I've been getting bombarded with the news that Mikhail Kalashnikov died today. I'm not a bit torn. I will not curse him but I will not mourn him either.
I've served and have had relatives that have served this nation since WW2.
The weapon he designed was aimed squarely at me and mine.
I know he made a switch to free market capitalism and gained fame in the gun community but I don't forget that easily. Just like many ignore the fact that China is a communist nation that subjugates its people, yet have no problem in buying goods or trading with that country, many forget that Mikhail designed a weapon that directly affected them or their loved ones.
I won't forget that and neither should you.
Sol, Mikhail Timofeyevich Kalashnikov deserve respect as the great weapon constructor and inventor. If you start to "not like" people who create weapons that directly affected you or your loved ones that would be the very, very... very long list. It would probably start with men behind Project Manhattan, some nameless Homo habilis that create first knife from obsidian ect.
ReplyDeleteRespect the weapon Sol, even if you don't respect man that handle it, respect the weapon. I remember that US soldiers in Vietnam prefer using weapon of Kalashnikov that it own nation "toy" gun.
Also you can blame god itself for giving hands to humans so they can kill each other by using any tools.
ReplyDeleteAK forever. Mikhail rest in peace, you and your weapons served well to protect our country -- USSR.
A weapon designed to spray rounds downrange and every round had "to whom it may concern" stamped on it.
ReplyDeleteNot a surgical rifle just an up graded PPSH with a larger round.
Made to kill people in mass.
SHAS:
ReplyDeleteLike hell! Nothing draws M-16 fire like the sound of an AK in a battle, any GI using one became the target of every Marine in the area, mortars, thump guns, MG's and LAAWs.
It's signature did not change just because an American shot it.
Besides I like to hit the enemy, not just everyone in range soldier or civilian with well aimed fire, from an M-14, not spray the landscape with a glorified 30/30 Winchester derivative.
First post: It was rather an acknowledge of assault rifle superiority, inheritor of StG 44 idea. Made to be simple and reliable. But true, it was not the most precise weapon, that was rather an fault of Soviet weapon use doctrine. Remember that Red Army was not an soldier army but peasant and worker army. That's mean very poor quality of single trooper in terms of fire precision. The main weapon of Soviets, Mosin-Nagant was a terrible rifle. Truly a nightmare, that big bayonet frak whole weapon balance, If you remove it then, meh more or less a average rifle. Also skills of precision fire was never a big thing in Soviet and Imperial Russian army, in many cases "soldiers" prefer bayonet charge above fire duel because they sucks at shooting. In opposite Germans in WWII hate charges and if they go male with Soviets they usually lose. Then as you see spray and pray was a classic infantry tactic of Soviets and AK47 was ideal for that.
DeleteSecond: I have not been precise, I read about spec ops units on long range jungle patrols that prefer '47 because it was more reliable then M-16. True yanks prefer more precise weapon good for open lands, but sometimes you need a that old strong and reliable spray and pray killer.
That just gets folks killed who are not the target.
DeleteFratricide and baby killing.
The Armalite platform is inherently more stable, linear and the recoil is less enabling more accurate follow up shots that hit the target and not the landscape around it.
A professional soldier can use this weapon and keep it clean enough to operate, the AK was designed for soldiers who are only smart enough to piss holes in the snow.
The M-14 IS THE Rifle of choice.
I would say that more civilians died from bombs that "almost" hit the target then from spray and pray soldiers. In many cases the main problem is the soldier not the weapon, but for many years the Kalashnikov guns were very efficient weapon in hands of professional soldiers all over the world. Ordinary Soviet conscript as we know was rather poor quality warrior but we can't say that about Specnaz.
DeleteI had privilege some years ago to shoot couple of times the M-14, nice weapon, precise and stable indeed. But shooting a series was problematic, too powerful projectile, kick like mule, problems with putting bullets in target.
In field, I would take M-14 without second thought. But in urban environment, AK-74 is the best choice. But AK that is in good condition, the 47 I was using in my army days was so frak up that we joke "Throw it in to enemy, you will have bigger chance that you will hit him"
Plus, carrying an AR/M-16 behind enemy lines is one sure way to attract a lot of unwanted attention. If you want to blend in then the AK is the only way to go
ReplyDeleteKaslashnikov often said he felt personally untroubled by his contribution to bloodshed.
ReplyDelete"I sleep well. It's the politicians who are to blame for failing to come to an agreement and resorting to violence."
One thing the AK had that the M-16/M-4 didn't have is the ease of use and simple maintenance. On top of that it was easy to blend in with the locals. The only difference is how accurate you can fire an Ak-47 or M-16/M-4. It all boils down to how good of a shooter are you, no matter what weapon is handed to you. Mikhail Timofeyevich Kalashnikov was one of those who rose the ranks from a SGT to a General, so he knew what an infantry solider wanted in the feild. So i respect him for his ingenuity and his contribution to the modern Military of the post world war 2 era.
ReplyDeletei can respect an enemy. that doesn't mean that i mourn his passing.
DeleteWell its a gun maker. I just look at it from a mechanical standpoint. Its really a draw between the two rifles. M-16 had more accuracy and less recoil, but the AK had simplicity ruggedness and reliability. I prefer the M-16 because its familiar and a little more accurate. I get really pissed when bullets won't go where I sent them because the gun is built with high tolerances in the machining. TBH I don't get really enthused with assault rifles for that very reason. Personally I had a varmint .308 not a military weapon, but it didn't screw me around about hitting what I told it to.
ReplyDeleteThe main fallacy of the M-16 is it's choice of ammunition caliber.
ReplyDeleteDesigned to hit a ground hog or prairie dog which is all the target size you will encounter in battle, something the size of a helmet, hand, foot, or face.
A shower of lead is all the AK delivers that's why the terrorist who execute their victims shoot them with entire magazines even at close range because as a single shot accurate weapon the 47 is not.
M-14.
I will not agree that 47 is not accurate in single shoot, if gun is in good condition and you know the weapon then there is no problem with putting a single bullet in enemy on range 400-450 meters.
DeleteTerrorist are in majority amateurs, they shoot full mag for show off. The weapon if fine, the man who pull the trigger is frak out.
A well made, well maintained 47 in the hands of a good operator can be an accurate weapon. However, most we see in the news are in the hands of untrained mob, hence the spray and pray technique.
DeleteStill a good weapon tho, even tho its not my preferred choice