Design in the Wild: AK-47
The AK-47 has often been used as an example in good design.
Why am I writing about military-grade human factors? A few weeks ago I saw this magazine cover in the checkout at Whole Foods. The tag line struck me. The words “good” and “gun” are not usually associated with each other, yet the use of the design of an assult rifle is a text-book example of the pinnacle of design. As if we don’t have any other good examples?
I had intended to pick up a copy, but it was replaced with the next month when I returned to the store. Yesterday, I found the magazine cover and article on GOOD Magazine’s website: Better-than-it-has-to-be Design.
Yes, there is a design that good that doesn’t kill people. It is an AK-47.
Is there a design that good that cannot be USED to kill people? I don’t know … how many things can be used (as intended or not as intended) to kill people? Guns, knives, stones, cars, people, poodles nudged of 35th story ledges… We are inventive about using many different things to kill each other.
I’m a fence-rider about the “right” to own a gun, but I am adamant about one thing: people kill people, and they use a plethora of objects to do so.
—
Speaking separately from that, I’m familiar with the inner workings of the AK-47. As a machine, it is very impressive. It can be exposed to a lot of harsh conditions without a reduction in operational efficiency and effectiveness. I wish I could own a car, computer, or toaster that worked so well within such a tolerant range of specs!
I’m not arguing against the AK-47 (or other firearms), and there is no doubt that it *is* a good design. I just wish we saw the same amount of engineering and testing go in to all civilian products.
> I wish I could own a car, computer, or toaster that worked so well within such a tolerant range of specs!
Exactly!
Having operated AK-47 myself I can tell it truly is a magnificent piece of art. If you wanted to find something similar from software world Gnome would be my first thought - the GUIs are so awesomely superior 8)
Playboy’s other Hefner, now, there’s food for thought… =)
Interestingly enough I just recently read an article that claims the AK-47 isn’t a particularly good design and it’s widespread success/influence had more to do with it’s “open source”-ness:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/03/ak_47_60_years/
Quote:
“For the user, the AK is good-enough rather than actually good.
So why is it so wildly popular, manufactured and used in the scores of millions? And why do people attribute such legendary qualities to what is, in the end, a very basic piece of kit? It isn’t at all uncommon to find people saying that the AK47 was a big factor in America’s Vietnam defeat, or that it freed various oppressed peoples from colonial dominance….
One factor here is probably that the AK was an early example of open-sourcing. The Soviets published full technical and manufacturing specs to friendly countries worldwide, requiring no payments or licencing. The Eastern-European Soviet bloc states all made their own, and the Chinese churned out enormous numbers. The so-called “AK47s” used by the Viet Cong and People’s Army of Vietnam against the Americans were usually – strictly speaking – the Chinese Type 56 copy, and this has often been the case elsewhere as well. Some analysts reckon that the Type 56 is actually the most widely-distributed AK variant.”
So there you go, cloning and forks are good for open source weaponry.
Dave, it depends on how you define good. It’s more than just cheap or open-source gun actually. You can take some newer super weapon and they seem great on some aspects but the overall package on ak-47 is still simply good enough for most of the situations.
When manufactured with low tolerances and properly it behaves well in extreme conditions (ie. frozen and half-full of snow), is accurate enough (los range usually comes before the gun starts being too inaccurate for opening fire in most environments), packs nice punch (although it doesn’t cause the septic shock as the faster smaller caliber pewpews it chews away armor better and doesn’t mind leaves, rain or wind as much), is field maintenable (there are many guns that are not), and has non-existent recoil for shooter (but not for aimer) which makes it pleasant to use (unlike on for example the newer but already obsolete m16 which twists clockwise - it is just plain horrible to use).
On top of that even the licensed well manufactured ones are very cheap if compared to many alternatives. Most of the guns you were btw mentioning were manufactured illegally. That is not open source.
Anyways, if I had to pick one weapon to defend my family it would be instantly some of the best AK-47 variations I could find.
What struck me the most in the linked article was the quote, “good for what and for whom?” Having worked with both the AK-47 and the M-16 I would prefer the M-16 any day. The AK-47 will work in a wide range of specs and neither sand nor snow will make it jam. Another way to say this is, it’s so sloppy it will never jam. This has a dramtic effect on it’s accuracy, especially at ranges beyond 200m and makes automatic mode almost useless. The M-16, while more prone to jamming (1% of the time compared to 0.1%) has far superior accuracy, is much lighter weight, and has a thumb selector switch, which is a lot more important than it sounds.
I was on an American training team for the Iraqi army and I can tell you that these seemingly small differences are huge when it comes to using the weapon for combat operations. With a thumb selector switch, the firer can keep his rifle on safe until ready to fire. The weapon can be switched from “Safe” to “Semi” while you’re bringing the rifle up to draw on your enemy and the trigger is pressed. In order to switch the AK-47 from safe to semi, you have to take your finger off the trigger. This necessitates that the weapon be on semi or auto unless you’re in a secure area. The thumb selectable switch allows you to quickly use your rifle as a club without having to worry that you’re going to accidentally discharge your rifle into one of your fellow Soldiers.
Good for what and for whom? I’d say the what is obvious, although there are a lot of sheep herders/farmers who use AK-47s for fending off the wolves. Good for whom? An AK-47 is good for an army/militia that is fighting in close quarters (dense jungle/urban areas) and will have little to no training on it’s use. The M-16 is good for a modern army that is willing to supply the lubricants to it’s soldiers necessary to maintain a precise piece of equipment and whose soldiers have the discipline to actually maintain their weapon.
That is the distinction of the cheap copies and top of the line licensed ones. The ones I have used have been accurate enough to drop a non-moving man from 600 meters in best conditions. I’d also generally hit pretty much everything from 300m. Now that depends on the environment whether 300m is enough for the ones I’d fight in it is beautiful.
Also, I’d nearly never use the full auto that way. The ones I have used have been able to do that without using the lever actually. That used to piss off my instructors when I found it out at shooting range :-D Anyways, I have been trained to practically snipe with the AK-47 and to be extremely deadly - not the american “spray the crap hell out of the target area hoping for hits” way :-) I have been trained to use the full auto only as last measure. I think I have shot under 0,1% of all my rounds using it.
Also the ones I have used have been naturally completely clean and cleaned and maintained daily always when possible. When not, it keeps working reliably, but we are not daft to ruin good weapons…
It’s a magnificent piece when you get a higher quality one in your hands and get trained to use it - as a tool - properly. Technically, the structure.. It is beautiful.
The question is not if the AK-47 is good or not, the question is if it’s morally proper to take something use to kill people as an example of good design…
It’s just a macrabre idea.