Ak74 Test Comparison to US Weapons at Aberdeen Proving Ground

**Humpy70** · 12-14-19, 07:31

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a228398.pdf

The above is the link to the Aberdeen Proving Ground Testing of the AK74 and how it compared to US weapons. There are three variants of this subject all written by my friend Buck Weaver of the Army Material Systems Analysis Activity at Aberdeen which was located about a hundred yards from my office.

The original AK74 testing was conducted in 82 just as I finished up the M16A1E1 Test and I got a call from Buck that he needed me to conduct a project for him and this was conducted on the weekends as up to that time we did not have a AK74 to evaluate so I got picked to conduct it.

Buck gave me pictures of the test and told me to keep them close hold for a long time. In short we didn't want the opposition to know what we knew or that we had one of their toys to do such. The interestng thing was we had two 55 gal drums of 5.45 ammo for several years before the rifle became available. I knew Buck had horsepower when he showed up for the test carrying a 35 MM camera in the security area.

In 2015 I found my pics and I tried to call him and learned he had passed and I called AMSAA and got clearance to discuss it. They told me that Buck wrote three reports, the first one was not written until 1986 and then another and finally this one that is now posted on the internet dtd 1990 and the only one released for publication.

This is a gold mine of data and compares the AK74 to a variety of US weapons. This is probably the most intense comparison you will ever see because the data for these evaluations have all been conducted on the same ranges at Aberdeen Proving Ground so there are no comparisons about tests conducted by gun writers on different ranges, altitudes, humidity and by personnel that do not have the qualifications/experience to conduct such.

When I got to Buck's office he told me he wanted the testing conducted exactly like the M16A1E1 was conducted using the same everything to include the same crew changing the targets as we moved back.

As you will see he compares ACTUAL hit studies and all data is actual and not computer projections. As I shot each segment he took the targets, wrote on them and took with him thus no one but me, my crew and him saw them and I am sure they are still on file at the PG in the vaults.

Aberdeen testing is unique because when you see data of a test conducted in the 40s to 2019 it was all conducted on the same range by specially selected personnel to assure the highest degree of repeatability possible.

For instance testing is conducted in two ways. One the sights are never changed and you just keep moving back while shooting at a huge target frame with target placed higher and higher followed be having all groups measured from the bottom center of a round bull target in millimeters. Then you have fire control study which means how close are shots are placed to the point of aim when the sights are moved at each distance. Thus if you have a target at 700 meters and you put sight on 700 meters and thus you know how close the sights are to being correct.

Other tests will have data beyond hit probability such as mean rounds between failures and safety evaluations that are required by MIL STD 882 System Safety which is called for along with human engineering recommendations for weapons systems as outlined in MIL HDBK 759.

If you want to learn much more in-depth knowledge of what goes on the weapons development and testing I suggest you pull up copies of the above document (on line) and read them. I think you will be amazed as to what goes on in military weapons development.

**vicious_cb** · 12-14-19, 08:30

The most useful thing Ive read in that document:

AMSAA concluded after an evaluation of the AK-74:
If "effective range" is gauged by the singleshot
hitting performance of typical riflemen in
operational situations, the Soviet AK-47, AK-74,
U.S. M16A1 and M16A2 have the same "effective"
range. This statement can be extended to all
general-issue military rifles (including 7.62
NATO-caliber). [9: p.63]

Its almost like all this BS about "effective range" has been known for a long time. Yet things like "taking back the infantry half-kilometer" and the Army needing an Interim 7.62 combat rifle keep popping up when stuff like this has been known since in the 1930's.

**Humpy70** · 12-14-19, 08:46

There is something else to be considered which is the Army Wound Ballistic Lab concluded in the 90s that both the M193 round and the M855 round start losing terminal ballistic performance at 95 yards where the 7.62 will be far more effective at longer ranges. When Col Fackler cranked up his lab at the Presidio he put the whole Army and Ballistic Research Lab data to shame and the entire terminal wound ballistics scenarios were changed. Marty's expertise started in Nam where he was a surgeon whose specialty was bullet wounds and he not only fix up he wounded but interviewed them to determine what they were hit by and from how far away and he started making notes. He was a Navy Surgeon in Nam and the Surgeon General of the Army got him to transfer over and funded his research. He died a couple years back and I miss his emails.

You are correct about 300 meters being about the range most troops will engage another individual.

CIP I was told that when the Russians went into AGN the locals started opening up on them from 800 meters + with Mosin's and Lee Enfields and were rolling them out of vehicles by the hundreds.

For instance you keep hearing about Carlos Hathcock and 93 confirmed. Eric England USMC had 98 confirmed he told me he had over 200 damn sures. He was a friend.

That is me on the left, Eric England next to me, then Dave Luke and finally Bob Snodgrass. Pic was taken about 4 years ago.

Eric held the NRA 100 shot regional course rifle record for like 45 years, Dave was National Highpower Champion I think twice and Bob Snodgrass (far right) designed the first floating handguards for M16, the BFA for it. He held several patents on small arms parts. He was also the "authority" on sniper systems having been a USMC Sniper in Korea and was recruited by L F Moore to come to the Army Small Cal Lab and he was the one that recruited me to come to the Small Cal Lab. Moore was also a Small Arms Test Director at Aberdeen Proving Ground and was one of the first ones to test the M16. Moore recruited about six people into the Army Small Arms Engineering areas. That I know of only myself and one other are still alive and I stopped and spent half a day with him on the way back from Montana last May.

Moore told me they had M14s blowing up at Aberdeen and he traced it down to the magazines were blowing the rifles up.