Question by Brandon N: Why did the US Military never use the AK-47?
The AK-47 seems like such a durable and easily maintainable weapon. Why did the US Military never use it? Was it just because a Russian invented it?
Answers and Views:
Answer by Andrew
Its not really that nice. If you’ve ever fired one in real life, you’d know what I mean. On top of the accuracy being poor, the gun itself just seems clunky and outdated. I’ll take a Colt AR15 anyday over it.
Read all the answers in the comments.
Add your own answer!
MrTabarnaco2 says
I THINK that it is because the AK-47 is a cheap and not-so realiable weapon. + It is a Russian made weapon.
upyr1 says
It was designed in Russia and the standard Warsaw pact and Chinese weapon during the cold war.
it is not a good idea to adopt the weapons of your enemy.
gregory_dittman says
The AK-47 has trouble hitting a human sized target at 200 yards even when stuck in a vice and in an indoor test chamber out of the wind. It’s made to be shot in automatic which wastes rounds. The U.S. military didn’t even compete with the more powerful round of the AK-47.
JBF says
Beyond the obvious problem of trying to secure a license agreement from your sworn enemy the AK-47 is a peasants weapon that was designed by our sworn enemy to meet THEIR REQUIREMENTS for a service rifle, not ours. We designed weapons that better me out needs.
Eric says
At the time, we already had multiple weapon platforms that worked just fine, and we did not need to copy the AK-47. Is you take an AK-47, and an M16, you will notice that the AK has a extremely well built and reliable firing mechanism, but lacks accuracy, and until they came out with the AK-74, the 47’s also had terrible recoil because they fired the 7.62 round. The 7.62 from an AK also went right through anything it hit, making it actually less of a man stopper, since it would always just pass cleanly threw a human.
Joe says
The AK isn’t too bad, but it was designed for illiterate soviet peasants. It’s durability is really the only thing it has going for it. The M-16 has a vastly improved rate of fire, not to mention the fact that its effective range is almost twice that of the AK.
Kasey C says
Because even the Soviets dumped it for AK-74.
Honestly, AK-47 was invented in 1947 based on captured German technology (the Sturmgewehr 44) and it is robust, but not very accurate, and bullets weigh quite a bit being pretty darn big.
The M-16 (i.e. AR-15) used smaller but faster bullet, easier to aim, easier recoil, more accurate. Soviets were so impressed they copied the idea into their AK-74 and dumped all the AK-47’s onto the varioius “insurgency” markets.
Shows you not even the Russians like AK-47 that much. In fact, the Finns makes the best AK-variant.
freddy says
Simply because it’s Russian.
Sokhoi says
AK-47 fire more larger round than US m16. Both communist and NATO never product weapon that can fire each other bullet. Because if there is a war, enemy will able to use captured bullet in their weapons.
James says
While the AK-47 will work well in even the worst conditions, the united states likes high tech, high maintinence weaponry like the EBR (Enhanced Battle Rifle)
Master Of None says
Because we have superior weapons. Sure, the AK-47 is good if you don’t have a base or spares, but if needing it to work in bad conditions isn’t such a factor, like it is for the US, the M16 is far superior.
In short, the only good thing about the AK is reliability. The M16 beats it in all other aspects. And we have plenty of time to maintain our weapons.