I just saw an interview with a couple of GIs in Iraq... one of them was sporting an AK and a COM-Block style chest rig full of 30 rounders... what gives with that...?

STP.

Yeah, I think the green berets carry the most of them, It is a good gun for desert warfare becuase the 7.62 bullet will carry for a longer distance, the gas tub will probably resist a little more sand than an AR, and heck, the ammo should be easy to come along

????

That 2400 fps 7.62x39 round, won't "carry" farther. It will also have a more rainbow type trajectory.

Not to mention even if it did go further, that 4-6 moa accuracy will make it more difficult to actually hit a distant target.

But then again, it might be real easy to pick up spare ammo. If you and a small team are in the middle of nowhere, and you let loose with some 5.56 rounds, everyone for a mile in each direction is gonna realize that ain't the same sound that all their friends guns make. That might get a bunch of attention you don't want need etc. But a couple of rounds from an AK-47, in a country of AK-47's, won't attract much if any attention.

Well, if you were in the same situation, and you thought it was best to "aquire" such a piece for the benefit of you and your squad, you would.  I recall reading a book about LRRPs in Vietnam,  almost everyone of those squads carried an AK because they were used for signalling purposes by the VC and NVA.  If you happened to find a couple of laggers away from their buddies, it would be a bunch less conspicous and just plain thrifty to sneak up and shoot them with an aquired AK.

Just remember, whatever you pick up, you have to carry.  Personal choice.

but, if you have a heavier projectile at a lower speed and a lighter projectile at a higher speed, I thought that the heavier projectile will always travel farther, especially with the arcing flight path, for example, throw a pebble your hardest and it will only go for a short distance and fall quite quickly with a quickly decreasing speed, but throw a heavier rock and it will go a litte further but it will also fall a little bit slower.

of course I could be wrong and could very well be, It is just somthing I picked up while reading.

Classic high school physics, fire a projectile parallel to the plane of the earth, and drop the same type of projectile at the same time, and they will land at the same time.
Gravity doesn't care how fast you are going if you are not acting against it.

Of course the Warsaw pact did switch to the lighter, faster 5.45 projectile in their AKs shortly after NATO adopted the 5.56 ammunition. The main problem veterans I have spoken to about the 5.56 round said was when they were issued the green tips, when used against personnel. The armor piercing would just pierce the flesh, not fragment, not having the desired effect unless a major organ was hit. Mark Bowden has also documented this in Black Hawk Down. The choice of the correct type of ammo within a given caliber for the circumstances is key, I would think

You guys arent thinking of stealth..




You want the enemy to be confused where the fire directed at them is coming from.

Therefore, if your guns are making the same sound the enemies guns are making it will confuse them A LOT!

Faster projectiles have flatter trajectories than slower projectiles, all objects are effected by gravity.

Both 7.62X39 and current 5.56 projectiles are intermediate type rounds. They are designed so that reciols isn't to great, controlability on FA. Not to mention size, and "feed-ability" issues.

Both have less power than traditional rifle rounds. 5.56 rounds could be descride as light weight high velocity rounds. 7.62X39 are low velocity light-medium weight rounds. I don't think either has a true advantage over the other ballistically.

The problem with AK-47's, 7.62X39, both are designed for maximum reliability. Which sounds good, but that means tolerances are looser and as reliability goes up accuracy goes down.

M-16's are more accurate with mil-spec ammo, than AK-47's with military type ammo.

You are right though a VERY heavy round can often be fired at low velocity, and maintain it's energy for a great distance. But the lower the velocity the more "rainbow" like the trajectory.

But I would think the deflection characteristic of the lighter round would be disadvantage in battlefields with heavy vegetation, such as Southeast Asia, don't you think?

Ever seen anything shiney and different laying on the ground and picked it up and carried it around with you for awhile?

It has about that much meaning attached to it.

Time to move along...

I get it... finders keepers... loosers leakers (as in: acute hemoragic lead poisoning having an impact on weapon retention...)

Just for interest sake... what do you think the "brass" thinks about it...? "Well Col. Cheese sir, I'd actually prefer to carry the enemies weapon... if that's ok with the Army...sir...?"

STP.

I hate to nitpic, but it's [red]greater clearances[/red] that the AK is built on.

You are both right and wrong. Before re-inveting the wheel, let me introduce you to our bible, [url]www.ammo-oracle.com[/url]. Go to the section on M855 (green tip). Actually, just read the whole thing...

Id put good money on the fact that the guys seen with the AKs still have their web gear fully loaded with M16 mags and their M16/M4 not too far away.

The first post quoted here nealry made me blow my sack with laughter.......as for the last post in the quote, I would have to agree!

And of course, Pictures can be far more deceiving than one might be led to believe!

Seeing guys in newsreels from WWII walking around in German helmets does'nt lead me to believe they were using them.

The US uses AK's for one main reason, dropped ammo.  They have found that the 300-400 rounds of ammo a soldier can carry isn't enough when engaging in a firefight while trying to clear caves and bunkers.  Therefore, they want to be able to use enemy mags and ammo to carry on the fight.  Knight's even developed a new M16 type weapon that excepted AK mags.  I think the military decided it would be cheaper to use captured weapons.  Also, it does confuse the hell out of the enemy.  Confusion works both ways, unfortunately.

No one agrees with me?

The whole thing is about confusion.  We carried one or two AK’s with each platoon in Viet Nam that I was with.  The report from the rifle confused the hell out of the VC or NVA. It also allowed everyone to become familiar with the capabilities of their equipment. It also dispelled the which is better myth, AK or M-16.  The AK’s frequently jammed, made too much noise when you went from safe to fire, and were harder to change magazines on.  The M-16 just simply out performed the AK.

From what I have read, this seems true. While AK is an inherently reliable weapon, and the Soviet made examples were know to be, the CHICOM manufactured ones apparently had quite a reputation for malfunctioning.

I have personally fired an ex-Soviet (Izhmash Arsenal) AKMS underfolder at the weapons familiarization range at Fort Riley, KS when I was on active duty in the late 80s. For the demonstration they buried 10 loaded Soviet AKs in the sand and mud, let the dirt crust over in the sun, then instructed us to dig one up, proceed to our lane, and attempt to fire it on full auto. Mine fired of the entire magazine, once I cleared away enough muck to find the safety, without a hiccup. It was quite impressive.

Less impressive, however, was shooting the same rifle (cleaned up) on the range for familiarization. I couldn't hit a damn thing past the 150m popup silhouhette with it, and it shot way high and to the right, and wasn't all that consistent.  The point of the exercise was to show what our enemy's weapon were capable of, and that day stands out in my mind.

In extremely harsh conditions, a good AK can have it's value, as a backup, in my experience, although I think an army should have it's doctrine based on accurate fire, not spray and pray. That's one reason why I believe our military is unmatched worldwide.

All rounds "deflect" (which isn't really the appropriate term, but the one used previously) when they strike something...7.62x39, 5.56, .50 BMG.  The center of gravity is in the rear of a typical projecticle (look at the "boat shape" and you'll figure it out) so contact with resistance causes a round to destabilize- IIRC, the round usually ends up flying backwards if enough resistance is met but it can keep going.

my step dad told me it is for the ammo.  the 400 or so rounds that you hump in somewhere wont last long when you need it.  its always good to have a back up plan.

i asked him about this when we were watching tears of the son. -one of the guys had an ak on his back-

I too have seen video of our soldiers with AKs.  Several reasons come to mind.  Reliability without constant cleaning,  Matching the sound of the enemy, just neet to have all work.  Inside 300m there is no difference in practical accuracy between open sited m16 and an AK.  My AK shoots about 2-3 moa, my AR probably 1-2 moa although I can't free hand hold it that steady.  On man or vehicle sized targets out to 300m that difference is not really important.  Those guys are not punching paper for high score.

I've talked to one guy who was in Iraq, and he said he used it just because of the small size advantage the AK had in close quarters.

Won't be posting here for a while.....

Most of the guys carrying AKs are men who would normally only have a M9.

Some Marines, in the LAR battalions, tanks, and AAV companies, are picking them up because they didn't get their promised M4 carbines in time and a AKM fits better in a vheicle than a M16A2, and is much better than being stuck with a M9-which seems to be gaining a reputation for being a weapon you don't want to trust your life to.
See [url]www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=186638&page=1[/url]
and
[url]www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=189909[/url]

Gee, I did'nt know Special Forces were only issued M9's. [:O] Deception is an important part of combat strategy. The report from an AK is very distinct. The issue of accuracy between the two rifles is pretty much a moot point when your clearing houses or operating in an urban environment. Training wins battles, NOT weapons!

Here's a pic from the kid rock concert at the baghdad airport.  My best friend is over there and he's got digital camera.  He knows I love guns so he always sending me firearm pictures.  
[img]http://cfsql.bpa.und.nodak.edu/isys499/OlschlagerA/home/ak.jpg[/img]

P.S.  he said this guy was some sort of special forces

The M9 in the dropleg is kind of a giveaway that he is not from a line unit.

How do you figure he's got that rifle "slung"? I can't make out what he might have rigged to keep it hanging there like that... it doesn't look like he's holding it with his right hand anywhere... in fact his right arm looks bent across his body...

STP.

Maybe he has the AK sling looped thru his belt.  Just unhook the front snap ring & thread the sling thru the belt & rehook.  Since he's at a concert instant access to it isn't a great concern & this way it's out of the way.

My guess is somehow hung on his M9 holster?

Special forces guys usually operate far from supply lines and armorers, so it makes sense for them to have weapons that they can grab ammo and parts for in the field.

Special forces units carried AK's in Vietnam especially when operating behind the lines. S.E.A.L.s were fond of using the AK.

The AK has a distinctive noise and it blends with the noise from the enemies weapons adding that much more to their fog of war. Though I suppose this is a minor advantage if any.

I imagine the real reason for carrying an AK is that  A.) You can abuse the heck out of them and they will still run B.) You can pick up more ammo from the enemies you kill.

A lot of soldiers out there have some real experience with the AK and actually revere and respect it. The AK is an excellent weapon with a lot of advantages in the field.

Is it more accurate? No, but it is a lot less fussy about dirt than the AR. Sand especially makes the AR puke.

The AK, the FAL and the M1/M14 have all performed wonderfully in the sand. The AR does too, so long as you keep it clean. It does not like sand in the action. (As any one of the numerous GWI and GWII veterans will readily tell you...) You can give the AK a lot less TLC and still have a reliable weapon in your hands.

In Afghanistan specops guys wanted AK's because they were doing a lot of cave crawling, and they needed to be able to pick up ammo as they went. You can't drag but so much ammo into a dank cave...

From the first couple of post in this topic, I figure somebody needs to study ballistic charts and understand velocity, ft.lbs, and also look at deflection charts.
I can understand where SF guys would carry what every they feel like, but I really don't think we're getting alot of video from that type of patrol.
Most of the stuff I've seen on the news, is where there are 20 to 30 soldiers and 1 might have an AK. Most likely a soldier that is filling in as replacement from a different MOS.
With the heat {110 degrees} going on there, the ground pounders must be needing a good rotation off the streets.
One of the few things I picked up from TV was the number of patrols in country, they are running close to 2000 a day with 225000 troops in theator.  Then again I'm not there.

edit for this and that

well, From what I know from high school physics, is nothing, I havent got to phisics in school yet, but I said what I thought was true about the two rounds,

here is a scenario for you, what if you are depending on enemy ammo pick up and you arent killing the enemy? You'll really dig yourself in hole cause you will lose ammo trying to win ammo.

No biggy drag, you have a good point. With the proliferation of the AK, and the stock piling of ammo in Iraqi, I would think 7.62X39 would be easier to get than camel nuts.[:)]

Here are some good sites to ckeck out for ballistics.

[url]http://www.remington.com/ammo/ballistics/ballistics.htm [/url
[url]http://www.ammolab.com./[/url]

just for the record, the fact that a soldier is wearing a "dropleg" or tactical thigh holster in no way eartags him an operator.  Having commanded an Infantry company throughout OIF, I can tell you that 7 out of 10 guys carrying a 9mm are doing so in a thigh holster (one they purchased themselves).  I carried one the entire war (Safariland...if you wonder what brand).  
As for the whole AK discussion, the same holds true.  There are more line unit soldiers carrying around AKs, RPKs, and Dragunovs than you can shake a stick at.  Operators carry them, but not nearly as much as the line joes.
Part of it is the whole "hey look, I got an AK" mentality.  A guy picks it up after an attack and decides to hang onto, its a souvenir, its like that toy you always wanted and now suddenly there are hundreds of them laying everywhere (brand new, only dropped once).  I'm not implying that an AK is a toy...i think you get what I mean.  
It is true that the ammunition was readily available and that there are guys who used the weapons (after their M4 or M16 ran out of ammo).  A lot of them were carried as a backup weapon, but the majority were picked up in the hopes that when the unit gets to come home that the little momento could be brought back as a unit souvenir and displayed in the company orderly room.
After clearing a set of buildings one day, I became the proud owner of a folding and fixed stock AK, an RPK (new in wrapper), a Beretta licensed 9mm pistol complete with Republican Guard insignia, and a couple of RPGs.  I carried the small arms in my HMMWV the rest of the war along with two crates of ammo.  The folding stock AK fits nicely in the space above the passengers head in the HWWWV.  I little bit of para cord made a nice holder and it was easily accessible.  I put it there in the off chance that the M4 that I carried and the 9mm strapped to my thigh ran out of ammo or crapped out on me (that never happened).  
During and as the war winded down we did a lot of shooting with the AKs we collected.  Nothing more than plinking and seeing what they were capable of doing.  I decided to do a little informal reliability test.  I loaded up 30 mags of 7.62x39 with the intention of firing 10 mags as fast as I could through both AKs and the RPK.  For a weapon that gets a lot of talk about reliability, I was not impressed....and I glad i never had to resort to using one.  Both AKs which were relatively new never made it through the 2nd magazine before choking like a cat on a hairball.  As I checked them out I discovered that the ammo that we had was part of the problem.  The crimp on the bullet was way to loose and the bullets were coming out as the bolt stripped them off the magazine (the bullet would turn and block the path of the casing, preventing it from chambering).  The other problem was squib loads.  I stopped firing that ammo after the second one.  
I tried other lots of ammo that we came across and got similar problems.  I found one good lot of ammo and managed to belt out 5 mags from the RPK (my personal favorite of the bunch).  The heavier barrel and length balanced well for me (I'm 6'6" and 230 pounds) and it was suprisingly easy to handle full auto.  That was not the case for the AKs.  
Bottom line is that the majority of the AKs that you are going to see pictures of coming out of Iraq are mostly there as momentos.  I did not have a single soldier engage the enemy with his own weapon.  When the SHTF, everyone went for their tried and true M4/M16 and forgot about the AK that they were lugging around.
The only real complaint about the M4/M16 was the ammo.  It simply does not take someone out of the fight as well as you would like it to...even with extremely good shot placement (I touched on this in another thread).  
Not to be picky, but the guy in the picture with the AK is not SF.  He's a regular joe who thought it would be cool to impress the REMFs on the airfield if he carried AK around.

I wasn't pick'n on ya drag, I just wanted to clear things up and help out a little.

Alright guys here's the story on the ak.  This is a direct quote from Karl
"P.S.  I hope this works--I have tried sending this earlier--you might get two copies of the same letter.  I also saw an AK at the concert too.  A special forces guy had it.  They get to carry whatever the want.  Sucks for us that we can.  But, this guy said that they have found huge stock piles and their issues M16 they have to let other units that are short use them.  In the meanwhile they use whatever weapon and ammo that they can get their hands on.  Cool huh."

so it sounds like there's a shortage of m16's?  You wouldn't think so, but then again you're not over there and karl is.
Adam

ArmdLiberl had it right.  I'm not disagreeing with the last poster, he was there and I wasn't, but most of the accounts I have read of where they actually grabbed them to use involved guys in armor or other vehicles.  They engaged a lot more fedayeen/infantry than they did tanks and APCs.  A lot of times you can't swing an MG on its mount fast enough, or he is below the angles you can engage.  The M16 was too long and cumbersome to use from a hatch so guys would grab AKs, usually the folding stocked versions, because they offered a lot more handy firepower than their M9 Berettas.  Also, don't forget the Berettas gained a bad reputation for failing to function with a bit of dust in the mags.

Just to add a bit to the fray - A good friend of mine who was a US Special Forces medic in GWI said they picked up lots of AKs and played with them but didn't use them in combat because of accuracy and other problems with the weapons.
I'm not disputing anything anybody else said, that just what Bill said was his experience. He said they gathered up about 60 AKs of varied configuration and blasted off several thousand rounds of ammo on a makeshift range until they toasted the barrels. Good fun, he said, but not terribly accurate. He also said it was very difficult to get any firearm souvenirs past the airport screeners unless you were an armourer or quartermaster and could ship the guns in a sealed container - this was the preferred method.

I would think most soldiers will be forced to leave their firearm souvenirs behind when they return home - unfortunately. I think they should be allowed to keep them - but that's just my view....

its interesting to read the posts of the individuals that were not there but seem to know why and for what reasons everyone is picking up AKs.  the battalion I am in went through the war with our attached tank company and I can tell you that the crews relied on their M4s and their 9mms, not the AKs that they policed up along the way.  That tank company always moved with a cross attached platoon of mech infantry for the express purposes of the up close encounters.  Thats why its called "Combined Arms" or a Company Team.  The AKs were used like the last poster mentioned.  To burn off ammo and familiarize the soldiers with the weapons.  They were to unreliable, inaccurate, to depend on with your life.
As for taking the weapons home, that is expressingly forbidden.  It is part of General Order #1 for troops deployed in the AOR and is punishable by UCMJ.  We are not even allowed to bring home bayonets (which we had hundreds upon hundreds of them) for souvenirs.  No weapon or parts of a weapon system are allowed to be brought back as a souvenir, even if it is demilled.  Now for the SOCOM community that rule is a little different.
I had brand new Dragunov with PSO-1 scope that I policed up out of a supply depot we occupied while in Bahgdad.  It was a beauty (and I'm not a big fan of the Dragunov) and shot extremely well.  It was a darn shame when I had to drop it in a pit with other rifles and toss in a few incendiary grenades to destroy it.  So was the fate for all the weapons we collected along the way to Baghdad.

Drag,

You are not as far off as others may lead you to believe.  If you want to impress these guys with ballistics research Fackler et al and the Virtual Naval Hospital on the web.  Fackler is a Naval Surgeon who has dedicated much of his career studying what happens to bullets IN FLESH, not air, paper, or just "in theory".

As  primer:

1.  The magic of the 5.56 happens at velocities above 28/2900 fps and requires a cannelure on the bullet.  Velocity is key.  Above 2900 fps the bullet will fragment upon impact and the frags will proceed along the temporary cavity pressure wall causing an enlarged cavity.  No frags and all you have is a 22 caliber wound.  Temporary wound cavities by themselves (no frags) dont amount to much.  This is a frequently misunderstood concept in ballistics.

The problem is that the lighter 5.56 round will lose speed rapidly because of its weight.  Simple momentum.  So depending on your powder charge, bullet weight, barrel length, wind, ect this "magic zone" is somewhere under 200 meters.  After that, the bullet will not frag upon impact.  Again, no frag and no enlarged wound.  So a 14 inch shorty will normally do its magic under 100 meters and 20 inch maybe out to 200 meters (or so).

2.  The problem with the AK round is that it will not frag and will penetrate over 10 cm in flesh before starting to yaw.  Yaw effect is the second most effective way to create a wound cavity.  So 200 meter shots with this round often create through and through simple wounds with no yaw and no frags, thus .30 caliber cavities.  Remember that temporary cavities dont cause any real damage unless accompanied by metal frags.

3.  The rub is with penetration.  The 5.56 will impact with lots of force because of its high velocity and small surface area, but will quickly dissapate because of its light weight and the even lighter weight of its many frags.

The AK round will generally penetrate in one piece and (depending on the barrier) begin to yaw so that whatever is after the barrier (ie flesh) will be hit with either the flat side or the rear of the bullet.


Facklers research is based on combat experience.  I will always defer to him and to the rest of our brave soldiers with their real-world combat experience.

chris k

Inreferance to the Bowden and BHD comment.
See [url=groups.msn.com/TheMarylandAR15ShootersSite/problemswith556.msnw]This[/url]
And [url=groups.msn.com/TheMarylandAR15ShootersSite/bhdweaponreferences.msnw]This[/url]

223 Remington (55 in the charts)    
7.62x39mm     (123 in the charts)
Index No. Cartridge Type Wt. (grs) Bullet Style Primer No. Ballistic Coefficient
L223R3  55 Metal Case 7 1/2  
L762391  123 Metal Case 7 1/2  

VELOCITY (ft/sec)
Cartridge Type Bullet Muzzle 100  200  
55 MC.................3240...2759.2326    
123 MC................2365...2060.1780    

ENERGY (ft-lbs)
Cartridge Type Bullet Muzzle 100 200  
55 MC..................1282..929..660    
123 MC.................1527..1159.865    

SHORT-RANGE¹ TRAJECTORY*
Cartridge Type Bullet 50 100 150 200 250 300
55 MC...............-0.1 0.6 zero -1.9 -5.5 -11.0
123 MC ..............0.1 zero -2.2 -6.8 -14.1 -24.5


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note:  These ballistics reflected a test barrel length of 24"


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Ok I kinda got those charts somewhere else, and hopefull they make sense here. Both loads are commercial loadings, but may be pertty close to military loads.

For comparison, a .308 load

308 Win.    
Index No. Cartridge Type Wt. (grs) Bullet Style Primer No. Ballistic Coefficient
L308W4  150 Metal Case 9 1/2  

VELOCITY (ft/sec)
Cartridge Type Bullet Muzzle 100 200    
150 MC................2820..2533.2263    

ENERGY (ft-lbs)
Cartridge Type Bullet Muzzle 100 200  
150 MC............... 2648..2137.1705    

SHORT-RANGE¹ TRAJECTORY*
Cartridge Type Bullet 50 100 150 200 250 300
150 MC ..............-0.1 zero -1.2 -3.9 -8.4 -14.7

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

.308 a "REAL" rifle load has more energy at 200 yards than either 5.56 or 7.62X39 do at the muzzle.

You sure about this bud?

Former NYCPD Commissioner has "Personal Security Assets" that are carrying AK's.
I do have a Pic., however I'm not computer savvy enough to post it.  W/ help, I'll e-mail it to someone.  I only offer this because whatever their thinking mighht ACTUALLY be, The use of the AK in this role would tend to lead away from the confusing the enemy idea, as I'm sure any element effecting an ambush/assasination attempt, would certainly know, beforehand, their enemies location/the direction from which their enemy will be returning fire.  And the use of the AK in this role would tend to negate their use in order to alleviate an ammunition shortage, I'm certain "Bernie" as he was affectionately known here in NY, does not travel far behind enemy lines, far from re-supply lines.  In fact knowing "Bernie" he's probably never far from the center of town (cameras).  Just a thought.

Help w/ the pic anyone?  Pretty good one.
S2 out.

A lot of knocking on the AK is the result of a failure to understand what it was designed to do. Kalishnakov's assignment was to answer the German Sturmghewer BUT, in a device which could be used to export communism to the third world. That is, it was intended to be operated and maintained by some peasant whose prior mechanical experience consisted of pounding a wooden stake in the ground with a rock. Given that MENS, the design is brilliant.