Egyptians to replace Maadi Ak-47?

[Mardini]

Does anyone know or have heard anything about the replacement of Egypts Maadi AK-47 rifles?
They acquired M-16's way then for evaluation purposes, but obviously nothing happened out of this? isn't it time for a replacement when everybody else are doing it?
looking forward to hear your oppinion...

 

[TrangleC]

Just because everybody else is doing something, doesn't mean you have to do the same.
Different environments mean different requirements for army equipment. Maybe sticking with a bigger calibre isn't the worst idea for an amry that will most likely fight it's wars in the desert. I'm not a specialist on that, but i just guess that in a desert combat you usually fire at longer ranges than in an jungle for example. So using a bigger calibre that provides a better long range accuracy might be the better choice.

 

[Mardini]

Just because everybody else is doing something, doesn't mean you have to do the same.
Different environments mean different requirements for army equipment. Maybe sticking with a bigger calibre isn't the worst idea for an amry that will most likely fight it's wars in the desert. I'm not a specialist on that, but i just guess that in a desert combat you usually fire at longer ranges than in an jungle for example. So using a bigger calibre that provides a better long range accuracy might be the better choice.

I am well aware of the fact of that different environments mean different recquirements my friend, but the Ak-47 although it is very good in a dusty and sandy environment like a desert and need no great skills to operate, it is an aging design.
You point out that since Egypt probably will fight its wars in desert environment, which I agree on, some of the AK's problems are in fact poor effective range due to its heavy bullet (~350m), heavy recoil and poor accuracy! the trend is small calibre weapons that have superior range but are lighter in terms of weight, have lower recoil and are more accurate than the AK's 7.62x39 calibre. something like the 5.56x45 or even smaller!

 

[TrangleC]

Well, i didn't know the AK-47 is so inaccurate.
The size and weight of the bullet alone can't be the reason for it being inaccurate though. If that would be the case, then .50 sniper rifles would be a pretty stupid idea, don't you think?

Bigger calibres usually (if there is no other problem with the gun) have a better long range accuracy. It's logical. Just compare it with every day life experience. What is easier to throw accurate over a long range, a light ball (for example a ping pong/tabletennis ball) or a heavy ball, like a baseball or a golf ball?
You know that from physics lessons at school too. The heavier something is, the harder it is to divert it from it's course once it moves. A heavy object moving fast will succumb to gravity and the resistance of air slower than a light object.

And the age of a gun design is hardly a problem. After all a gun is a pretty simple machine you can hardly improve. Look at the M2-HB. It's still in use although the design is from the 40ies too, as far as i know. Or handguns... they hardly changed in 100 years or so.
And the M-16 is not really a new design either, as you know.
Many guns used in WW2 were much more complicated and in some way even more sophisticated than the ones that are used today. The problem of this designs was usually that they were too complicated and thus not practical enough.

If the AK-47 is so bad, then not because of the age of the design and not because the calibre is too big. The flaw must lay somewhere else.

If indeed long range accuracy is a important advantage in a desert environment, then a switch to some other 7.62 calibre rifle (for example the M-14 or G-3) might be a good idea. Most of those designs don't have any problems with long range accuracy as far as i know.
They are just not as "hip" as a M-4 with all this night vision-, laserpointer-, granade thrower- extra gimmicks or a G-36, that's all.

Admit it, you just think with such a rifle egyptian soldiers would look more cool and up to date.

 

[Waylander]

Don't talk of just the AK.
There shitloads full of AK clones and derivates out there.
There are enough models which are very accurate as well as models which you should better throw at your enemies instead of shooting with them.

And 5.56mm does not only has advantages.
For example it's smaller bullet is easier to be influenced by things like gras and other natural obstacles.
Penetration power against barriers used for cover is also lower.

 

[Mardini]

Well, i didn't know the AK-47 is so inaccurate.
The size and weight of the bullet alone can't be the reason for it being inaccurate though. If that would be the case, then .50 sniper rifles would be a pretty stupid idea, don't you think?

The accuracy depends on the ballistic properties of the bullet, and its cartridge, the length and quality of the barrel and the shooter operating the weapon. Take into considaration that the large caliber needs the right amount of force to deliever it. the 7.62x39 caliber is for example underpowered in comparison to a 7.62x51 caliber because it has a shorter casing containing a reduced charge, and therefore shorter range although it is the same bullet caliber, it is like having a 2 pound item that is thrown by a teenager and a body builder who can throw furthest? this is in terms of range the AK-47 is a massproduced and cheap rifle that was constructed to be easy to use and to be durable, it can not be compared to a .50 sniper rifle, since the sniper rifle is a special piece of equipment and produced for quality and not quantity, the barrel and trigger group is constructed with precision and with quality materials, while the AK-47 as I said is constructed for quantity and not as a precision weapon and therefore of lower quality materials. Furthermore the .50 > 12,7x99 caliber cartridge has better ballistic properties than the short casing 7.62x39 caliber

Bigger calibres usually (if there is no other problem with the gun) have a better long range accuracy. It's logical. Just compare it with every day life experience. What is easier to throw accurate over a long range, a light ball (for example a ping pong/tabletennis ball) or a heavy ball, like a baseball or a golf ball?
You know that from physics lessons at school too. The heavier something is, the harder it is to divert it from it's course once it moves. A heavy object moving fast will succumb to gravity and the resistance of air slower than a light object.

Better range yes if the charge is proper for the weight of the bullet, more accurate no, depends on the quality of the weapon

And the age of a gun design is hardly a problem. After all a gun is a pretty simple machine you can hardly improve. Look at the M2-HB. It's still in use although the design is from the 40ies too, as far as i know. Or handguns... they hardly changed in 100 years or so.
And the M-16 is not really a new design either, as you know.
Many guns used in WW2 were much more complicated and in some way even more sophisticated than the ones that are used today. The problem of this designs was usually that they were too complicated and thus not practical enough.

I didn't mean the age of the mechanisms in guns, I am talking in terms of effectiveness in regards of minor modifications and quality of materials, although modern rifles operate in the same way as older rifles, they are more effective in terms of weight, accuracy, range and reliability, and that has something to do with the design and materials used

If the AK-47 is so bad, then not because of the age of the design and not because the calibre is too big. The flaw must lay somewhere else.

The AK isn't bad it is just falling behind more modern rifle designs, why? look above, rugged not precision design, materials, the cartridge ( heavy bullet with insufficient charge for long range + heavy recoil), a short barrel leads to bad range and bad accuracy COMPARED to modern designs

If indeed long range accuracy is a important advantage in a desert environment, then a switch to some other 7.62 calibre rifle (for example the M-14 or G-3) might be a good idea. Most of those designs don't have any problems with long range accuracy as far as i know.
They are just not as "hip" as a M-4 with all this night vision-, laserpointer-, granade thrower- extra gimmicks or a G-36, that's all.

yes a g-3 or m-14 would be better in terms of accuracy and range, but they are poorer in terms of weight of the weapon and ammo, and the ammount of ammo in the mags for example a g3 only takes 20 shots vs 30 on the AK-47

Admit it, you just think with such a rifle egyptian soldiers would look more cool and up to date.

Well actually I like the AK 47 very much, and yes they will of course look cool but the reason I am asking is because they were evaluating the m16 at some point and wondered if they still are looking for a replacement or not , and honestly if your advisary has better weapons and can hit you from a longer distance and more precise (quality of weapon or marksmanship), then you are in trouble right?

 

[Mardini]

Don't talk of just the AK.
There shitloads full of AK clones and derivates out there.
There are enough models which are very accurate as well as models which you should better throw at your enemies instead of shooting with them.

And 5.56mm does not only has advantages.
For example it's smaller bullet is easier to be influenced by things like gras and other natural obstacles.
Penetration power against barriers used for cover is also lower.

The egyptian Maadi Ak is actually produced on original ex soviet tools and machinery and therefore if not equal then almost equal in terms of quality, a maadi AK is one of the best ak 47's out there, but yes you are right that there are crap AK's or should I say clones
I know that a 5.56mm does not only have advantages, but the newest kind actually are pretty good, this is the reason why most of the weapons produced today in this class use the 5.56mm caliber, the thing with grass and other natural obstacles, was a problem during the early days where ball ammo was used, and the story about the 5.56mm bouncing of plants etc came from vietnam, but honestly it isn't a problem today and the 5.56mm has very good penetration and inflects very awfull damage to the person hit, the penetration power of the ak 7.62x39mm is of course greater since it is a heavier bullet, but suffers on other areas as mentioned above

 

[TrangleC]

Ah, ok, i didn't know that the 7.62x39 is so underpowered. I thought it has a wider diameter than the 7.62x51 and so the load would be pretty much the same.

Of course you are right about the old designs like the M-14 and the G-3 being heavier and all this. Maybe the gun producers should make some studies to find out whether a 7.62 rifle might really suit the requirements of customers like Egypt better than the 5.56 designs and whether the advantages of the better long range accuracy outweights the disadvantage of the bigger rounds (20 round magazine instead of 30). If the answer is yes, then someone could fill this void on the international market by designing a sophisticated new 7.62 rifle with all the benefits of modern 5.56 designs, just with a bigger calibre, specially for customers like Egypt. But not only middle eastern armies might be better off with rifles specialized on long range combat, but also those operating in tundra-dominated area or the Pakistanis and the Indians might be interested into new alternatives to replace their old 7.62 rifles without downgrading to a smaller calibre that might suit the operational area of Kashmere less.

 

[Mardini]

Ah, ok, i didn't know that the 7.62x39 is so underpowered. I thought it has a wider diameter than the 7.62x51 and so the load would be pretty much the same.

try and google the different cartridges sided side by side and you will see what I mean

Of course you are right about the old designs like the M-14 and the G-3 being heavier and all this. Maybe the gun producers should make some studies to find out whether a 7.62 rifle might really suit the requirements of customers like Egypt better than the 5.56 designs and whether the advantages of the better long range accuracy outweights the disadvantage of the bigger rounds (20 round magazine instead of 30). If the answer is yes, then someone could fill this void on the international market by designing a sophisticated new 7.62 rifle with all the benefits of modern 5.56 designs, just with a bigger calibre, specially for customers like Egypt. But not only middle eastern armies might be better off with rifles specialized on long range combat, but also those operating in tundra-dominated area or the Pakistanis and the Indians might be interested into new alternatives to replace their old 7.62 rifles without downgrading to a smaller calibre that might suit the operational area of Kashmere less.

you know what is funny? there is a renewed interest in large caliber bullet like the 7.62 a 6mm and a 6.8mm because the 5.56mm has shown to lack stopping power at long range, and I believe that having shot in calibers 9mm, 5.56mm, 7.62x39, 7.62x51 and 12.7x99... If I was to go to war with long range encounters I would definately choose a rifle like the G3 with 7.62x51 it has superb stopping power and is truly a powerful and precise rifle or a FN Fal. but again this is only when the engagement will be long range.. bcoz it is exhausting to carry around for longer periods and has the disadvantage of a 20 shot magasine, and the heavy recoil will limit quick follow up shots which are recquired in short range engagements, instead I will stick to a light 5.56mm rifle

 

[eckherl]

Russia doesn`t even use the AK-47 as their primary battle rifle, they have gone to the AK-74 chambered in 5.54 caliber, ironically they can chamber the 5.56 caliber in their rifles, but we cannot chamber the 5.54 in to the M16 series rifles. Most small arms battles are not further than 300 meters and at that range if you get hit with a 5.56 caliber round it will drop you. I have seen soldiers that have been shot with this caliber and it is just as nasty as a bigger caliber. I would take a smaller cartridge any day versus a larger cartridge due to the extra weight and less ammunition that is carried. Most battle rifles are designed to kill soldiers or are used for area suppression, anything bigger should be handled by squad automatics or crew served weapons.

 

[Mardini]

Russia doesn`t even use the AK-47 as their primary battle rifle, they have gone to the AK-74 chambered in 5.54 caliber, ironically they can chamber the 5.56 caliber in their rifles, but we cannot chamber the 5.54 in to the M16 series rifles. Most small arms battles are not further than 300 meters and at that range if you get hit with a 5.56 caliber round it will drop you. I have seen soldiers that have been shot with this caliber and it is just as nasty as a bigger caliber. I would take a smaller cartridge any day versus a larger cartridge due to the extra weight and less ammunition that is carried. Most battle rifles are designed to kill soldiers or are used for area suppression, anything bigger should be handled by squad automatics or crew served weapons.

actually they did that over 30 years ago that is why it is called an AK-74. But we are talking about Egypt not russia . the ak-74 is actually chambered in 5.45x39 and not 5.54x39.
I have no idea about the Ak74 being able to take 5.56x45 ammo.. I didn't think that was possible, I am not sure you are right though but if you can find any source plz share
well that was untill the ww2, now in open terrains battles in many occasions exceeds the 300 meters you are talking about, that is why there is a renewed trend in large caliber weapons among soldiers because the small caliber weapons in some cases have insufficient stopping power over long range, not my claim, facts prove that. The 5.56 cartridge is lethal yes, but it has shown defiecancy in long ranges and at some points stopping power, for instance US soldiers experienced that somali fighters high on Khat on occasions took several hits without them stopping, another thing about small versus large caliber weapons, is that small caliber unless we are talking about the AK-74 which has a solid bullet, usually fragments on impact making nasty wounds, but that doesn't always result in the target being stopped, large caliber weapons often is shere power in terms of velocity and mass, and what might take two or more hits with small caliber bullets one single large caliber would do, I will still though prefere small calibers due to better mobility and precision repeated shots

 

[Waylander]

BTW, I had a look at some german small calibre forums and the normal opinion by the ones who used it where that the Maadi AKs are not very good in terms of quality.

 

[eckherl]

BTW, I had a look at some german small calibre forums and the normal opinion by the ones who used it where that the Maadi AKs are not very good in terms of quality.

They are rather crude in design, plus they are not very accurate either.

 

[Mardini]

BTW, I had a look at some german small calibre forums and the normal opinion by the ones who used it where that the Maadi AKs are not very good in terms of quality.

hello waylander thnx for your contribution...vielen dank und wilkommen hehe... well regarding your contribution... I don't know if they are talking having had 1st hand experience, for my part I have only operated a Russian version and and a bulgarian version, so I can't exactly claim anything other than what I have read, and that is the Maadi is produced on original russian equipment, the metal used might be of different quality but the assembly is equal to the russian, unless it is newer russian Ak's that are refered to and produced on newer equipment which make the difference. I think the egyptians imported the russian equipment back in the 60's or 70's, can't exactly remember. If I find something to support my previous claim I will share

 

[eckherl]

actually they did that over 30 years ago that is why it is called an AK-74. But we are talking about Egypt not russia . the ak-74 is actually chambered in 5.45x39 and not 5.54x39.
I have no idea about the Ak74 being able to take 5.56x45 ammo.. I didn't think that was possible, I am not sure you are right though but if you can find any source plz share
well that was untill the ww2, now in open terrains battles in many occasions exceeds the 300 meters you are talking about, that is why there is a renewed trend in large caliber weapons among soldiers because the small caliber weapons in some cases have insufficient stopping power over long range, not my claim, facts prove that. The 5.56 cartridge is lethal yes, but it has shown defiecancy in long ranges and at some points stopping power, for instance US soldiers experienced that somali fighters high on Khat on occasions took several hits without them stopping, another thing about small versus large caliber weapons, is that small caliber unless we are talking about the AK-74 which has a solid bullet, usually fragments on impact making nasty wounds, but that doesn't always result in the target being stopped, large caliber weapons often is shere power in terms of velocity and mass, and what might take two or more hits with small caliber bullets one single large caliber would do, I will still though prefere small calibers due to better mobility and precision repeated shots

Which countries are going back to larger caliber infantry weapons.

 

[Mardini]

They are rather crude in design, plus they are not very accurate either.

how are they compared to org russian?

 

[Waylander]

I just looked at the opinion of people who used a variety of AK versions (With us being so close to eastern europe you have a bunch of possible AKs for use) and that was their opinion.

I never used any AK in sharp shooting and just had russian and east german ones in my hands so I don't want to judge any of them.

Just wanted to gove some input.

The fact that Egypt gets a lot military aid by the US the M-16 would be a rational choice.

 

[Mardini]

Which countries are going back to larger caliber infantry weapons.

Not countries my friend, they are all following the small caliber trend... these are individuals like US soldiers operating in Afghanistan and Iraq, some have been seen with m14's while others order custom made guns like the grendel counter sniper rifle which is upgraded to 6.5mm etc. They have complained as I said before about the poor killing effect of the 5.56mm in regards to long ranges

 

[Mardini]

I just looked at the opinion of people who used a variety of AK versions (With us being so close to eastern europe you have a bunch of possible AKs for use) and that was their opinion.

I never used any AK in sharp shooting and just had russian and east german ones in my hands so I don't want to judge any of them.

Just wanted to gove some input.

The fact that Egypt gets a lot military aid by the US the M-16 would be a rational choice.

cool, how about the east german ones? I think they look cool.. about the M16's well actually the egyptians aqcuired some in 1982 for evaluation, but as I asked before at the beginning of the thread, it seems nothing came out of this.... Maybe they are well satisfied with the current weapon? I must say since you are german I have to tell you, you make awesom weapons, before shifting to the Diemaco C8 (license built M4 in canada) I used to operate the G3. and that's one hell of a gun... I also like the G36 which is soo coool

 

[Waylander]

I see a trend to DMRs.
We also use some G3s and G9 with optics for this role.
This gives the sqad a weapon for greater ranges without needing a real sniper rifle which is not very good for anything else than real sniping.

A squad equipped with 5,56mm assault rifles, one 5,56mm MG(SAW), one 7,62mm DMR and one 7,62mm MG (This could be left behind if overall weight is an issue) should be equipped with everything needed for normal combat operations.

The east german AKs seemed to be well build and the ones which fired with them often rate them higher than original russian ones.

In the end I would be happy to see Egypt buying a H&K product.