Legacy of the AK47

In a book I read that the AK47 is the most popular assault rifle in the world. So if they're so popular, why do the USA and Canada use the M16A2 and C7 (which is basically a modified M16A2).

PS I know this topic kinda' clashes with all the other AK47 vs M16 topics, but I'm not asking which one's better, 'cause they all have their strengths and weaknesses, I'm just asking why doesn't the USA and Canada use the AK47 if it's the most popular assault rifle in the world. Please lock or remove this topic if it just isn't necessary.

 

Canada uses the C7 for several reasons, 1 being that ut yses standard NATO ammunition, 2 it is made in Canada thus helping Canadian economy. It also has a greater accuracy than the Kalshnikov.

 

If anything, they'd be using the AK-74, but aside from that the most important factor is stability of delivery and industrial support.

Russia's political situation is still only somewhat stable, and thus weapon deliveries would not be guarenteed, even after the fall of the Soviet Union. Furthermore, money spend internally is better for the US economy than importing weapons.

 

When the AK was designed, the Cold War was going on and NATO countries were not going to use anything of Soviet design. Also, NATO armies were set up to use smaller, more effective units compared the USSR/China mindset of mass hordes of troops to take objectives.

Another thing to look at is that the US wants it's battle rifles to be accurate at longer distances and the AK fails in this regard.

Basically, the AK and M-16 were designed with different tactics in mind.

The AK is the most popular because it is cheap, reliable, easy to get parts and ammo for and was spread all over the world by the Soviets and later the Chinese.

 

there is no doubt in my mind that the AK-47 is the best battle rifle in the world today

 

AK47 is an assault rifle! And I think it's a matter of preference.

 

There may be no doubt in your mind but there is considerable doubt as to your qualifications to make such a pronouncement.
Since it's the second time you have made this kind of blanket statement and you are apparently young and haven't served in the military it must be that you are perhaps trolling some of the other posters here? I think I will let that bait pass on by unmolested

 

:roll:

To quote myself:

To be honest, there's no doubt in my mind that since you have made no effort to support your arguments you simply cannot. I too will ignore the bait on this one.

 

Producing smal arms is not bigg deal,most country produce weapons for themselfs,homemade designs r copy's (mostly AK copy's) of some otther country.What weapon will some country use is more political,then military ishue,and for shure,price.AK is just perfect,reliability,price,durability,easy to use,what made it NO1.

 

I agree with Simon.

 

I really think that what one considers to be "number one" needs to be defined.

Are we talking the best weapon or the most produced? Even if you say "best" then best has to be defined.

It seems to me that Grieg, for example, prefers a weapon that is precise at long ranges, which I agree with. Others prefer a weapon that is reliable under adverse conditions. Does this make one better than the other?

Maybe yes, maybe no. There are so many factors to consider in what weapon is "best" and for what purpose, the debate really has to be narrowed down to certain specifics.

My 2 cents worth.

- Greg

:smok:

 

I think every gun has it's weak spots.

 

Shure it does,but only AK,prooved in real and hardest combat situations.

 

Ridiculous, the M-16 has been proved in real and hard combat situations.

 

Not really,it got really bad rep. in nam.

 

Yes, really. The early teething problems when it was first introduced have been well covered in the other thread. Those problems were solved and the M-16 has endured for 40 plus years and several upgrades and is still in use today by the most powerful military in the world.

 

When AK had bad rep?

 

It has always had a bad reputation for poor accuracy and cheap, crude construction amongst knowledgable gun people. I know of no serious shooters who use them. They are popular with teenagers and those looking for a really cheap military rifle in my experience.

 

The military strength of its users says little about the quality of the gun, though. I don't see how this argument follows...

For reasons mentioned above, you only choose the AK-47 when you have no money or no choice. Unfortunately, a great many countries, people and armies are in fact in this situation.

 

Well, in a way it does. The most powerful military in the world is also the richest. They can afford to equip their troops with any weapon they choose. It's true they wouldn't likely choose a Russian or Chinese weapon for practical reasons but I don't think there would be any problem with choosing a European made weapon. There was some grumbling but no real dissent when the US changed from the Browing M1911A1 pistol to the 9mm Beretta and the Abrams maingun may be made in the US but it is a German design. Despite all this the US has retained the M-16 (with some improvements) for a very long time and through a number of conflicts. I consider that evidence of it being battle tested and proven.