If the AK-47 is such a good gun, why does't America reverse engineer one?

MikeGolf

The AK-47 has only two things going for it:

It is dirt cheap
and it can be used by untrained people

It is also heavy, inaccurate, fires a worthless round, cannot be used at anything but close range etc.

Muledancer

The AK47 isn't that super of a weapon, it's just got a lot of press.
The U.S. has plenty of shoulder weapons that are much better than that particular 'gold standard'.

jasonsluck13

because the AK is not very accurate. and it's too heavy. and it doesn't have the range. the AR15/M15's are a MUCH better weapon.

NickNameUser

if anything, we'd just adopt the AK-74, a later version, but the M16 has a few good points.

1. Light
2. Moderate accuracy

thats about it.
also, the war we are fighting right now doesn't call for a full size assault rifle, which is why most troops are armed with low range M-4 carbines. Tanks and air strikes are what we fight the war with, then send in a group of soldiers for cleanup.

Randy Moran

All been said by others... your premise is wrong... the AK 47 is a good gun for certain situations... not for everyone... it is cheap, eazy to operate (works in shitty conditions), and can be produced with less that state of the art equipment.

But as a "gun" it is not really very good.

abouch66

the ak is nothing special and there's no secret to it that needs to be reverse engineered. They're the most comon weapon in the world, every third world country has a pile of them, just because they're cheap easy to get ahold of, and easy to use. The M series guns has been getting alot of bad publicity, but it is a better gun than the ak's are.

notsosuremt

The AK 47 and all its variants are not really a good gun. The primary reason it its seen so much is because it is cheap, fairly reliable, and the ammunition is also cheap and easy to come by. The weapon is designed to fit into the former Soviet army doctring of Massed Fires and was not designed for any long range requirements. It takes a very good marksman with a tight weapon to hit a target (even man sized) past 300 meters.

The current US assault weapons (M4, M-6A2-A4) are superior weapons for the type of marksmanship training the US soldier recieves.

gregory_dittman

If it was so good, the Russians wouldn't be building the AK-74.

The AK-47 was probably better than the first generation M-16, but now there is the M-16A4 which can do far more than the AK-47 ever could.

emiller1998

We already have a good gun. We don't need to take apart an old Russian gun.

The AK-47 has a lot of power but isn't very accurate and its heavy. Not exactly something I would want to see used in combat.

CHECKSIXX

While the AK family of firearms are very reliable, they lack decent accuracy..esp during automatic or burst fire. The simple answer is they just don't want to.

strike_eagle29

THE M16 IS BETTER. PLUS WE ARE MOVING INTO THE FUTURE OF WEAPONRY. THEIR ARE PLENTY OF GREAT WEAPONS IN DEVELOPMENT FOR THE GRUNTS. THE REPLACEMENT FOR THE M16 SHOULD BE UNVEILED SOON.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle

gman992

The AK has some good qualities---dependable, but it is too heavy and not that very accurate at long range. The problem with the M-16 is that it can jam if dirty and needs to cleaned everywhere you go.

Pretsler

Because it is not such a good gun: its a cheap gun that is used widely for its reliability. At long distances you might as well have an MG42

ducky

because the M-16 is better.

Abhinesh

Who told you the AK-47 is that good a gun. Its just easier to operate but as already pointed out its heavy and isn't accurate for a weapon of semiautomatic category. Its first target is on target if you aim but as rounds go by it rapidly shifts from target because of recoil.

chrisvoulg1

But you already have! M16!

jimmy s

The AK-47 isnt all that great. It has a shorter range than the M-16, is heavier, and no where near as acurate. Yes, the M-16 has some problems too. But there is a new generation of military rifle being developed that will replace the M-16 soon.

klimlover

M16

triston b

We already have a good gun. And whose to say we didn't already do that to design our guns?

gregpasq

Umm, they're 'rifles'....

And we already have a battle rifle. It would be extremely time consuming and not very cost effective to build, it, test it, field it, and then replace every M-16 rifle/M-4 carbine in the inventory. Just makes no sense at all, not to mention the AK family of rifles fire the 7.62 mm which the Pentagon has a problem with due to basic load weights and is also seen as not being highly accurate, to boot......

bfrog2010

The ak47 is very amazing in a few ways. It is probably the most reliable battle rifle because its so loosely made that you can throw it in sand, water, or even bury it in mud and the chance of a misfire are almost 0. It fires a more powerful cartridge than the m16. Even though the m16 isn't as reliable (jamming if it gets a little mud in it) because of it being so tightly made, it is far more accurate at longer ranges, fires a 3 round burst so people don't just spray bullets and it has almost no recoil. It can also fit so many attachments (like suppressors, laser sights, m204 grenade launcher, etc...) Whereas the ak doesn't fit so much (it's nearly impossible to make an effective suppressor for an ak). I own an ak and love to shoot it and its so simple that it's brilliant!

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: