The Ukrainian War has been demonstrating left and right the relative impotence of Soviet era weapons against modern weapon systems. This is nowhere more apparent than the inability of the AK platform to effectively support optics and other systems that allow operation outside of daylight hours. Ukrainians are well aware that Russian troops are only able to engage in the daylight and operations for the most part cease after dark. IMO the AK will always have a place where daylight CQB is concerned but it's inability to adapt beyond that really is a limiting factor.
I think the problem with the Ak is the flash hider doesn't Ak47 Mag dump under Night Vision - YouTube
The problems with the AK are 1) accuracy, 2) range 3) lack of optic capabilities 4) sub gun caliber, 5) lack of modernazatin! The AK was always meant to be a sub gun for defensive use, while the Soviets never developed a battle rifle to allow offensive operations! The old Soviet doctrine of ground combat was for up close and personal, supported by snipers and other heavy weapons, something we see they are very sorely lacking! Is the AK outdated/obsolete? No, but it's doctrine sure as hell is! This is also something China will be dealing with sooner or later, as they pretty much follow everything the Russians do with their ground forces!
The Russians use the AK12 it fires the 5.45x39mm. It has the range, but the accuracy sucks because they slapped them together with a bunch of sub contractors who made shit parts.
China is active replacing all AK's for front line troops with their own AR copy that appears t use an improved version of the Adams short stroke piston using their own 5.8x42mm cartridge. Only the guard will retain AK's for the medium term.
The other issue is that any AK variant that has a decent scope mounting system is even bigger, clumsier, and heavier than the original. The AK was simply not designed as a system, so it doesn't adapt well. Instead, it is targeted solely at the purpose for which it was designed as @Ura-Ki mentions above.
The original AK-47 was designed to be used as a spray-and-pray weapon that was fired from the hip of advancing Soviet soldiers. It was NEVER intended to be anything else than what it was...an excellent weapon designed by a genius!
I've met lots of guys that prefer the AK platform. Preferred caliber is mostly 7.62x39, with maybe a quarter of that number in 5.45x39 (which isn't reloadable with available components) and 2-3% AK-101 in 5.56x45. 7.62x39 import ammo has a lot to do with the spotty accuracy reputation of the AK platform. Switching to Winchester white box pretty consistently reduced group size by 60% or more. In the scrub oak and pines around here there aren't many clear shots beyond 150 yards unless it's down a road. The thing is, guys that run AK's they don't leave them "stock." Far from it. Slant brakes come off and birdcage flash hiders or supressors go on. I like the side mount with original Russian scope, but not the illuminated reticle that lights you up at both ends. I can shoot as well and quicker with the standard sights. Most guys have modern rail systems on theirs and the same new fangled optics I see on all the AR noise makers. I'm terribly biased on the subject of optics, and feel that until you can regularly break 5" clays at 100 yards, off-hand, with issue sights, you should work on your marksmanship fundamentals until you can. The guys that are serious about the AK platform and modern optics can hang anything on them that the AR guys can. Doctrine rather than capability may dictate that Russian forces withdraw at dusk. Not a bad idea when your enemy is fighting on his own turf. It's a losing proposition to move at night. Thinking that an enemy can only engage in the daytime is a good way to get shot by somebody with dim tritium night sights that hadn't been told he couldn't do that. Once your eyes are adjusted to the old tritium sights you can shoot very effectively in the dark. The AK, and other .30 caliber rifles with an AR style birdcage flash hider make no more than an occasional small spark at the muzzle. Lots of fun.
As Uri-Ki mentioned, the problem is not the AK 47, it is the changes in tactics and doctrine of use. It was developed by a genus to handle the standard Nazi tactic of basically a light machine gun squad as its basic tactical unit that was supported by field guns Take out the MG42 and you had several people with bolt action Mausers left. In house to house fighting the AK was the answer. The introduction of optics, small light observation drones, can buy one with quite good tactical uses at local big box store for about $150 and it works quite well in low light situations as well, fighting a war in basically open fields and more open urban areas. The almost 24 hour coverage of the entire battlefield and surrounding area by satellite supplied by both the allies and commercial sources. Targeting being supplied as well as weapons that have stand off capabilities, eg, targeting ships and hitting them with missiles before they come into range to be used, knocking out the Russian tanks and APCs. The Russians should have learned these lessons in the last little wars in Armenia. The old soviet tactics and equipment did not do well against the newer Turkish supplied drones and stand off weapons in a similar battlefield. With the observation equipment, anti tank and anti ship weapons, Russians not controlling the air space, etc, a small team with long range sniping weapons, secure communications with accurate targeting systems, 24 hour information due to thermal and low light capabilities, can both control and call in reinforcements. Nothing new here, US has spent billions on systems to do this and the results we are seeing in the Ukraine may indicate that it didn't all go for gold plated toilet seats in some programmers office.
The AK is the perfect weapon for it's main use. Large diameter, decent energy close quarter high capacity firearm. Lots of peeps have died on the receiving end of this gun. It's not a hushpuppy, nor sniper rifle, nor anti-material, nor a shotgun. We have other firearms for that. To compare the AK platform to an AR15 and say it's a terrible AR15 is a poor comparison because the AR15 is terrible M107A1 to begin with.
There's about one or two 0.2215'' bullets available that would only be used for reloading 5.45x39. No brass made in the US.
This all brings us full circle here. The U.S. really needs to divest it's self from the M-16/M-4 and AR type weapon systems and it's main caliber 5.56 and adopt something far better. If the AK is so outdated, then so is any weapon using 5.56! Sure, I get the need for small, light, and easy to carry weapons but that's not answering the issues of war fighting, indeed, nothing has changed since the M-16 went to war in Nam! The waste of ammo is astonishing, something like 3500 rounds fired per kill, that's not a very effective way to fight, and sure brings to question just how serious we are about actually winning! I still say we screwed the pooch getting away from a full size battle rifle and cartridge. Hell, with modern engineering, we have proven we can make a small,light, and easy to carry weapon that can handle a proper fighting cartridge in the old 7.62X51, don't let the new 6.8 fool you, its just thr newest twist on the correct path, and I argue the old .308 was/still better! Everything the Mil. wants, they can and should train around, and stop playing around and go back to 7.62x51, recoil be dammed, man up or shut up, or drive a desk in the rear with the gear and let the real men do the fighting! I have tons of experience here, and with the M-16/M-4 it's not so much the rifle, it's the cartridge that is the failure! We also had other weapons we could use, ( I often used the M-21, or M-40) and was quite happy to have them! We also had various other "Battle Rifles" we could use if needed, the G-3 and FAL or the old M-14 always got the job done quite nicely! The problem with the small cartridge is it's stopping power, or lack there if, makes it a very poor choice, or no choice at all! Almost the exact same problem with the AK, only worse!
Yes , brass is a problem, but until the Dodo in Chief outlaws it, it has the cheapest surplus made world wide. All seems to go bang well and only once in a while comes out of barrel with the point backwards. That said, still prefer AR platform for close in, although I have went to 300 blackout so maybe admitting the AK is a better round for close in and that round could be silenced if desired. Big argument from tactical grounds is that with vision devices and body armor becoming every more effective, what is the best round for the military? By definition the powers that be do not like "cop Killer Ammo", but the GI needs something that stops the bad guys with the same or better armor than the police have. So far as I can tell, once plates are added to good armor, the only sure way to get a good hit is with bigger calibers and more bullet weight. The blunt force impact if nothing else will stop him.
I will play devil's advocate here (personally, I would like to go to a larger cartridge, but I got so much sunk into the 5.56 now...it would be hard to justify given how the costs have risen and I have firearms capable of doing the job. Is the 5.56 the best? No. Can it do the job? Yes.) 1. Let's not forget that most personnel can't hit crap in combat beyond 300 meters 2. Reason they cannot comes down to recoil 3. To reduce recoil = less projectile weight but compromised with higher velocity 4. This also means individual can carry more ammo, more ammo also means more rounds downrange increasing chance of hit. 5. The lighter rifle for this type of ammo means can carry not only more ammo but food, water, essentials, etc... 6. The lighter rifle and less recoil means training soldiers of less upper body strength is simplified and gives faster and better results 7. The lighter rifle increases speed of movement to acquire target, even more so within a vehicle 8. Does 5.56 punch through body armor as well as 7.62? Yes. That's all I can think of in defense, wanted to list 10 but can't come up with much of anything else...LOL! As far as the new 6.8 round (.277 Sig Fury), I am no expert by any means, but I truly wonder the wisdom of going to a completely new round like this and if its few advantages can truly outweigh the 7.62 to the point of making it worth it. They say, "...manageable recoil and high velocity like 5.56, but also superior stopping power like 7.62." One thing is nice as they will have a common ammo type for individuals rifles and support weapons, that's a true advantage but it could have been had with 7.62 also so... EDIT: This thread got me interested in the 6.8mm x 51 (.277 Sig Fury) so got reading about it a bit more. I found this article to be very informative while not excessively long-winded. What We Know About The 6.8×51 (277 SIG Fury) (refactortactical.com)
Weight of ammo be damned, if I'm going in harm's way I can carry as much ammo as needed...and then some. All you REALLY need is a weapon, ammo and water...lots of ammo and a couple of canteens of water!
All we need to do is get a good MBR in 7.62 NATO, and adequate basic load of ammo and water like Wildbilly stated. We are the most mechanized army in the world, and ALL of the 60+ lbs of crap our soldiers are laden with can be packed in a truck, chopper, or the like with the exception of specialized missions. With the quality optics issued today there is no reason targets cant be serviced at 400+ meters. No excuse for not being able to shoot. I have seen some pretty accurate AKs out there and would not want to be shot at by one.
I belive in using the biggest hammer (commonly) available. I've stated before that my calibers of choice are .308 and .45. My goto MBR in a SHTF world would be my FAL Para. 16" barrel,folding stock. And my sidearm will always be one of my .45s. Probably one of my SA XDs due to the increased ammo capacity. (I still prefer my 1911s). But that said, in the everyday world I always have my Polish AK with underfolder stock, wood furniture, flip up tritium night sights for low light. It is behind the seat of my truck, easily to hand. I have no issues with iron sights. I'm not a fan (old coot voice) of all the newfangled gadgets, red dot sights etc. I believe in the KISS principle. And Murphy's law. As for accuracy, are you punching holes in paper or engaging an enemy at the average combat range (under 50 yds) ? Out to that distance I can hit anything I aim at, every time. And with the heavier bullet, it packs more punch than the wimpy .223. There are stories from as far back as Nam when it was first introduced, of the bullets deflecting off branches and not being able to penetrate the jungle foliage where the 7.62 X 39 would hammer through it easily. And in Afghanistan reports came out during winter fighting that the rounds were slowed considerably ( often down to non lethal velocity) by the heavy clothing worn by the muzzies. So I guess my contribution to this topic, and YMMV, is that no, the AK platform is certainly not obsolete and definitely has a place in modern warfare and especially for civies for self defense or SHTF.
I think in the United States 300 blackout made the AK47 and 7.62x39 obsolete. It does everything better than 7.62x39 beside being really cheap and the 7.62x39 has a bit of range over 300 blackout.
