This is news to you? The US started what became the Cold War. Russia was faced with a belligerent, superbly armed and overtly hostile superpower that had military control over its seaports, trade routes, raw materials sources, and important borders. And Russia was just about exhausted. It had just fought the most destructive winning war in history. It had lost 20 million people - the best and the brightest of a generation, in fact the core of the generation itself. Its infrastructure was destroyed, its cities without food and water let alone heat and power, its roads and agriculture run over by the massed armor of the Third Reich. And on its borders were the armed forces of a country whose army had already launched a trial invasion, whose military production was just hitting its stride, whose army was large, well-rested by comparison, well-equipped, and poised to strike; whose leaders were whipping up hysteria about the threat it posed and the necessity of armed "resistance". When your enemy is in a mad race to arm itself against you, exaggerating your threat and provoking dangerous situations (even armed conflicts) on your borders, would you be wise to prepare for an attack? Would you seek allies and border buffers, attempt to undercut your enemiy's power, deflect your enemy's efforts elsewhere? And the ICBM made everything easier. The US settled down to proxy wars across the globe, Russia countered likewise (in humbler style, with less corruption, more idealism) and the age of the AK47 began.
iceaura, and you can prove this. Please provide the relevant historical facts. Cold War's Unlearned Lessons Doom Us to Repeat History In fact, the Cold War started in 1919. But most people in the West had no idea that it had started. It started with the establishment of the Communist ... http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2001/summer_2001_2.html
iceaura, I don't object to what I provided, because the author point to the Russians as the main culprits, no how about you providing your historical references.
Well you cannot blame the gun, it is the USERS of the gun that cause the problems. But the Ak-47 and Ak-74 were at one time used by the United States Special Forces, since it is extremely durable and reliable. Also, with American modifications, it makes the recoil bearable and good.
That's an interesting perspective, Norsefire. Yet it is the Bloc, and the Soviets, that are being blamed. Are the Americans also blameless when they sell arms? Is it up to the user in all situations?
Dude, it's called an AK47 because it was intrduced in 1947, two years after the end of WWII. During WWII the Russians used Mosin Nagant rifles iirc.
It's a damned good rifle, and there are still plenty out there in the hands of Guerillas and 3rd world armies. I have used the SLR, the semi-auto version of the FAL produced for the UK military, and it's accuracy was pretty good. M14 is only marginally better, the FN FAL was nearly selected by the US!
You spot on man. Russia distributed weapons to China etc. . . It's Comrades. Which in tern sold them to other places.
I must have had the AK-37 in my mind... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! See my previous post...
phlogistician And I have to agree with you, it is a dam good rifle. The only thing that I find is a little fumbling is the mag change. As for the guerillas if you look at the news, the AK is the most seen weapon by far.
The AK 47 is so widely used because it requires very little maintenance and can fire when other weapons would jam. The AK is heavier than the M16 and has more of a kick. The cyclic rate of fire of the M16 is greater. American soldiers often dump their M16's and use an AK when feasible because of this. Very little upkeep required. As a result, it is the weapon of choice in third world conflicts.
**Buffalo's just upset that Russia has been making a less expensive rifle than the US for the past 60 years.** There, fixed it for ya. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! - N
Roman, No..........Weapons usefulness is what I look at, and depending on purpose, what you want to do with a rifle, will determine weather it is the best for that purpose the AK has its strengths and its weakness, a good gun all around, and I have several as they are cheep to acquire, and the ammunition is cheep to shoot, and practice makes perfect.
I should have said: Buffalo's upset that Russia has been making a more competitive rifle for the past 60 years.
Well what exactly is the best rifle? is there a definition for that? The US mainly uses the M16, which has good accuracy but a smaller caliber than the AK model, but the AK-74 has BOTH decent accuracy and firepower, making the Russians' brilliant design a worldwide favorite. by the way, China has their own version of the gun, and they sell THOSE to other nations, not the soviet version.
How 'bot neither is the best?! They both have advantages, but they are both generally terrible. I've fired both, real and Airsoft versions, and they are both crap. Something like the Heckler&Koch MP5 is much more practical. But even that has its problems. We must look to the future, at our grasp even now. For instance, Israel is developing a new rifle that has a superior rate of fire, is more accurate, and requires not much maintnance. Think about it. Why are we using 60-30 year old guns?! It's just like the U.S. navy and air force. Not majorly developed since the 1990s. Its 2007, for Gosh's sake. If we actually put some money, sweat, and blood into them, it would be fine. It's just because lazy, pacifist Liberals are whining about our already minimal defense budget. What is America today? Someone's smelly couch, to be sat on and take all kinds of abuse from weaklings?!