Gah no! That is a myth, apart from their external appearance the two rifles have nothing to do with each other! Kalashnikov started designing the AK when he was in a Russian hospital, at a date before the STG44 was around. The STG uses a locking method similar to the FAL, while the AK uses a three lug rotating locking, the STG has the recoil springs going into the butt, the AK's do not etc etc... Yimmy ------------------------------------------------- Yes,I admit both r different rifle! Initially,Kalashnikov had a huge problem designing the AK.But he did study SG44 in 1946 and must have huge influence on the AK-47! SG44 plays in a big role in AK-47.

Probably the basic Mauser patent with all of its subsequent variants, some of which are still in production (i.e. Remington 700 sniper rifle). By far and away the Mauser factory supplied more countries with their rifle than any other manufacturer.

1. Any one who thinks any bolt gun is great needs to get a life or some expiriance. 2. The Ak and it's variants are reliable junk. In tests new Russian AK's averaged 4 FTF's per 100,000 rounds not atributed to ammunition while the M-14 had six. FTF ammo problems were three to five times as high as American ammo, making it less reliable over all. 3. AK acuracy is attrocius, averaging 3-4" in the best guns and 7-9" in the typical weapon. 4. M-14 has a typical accuracy of <2" per 100 M. 5. The M-16 is even more accurate typicaly <1.5". 6. If ammo problems are included, the M-16 in all it's variants IS more reliable than any variant of the AK and newer guns are much better than older ones. 7. The FAL/SLR/What ever the Brits call theirs, is heavier and less reliable/accurate than the M-14. It is guaranteed to fail if you shoot it a lot with out adjusting the gas regulator or break early if you leave it wide open to avoid the resultant short stroke/fail to feed/eject. 8. The above facts make the M-14 the greatest Battle rifle of the post war period and if the required ranges exceed 400 M, Still the champ based on 6.5 million made. ( However, since more than 97% of ALL infantry engagements happen at LESS than 300 M, the range requirements are obviously specius.) 9. If ergonomics are conciderd, the M-16 and it's clones are surely the greatest Battle rifles ever made. ( Ergonomics is probably much more important than all the rest combined.) Ergonomics make the M-16 much easier to use and train on than any of it's competiters. ( Remember, it's not what an indavidual can do with a particular weapon type but the gesalt of what everyone in the field can do with it that counts.) Hit rates are 3-4 times higher than any of it's competiters in both live fire and MILES training senarios. The various "Bull-pup" rifles have the problem of overcomming the shooter's adversion to muzzle blast that makes training harder. This is even more of a problem with the various "shorty" carbines out there regardless of type. A change in ammo and barrel twist rate can cure the M-16's lack of range and lethality when compaired to the many .30 caliber rifles out there. Recoil is also one of the big buggaboo's out there that drive the selection to smaller calibers. Finaly the number of "Kills" or "Engagements" per mass of ammo caried by the soldier is a very important criteria and probably precludes a switch to any larger caliber or more powerfull round. All of the above make the M-16 the finest "Battle Rifle" on the planet today! However, that does not make it the best infantry weapon! Tests in the '50s, 60s and 70's showed that some form of machine shot gun was vastly supirior to any rifle. Remember that the vast majority of engagements are at ranges under 300 M. Out to 200 m or so, the Atchison Asault Shot Gun had between 20 and 200 times the effective fire power of any rifle on the planet. At longer ranges switching to bursting munitions gave it dozzens of times more effective firepower than any rifle. Excluding the NIH syndrome, if you can read the above monologue and not know why we did not adopt it or some clone of it, you need to read this again, or get a life. Sincerely, Stewart.

P.S. The Remmington 700 is not a clone of the Mauser. It is a much nicer rifle in all respects. There are resons why target and sniper rifles built on the various Mauser actions are not favored.

"1. Any one who thinks any bolt gun is great needs to get a life or some expiriance." lol.... Nice post.

I am among those who think that the Ak-47 is an overated weapon. As others have pointed its accuracy is poor and reliablity is not as great as advertised: ask anyone who has had to deal withe a damaged AK dust cover or gas tube. Both these parts are exposed and easily damaged. Other defects othes have alredy coverd. The AK-47's attributes are its price/availability ; ease of manufacture and ease of use. These to not necessarily make it a good Infantry Rifle. If I am not mistaken the AK-47s trigger assembly is similar to the M-1s. I am one of those few who like the M-14. When first introduced it has some problems due to accuracy. This was traced back to rifles using a flash suppressor that was not in spec. Thee falsh suppresors screwed with the bullets ballistics as ti left the barrel by screwing up the scaping gas also. I am nto sure if the problem was traced to Guns not made at Springfield or Flash Suppressors not made there. At any rate once that problem was corected it was a fine weapon (though I was not a fan of the platic furniture) ans some old Corps Marines called it an M-1 with a birth defect. Up there on the list of great Infantry weapons would have to be the FN-FAL variants. But hands down the greatest non-bolt action Infantry rifle ever was the M-1. Greatest bolt action was the 03 Springfield.

Put an M-16 and an AK into the hands of two african militia men. 3 months later ask them to shoot each other. What do you think tha chances are of the M-16 working? We know the AK will fire. Thats what makes the AK series great. It wil take any amount of abuse and misstreatment and still work as advertised.

I hardly think you could call the M-16 the best assault rifle out there. If you've got an aversion to bullpups then it's the G-36, its also got the advantage of built in optics.

>RE:The greatest infantry rifle ever produce? 12/4/2004 7:29:56 PM Put an M-16 and an AK into the hands of two african militia men. 3 months later ask them to shoot each other. What do you think tha chances are of the M-16 working? We know the AK will fire. Thats what makes the AK series great. It wil take any amount of abuse and misstreatment and still work as advertised < If the AK-47 manages to hit anything at all given African militia Marksmanship skills and AK-47 accuracy. Put those same militia men up against trained Infantry 3 months later and ask them to shoot at each other, particularly at ranges of 300 meters or more. We are talking Infantry Rifle here not militia weapons. I think the two are different. I am not he M-16s biggest fan (McNamara and his whiz kids are guilty on a criminal level for the way they forced this weapon on the armed forces in its early configuration) but do not sell it short. A lot of Guerrilla groups in Central /South America (1970s and 1980s) liked carrying it. They got plenty of them from Viet Nam when the Commies took over in 75. Many Israeli units also carry it instead of the Galil. I maintain that while reliable the AKs reputation is somewhat embellished. I have seen problems with the gas tube and dust cover being damaged. They required more padding than an M-16 during a jump because of this. I also have to say that the M16A4 is among the best out there now.

I think Bull pups are great, if you have to fight in enclosed spaces or are getting in and out of vehicles a lot like Mech troops. But I am a dinosaur, a former Marine and still believe in the usefulness of the Bayonet. I think you need a little more reach than a pullpup gives when it comes to using the bayonet effectively.