>>28885793 >Why is this weapon so revolutionary and great? >Why, to this day, is it so exceptional?
Cheap, simple to operate, works really, really well in all kinds of weather conditions and environments, it's super-reliable. It's also .30 cal which means it has great terminal ballistics and kills well.
AK has killed more people than any other implement of war ever invented.
It's not a revolutionary design, it borrowed design elements from the M1 Garand, among others.
While it is certainly reliable, it's not the unstoppable beast it's hyped up to be. They can and do jam.
It's not exceptional by today's standards. The ergonomics are pretty terrible and its accuracy is sub par for the most part. The latest versions have addressed some of these issues, but only very recently.
>>28886159 >because it combined numerous points of inspiration from previous designs means that' it's not revolutionary. Kill yourself. >While it is certainly reliable, it's not the unstoppable beast it's hyped up to be. They can and do jam. Okay... >It's not exceptional by today's standards. A modern AK-100 series rifle competes perfectly well with other modern rifles >The ergonomics are pretty terrible No, no they're not. >its accuracy is sub par for the most part A modern AK in 5.45 is just as effective as an AR/M4/M16 in 5.56 >but only very recently Kill yourself. The Soviets created a mounting system for the AK rifles that allowed you to attach and detach optics that kept zero, meanwhile Western designers still struggle with that without making the system cost twice as much as the rifle itself.
>>28886680 A bunch of borrowed ideas slapped together in a crude bullet hose was anything but innovative or revolutionary. It worked well enough and was cheap to produce, so it caught on, that is all.
I didn't say the modern 100 series AKs weren't good rifles, they are pretty huge improvements over the originals. However they still lack much of the modularity and ergonomics of other designs. Cough *ARs* Cough
The modularity does still suck, just because you are used to something doesn't mean it's good.
Yes, 5.45x39 was an improvement, still not as accurate as other designs.
There are plenty of rail interface optic mounts around that hold zero just fine that are in the $100-$200 dollar range. The shit they had to come up with to mount an optic to an AK ,while adequate, was far from elegant or lightweight.
>>28885793 "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 nine 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."
Ever invented? The rifle has only existed like 60 years. Spears and arrows have been around arguably since the dawn of man. Dont tell me that 100s of millions (perhaps billions) slain in battle dont exponentially surpass the numbers killed by the AK They're not even close
>>28885793 >cheap >it just werks >easy to use >easy to arm and train drunk conscripts or child soldiers >toss it in your rice paddy for a year and it'll still be working when you dig it out >ur example of generic bad guy gun in media
Its exceptionality is long past gone since modern rifles are close to or even more reliable than the AK, and it is but cheap slavshit cobbled together by a soviet tanker with the help of nazi engineers
>>28891233 >go to combat I'd phrase this a little differently. If I was to go to combat, I'd probably pick an AR on account of modularity and ergonomics, also objectively superior terminal ballistics. However, if I was to go to WAR, I would hands-down grab an AK.
>>28891241 How about you google some statistics, look at some deign notes, read some papers, and find out for yourself instead of shitposting and asking others to shitpost. The information is out there. Shit, if you're actually this retarded and noguns just download World of Guns and disassemble the two models for yourself. Or even simpler, just watch the field stripping in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VRrc2n0NXg
>>28891271 I've disassembled both, both in World of Guns and real life. Unless you get into autistic levels of detail stripping there's not much difference. ARs were actually nicer because they're not fucking riveted together.
It didn't do anything new but was the one of the first assault rifles to really combine supreme reliability, power, detachable magazines, super ease of use, and general effectiveness into one gun that was also cheap as chips to make. These days it's obsolete with no last round hold open, poor muzzle device mounting, cruddy sights, crap safety, giant gaps in the side which lets in rocks and shit, and poor optic mounting options due to the nature of the dustcovers wanting to jiggle. The 7.62x39 has also been phased out in most countries by now too.
>>28888328 >A bunch of borrowed ideas slapped together in a crude bullet hose was anything but innovative or revolutionary. It worked well enough and was cheap to produce, so it caught on, that is all. First off it's not a fucking bullet hose you fucking imbecile. Secondly it's not just "borrowed ideas slapped together". >I didn't say the modern 100 series AKs weren't good rifles, they are pretty huge improvements over the originals. However they still lack much of the modularity and ergonomics of other designs. Cough *ARs* Cough What fucking modularity? There are tons of options for shit you can do to and with an AK. As for ergonomics, that is completely subjective. >The modularity does still suck, just because you are used to something doesn't mean it's good. And just because you like taking the occasional dick up the ass doesn't make you a faggot right? Oh wait... >Yes, 5.45x39 was an improvement, still not as accurate as other designs. It's just as effective as 5.56 within Russian design philosophy. >There are plenty of rail interface optic mounts around that hold zero just fine that are in the $100-$200 dollar range. The shit they had to come up with to mount an optic to an AK ,while adequate, was far from elegant or lightweight. Nice reading comprehension you fucking piece of shit. How long did it take for a quick detach rail system for the AR come to develop that actually held zero? Also just because it's a few ounces heavier that you super slick dynamically buttfucking aliamfiaum nortiraicide coated buttplug has no bearing on it's quality or utility. Also >elegance What the fuck eve? It just slide one and you flip a lever over. It's not fucking rocket science.
>>28891496 >It's objective that the safety sucks Nope. >the side rail mounting is awkward and heavy Yeah... no >the 100 series stock disallows you from folding it with optics on Oh compared to the AR's folding sto... oh wait..
>>28891508 >contrary to what literally everyone believes >contrary to what literally everyone believes >comparison to a single set of rifles
If the safety didn't suck, there wouldn't be tons of aftermarket improvements, including modifications done by two countries for their service rifles to make it suck less. If the mounting didn't suck, there wouldn't be a bunch of solutions that didn't involve the side rail, including some made by the Russians themselves. Nobody even fucking brought up the AR except for that one asshat.
>>28886022 In what way? Explain yourself. I owned ARs and I went to slav shit and probably wont look back unless I'm building a 300 black out AR for fun. I will concede that there are a lot poorly made AK out there., but if you do your research and get a good one they are fantastic rifles.
AK is the gun you grab if you're going innawoods and you won't have the time or resources to maintain it correctly. This is why its more popular with rebels/freedom fighters/etc who won't have the more organized logistics of an established military on their side. If something breaks you're usually fugged and need a new gun, but that platform is so easy to mass produced it usually doesn't matter.
AR is the gun you grab if you want to operate and you know you're coming back to an armorer/base/moms basement afterwards to clean and maintain it. It's has better placement of controls and overall a smarter design, but one with many more parts that may need to be replaced over time. Most people on /k/ will never use it enough for that to happen, so its a moot point.
Everyone should own both and decide which they like better and how its going to be used.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.