I thought you might like to take a look at this interesting rifle, often termed the "Cadillac" of the basic AK-47 design.

John



Following their “six-day war” against Egypt, Jordan and Syria in 1967, the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) leadership decided that they wanted a new, standard made-in-Israel rifle to replace their hodge-podge of weapons systems which had included FALs, AKs, Mauser turn-bolts, M16s and others. They decided on 5.56x45mm (.223 Remington) as the preferred cartridge in order to standardize with the Americans. The weapon they crafted became a modern classic and is regarded even today, more than 40 years later, as one of the better assault rifles.

The consensus among the planners was that the AK-47 was "the lion of the desert" for its ability to withstand adverse conditions including dirt, dust and sand. Accordingly, a number of selective-fire guns similar to that rifle were submitted. Several showed promise, including one by Uziel Gal, the inventor of the UZI submachine gun. However, the one selected as the most promising was submitted by Israel Galili and Yaacov Lior. It was eventually to be known as the Galil rifle, in honor of Galili, the principal designer. The rifle broke no new ground, but was a combination of features from other proven designs, melded to provide the Israelis with a gun optimally suited to their mostly-desert operating environments and perceived needs.

The initial guns were somewhat based on the Finnish Valmet Rk 62, but with some interesting twists. These Valmet-receivered prototypes were tested against the AK-47, M16A1, HK 33, and Stoner 63. There were drop tests, sand tests, mud tests, and many more. Minor changes were made, and the gun was submitted to an 18000-round endurance test. Some more small changes were made, and on Sept. 5, 1971, the Galil was accepted as the new IDF standard rifle. Production started at Israel Military Industries (IMI) and the first widespread issue began in September, 1974.

Although the gun is basically an AK-47, there are important differences. It’s chambered for the 5.56x45mm round rather than the 7.62x39mm. The bolt lugs lock into the receiver rather than a barrel extension. This makes for better heat dispersion and a lessened chance of cartridge “cook-offs” in automatic fire, but the receiver had to be made of thicker machined steel. Primary extraction of the cartridge takes place during bolt rotation, eliminating the need for the massive AK extractor. Case ejection proved robust, with cases tossed forcefully yards away. The firing pin is loaded with a very strong coil spring in order to prevent slam-fires common with the floating AK pin when using sensitive non-military primers.

The rear sight is mounted on the rear of the receiver cover, almost identically to the Valmet Rk 62. It had to be mounted in a stable manner, and accordingly the gun was designed with a very close fit of the receiver cover on the receiver. The purpose of this arrangement was a longer sight radius over the forward-mounted open-sight types found on most AKs.

The tubular stock of the Valmet was replaced. The new folding stock resembled the type used on the FN FAL paratrooper model, but was much more robust. It was made of steel and aluminum and locked up solidly when swung away from the receiver and into position. The operating handle was vertical, projecting up over the top of the receiver cover, enabling its use with either hand.

There were three basic models issued, designated ARM, AR, and SAR. The ARM was intended to serve as a squad automatic rifle. It had an 18.1” barrel (19.2” with flash suppressor), a bipod, a large teakwood handguard and a carrying handle. The current handguard is polymer. The overall length was 38.5”, and with the stock folded it was 29.2”. The bipod for this version incorporated a wire cutter. The handguard retainer was integrated with two bottle openers that hold the bipod in the closed position. I guess bottled beer is considered a necessity in the desert! Often, the bipod was discarded by the ARM’s users to get rid of the extra weight; the magazine serving as a monopod. The AR was the standard infantry rifle, with the same specs as the ARM, but without bipod or carrying handle. It has a high-impact plastic handguard. The SAR was designed primarily for paratroopers and other special units. It had a 13.1” barrel (14.1” with flash suppressor). Overall length was 33.1” with the stock extended, and 24.2” when folded. Like the AR, it had a plastic handguard. Some sniper and micro models of the Galil have also been made. There have been numerous variants of these with minor changes.

Magazines were issued with 3 capacities, 50, 35, and 12 rounds. Flip-up tritium sights were standard issue, modeled after a similar arrangement on the Valmet rifle. The rear tritium sight had two self-luminous dots, while the front one had a single dot. The rear sight employed an L-shaped flip-flop two-leaf peep, much like the early sights on the U.S. M1 carbine. The two sight leaves were calibrated for 300 and 500 meters, marked “3” and “5” for quick range adjustment. The front sight, topped with a non-detachable protective circular hood, was adjustable for windage with two opposing screws. It was also adjustable for height, using the standard UZI sight adjustment tool through a hole in the top of the sight hood. The sight picture presented was a post within a circle-within-a-circle. This made for very quick sight acquisition. The tritium sights were normally flipped down, but could be rotated up easily in seconds for low-light use. The flash suppressor doubled as a grenade launcher, and a disposable grenade sight could be mounted on the front sight assembly.

The AK dust cover/selector on the right side remained, but could also be easily manipulated with a thumb switch on the left side. This was considered a necessity because when closed, the folding stock interfered with the operation of the traditional AK selector lever. Galils equipped with bayonet lugs will accept standard U.S. M16 bayonets.

The gun was not without its faults. As is true of AK designs, there is no last-round hold-open device. The receiver cover is so closely fitted that it usually requires a rubber mallet to take it off and re-seat it. This does not make for easy field stripping or re-assembly. I suspect many users might have tended to neglect cleaning and lubricating the internal components because of this, potentially leading to problems. The trigger pull is the usual mushy AK standard. Because of its thick milled receiver and the partially steel buttstock, the weight was substantial compared to the M16 series. It would not easily accept a scope or other optical sight arrangement, although some were rigged to do so. The stock was not length-adjustable to suit varying physiques, attire and equipment.

All criticism aside, in combat the gun performed magnificently, easily besting other designs for reliability. It has been sold to scores of other nations chambered for both 5.56x45mm and 7.62x51mm.

Eventually, the easy and cheap availability of M16 rifles from America finally saw the Galil being superseded by those rifles, often provided or financed by military aid from the United States. Today, most of the IDF is armed with M16s or M4s, although Galils are still in inventory.

The Galil was probably close to the pinnacle of the basic AK design concept. Semiauto versions, some with American receivers and Israeli parts, can be found here in the U.S. This effective rifle is one of the more interesting Kalashnikov variants and has become a sought-after collector’s item.

(c) 2013 JLM

Thought you might enjoy learning a bit more about it!

John

__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -

Great rifle, but as you stated real heavy for the round it used.
Another neat thing was the issued bipod on them doubled as a wire cutters.

__________________
Hold my beer and watch this!

I'd still rather have a Valmet. I think the South African R4 is a derivative of the Galil.

The obsession with ultimate accuracy certainly made the Israelis a bit optimistic when it came to the receiver cover fit. Making it that tight probably is not necessary, especially given that most milspec general issue ammo is only good for 3-4 MOA. Ask anyone that shoots a MAS 49/56 or and FN-49 if they think the slight play in the cover ruins accuracy.

I am interested that no bolt hold-open (BHO) is seen as a "fault". It's just the way it works. I really doubt that the delay in racking a bolt to charge after a reload has ever killed anybody, and if it has then way more have died from a dirty and jammed gun. IPSC, Steel Challenge and 3-Gun are not necessarily good metrics to measure the effectiveness of a military weapon IMHO.

The main attraction of the AK-47 other than its renown reliability is the superiority of the 7.62 x 39 round over the 5.56 round in kill power. With this rifle you get the worst of both worlds. You get a weak round in a heavy less sophisticated rifle. I would take either the AR-15 or AR-16 or AK-47 over it any day.

The only reason I went to the AR-15 rather than the AK-47 was the ease of handling and changing of magazines. It was certainly not due to liking the round of the AR-15 over the round of the AK-47. In fact I picked up a Ruger Mini-30 just to keep the ability to shoot the 7.62 x 39 round.

Actually, the fault of the no-bolt-hold-open action is its failure to alert the firer that he's out of ammo. The bolt could close on an empty chamber and the next shot, maybe crucial, could result in a "click" instead of a "bang." One work-around with AK-style rifles is to load a tracer as the last or near-last round in the magazine. Of course that also alerts your enemy that you are very close to a time-consuming mag change. It seems to me that some enterprising designer could figure out a way to incorporate a bolt hold-open/bolt release into the AK platform. Also, field-cleaning of the bore from the muzzle without removing the bolt is made more difficult when there is no way to lock the bolt to the rear short of whittling a stick to fit and jam the bolt open.

John

__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -

Nice article, as usual. Clear and precise.
TACC1

Such a means, and an incredibly simple one, has existed for awhile:



Removing the bolt in an AK is so easy and quick, there's really no reason one would attempt a cleaning, field or otherwise, without doing so.

__________________
SWHF #448

There are AK mags that incorperate a bolt hold open, problem is once the mag is released so is the bolt.
I have a couple around here somewhere...

__________________
Hold my beer and watch this!

M15 s are much rarer than ar15 I hardly ever see any.
http://www.armalite.com/images/Libra...istics/m15.pdf

__________________
A republic if you can keep it

Actually (see OP text), because the receiver cover on this one is a rhymes-with-witch to get on and off, that may have been sufficient reason, if one didn't have a rubber mallet handy.

John

__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -

Yes, that's quite a shortcoming with the so-called "pinnacle of the basic AK design concept". A rifle so great the Israelis themselves ditched it as soon as they could and the only users today being a handful of third-worlders who don't know, or cannot attain, better.

__________________
SWHF #448

I'm still not convinced that in a battle situation that the average M-16 user always realises his BHO has engaged. When the bullets and the dirt are flying are you going to always feel that the bolt did not fully cycle?

Considering the Galil is based on an AK action, what is this "cleaning" of which you speak?

Thanks for the correction. Duh!

Let the Russians know. Those idiots have been using the 5.45 since 1974.

I've expanded my original post into a draft article on the Galil. It's more detailed - comments welcome.

John

__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -

The bolt hold open has been solved long ago. 4th bullet from the bottom is a tracer. Once you see it you have 3 rounds left. If youre shooting in full auto and you saw it you're probably empty.

Like Steve, I doubt a nolt hold open has decisive outcome in battle. Same goes for the drop free mags. Most soldiers in battle don't stand in the open during a mag change in a middle of a fire fight. The AK mag changes are a bit quicker than the Galil due to the Galil mag release cover.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2

Standard Russian ammo was not that great in stopping power since it just pokes 30 cal holes. In this respect the 5.56 is better, delivering its energy into the mass (unless the intended recipient is very skinny). A good 7.62x39 round was made by the Serbs. Although fmj it tumbles when it enters soft tissue.

This was partially why the Russians changed to the 5.45 cal. Less weight and better terminal ballistics. The 5.45 is fmj but has a hollow nose cavity. It tumbles when it enters soft tissue. While it doesn't have knockdown power its speed and tumbling causes massive internal damage.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2

Probably the most accurate statement so far. It is well known (and documented) that the 5.56 x 45 outperforms 7.62 x 39.

The Serbian round Arik is talking about is the M67. Actually developed when it was still Yugoslavia. It is widely available in the corrosive brass cased Yugo surplus ammunition that you used to see quite frequently.

Arik is also correct in regards to the 5.45 x 39. While an improvement upon the 7.62, it still does not equal the terminal effectiveness of 5.56 x 45.

Technically, the most devastating loading was the original 5.56 fired through 1 in 14 twist barrels. The round was just barely stabilized, allowing it to dump enormous amounts of energy into the target upon impact.

I think some folks (particularly Americans) seem to automatically equate larger caliber with increased effectiveness. That is not always the case.

__________________
Un-Reconstructed Southerner

I own two Galils. One is a genuine IMI produced rifle, from Israel. The other is a parts kit cobbled together by Century on an American made receiver. Both guns are actually very nice. The Century example shows a good deal of wear on some parts, but they have been cleaned up and reparkerized. The build quality is much better than I have seen come out of Century in the past.

The IMI example has a shorter barrel. The Century model has an "A2" type flash suppressor, while the IMI has a proprietary design. The one thing I would take issue with is the tightness of the receiver cover. Both of mine come off rather easily, almost as easy as a regular AK top cover.

I also own a Valmet. Interesting in comparison. The magazines for the Valmet are EXTREMELY expensive and do not fit the Galil. The magazines from the Galil do not fit the Valmet. I must admit, I do like the folding tubular stock on the Valmet better.

I think a more accurate statement would be that the Valmet is truly a more refined design. If you have shot both you would probably agree as well. The Valmet, is just.......natural. I would LOVE to get my hands on one of the newest models. Too bad that will never happen.

Great article, and you touch on some really good points about the Galil. If some of you haven't shot one, I highly recommend you do so.

__________________
Un-Reconstructed Southerner

Ive owned the Century cobled Galil (Golani) abortion:thumbdown:

MK actually didnt like the idea of a lighter faster round. He thought the 5.45 wasxa waste of time that should have and could have been spent improving the 7.62cal. Where the 7.62 excels is in barrier penatration. I have seen what tge 5.45 does to a 80lb deer at about 70 yards and its no joke. Liquefied one lung, the bottom of the heart and severly messed up one shoulder blade without exiting through the other side. Its no slouch but the 5.56 has an edge on dumping energy into its target. This also helps with longer barrels of course.

Im a huge AK fan boy. Own 3 in 5.45 and 2 in 7.62 and have owned many more. Tge only type I dont own is 5.56. I leave that for my Colt. I wouldn't call the Galil a improvement on the AK. Different but not an improvement. If anything the Vz58 could be called an improvement despite not sharing anything but the caliber

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2

They also came standard with tritium night sights.

__________________
'Merica!

There just ain't no substitute for cubic inches.

__________________
'Merica!

Well, it pretty much lost any validity when it referred to a round having, or not having, 'knockdown power.'

ok sorry for not typing out everything on my cell. Lets try it again for those who need specific wording. I figured people would understand what im talking about

The 5.45 generally does not have enough mass to drop a person where he stands. ( like a 45-70 or a 375h&h or a 12g slug. )
Not a one shot stop. Does not dump its energy all at once

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2

The big plus with 5.45 is like 5.56 it can be made into a good penetrator against soldiers wearing body armour. Both rounds have excellent sectional density in that form and have a better chance of doing damage behind the armour than 7.62x39 or 300 Blackout. Neither has the same grunt as an AP round in 7.62 NATO or 7.62x54R but they are a different class of ammo and require a much different weapon.