• VHS [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    85
    ·
    3 months ago

    Why do they describe the AK-74 as “Soviet-era” when it’s the main service rifle of both Russia and Ukraine and still being produced? That’s like calling the M16 “Vietnam War-era”.

    • Flyberius [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      92
      ·
      3 months ago

      Because every sentence in Western media is meticulously crafted to push a narrative. In this case I imagine they are trying to push the idea that Russian tech is inferior

    • Moss [they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      42
      ·
      3 months ago

      Also the “Soviet-era” ended in the 90s, but the implication is always that it’s WW2 technology. The M16 should be called “Nixon-era” or some other nonsense

      • Tunnelvision [they/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        3 months ago

        That’s probably not going to happen until after the war is over. It usually takes a while for a big change like that. Getting AK12s to units has been a problem for the Russians and those who did receive them told the MOD that there were problems with them that they have recently fixed from what I understand. Many units still prefer the AK-74 because they still have plenty of suppressors and other attachments for those where as suppressors for the AK-12 are not as readily available yet.

    • EmoThugInMyPhase [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      The soviets produced a shit ton of them, so a good percentage were literally produced in the Soviet era. But in this context it doesn’t matter since both modern and soviet era AKs are largely unchanged, and using one or the other doesn’t really matter. It would make sense to specify the era if the production quality was superior or something.