Russian Defense Minister Causes Uproar With Call to Replace Famed AK-47

[Gerald]

Russia's Defense Minister, Anatoly Serdyukov, set off a firestorm of debate in Russia after saying that his military's pride and joy, the Kalashnikov and Dragunov SVDs sniper rifles, are "morally outdated" and that he's considering a plan to buy foreign-made small arms.

The comments were made during a private meeting with members of the lower house of Russia’s parliament just before the New Year, according to Russian media accounts. Serdyukov introduced the plan to buy foreign-made guns as part of larger military reforms that include buying French-made Mistrall Class helicopter carriers for the Russian navy.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/21/russian-defense-minister-causes-uproar-replace-famed-ak/


Note: Published January 21, 2011

[Kaye T. Bai]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The AK family of assault rifles and its derivatives are fine weapons. :up:

[CCIP]

Well this is sure to end well



...if it ain't broke... :roll:

[ETR3(SS)]

...morally outdated...:rotfl2:The Browning M2 .50 cal has been around since WW2 and the US still uses it. Why? Because some things are too damn good to replace. Like the AK and its derivatives.

[Kaye T. Bai]

The Browning M2 .50 cal has been around since WW2 and the US still uses it. Why? Because some things are too damn good to replace. Like the AK and its derivatives.

Long live the M2HB! :yeah:

And the .50 BMG.

[Castout]

Quit the sentimental feeling on the AK-47. Russians need a new more accurate assault rifle so their troops can engage the enemy from greater distance more effectively imo. It would really make a big difference in battle having a more accurate weapon and better optics.

AK-47 spread is quite bad at longer ranges. Sure if you would want to kill an elephant from 400 m maybe it's great but not when you're trying to get a man firing from behind the window from 600 m. But to be honest my only experience with the AK-47 is in game :haha:. AK-47 always manages to drive me nuts in ArmA 2 as I tend to open fire from longer ranges. I could see the bullets hitting everything else but the target. :damn:. Going semi too!

[Kaye T. Bai]

AK-47 spread is quite bad at longer ranges. Sure if you would want to kill an elephant from 400 m maybe it's great but not when you're trying to get a man firing from behind the window from 600 m. But to be honest my only experience with the AK-47 is in game :haha:. AK-47 always manages to drive me nuts in ArmA 2 as I tend to open fire from longer ranges. I could see the bullets hitting everything else but the target.

ArmA 2 is to ground combat was Harpoon is to naval warfare. :up:

[MH]

I dont know about new variants of ak 47 but as far as remember using any type of optical equipment and keeping it zeroed in difficult conditions was very cumbersome,
With iron sights the m16 is still much more acurate while ak 47 require almost no maintence and will shoot no matter what.

[XabbaRus]

But the Russians have much improved variants of the AK47 and newer sniper rifles too...

I reckon this is grandstanding to give the defense industries a scare.

[Skybird]

Want to shoot a man at 600m (!) with just an assault rifle? Good luck with that.

The reliability of the AK47 is legendary. It is said you can give it no maintenance for a month, put into water, roll it in sand and let it dry in the sun - and it still fires then. Such reliability is an argument one should not underestimate - even more so for an army that maybe will need to fight in a logistics environment not as advanced as the American one.

I read that latest models of the AK-47 have much improved precision.

Anyhow, the idea that Russians frequently buy weapons, equipment and military platforms in the West now is something I am still not fully used to. :DL Tell Brezhnev back then that this would happen 30 years in the future. He probably would threaten that after his death he would not stop turning in his grave. :D

[MH]

Want to shoot a man at 600m (!) with just an assault rifle? Good luck with that.

The reliability of the AK47 is legendary. It is said you can give it no maintenance for a month, put into water, roll it in sand and let it dry in the sun - and it still fires then. Such reliability is an argument one should not underestimate - even more so for an army that maybe will need to fight in a logistics environment not as advanced as the American one.

I read that latest models of the AK-47 have much improved precision.

Anyhow, the idea that Russians frequently buy weapons, equipment and military platforms in the West now is something I am still not fully used to. :DL Tell Brezhnev back then that this would happen 30 years in the future. He probably would threaten that after his death he would not stop turning in his grave. :D

todays modern common foot soldier is thought about accurate shooting more than you think.
The times of spray and pray are long over.

[CCIP]

But the real question is... do assault rifles really need that accuracy and killing power at longer ranges? I think the opposite has consistently been shown to be true. That's why militaries in the last few decades have tended towards smaller-caliber, lighter weapons that are easier to fire under crucial close combat conditions. Most of the work done by these "assault rifles" and carbines is still at well under 100m. For everything else, there's specialized weapons - machineguns and sniper rifles and such.

I think it's easy to think up scenarios and theorize about where the AK might fail, but honestly, when what is really needed is a reliable weapon that will put a lot of lead into a target at close-to-medium range, I don't think you can do much better than the AK.

[Raptor1]

Oh? I thought the AK-47 and AKM were long withdrawn from front line service in Russia and replaced by modern versions of the AK-74...

[CCIP]

Oh? I thought the AK-47 and AKM were long withdrawn from front line service in Russia and replaced by modern versions of the AK-74...

I'm pretty sure he's referring to AK weapons in general. AK-74 and its versions are, at their core, still follow the same basic design.

[Raptor1]

Oh, I see. Though the AK-74 is supposed to be much more accurate than the AK-47 and AKM.

[MH]

Assault rifles are to be accurate and easy to aim night or day up to 300-400 meters under any condition.
Its not about sniping at long distance.
As some studies proved sometimes thousands of bullets shot achieved nothing or few hits because of poor training or equipment
Simple test-go to shooting range and try to hit target within just 25 meters on full auto and then try the same on semi auto,ln full auto you will waste about 70% of ammo on neutral cardboard target.

[Oberon]

Nothing wrong with the Kalashnikov family, like Xabba says, probably political grandstanding to give the arms manufacturers a kick up the backside.

[bookworm_020]

Nothing wrong with the Kalashnikov family, like Xabba says, probably political grandstanding to give the arms manufacturers a kick up the backside.

More likely a demand for better kickbacks!:03:

[Oberon]

More likely a demand for better kickbacks!:03:

Touché :03:

[CCIP]

That, and distracting from the real issues and need for reforms in the Russian Army. All this hand-waving about weaponry allows them to drag their feet on professionalizing the army and improving the conditions for soldiers.

[Stealth Hunter]

Built and designed in Russia during World War II (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/world-war-ii.htm#r_src=ramp), the AK-47 is considered the first true assault rifle.

Not quite. The AK47's final version was not constructed until 1946, at which point it entered its final trials. A finishing modification to the ejection system was made in 1947 to improve the overall reliability of the weapon, and it was distributed for testing. It was not registered in service until 1949, either.

If you want the first "true" assault rifle, look to the Germans, not the Russians, for the Sturmgewehr 44.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmgewehr_44

[Ducimus]

Oh? I thought the AK-47 and AKM were long withdrawn from front line service in Russia and replaced by modern versions of the AK-74...

was about to say this. People seem to confuse ALL AK's with being an "AK-47". I guess it's the same thing as all asian swords being called a "samurai sword".

[MH]

was about to say this. People seem to confuse ALL AK's with being an "AK-47". I guess it's the same thing as all asian swords being called a "samurai sword".

Functionality is not much different with AK 74.
Its a good gun but its a farmers rifle in concept.

[Raptor1]

Functionality is not much different with AK 74.
Its a good gun but its a farmers rifle in concept.

What is it that makes it a 'farmer's rifle', exactly? Both the AK-74 and the M-16 (And the AK-47, for that matter) are designed for pretty much the same purpose.

[MH]

What is it that makes it a 'farmer's rifle', exactly? Both the AK-74 and the M-16 (And the AK-47, for that matter) are designed for pretty much the same purpose.
As i said AK is good gun but M16 has come long way in its design to be solid platform for use of modern accessories.
While AK is not so functional in this department because of its basic design.
To attach any thing to the gun is more of work around than integrating it.

[Ducimus]

What is it that makes it a 'farmer's rifle', exactly? .

The AK line is made with much looser tolerances. A much more forgiving rifle given its renown for reliability and doesn't require much maintenance. You don't have to be trained to maintain it. A farmer could use it.

The M16 family, is made with much tighter tolerances, and requires routine maintenance, or it jamb's and and acts like a POS. This rifle requires a trained individual to get the most out of it.

[MH]

The AK line is made with much looser tolerances. A much more forgiving rifle given its renown for reliability and doesn't require much maintenance. You don't have to be trained to maintain it. A farmer could use it.

The M16 family, is made with much tighter tolerances, and requires routine maintenance, or it jamb's and and acts like a POS. This rifle requires a trained individual to get the most out of it.


......And that too

[yubba]

I got one, but it still can't milk a cow:woot:

[nikimcbee]

The AK line is made with much looser tolerances. A much more forgiving rifle given its renown for reliability and doesn't require much maintenance. You don't have to be trained to maintain it. A farmer could use it.

The M16 family, is made with much tighter tolerances, and requires routine maintenance, or it jamb's and and acts like a POS. This rifle requires a trained individual to get the most out of it.

:sign_yeah: We need to post some shows comparing the AK to the m-16, or just ask Mr. Kalashnikov himself.

[nikimcbee]

I got one, but it still can't milk a cow:woot:

Are you sure it is a cow and not a bull?:hmmm::haha: Was the cow smiling or not?:hmmm:

[CCIP]

By the way, 4 years ago when I was in Russia, I happened upon a Kalashnikov exhibition at the Artillery Museum in St. Petersburg. Among his lesser-known inventions is a bayonet he designed for NATO rifles, primarily the M-16, in the 90s. From what I gather, he definitely appreciated the M-16 design.

I should post some pics of that!

[nikimcbee]

By the way, 4 years ago when I was in Russia, I happened upon a Kalashnikov exhibition at the Artillery Museum in St. Petersburg. Among his lesser-known inventions is a bayonet he designed for NATO rifles, primarily the M-16, in the 90s. From what I gather, he definitely appreciated the M-16 design.

I should post some pics of that!

yes, please do!:yeah: I wanted to go to that museum when I was there, but didn't have the time.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Russia's Defense Minister, Anatoly Serdyukov, set off a firestorm of debate in Russia after saying that his military's pride and joy, the Kalashnikov and Dragunov SVDs sniper rifles, are "morally outdated" and that he's considering a plan to buy foreign-made small arms.

The comments were made during a private meeting with members of the lower house of Russia’s parliament just before the New Year, according to Russian media accounts. Serdyukov introduced the plan to buy foreign-made guns as part of larger military reforms that include buying French-made Mistrall Class helicopter carriers for the Russian navy.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/21/russian-defense-minister-causes-uproar-replace-famed-ak/


Note: Published January 21, 2011

Getting a newer, more accurate rifle than the AK is fine, but to buy a foreign gun?

Russia lives in a different geopolitical environment than most of the countries in the West. Given what it WANTS to do, it can't allow itself to become dependent on foreign weapons like Europe. A subsidiary like a French Buran-Catherine thermal sight on a Russian tank is one thing, or even an amphib ship like the Mistral, fine. Foreign content in core areas like guns, tanks, subs or planes is another.

Not to mention the foreign gun would likely be more expensive, which is another concept Russia does not need.

Does this man have no pride?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

That, and distracting from the real issues and need for reforms in the Russian Army. All this hand-waving about weaponry allows them to drag their feet on professionalizing the army and improving the conditions for soldiers.

To be fair, it is sometimes hard to see exactly what they should do.

[antikristuseke]

I'm incredibly sleepy and may have overlooked it, but has this thing been mentioned already?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN-94

Why look abroad when a good replacement is close by. Even though this statement has little to do with reality, by the politician that is.

[TLAM Strike]

I'm incredibly sleepy and may have overlooked it, but has this thing been mentioned already?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN-94

Why look abroad when a good replacement is close by. Even though this statement has little to do with reality, by the politician that is.

Yea they started work on a new rifle series in the 1980s, only the special forces and counter terrorist guys got them. Which is a shame they seemed like nice rifles.

[XabbaRus]

According to wikipedia it is still in production going by the date.

The thing is Russia is still hung up on legacy. So saying ditch a Kalashnikov is like saying to the French, ditch dassault.

I think it is a combination of ass kicking and more bribes.

I don't get it, I'm suprised however that Russia did get the Mistral. Rumour has it they want the C4I stuff too.

[Ducimus]

Getting a newer, more accurate rifle than the AK is fine,

Yeah it is less accurate then the M16 family. However, if we were to to have an apocolyptic event happen, (mad max style, zombies, whatever), I'd want an AK because i know that no matter what i did to it, if i pull the trigger, it will fire.

(assuming i could find ammo for it, 5.56 / 223caliber is much more common here )

[CCIP]

The ironic thing about the AN-94 and other AK replacements - Russian arms manufacturers have repeatedly pitched them to the army, the army evaluated them and was impressed, but in the end the rifles would only make it to special forces in limited numbers... reason? They were too technically-complicated and required too much maintenance to work well! This especially applies to the AN-94 which has a phenomenal burst fire rate and accuracy, but achieves them using a design that's mechanically complex and requires careful maintenance. And the minister wants Western weapons why...?

As far as what should be done, well, the crux of the issue is really that the Russian army needs to be professionalized rapidly and the draft abolished. What the ministry wouldn't admit is that the only logical reason for it is not military: the army is essentially a free slave labour force that by law has to tolerate terrible conditions and receives training of a very poor standard. It's no wonder they need to avoid technically-complex weapons - the army is willing to throw money at quality weapons, but they don't seem to be interested in training exclusively quality soldiers. Quality soldiers don't make good cannon (and otherwise) fodder. Sadly the wasteful Russian attitude to soldiers as expendable - both in wartime and at peace - persists.


Picturespam of about 40 pics from AK exhibit coming soon!

[Ducimus]

I'lll just toss this here:
AK 47 vs M16 Comparing accuracy, and penetration (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qS77zWB0xM)

[Dowly]

Five part AK-47 vs. AR-15 thingy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XN-T_zeTdTM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9aA67Wi7TM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcWCkmocbLI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hLh4J9ihy4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ9LDvikIEs

[MH]

I'lll just toss this here:
AK 47 vs M16 Comparing accuracy, and penetration (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qS77zWB0xM)

Did know that ak actually flexes lol.

[TLAM Strike]

(assuming i could find ammo for it, 5.56 / 223caliber is much more common here )
The more recent AK models are tooled for NATO rounds. :03:

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

As far as what should be done, well, the crux of the issue is really that the Russian army needs to be professionalized rapidly and the draft abolished. What the ministry wouldn't admit is that the only logical reason for it is not military: the army is essentially a free slave labour force that by law has to tolerate terrible conditions and receives training of a very poor standard. It's no wonder they need to avoid technically-complex weapons - the army is willing to throw money at quality weapons, but they don't seem to be interested in training exclusively quality soldiers. Quality soldiers don't make good cannon (and otherwise) fodder. Sadly the wasteful Russian attitude to soldiers as expendable - both in wartime and at peace - persists.

Shfestvo aside, the impression I've been getting reading Russian arguments (what little I can decode of them) is that their opposition is:

1) Economic, which makes some sense since Russia is huge and does not enjoy the warm umbrella that allows countries like in Europe to maintain small military forces. Nor are they, of course, as rich as the United States (and the US is helped by the fact they have no real defense requirements, only "power projection" ones). While the "hundreds of times" figures that often come out have been criticized for counting only the pay, nevertheless the cost increase is significant (Polmar once estimated the cost increase for changing the Soviet Navy to a full professional force as "five to eight times" counting all the extra amenities a "professional" needs, which seems reasonable). The Russians need a certain minimum manpower just to staff their whole border, and that may be too much for their budget with a volunteer force.

2) The "We need reserves" argument. This is a artifact of traditional Russian thinking, and may be argued to be obsolete.

3) Experience on the quality of "professionals" in their country. Westerners tend to write about professional military based on their own relatively positive experiences, and thus conclude it'll be a panacea for Russia as well. A number of limited programs have been made (starting with the warrant officer program in 1972) - here's what one Russian officer had to say about the program:
From the author. Actually, the experience of contract service in our army there, God forbid, memory, since 1972. That if we leave out of sight category enlistees, which existed in our army has always (and it is also inherently contractors).
I mean the category of warrant officers. Once they entered the service voluntarily and contracts. And what happened? With a set of ensigns and sverhsrochnikov was no problem, perhaps only in the capital and major cities. And then on the bread, not dusty and heavy levels (musicians, storekeepers, clerks, clerks, etc.). With decreasing size of settlement, in which there is a regiment of vacant posts of ensigns and sverhsrochnikov becoming more and more. For example, in the Far East district had no warrant positions were staffed by more than 20-40%. But then they were probably replaced by sergeants. And where conscripts could be taken with the refusal of the army from recruiting?
From http://army.armor.kiev.ua/hist/kontrakt-army.shtml

Google translated but the gist is clear. While we may suspect that there may be some hidden reasons as well, nevertheless with such an evidence base, to a Russian it will be far from clear that a professional army will actually improve their problems.
============
Russian conditions are not always the same as Western conditions, which is a factor that not even Russians themselves sometimes remember when spouting solutions. For example, there was an idea of using more civilian ROTC type programs to supplement "Command Higher School" (now Institutes IIRC) graduates.

The West thinks that program works, Russian officers seem to think that such ROTC's are badly inadequate (they do have some experience with such officers). I think the latter were probably right. With the Russian lack of NCOs, officers have to be more technically and militarily trained. A Western ROTC lieutenant may be spoon fed by a platoon sergeant (for all the boasts, this seems to be Western NCOs' opinion on what really happens to new officers) while he learns on the job. A Russian lieutenant must command his platoon on day 1 if the platoon is to function, which clearly requires a higher (and thus, in the same amount of time, more intense preparation), for which ROTC or even an western Academy (since western Academy education generally majors in something other than military science) can handle. The Western solution is clearly unsuitable for Russian conditions without dozens of corresponding, interlocked changes.

Such differences are why I argue it is difficult to say exactly what they should do. It is all very well to spout Western ideas (like fully professional militaries) at them, but without a detailed review of Russian conditions, such "kind attempts" will likely worsen the problem.

[Arclight]

The more recent AK models are tooled for NATO rounds. :03:
The export models, anyway. Iirc there's also models chambered for the Russian 7.62 and 5.45 cartridges.