Logistics Article Index : Current 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics
Why AK-47 Ammo Sucks So Much
   Next Article → SUPPORT: Commercial Training For Combat Pilots

March 31, 2008: One unspoken reason for Iraqi and Afghan troops switching from AK-47s to M-16s, is problems with ammunition quality. AK-47 (7.62mm) ammo has long had quality issues, at least to a greater degree than M-16 5.56mm stuff. As new Iraqi and Afghan security forces were recruited, trained and sent into action, there was a huge increase in demand for AK-47 ammo. This led to a lot of older stuff  coming onto the market. In many nations that use the AK-47, including China, not a lot of ammo is used. Put simply, the troops don't get a lot of practice firing their weapons. But large stocks of ammo are stockpiled in case there is a war. With the increased demand from Iraq and Afghanistan, many nations with these stockpiles saw an opportunity to unload their older (often 40 years or more) stuff. This elderly ammunition was not only suffering from the usual aging problems of old ammo (the chemicals in the propellants breaks down and makes the bullets move a lot slower, and less effectively), but often showed the effects of poor storage (corrosion). All that, plus the ease with which one can bribe Iraqi or Afghan supply officials to accept the bad stuff, led to many Iraqi and Afghan troops going into battle with defective ammo. These problems largely go away with M-16 ammo, which is made to higher standards in the first place, and rarely lies around for a long time (M-16 users let their troops practice more often). There is some crap 5.56mm ammo out there, but to a much lesser degree than is the case with the AK-47 stuff.

Next Article → SUPPORT: Commercial Training For Combat Pilots
  

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4   NEXT
maruben    A better solutions   3/31/2008 12:27:14 PM
Just tell the Iraqis and Afghans to buy the newest 7.62mm available, or put an order to for a newly produced bullets from a well-reputed maker and, of course, be sure to make them practice a lot.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY       3/31/2008 12:34:42 PM
And it's STILL not as good a round as 5.56mm X 45mm and the bullet thrower, the AK is still not as good a weapon as the M-16/M-4....by all accounts.  The AK is a reliable weapon, and useful if you intend to equip a Third World militia and never expect the personnel to clean their weapons.  If on the other hand, you expect a modicum of professionalism from your forces, the 5.56mm round and weapons are better...whether you ought by M-855 or M-193, or the M-16, or the HK 416, that's all debatable.  But this reflexive acceptance of the superiority of the AK and it's ammunition is just silly.
 
Quote    Reply

Acanthostega    Archaeopteryx   3/31/2008 3:26:53 PM
Ironic, considering that when 7.62X39 ammo was still coming in surplus from the PRC it may often have been old, but the quality was superb.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       3/31/2008 3:59:36 PM
People can argue the superiority of the M16 over the AK et al until they are blue in the face - however while AK's, PK's, RPG's and all the rest are so prolific in the region, it makes very little sense to introduce new weaponry and ammunition types.

The image I have of the Afghan national army troops is more a group of pot smokers with rusting weapons and a misguided sense of being natural borne soldiers - than professionals.  The only logic I can detect in selling them M16's and 5.56mm rounds is that America is selling them M16's and 5.56mm rounds.  It's good for business.


 
Quote    Reply

maruben    The ammo seems to be the problem.   3/31/2008 4:44:42 PM
this reflexive acceptance of the superiority of the AK and it's ammunition is just silly.
 
If you read properly you will see that problem, according the the writer of the article, is the quality of the ammo. Not the gun (it is very strange, but he did not complain against the AK). So it is logical to think that a change for a better ammo can fix the problem together with proper training . A change of guns is just complementery. This why I suggested other way to solve the problem on which there is no need to agree.
 
On your comparison of bullets (7.62vs5.56) there is nothing new, except your reflexive response to defend the 5.56 bullet against a criticism I did not make.
 
Best regards.
 
I am just curious...
For the writer.
Will be a US firm the only supplier of the 5.56 x 45 mm or other Western firm? Can the Iraqis or Afghans buy Russian 5.56 x 45mm NATO cartridge (of the AK-101)?
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

maruben    The ammo seems to be the problem.   3/31/2008 5:34:14 PM
this reflexive acceptance of the superiority of the AK and it's ammunition is just silly.
 
If you read properly you will see that problem, according the the writer of the article, is the quality of the ammo. Not the gun (it is very strange, but he did not complain against the AK). So it is logical to think that a change for a better ammo can fix the problem together with proper training . A change of guns is just complementery. This why I suggested other way to solve the problem on which there is no need to agree.
 
On your comparison of bullets (7.62vs5.56) there is nothing new, except your reflexive response to defend the 5.56 bullet against a criticism I did not make.
 
Best regards.
 
I am just curious...
For the writer.
Will be a US firm the only supplier of the 5.56 x 45 mm or other Western firm? Can the Iraqis or Afghans buy Russian 5.56 x 45mm NATO cartridge (of the AK-101)?
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Nasty German Idiot       4/1/2008 2:57:44 AM
Another misleading heading and weird argumentation ...  nothing new but always a pleasure ...
 
Quote    Reply

GOP       4/1/2008 4:08:47 PM
But this reflexive acceptance of the superiority of the AK and it's ammunition is just silly.

I think you are misguided. If this acceptance of superiority of the AK is silly, then why are many High risk civilian contractors and other high speed guys (SOF operators) switching over to the AK system? Why are guys like Jim Fuller (>>) getting so much business from military/police/security professionals? EVERY SINGLE WEAPON SYSTEM HAS STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES. The AR is not a better system than the AK, and the AK system is not better than the AR system. A weapon is like a tool in the toolbox. You wouldn't use a screwdriver to drive a nail through wood would you?
There are so many myths about the AK system that it is ridiculous. Accuracy is nowhere near as bad as the claims. If the shooter does his job, then the rounds will go where they are aimed. Cheek weld, sight alignment, trigger control, front sight, press etc etc are much more important than the weapon. Many guys can get 30% or BETTER hit rate on steal targets at 600m +. 
The ammo thing is bs also. There is some very, very nice ammo out there for AK's. Heck, for the individual shooter, Barnaul/Blackbear ammo (same ammo made from Tula I believe) is a steal at $4.50 at CTD.
 
The front sights aren't anywhere near as bad as the claim, at least on new kits. And if they are that bad, then put an ultimak rail system on it and add an EOTECH or Aimpoint.
 
Not tactical enough? That's why you run an AK like an AK and a AR like an AR. Many rooms have been cleared with the AK-47, and many bad SOB's killed by it.
 
Point: The shooter/operator of the weapon is BY FAR the most important thing. A CAG operator with a grease gun is much more deadly than a Afghan soldier with a M4. Let's not make the claim that the M4 is better than the AK. I personally think for the enviroment, I'd go with the AK for the Afghani's and Iraqi's. Why? Because they will run dry, can go longer between cleanings, ammo is cheaper (despite this crap about corrosive/bad ammo, which is easily solved by ordering new ammo instead of new guns), and parts are much easier to go by. 
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       4/1/2008 4:19:58 PM
"Rifle Dynamics: Tools and Training for the Professional Warrior"

lol...

 
Quote    Reply

JFKY       4/1/2008 4:39:54 PM
And yet the US SOCOM didn't adopt the AK as their assault weapon but chose the SCAR...According to those on this site, the AK has poor ergonomics and  poor sights...the ammunition is not particularly straight shooting and has poorer wound ballistics beyond 100-200 metres. 
 
Yes all systems have a mix of advantages and disadvantages, BUT we can weigh those positives and negatives and come to a conclusion....5.56 X 45 is a better overall round than 7.62mm Soviet, and the AK-47 is not a particularly great weapon...as I say you might debate about AK-101, or M-4's or HK-416's or whether you think M-193 is better than M-855 ammunition, but the general consensus seems to be that the Soviet-bloc AK series and it's ammunition lack.  They are cheap and reliable, if you have a peasant army, that isn't going to clean it's weapons much, and intends to triumph via automatic weapons fire at 200 metres or less, choose the AK.  If you're going for a more professional force, one that is going to clean it's weapons and emphasize more selective fire, don't choose the AK.
 
My original point was that, yes much of th ammunition that the Afghanistan and Iraqi's have been buying is old, unreliable surplus ammunition, but that even purchasing newer, better grade ammunition is still buying a somewhat sub-standard round, fired from a somewhat sub-standard rifle.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4   NEXT