Eugene Stoner versus Mikhail Kalashnikov
I’ve offered my opinion on the issue before, but let’s have a second opinion on the AK-47 v. AR-15 debate:
It is true that Kalashnikov (the inventor, not the weapon) was an able weapon designer, but he was not superior to Eugene Stoner (the father of the M16/M4). Kalashnikov designed a weapon for an ill-trained conscripted army. For that purpose, the AK47 was and is a superb weapon. Stoner designed a weapon for a professional army. Any professional soldier would prefer the M16/M4 family over the Kalashnikovs.
Via Mr. Completely.
December 13th, 2005 at 12:00 pm
Did Stoner also design the Armalite AR 180?
I have a Costa Mesa AR 180 that, like most of my rifles, I almost never shoot, which means I need to press it (along with my other long guns) into service more often.
Also, did Armalite actually own the original patents (or a lifetime exclusive license) for both the AR 180 and the AR 15 and make the decision to sell the AR 15 rights to Colt.
Kind of reminds me of the former Big 8 accounting firm that had to decide ,about 40 years ago, which of its 2 St. Louis breweries (Busch and Falstaff) it needed to drop as a client (to placate the other brewery/client). The former accounting firm decided to keep Falstaff and drop Busch, indicating that its management must have not been beer drinkers.
December 13th, 2005 at 12:08 pm
Yes, I think Stoner designed most Armalite guns. Armalite did sell the patent to Colt. Wow, I remember when there were the big 8. And then, there were four.
December 13th, 2005 at 1:15 pm
BOTH the AK-47 and AR-15 were designed for conscript armies. The difference is, the AR-15 was designed for American city-boy draftees who might be afraid of recoil, but weren’t phased by disassembling and reassembling a precision machine. (At least, not until you have to do it while squatting in a muddy ditch, and hope you don’t transfer any of the mud to the innards upon reassembly…) If you clean the AR-15 sufficiently, it’s easy to learn to aim it well enough for short to medium range, and it’s precise enough that the weapon isn’t what limits most men’s accuracy at longer range.
The AK-47 was designed for conscripts who might have never encountered a machine before enlistment, and to be built in factories that could not maintain tight tolerances. If they forgot to clean it or failed to learn how, it would keep still working for long enough. Remember that Russian privates aren’t expected to last long on the battlefield; their logistics focuses on feeding in replacement units rather than resupply. It doesn’t shoot straight unless reworked by a good gunsmith, but neither could the conscripts, and they weren’t expected to last long enough to justify a lot of training.
December 13th, 2005 at 3:51 pm
My understanding is that Stoner didn’t like the piston on the AR-18, but due to contract/patent issues, they’d sold the rights to Colt, so they couldn’t use the direct impingment system.
Don’t forget, the AK-47 was refined from the German MP-44, not designed out of whole cloth, too. Kalishnikov did a great job in making it cheaper/easier/less complicated, but the major design had been done by the Germans:
MP-44 disassembly.
The AR-15 was the descendant of the AR-10, which could hardly be called “low recoil” – 6 pounds 7.62×51, full auto capability!!!! So the AR system started as something innovative (though direct impingment, IIRC, had been some of the first mechanisms to be tried, back in the late 1800s), and was modified and refined to the -A4 and M4 we have now, and the AK, similarly was derived and simplified, but the original design was for trained, educated soldiers, as well.
December 13th, 2005 at 3:54 pm
And why don’t you have a gun blog? 😉
December 13th, 2005 at 9:31 pm
In 1968, given a choice of M14, AR, AK, etc….I chose a Model 12 Trench Gun as my personal weapon.
The M14 was too heavy, and the others were junk.
December 14th, 2005 at 8:48 am
” Any professional soldier would prefer the M16/M4 family over the Kalashnikovs.”
Hackworth clearly fell on the side of the AK-47.
When you pull the trigger, it goes bang, every time, in all conditions. It’s rugged, soldier proof, and durable. None of that can be said about the M-16 in any iteration.
During my time as a professional soldier, I hated the M-16A1, and coveted the other guys FAL’s, G-3’s and AK’s.