Why haven't other countries adopted this concept for the AK?

[HistoryJunky]

I was going through service rifles of different countries on Wikipedia(as a general basis) and I saw a Chinese rifle that I thought was pretty cool. That in itself was odd because I have a general dislike for things from China.

Anyways, it was the Chinese altered version of the AK-47(not the Type 56) which featured a short-stroke gas-piston instead of a long-stroke. I was wondering if this would offer any advantages over the long stroke system. Also, would it effect the accuracy of the rifle? The Chinese claim that this altered version of the AK is around as accurate as M-16s. Not sure if I believe that.

Anyways, would this differentiation offer any real improvements or not? If so, why hasn't some gun manufacturer done this?

Heres the link to the Wikipedia page on the rifle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_81_assault_rifle

 

[lefteyedom]

If its not broke?

The AK's major success has more to do with pricing than performance.

The reason you arm your army with AK is that they are cheap and basically rugged. A $250 rifle is good, a $50 rifle is even better.

 

[HistoryJunky]

Good point

Yeah I understand that most countries that use AKs in their military use them because they are cheap, fairly effective rifles. I'm talking more towards the civilian market. A short stroke piston AK sounds like a cool concept to me.

 

[Old Grump]

less recoil would give you time for faster repeat shots. I suppose if you are recoil sensitive the lessened recoil would contribute to increased accuracy. Might also make cleaning easier.

 

[HistoryJunky]

Aside from comparing to parts kit AK builds, would the cost of production of a short stroke piston AK be the same as a long stroke system?

 

[Technosavant]

would the cost of production of a short stroke piston AK be the same as a long stroke system?

Doubt it. You'd need to make your own design and tooling. It isn't as simple as decoupling the piston from the carrier- you'd also need to design it to be every bit as reliable. Sure, you'd get a bit better recovery from recoil, but you're still dealing with a stamped sheet metal receiver firearm that quivers when you shoot it. Going to a milled receiver helps, but again drives up the price.

The AK is what it is, and part of the reason for its success is the price- the moment it starts getting priced alongside other rifles is the moment it starts looking less attractive to a nation outfitting a military or a civilian standing at the gun counter.

 

[JiminTexas]

I would say that cost is only about the third reason for the success of the AK platform. The reasons that many countries chose the AK design is not only or even primarily "cost". As previously noted, they use a mid power cartridge, not to reduce recoil, but to increase control during full auto operation. The comblock countries learned from the Spanish and the CETME that fulll power cartridges (7.62 X 51 Nato) didn't work well in assault rifles on full auto. They first tried a reduced load round, but that proved unpractical because the purpose of using the 7.62 X 51 Nato round in the first place was to have universally available ammo. They eventually just went to semi-auto only rifles. The same is true of the FN FAL. Nearly all countries reverted to semi-auto only rifles for the same reason. The Germans in the latter days of WWII realized that most combat was fought within 100 yards of the enemy and started producing lower power, full auto assault rifles. The second reason that the AK platform was so successful is that "IT WORKS". It works when it's dirty. It works when it's cold. It works when it's hot, It just works all of the time. You can't say that about the sensitive American AR platform. It's easy to maintain, repair and operate.

 

[HistoryJunky]

So then when people say that receiver thickness in AKs doesn't matter they're wrong? It always seemed to me that having either a thicker stamped receiver on an AK or milled receiver would be an advantage.

So, in theory would a thicker receivered, possibly short stroke piston systemed AK be more accurate than the standard 1mm stamped long stroke piston AK? I think these might've been the "improvements" the Chinese were referring to in the article.

 

[Technosavant]

So then when people say that receiver thickness in AKs doesn't matter they're wrong?

Not necessarily. Keep in mind that the AK suffers several things that keep accuracy down- crappy sights, lots of reciprocating mass, inconsistent ammo, loose tolerances to increase reliability, etc.

A thicker receiver means diddly squat when you have that much else going on. Furthermore, that by itself and even everything else in combination doesn't result in a lack of combat accuracy- we aren't talking benchrest rifles here. Minute of opponent is good enough. These are combat rifles, not target rifles. The "accurate enough" rifle with some slop in it that you can build in large numbers and train your troops to use is better than the super accurate decently reliable weapon you can't afford and couldn't easily train your troops to maintain even if you could.

The AK is a product of its time and place, much like any firearm. Inexpensive and easy to produce, easy to use, easy to maintain, and plenty accurate enough for its intended purpose. That its birthplace went from milled to stamped receivers to increase production capability is a pretty good clue as to where the priorities lie when a nation is outfitting its military- a minute of angle or so of accuracy is less important than being able to get them in the hands of your troops.

 

[HistoryJunky]

The reason I'm asking this is because I've considered getting an AK, and was just trying to consider how to make it as accurate as possible within the restrictions of its' platform. Now, I don't think I'd have the ability to get one converted to a short stroke system. Getting a thicker receiver would be possible. I was thinking of getting it in 5.56 too, which I guess is a bit out of the mainstream.

Also, would a barrel stabilizer such as the Mo-Rod for the Mini-14 help out AKs any? Not necessarily that exact model, just the concept. Thoughts? Thanks.

 

[RockyMtnTactical]

My guess is because the AK has acceptable combat accuracy for it's intended role.

 

[HistoryJunky]

Yeah

I agree that the AK has acceptable accuracy for its' intended purpose, I just like to tinker with the idea of improving it.

 

[BlueTrain]

Well, you're not alone there. Lots of countries have used the AK as the basis for their own standard infantry rifle and there have been some good results. But different countries, which is to say, different military organizations, have their own ideas as to what is most important (which are sometimes wrong) and take it from there. Needless to say, the AK is hardly the first rifle to get the makeover treatment. Come to think of it, the Mosin-Nagant went through the same thing with the Finns.

Ultimately, reliability is the most important thing to the soldier. The second thing is that he has to like his rifle. Nobody ever puts it that way very often but sometimes that is very important to the individual, sometimes to the point where he "babies" his rifle, not necessarily a bad thing, considering. But people usually don't get to sentimental about things that break or wear out quickly. This applies to pretty much all small arms.