During my mandatory army service (Bulgaria) I was given AK-47. I had to be responsible for the gun for the whole 1997, but shot only few times, since the country was going through hard period, and we were not allowed much ammo. Also had to make sure that I shoot on manual, or was it semi-automatic. From what I remember I had to get used to my weapon, as each one was uniquely biased, so you had to understand yourself how it shoots. Had to clean it every day at 2:00pm, and had to cover disassembling and assembling it for some relatively short time (actual times escape me, but was somewhere in the dozen of seconds to a minute).<p>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).<p>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).
The article does a somewhat poor job of explaining the success of the AK47 in the context of the time it proliferated. Because the discussion of such things tends to be dominated by fanbois of one military rifle or another, the good and bad of the weapons tends to be overstated.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>In short, both the AK47 and AR15 offered compelling economics because they were designed for and used by disjoint markets with very different priorities.
>The gun is nothing special. Its controls are unsophisticated; it is not even particularly accurate. But this simplicity is a reason for its success. Compared with other assault rifles, the AK-47 has generous clearance between its moving parts. That is bad for accuracy, but it means that the mechanism is unlikely to jam, no matter how clogged it gets with Sudanese sand or Nicaraguan mud. Designed to be operated by Soviet soldiers wearing thick winter gloves, it is simple enough for untrained recruits (including children) to use.<p><i>Worse is better.</i><p>>Correctness
The design must be correct in all observable aspects. <i>It is slightly better to be simple than correct.</i><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worse_is_better" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worse_is_better</a>
> The gun is nothing special. Its controls are unsophisticated;<p>That is main feature though. Nothing special _is_ what is special.<p>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).<p>Is there an AK-47 design pattern, or are they called "stories" these day, anyway I feel like there should be one.<p>Well, and then of course convince a mega-corporation to buy 100m units of it ;-)
When experts say that AK47 is not "particularly accurate", it's a bit misleading, because in a battle you don't shoot for bullseye, usually any shot within the inner 30cm (12inches) circle on the target is considered as a hit. Ak47 is certainly not the most accurate weapon, but in a real life situation and within its fire range of about 350 - 400 meters it's accurate enough. In my experience with the Yugoslav version m70 it's really hard to miss anything under 200m and when shooting further than that (because it doesn't have optics in the standard setup) your eyes are a bigger problem than the gun itself.
This post stopped well short of describing the advantages and disadvantages of both AK-47s and M-16s in favor of emphasizing how bad weapons are. The Wikipedia entry is much more informative: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_AK-47_and_M16" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_AK-47_and_M16</a>
everyone with any interest in the AK-47 should read <a href="http://cjchivers.com/aboutthegun" rel="nofollow">http://cjchivers.com/aboutthegun</a> (The Gun, by CJ Chivers). Although it spends a lot of time examining historical contexts for machine guns, and assault rifles in general - the AK-47 stuff is great.<p>The comparison with the M-16 in particular is pretty brutal.
Not to forget, it is pretty easy to copy the AK47 design. The Register once called it The Open Source gun that took the world by storm[0] - it's actually a much better article than the Economist's<p>[0]<a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/03/ak_47_60_years/" rel="nofollow">http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/03/ak_47_60_years/</a>
Okay, I get that the AK is the most popular military rifle in the world, but there are many superior rifles that are just as reliable.
I happen to own an AK and
- the gun looks/feels flimsy,
- muzzle flip results in a nasty cheek slap,
- the receiver looks like folded sheet metal,
- safety is hard to engage/disengage and leaves a nasty scratch on the receiver,
- the magazine doesn't fit right in (must insert the lip first at an awkward angle),
- field stripping is easy but reassembly is a pain in the a$$.<p>The M1A... now that's a solid reliable/accurate rifle.