Why did the AK-47 become so popular?

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/01/economist-explains-4

by rajbala • 13 years ago

47 49 13 years ago

jere• 13 years ago

The gun is nothing special. Its controls are unsophisticated; it is not even particularly accurate. But this simplicity is a reason for its success. Compared with other assault rifles, the AK-47 has generous clearance between its moving parts. That is bad for accuracy, but it means that the mechanism is unlikely to jam, no matter how clogged it gets with Sudanese sand or Nicaraguan mud. Designed to be operated by Soviet soldiers wearing thick winter gloves, it is simple enough for untrained recruits (including children) to use.

Worse is better.

Correctness The design must be correct in all observable aspects. It is slightly better to be simple than correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worse_is_better

foobarian• 13 years ago

the AK-47 has generous clearance between its moving parts. That is bad for accuracy, but it means that the mechanism is unlikely to jam

Not only is it less likely to jam, but it probably also allows much looser tolerances for the parts, making them much easier to machine/make.

nhebb• 13 years ago

I'll see your Wikipedia link and raise you one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_dimensions_of_quality

When you're getting shot at and your life depends on being able to shoot back, reliability trumps all other metrics.

brazzy• 13 years ago

I submit that availability trumps even that. In many cases, you would not have a gun if it wasn't as simple and cheap to make as the AK-47.

vacri• 13 years ago

This was a component affecting the Nazi invasion of Russia - german machines build to tight tolerances didn't handle the extreme drops in winter temperature as well as the looser tolerances of the Russian machines.

A friend of mine once played with a Russian motorbike from that era, and said if you tipped it side to side you could hear the pistons clunking about.

VladRussian2• 13 years ago

That is bad for accuracy,

one of the main version around is AK-74, same mechanics, only 5.45mm caliber instead of 7.62mm of AK-47. While not a sharpshooter's, it is a very accurate gun.

varjag2• 13 years ago

Most of the bad rep AK gets for precision comes from Mao's knock-offs. Chinese copies account for at least 80% of AK family guns on the worldwide market (e.g. nearly all Mujaheddin used Chinese copies shipped through Pakistan).

The idea that USSR couldn't produce a weapon with high tolerances in 1950s is laughable. It could teach precision machining to perhaps rest of the world, save the USA and Germany.

mcv2• 13 years ago

That reminds me of a quick lock-picking trick that worked better with highly accurate parts with little clearance, than with cheap parts with lots of clearance.

zw123456• 13 years ago

A perfect example of the K.I.S.S. Principle.

Spooky23• 13 years ago

Tl;dr

It's a "good enough" gun that the Soviets and licensees made over 100m of. Guns, parts and ammo are available anywhere.

cgore• 13 years ago

In my mind that is the only reason, because the USSR made a whole lot of them, and then shipped them out to every third-world country.

It is for a similar reason AR-15s are so popular here in the USA, because the US Military mostly uses M16s ,which are almost the same, and therefore they are the "cool, I'm almost-for-really a soldier now" gun.

teuobk• 13 years ago

The popularity of the AR-15 is related to the popularity of the M16, but the "pretend you're a soldier" aspect isn't the main reason. A more complete explanation includes:

- Lots of manufacturers

- Reliable action (depending on manufacturer)

- 5.56mm NATO and/or .223 Remington ammo is (or, before late 2012, was) relatively cheap

- Light recoil

- Tons of accessories available

- Relatively accurate

- Fun to shoot

And also, among gun guys, there's at least a little bit of the feeling that by owning one, you're giving the middle finger to people who want to ban them.

InclinedPlane2• 13 years ago

The AR-15 design uses a very common type of ammo (.223/5.56), it's light-weight with low recoil, it's fairly ergonomic and compact, and it's accurate. All of those things are factors that make it desirable for civilian uses ranging from recreational range shooting to home defense.

The "tacticool" factor is probably responsible for only a tiny fraction of all AR-15 sales.

dmix• 13 years ago

Fluff piece, unfortunately.

thatthatis2• 13 years ago

I think this was well explained in the intro to Lord of War. An amazing movie that asks interesting questions about success as a motivator.

alexeisadeski3• 13 years ago

Amazing movie? I'll call it pretty solid. Interesting questions? No...

thatthatis2• 13 years ago

Well, it appears we have different opinions. I think that's probably on net an ok thing.

ericcumbee• 13 years ago

I take it your not here about the Alcohol or Tobacco.

mirkules• 13 years ago

This post stopped well short of describing the advantages and disadvantages of both AK-47s and M-16s in favor of emphasizing how bad weapons are. The Wikipedia entry is much more informative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_AK-47_and_M16

avis• 13 years ago

Unlike the ar* and generally americans weapons, it can shoot in 'sandy' situations.

RachelF• 13 years ago

So simple even a chimp can operate?

http://youtu.be/GhxqIITtTtU

rdtsc• 13 years ago

The gun is nothing special. Its controls are unsophisticated;

That is main feature though. Nothing special _is_ what is special.

When you write code, try to remember the AK-47. Keep it simple, loose components, try to make it fault tolerant if you can. Make it not just easy to use, but also easy to disassemble, inspect and rebuild (design grey boxes not just black boxes).

Is there an AK-47 design pattern, or are they called "stories" these day, anyway I feel like there should be one.

Well, and then of course convince a mega-corporation to buy 100m units of it ;-)

bad_user• 13 years ago

"Easy to use" is most often the opposite of "simple, loose components".

Building stuff out of simple components, means to break the problem space into multiple smaller parts. By definition, you'll have more components to deal with. It will also take more time to build something usable. Simplicity is actually hard.

In the case of the AK-47, this is an actual example of simplifying the problem and getting the priorities straight. Such works are so rare because people don't think too much before starting to work on stuff.

gaius• 13 years ago

There is a Ken McLeod book, set in the future, in which the world is overrun by a computer virus and the only software that is immune is the firmware in the Kalashnikov product of the time.

rectangletangle• 13 years ago

Simple, and easy to use UI; Robust and reliable; Extensible design; Massively scalable

malkia2• 13 years ago

During my mandatory army service (Bulgaria) I was given AK-47. I had to be responsible for the gun for the whole 1997, but shot only few times, since the country was going through hard period, and we were not allowed much ammo. Also had to make sure that I shoot on manual, or was it semi-automatic. From what I remember I had to get used to my weapon, as each one was uniquely biased, so you had to understand yourself how it shoots. Had to clean it every day at 2:00pm, and had to cover disassembling and assembling it for some relatively short time (actual times escape me, but was somewhere in the dozen of seconds to a minute).

Losing the gun was punishable by 7 years military prison (or at least that's what they've told us). Also while guarding and if someone was approaching you should first fire an alert bullet (if that's the right name) up in the air, and then shoot at place (if the object keeps moving).

I did not even cared about it. Later I was supposed to be with RPG-9, but since the major and the captain of the brigade discovered my typing and computer skills I was put in an "ad-hoc" position - sleeping in the same room with all drivers, cooks, etc, while just doing computer stuff and delivering the mail from the city (along with starting the wood stove, and some cleaning).

JackpotDen• 13 years ago

alert bullet

Warning shot.

malkia2• 13 years ago

Thanks for the correction!

drac• 13 years ago

everyone with any interest in the AK-47 should read http://cjchivers.com/aboutthegun (The Gun, by CJ Chivers). Although it spends a lot of time examining historical contexts for machine guns, and assault rifles in general - the AK-47 stuff is great.

The comparison with the M-16 in particular is pretty brutal.

cranklin2• 13 years ago

Okay, I get that the AK is the most popular military rifle in the world, but there are many superior rifles that are just as reliable. I happen to own an AK and - the gun looks/feels flimsy, - muzzle flip results in a nasty cheek slap, - the receiver looks like folded sheet metal, - safety is hard to engage/disengage and leaves a nasty scratch on the receiver, - the magazine doesn't fit right in (must insert the lip first at an awkward angle), - field stripping is easy but reassembly is a pain in the a$$.

The M1A... now that's a solid reliable/accurate rifle.

dingaling• 13 years ago

The safety was one of the few obviously 'wrong' aspects of the AK design; not only is it on the wrong side of the receiver for right-handed operators, requiring them to reach-over to engage, but it also makes a distinctive CLACK noise that resulted in many of its users being detected and killed. Rhodesian forces developed 'cover shooting' as a technique for responding to this noise, controlled firing into any clumps of vegetation capable of hiding the shooter.

Pedantry on the title: the AK-47 was never popular, it was heavy and expensive. It was issued only to selected Soviet troops whilst the remainder used the semi-automatic SKS rifle. It was the AKM of the 1950s that became a runaway success.

varjag2• 13 years ago

Also ironically, it was AKM that moved from milled receiver to stamped, making it both lighter and less expensive, but giving garage experts a reason to complain about.

antocv2• 13 years ago

Always has to be an american guy claiming something is wrong with AK and prefers M1A who has used the guns only in his collection and perhaps shooting out in a gun-range on fine weather-days.

cranklin2• 13 years ago

Wrong. Try again. I shoot rain or shine. 2 major competitive shoots a month and 1 small competitive shoot per week. I have to reload an average of 2 flats of ammo per week just to keep up with my shooting.

Let me be more clear. I own 2 AK variants (owned 3) and one M1A. The M1A runs circles around the AK's... and I'm not partial to American made firearms either.

Or, you can blindly trust your Hollywood action movies or clueless bloggers on their so-called knowledge of firearms.

chewxy• 13 years ago

Not to forget, it is pretty easy to copy the AK47 design. The Register once called it The Open Source gun that took the world by storm[0] - it's actually a much better article than the Economist's

[0]http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/03/ak_47_60_years/

jandrewrogers3• 13 years ago

The article does a somewhat poor job of explaining the success of the AK47 in the context of the time it proliferated. Because the discussion of such things tends to be dominated by fanbois of one military rifle or another, the good and bad of the weapons tends to be overstated.

One of the biggest advantages of the AK47 is that it could be manufactured en masse with relatively simple manufacturing equipment that was widely available and inexpensive in the middle of the 20th century. Consequently, it could be produced even in marginally developed countries as a matter of both technical ability and economics. Contrary to popular rumor, a number of countries produced AK47s with relatively tight tolerances so lack of precision machining was not intrinsic to its success.

By contrast, and many people forget this, when the AR15 family of rifles was first produced, only a handful of industrialized countries had the ability to fabricate the precision aluminum parts used in the rifle en masse. When the design was exported, the US often exported precision aluminum foundry and machining technology at the same time. That limited adoption as a practical matter.

All that said, the reputation of both the AK47 and AR15 suffer from relatively isolated instances of defective implementation. A well-made AK47 has perfectly serviceable accuracy, comparable to many European assault rifles. However, its operational ergonomics are atrocious. By the same token, the AR15 functions far better in filthy environments than popular mythology suggests; most infamous incidents of documented systemic failure were ultimately traced back to out-of-spec components. An AR15 will not take quite as much abuse as an AK47, but it makes up for it by being one of the most highly optimized assault rifles in the hands of a skilled operator due to the unusual operating design.

In short, both the AK47 and AR15 offered compelling economics because they were designed for and used by disjoint markets with very different priorities.

troels2• 13 years ago

However, its operational ergonomics are atrocious

I had to read that twice and I'm still not sure. You mean economics, right?

brc• 13 years ago

I know very little about weapons, but I can tell he means it is not a comfortable rifle to use. I assume that means inaccurate shooting due to poor positioning, or perhaps he means they are difficult to carry. Ergonomics is ergonomics no matter whether you're talking a chair, a keyboard or a rifle.

jandrewrogers3• 13 years ago

Nope, I meant ergonomics.

All of the operational mechanics (safety, trigger, magazines, bolt, etc) are very poorly designed for efficient user operation. A number of AK47 clones produced by countries attempt to at least partial rectify that situation. Also, the AK47 has terrible rapid fire characteristics; even a well-trained operator will have a hard time putting bullets on target.

By comparison, the M16 has a well-deserved reputation for being one of the most effective rapid-fire actions ever designed, and with excellent user ergonomics. Even in "spray and pray" mode, an M16 will put a lot more lead on or near the target than an AK47.

omegant• 13 years ago

I guess you don´t need high tolerances when the guns are going to be used by untrained troops. Just an example I recently saw a Nigerian policeman walking with his Ak47 on his hand, using it as a walking stick. The Ak was doing the distinctive noise of a metal bar hitting the ground hard. As the Ak didn't have muzzle brake that could protect minimally the barrel, I guess there is not much accuracy left in that barrel. If that happens in the middle of an international airport, I can not imagine how they are maintained and used in the middle of the jungle.

mcv2• 13 years ago

I once read that when the M16 was adopted for use in Vietnam, it had some modifications that reduced its reliability (which got fixed in later versions). In Vietnam, they became infamous for their unreliability, to the point that Viet Cong soldiers would loot every bit of equipment off fallen US troops except for the rifle, and US troops would sometimes carry 3 M16s so they had a better chance of having a functioning rifle when their first one jammed.

Jamming is a really big issue. When you're crawling through the jungle and suddenly you see someone who's about to shoot you, and you pull the trigger, you want bullets to start coming out of your barrel. There may not be any time to unjam it or get a backup weapon.

So yes, the famed reliability of the AK47 is absolutely a factor. Easy to make, hard to break. Any product fitting that description is going to be easy to sell.

jandrewrogers3• 13 years ago

The M16 was initially quite reliable. What happened is that after it was deployed in Viet Nam, a bureaucrat unilaterally modified the ammunition design without consulting the designers of the M16. The rifle became significantly less reliable with out-of-spec ammunition.

By 1967 the action was modified to eat dirty, out-of-spec ammo reliably and the materials were modified to better resist corrosion in excessively wet environments. The result was a reliable action that has not needed to be materially modified since.

ivanhoe• 13 years ago

When experts say that AK47 is not "particularly accurate", it's a bit misleading, because in a battle you don't shoot for bullseye, usually any shot within the inner 30cm (12inches) circle on the target is considered as a hit. Ak47 is certainly not the most accurate weapon, but in a real life situation and within its fire range of about 350 - 400 meters it's accurate enough. In my experience with the Yugoslav version m70 it's really hard to miss anything under 200m and when shooting further than that (because it doesn't have optics in the standard setup) your eyes are a bigger problem than the gun itself.

InclinedPlane2• 13 years ago

Most people who say that the AK-47 is "not accurate" are just parroting conventional wisdom and have never actually shot one. Poorly made AK-47s might not be accurate, but anything that is poorly made might not be accurate, regardless of the design. Well made AK's are plenty accurate out to hundreds of meters and could easily be used as sniper rifles with a scope. And by "well made" I don't mean a small batch made by a boutique manufacturer, there are millions of rifles made by various companies/countries that are fairly high quality. One of the problems of talking about the "AK-47" in general is that it's actually a family of rifles produced by a huge variety of folks. For example, the actual "AK-47" is fairly rare, most rifles of the type are the AKM model, or some regional variant of the AKM. Meanwhile, you have countries ranging from Bulgaria to Ethiopia to Vietnam all manufacturing their own models, with a very high degree of variation in quality.

dschiptsov• 13 years ago

Because it is simple and good-enough.)

Why did the AK-47 become so popular?

Related Stories