To prove a point to a moronic mate: Are AKs ergonomic?

[SheriffHD]

well, 100m or less a .22 is perfect, nice and quiet.

5.56 up to 500.

7.62 upto 1000m

.338 or .50 for 1km +

Then the rifle of choice will then depend if I want full or semi, loud of silent etc.

 

CQB stealthy, .22 MP5SD, very quiet no worries about over penitration.
urban open conflict 5.56
Urban open conflict DMR 7.62
open fields/jungle 7.62

Counter sniper/light vehicle .50
F-you and every one around you, well then Id use one of these.
(Pst, the .50 is on the right.)

[two_zero]

again, the calibre on its own wont do much good if the rifle is rubbish^^

 

plus its been argued that 5.56 isn't all that good due to over penetration, hence the recent development of new 9mm.. anyway, this is going way off topic.

[M_P]

Is that one of those Ansio things?

[SheriffHD]

Yes we do indeed digress

The concept is still the same though, and I'll repeat it again, A rifle Is only as ergonomic as the use you intend for it.

[200rabbits]

I think AK mag reloads are a lot easier, a tiny bit slower on the speed reloads, but easier. You don't need to get the mag all precisely lined up to insert it, just hook it on and hinge it back, and then they lock in nice and secure, none of this "Did I push it up far enough?" business. Probably why HK like the rock 'n' lock as well, though they still make you deal with a well.

Maybe it's because I have big hands, but I quickly adapted to the AK fire select, very easy to operate with your middle finger, it's easy enough to push down on the ridge of the arm to push one into a firing position, and even if your fingers are too weak for that, lots of the countries which make their own AK variants make fire select levers with a second plate above the trigger for easier operation.
Also think about russian combat doctrine. When things look like they might get nasty, you slam it down into semi, move your hand to the grip, and just leave your hand and the fire select where they are, because contrary to popular belief, the Russians also think that only Americans would use automatic fire.

"America and Rest-of-the-world" SA80 family fire select

Auto is at the top, because if you're in a hurry, you're in a hurry, and you'll slam that lever down, and get semi, which is what you need, you have to think and be careful to put it in auto, which is what you should be doing while using it in auto. The AK fire select will protect what precious ammo is left in your midcap when you're in a panic.
I actually think it's a great feature of the AK how the fire select lever is placed, because unlike with ARs, L85s, G3s and G36s I have yet to accidentally change the fire select to a different setting mid battle.
If you want to see a genuinely stupid fire select, check out the ОЦ-14 (OTs/OC depending on whether or not you're looking for it in the library of congress ¬_¬) Think about how to operate that below your ear.

As for charging it and the lever location, it's a simple design. You get a charging handle, forward assist, and ejection port thingamy all in one robust simple part. You have to learn a different drill to charge it, to turn the gun on it's side and reach over, but it's the price you pay for having a gun that will fire every time you pull the trigger. In 1947. And 1959 and 1974.

[Ian_Gere]

Let's not forget Kalashnikov's own ideas about ergonomics also - the rifle must be able to withstand anything a Russian can, including not being cleaned; but eventually carbon deposits must interfere with operation, so the cleaning rod will be on the rifle where you can't easily lose it...

[Airsoft-Ed]

Let us pretend for a few minutes that I actually said, "Is the AK more ergonomic(?) than the M4?"

 

Because that is what I meant, or at least intended for everyone to assume I meant.

 

Now everyone revote...

[Tariq]

Still going to keep the vote YES for me. Although the M4 is close.

(I'm just going to avoid using the term "ergonomics" from now on since it's being miss-used everywhere )

 

It's all about training. I'm more comforable, and QUICKER with an AK than a AR. Just because i've used one longer than i have with my 416.

G36 wins if it were in question though.

[Ian_Gere]

For a re-vote, Ed, I'd need a 3rd option: "not much in it".

[Rock-climby-Dave]

alrighty then ladies, seeing as we've missed the point somewhat:

 

To start with this isn't a debate between 2 items (M4 VS AK) this is PURELY about the AK, as such I will be taking it as it's own entity and trying to avoid comparing it to anything else.

 

Define: Ergonomic
(esp. of workplace design) Intended to provide optimum comfort and to avoid stress or injury.

 

From the back forwards:

 

The butt plate is metal. Metal is hard. hard object hitting your shoulder, not comfy. Poor ergonomics

The stock cannot be adjusted to suit the user. Poor ergonomics.

Pistol Grip is not textured, nor has any strange lumps on it. It tapers off gently and has no sharp corners. Comfy to hold and cannot injure user. Good ergonomics

Trigger guard is thin metal, can become sharp is hit on something or easily bent out of shape. Poor ergonomics

Dust Cover is metal, is cold to start with. Cold not comfy if resting cheek on it. poor ergonomics

Charging handle is 'reciprocating' that is, attached to the bolt and moves with every round fired. This could get in the way of something whilst operating and cause injury to the user. Poor ergonomics

Iron sight radius is not very long and the rear sight is very far from your eye, this can strain eyes and is just less accurate. Poor ergonomics

Foregrip is made of wood, an insulator, and has no sharp edges, again, smooth. Good ergonomics

foregrip extends all the way up forcing a single grip style that may not suit all users. Impossible for smaller handed users to use a thumb over bore technique. Poor ergonomics

No flash hider or Compensator on the iconic AK47, huge recoil as a result and much flash. This is worse at night. Poor ergonomics.

 

 

Controls:

Magazines must be loaded front first with a fairly fiddly first step. Poor Ergonomics

Trigger itself is too curved, as such your finger will always rest at the rear of the curve, not neccesarily where feels natural depending on your hand size. poor ergonomics

Hands must be moved from their firing position in order to manipulate the safety or drop a magazine. Poor Ergonomics

 

 

Well, I can't say it's done very well. 2/13 would not operate with

Having said all that, they do function very well and there is no denying their popularity. BUT THEY ARE NOT SODDING ERGO-FECKIN-NOMICAL

[Airsoft-Ed]

Thank you, Dave.

 

Effing finally!

[Ian_Gere]

Hands must be moved from their firing position in order to manipulate the safety or drop a magazine. Poor Ergonomics

Much has been made of these points, however they are simply untrue.

 

I can operate the fire selector or mag release with my trigger finger while keeping a firm hold of the pistol grip, with minimal hand position changes to begin firing again once the desired setting is selected or new mag is in.

[SheriffHD]

Again, I point back to the question. What is the intention for the rifle.

intended to maximize productivity by minimizing operator fatigue and discomfort.

 

in the 10 years in the desert, The AK has served many people well, it has worked smoothly with few jams during combat.
The M4 has had to be redesigned several times to suit the harsh desert terrain.

So what would cause me the lest amount of discomfort?
Would I rather a rifle that worked every time I pulled the trigger, that require little maintenance and that I could rely on.
or would I raher a rifle that blew up when shot after being submerged, that would jam more than it should of.

If it is a gun that You will shoot on a range, Then you can afford a rifle that is comfortable and has all the bells and whistles as you dont need a reliable rifle you just need a rifle you enjoy shooting.

do I want a plastic stock that will break, or would I rather an iron stock that will take a beating.

Remember you are stating ergonomics as what the rifle is its self, but you need to understand what it would be like to actually use the rifle on a daily basis.

Id rather a rifle I could treat like crap that one that had to be cared for like a princess.

the rifle that goes on longer is the one that will cause me the least amount of discomfort, and will give me the best efficiency.

[Airsoft-Ed]

Remember you are stating ergonomics as what the rifle is its self, but you need to understand what it would be like to actually use the rifle on a daily basis.

 

No... No you don't. Especially not when we're here to answer a question that I posed, which doesn't ask you to factor that in.

 

Ergonomics are as Dave defined, design characteristics which offer the most comfort and least fatigue, whilst decreasing the chance of injury from misuse. Does the AK have them?

 

No, no it doesn't.

 

The AK is bad at those things for all the reasons Dave stated and in addition to what Dave stated, the wooden hand guard is surrounded by metal, which gets hot, which burns you, which is bad. More bad ergonomics.

 

You are all twisting the question in a way that supports what you're trying to argue, when Dave is the only person who has actually addressed what I initially asked.

 

Reliability and how good it is at what it's for are irrelevant when answering the question posed.

[Rock-climby-Dave]

I didn't define it either to suit my argument. I googled:

Define: Ergonomic

that was the result. I didn't have to twist anything to reach my conclusion.

 

Also, I'd choose an AR15 over an AK anyday (I did NOT say M4, I said AR15... M4's are shite.)

[Airsoft-Ed]

Without starting another argument...









How is an AR-15 different enough from an M4 for you to prefer one significantly over the other? The AR-15 in semi auto only, the M4 has full auto, or burst, and semi auto... What's the difference aside from that?

[Ian_Gere]

Ed's sort of got you there, Sheriff, but Ed, surely we must consider the maintenance of the rifle as part of its normal use, since it is necessary to its continued use, right?

 

In which case, by our previously agreed layman's, non-technical-jargon, idea of what ergonomics is about, where speed of performance is synonymous with ease of use, then the simple nature of the AK, which needs little maintenance but what it does need it has the tool handy for, is good ergonomics...

[Rock-climby-Dave]

M4 is a specific AR15 model made by Colt. It may aswell be made from small fruits it jams so much.

 

AR15 is (or has become) the encompassing term. within the AR15 you can do pretty much anything you want. VLTOR upper with a NOVESKE rail system and a custom machined lower, hair trigger shiny barrel and magpul furniture? sure, have one, It's an AR15 not 'an M4'

[Airsoft-Ed]

Ed's sort of got you there, Sheriff, but Ed, surely we must consider the maintenance of the rifle as part of its normal use, since it is necessary to its continued use, right?

 

In which case, by our previously agreed layman's, non-technical-jargon, idea of what ergonomics is about, where speed of performance is synonymous with ease of use, then the simple nature of the AK, which needs little maintenance but what it does need it has the tool handy for, is good ergonomics...

 

 

I don't think we need go as far as the maintenance, and not just because it would void my side of the argument. I actually think the M4 is still safer and easier to maintain, that is 'work on' before you bring up it being required of the weapon more often. But I'll give the AK credit over the M4 for having the clearing rod handy at all times.

 

You have to do more with it to keep M4s maintained, but opening it up and working on it has got to be easier than doing the same for an AK. For starters you have to separate the trigger group from the bolt and firing pin to attend to any of it, which immediately makes it impossible for the rifle to go off if you forgot to clear it prior to disassembly. Whereas the AK can be operated without the top cover even being on, which is the only piece you need remove to get to the working parts. So going by the definition of ergonomic that Dave found, where it highlights the risk of injury to the user, the AK is far more likely to injure someone than the M4 whilst you're taking each one apart. Though I guess the ease of taking it apart probably does go to the AK just because there are less steps required to fully strip it down. So they more or less draw even, making maintenance a mute point.

 

But I digress, why would the comfort and fatigue of use go as far as taking the gun apart? If it's in pieces you don't really need the parts to be easy to manipulate because if you get to the point when you need to take it apart whilst you're using it, you're going to be equally screwed either way. It doesn't particularly matter that the AK is less likely to stop working, because even if it didn't require any maintenance at all that doesn't suddenly mean the ergonomics of it are better.

 

The longevity of it functioning without maintenance doesn't round off the sharp edges, cool the parts that get hot and magically mould the rifle to suit the person using it.

 

M4 is a specific AR15 model made by Colt. It may aswell be made from small fruits it jams so much.

 

AR15 is (or has become) the encompassing term. within the AR15 you can do pretty much anything you want. VLTOR upper with a NOVESKE rail system and a custom machined lower, hair trigger shiny barrel and magpul furniture? sure, have one, It's an AR15 not 'an M4'

 

That's a fair differentiation. In that case, I wonder if US troops have ever bought parts to internally improve their rifles, swapping out the gas system for the one found in the HK416 or something, for example.

[SheriffHD]

O hell yeah, AR Platform is a beast, Id chose to upgrade the spring buffer to a hydraulic one Id also replace the charging handle to a forward placed one becuace its jut better in that area. Wouldnt have a Noveske rail, Id chose something by troy Industries and with out a doubt Id have to get the Zombie hunter Upper too.

AR platform is just highly modular and brilliant, I think it a gun that every one should have.

But yeah, The AK is a good rifle and IMHO an ergonomic rifle for combat.


An if given the choice, Id honestly chose an AK-12 vs any AR-15.

EDIT: I see that daves comment was for the AK-47, Was your question at the AK platform as a whole (in which case renders most of his argument moot) Or regarding the AK-47 by its self. In which point he is fully valid with all claims. (Which renders most of my argument moot)

 

If you look at the AK-12, all the points he mentioned that make the AK-47 bad, have all been fixed with the AK-12.

[Airsoft-Ed]

I meant the more general systems under the title of AK. Namely the AK 47s and 74s, vs the equivalent M4s and M16s.

 

Not willing to dwell on the fact that they are from different time periods and the AR updated more frequently than the AKs.

 

Basically comparing 'what we think of as an AK' to 'what we think of as an M4', most largely in terms of their control surface layout.

[SheriffHD]

Well, Original AK (the 47 and 74) admittedly are not the best designs, I mean like every russian made rifle, they are tough and work no matter what. But yeah, they had faults.

 

But in terms of the new AK models (Mainly the AK-12) All the arguments form the previous models are moot. Its an outstanding rifle. SVS style dust cap. Better fire selector, HK style dual mag ejection system, Dual sided charging, adjustable stock plus rubber mat to adsorb recoil, Plus the AK family world known reliability factor.

So yeah, AK-12. A very ergonomic rifle indeed.

[Airsoft-Ed]

AK 12, just googled it. It seems the same as the AK 200, prior to reading up on it I'd no clue it was so different from the original design.

Have to say I rather like it. Kinda wish there was a gas airsoft one...

[SheriffHD]

Yeah its a new design rifle. and yes AK-200 was the intial product name for the AK-12. Its aimed to hit the sheilfs for Russian forces this year after its testing has finished. In all does indeed look to be one hell of a rifle. I mean no where near as modular was what the AR15 is, but still a pretty good rifle. I like that it will have a 5.45 rnd version too.

 

And yeah Id love to have one of these when they hit the Airsoft market. Always wanted an AK just so I could do the awesome AEK reload from BF3. (tried doing it once at bisley, got told off, apparently they dont like people pissing about with real firearms.)

[Ian_Gere]

Well I think that field maintenance is part of ordinary use and because it's easier to strip an AK than an AR, it's more ergonomic, but I agree about safety. Still, nobody ought to need teaching that safety point. I mean, if there's a bullet in a gun, it's very dangerous and so it should never be pointed anywhere you really wouldn't want shot unless and until you have personally verified by looking that it isn't loaded...

 

But sticking to the controls, I still prefer AK's. I don't want the fire selector on the inside where it can get bumped on my body/kit or interfered with by a 3-point sling. I don't mind rock'n'lock at all - fitting the lip in 1st is no more difficult than fitting a STANAG mag in squarely. For mag release, I just reach my trigger finger forward past the trigger guard and press - hey presto, mag drops out...

 

The thumb switch on AR's doesn't suit my thumb - I have to pull my hand back off the pistol grip a bit to fully use it, and since it isn't ambidextrous, I have no option of using the other side of my hand as I do with a G36...