Why did the AK-47 become so popular?
economist.com
economist.com
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).
Warning shot.
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.
I had to read that twice and I'm still not sure. You mean economics, right?
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.
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.
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.
Worse is better.
>Correctness The design must be correct in all observable aspects. It is slightly better to be simple than correct.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ;-)
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.
The comparison with the M-16 in particular is pretty brutal.
It's a "good enough" gun that the Soviets and licensees made over 100m of. Guns, parts and ammo are available anywhere.
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.
- 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.
Saying someone owns an AR is sort of like (loosely) saying they own a PC - that could mean anything from an Intel NUC to a Xeon workstation in a huge case. There's a common architecture, but it's the flexibility of the architecture that makes it popular.
Sure, because we all know how safe guns are kept in the USA and no one ever runs amok with a few of them around.
The "tacticool" factor is probably responsible for only a tiny fraction of all AR-15 sales.
The M1A... now that's a solid reliable/accurate rifle.
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.
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.
The second option was Swedish made weapons, the heavier bofors especially.