's a bit more than screwing on a Sprite bottle.

If it makes you feel better, for reading this you can report yourself to your local police station for ZOG-approved reprogramming.

Me, I read what I like.

That you Jews are trying to say what we can and cannot read or write is disgusting....but very Jewish.

--Tim May