Why U.S. didn't adopt the AK-platform?

[Markp]

I think it comes down to philosophy of use. In the case of the AR, it was designed around the history of the US military empowering individual combatants by ensuring that they had a real grasp of marksmanship and individual responsibility.

As a result, we have a weapon that requires the individual maintain it properly and know the fundamentals of marksmanship. Can you imagine trying to shoot a CMP competition with an AK? Probably not.

It all comes down to the philosophy of use for the weapon system. Many other countries do not provide the level of autonomy and responsibility that US military service members enjoy. The freedom and responsibility that young men and women in the US military are given contribute greatly to success of our forces.

M

 

[RobMoore]

^ He took my answer

 

[Makarov Kid]

Gentlemen, we all know who kicks butt against the AK and AR (wait for the flame war) THE VZ 58!

 

[BradMacc82]

Gentlemen, we all know who kicks butt against the AK and AR (wait for the flame war) THE VZ 58!

After having to beat a VZ against a table (repeatedly, and quite hard) to clear a stuck case, I disagree.

 

[llkoolkeg]

IMHO, you need both plus a MBR in every other military caliber you might reasonably come across. If I walk into a Walmart and miracle-beyond-miracles there happens to be something in the ammo case besides .270 and .22 snake greasers, I want to be be able to make good.

 

[joppaj]

I think Markp nails it. From the reading I've done, the Soviets planned for overwhelming numbers to win the day. Give them a bullet hose and turn loose the hoards. The American belief in training riflemen is evident in the adoption of the M-14. When that turned out to not be the replacement for every other small arm we issued, we went in search of what eventually became the M-16.

I'd recommend that every rifle shooter should read about the deliberations, negotiations and trials that eventually led to the adoption of the 7.62x51 NATO. I think you'll get a good grasp of what the western powers were expecting.

 

[DCutdSE]

I agree with Markp. The philosophy of the West was to have professional, volunteer armies. Marksmanship and precision were key, as were the investment these nations made in training their soldiers. The Russians were using conscripts from a wide pool of languages and ethnicities across nine time zones. The AK had to be rugged, reliable and easily trainable.

 

[ZX672]

Personally, I'd have liked to seen us stick with the M14 in the Cold War, but that's just me.

+ 1 on the M14

 

[huesmann]

It's difficult for me to believe that the U.S. didn't have an example of the AK as soon as it was issued to the Soviet military. Or, better yet, had copies of the design prints. After all? What are spies for? Battlefield? I'm sure we could have stripped one off a dead N.Korean/Chinese soldier during the Korean war.

Maybe you hadn't noticed, but Uncle Sam isn't in the business of building weapons. He pays our military-industrial complex to do so.

 

[mrbule]

As long as you are not a sissy girl who can't shoulder more than 2lbs the Fal conquers all.

What we should have been using during the Cold War.

 

[jr88]

I think it comes down to philosophy of use. In the case of the AR, it was designed around the history of the US military empowering individual combatants by ensuring that they had a real grasp of marksmanship and individual responsibility.

As a result, we have a weapon that requires the individual maintain it properly and know the fundamentals of marksmanship. Can you imagine trying to shoot a CMP competition with an AK? Probably not.

It all comes down to the philosophy of use for the weapon system. Many other countries do not provide the level of autonomy and responsibility that US military service members enjoy. The freedom and responsibility that young men and women in the US military are given contribute greatly to success of our forces.

M

I agree, and I will add to philosophy the cartridge itself. We wanted a smaller lighter round to enable more ammo to be carried and a lighter weapon. I have read several times that America wanted a round that would disable an enemy combatant, requiring help off the battle field and therefore tying up more enemy. They felt the 7.62 would kill too quickly rather than just injure. I have also read that theory proved wrong in Vietnam due to their lack of respect for life. I think the Russians were going along the same theories when they developed the AK74 5.45 round. After all they created the AK then switched to a round that much closer imitates the AR.

 

[rob-cubed]

The switch in cartridges was primarily focused on weight, controllability, and cost. A soldier shooting either 5.45 or 5.56 out of either platform can carry more ammo and keep the muzzle on target better. AND it will cost the military less per round.

It wasn't driven so much by wounding potential, although the ability of the small, fast round to yaw and create internal damage and stay in the body is a plus.

 

[erwos]

I enjoy the weird M14 love that seems to pop up in every thread these days now that it's getting banned. It's a POS that was too heavy, not very good for CQB/MOUT, and fired a round too powerful to control in automatic fire. Yes, it was terrific for aimed semi-auto fire, preferably from a stable shooting rest at long range. The M1A is such a fine competition gun for that reason... but it was a dead end as a service rifle, because you've got to do more with those than just long-range aimed fire.

I get that the military had issues with M855/SS109 at some of the engagement ranges in Afghanistan, but the solution was not "the M14", it was "7.62x51". The only reason they popped out with M14s is because they still had them in storage, and had some culture related to it.

And before anyone accuses me of an M14-hate-on, or being some sort of 5.56x45 partisan, I own a Galil SAR and mostly agree with gdud's critique of the Galil platform. The ergos are not as good as the AR-15, the optics mounting situation sucks, and it weighs a whole lot more. Nice gun to hand to tankers who 1) don't maintain their rifles very well and 2) need something compact to stash in the rack. But for guys humping around their rifles all day and giving them appropriate TLC, the trade-offs aren't worth it. (This is not to ignore the economics issue of foreign aid, which, IMHO, trumped all that stuff anyways.)

Oh, and back to the original topic: the US didn't adopt an Stg44-like platform because the brass at the Army had STILL not taken to heart the lesson of intermediate calibers being the way forward. The Russians got the message first, possibly because they wanted a cartridge that used fewer raw materials?

 

[Biggfoot44]

This. When the Ak , and for that matter the SKS were new ,the Soviets were committed to intermedate cartridge , US was still tied to a full power ctg.

The real question that you shold have asked was why the M-14 rather than its main competetor in the Trials , and superior rifle , the FAL .

Answer = Not Invented Here . ( Here being as much Springfield Armory (the Gov't one ) as USA per se. Step farther back in history to the adoption of the Trapdoor spring field instead of the far superior Remington Rolling Block.

 

[clandestine]

I love the AR, most versatile shoulder fired weapon system around.

I agree with Zoostation and MarkP points.

I sold my AK, except for 2. They have a place but overall meh.

Cant stand the M14/M1A. Cant stand the FAL. I like an AR10 variant or a G3.

 

[straightsilver3]

Nemesis Put up those video's of you changing AK mags That will show'em

 

[vcaddy05]

Because the AR is the greatest gun ever made, even when it was a jam-o-matic POS that had to be crammed down the Army and Marine Corps throats.

Seriously, though it was the Cold War. Maybe I should explain why Pepsi doesn't make Coke?

LOL I think if you asked a marine in a firefight during the early part of Vietnam, they may have a differing opinion.

 

[KIBarrister]

Because the AR is the greatest gun ever made, even when it was a jam-o-matic POS that had to be crammed down the Army and Marine Corps throats.

Seriously, though it was the Cold War. Maybe I should explain why Pepsi doesn't make Coke?

here we go

 

[ObsceneJesster]

Coke taste much better than Pepsi. I'll drink Pepsi if I have too but I'd much rather take Coke to a battle!

 

[clandestine]

Coke taste much better than Pepsi. I'll drink Pepsi if I have too but I'd much rather take Coke to a battle!

This man speaketh the truth !