Why no AK-74s in western film armories?

[predator20]

It's also likely because most American armories have a stockpile of AKM's and Type 56's from the 80s. Why spend the time and money buying 74's, when most directors aren't going to know enough or care enough whether a 47 or 74 is being used as long as it's an AK.

[Excalibur]

I just never understand the inaccuracies of the modern Russian military in varies films still using AK47 variants when they should be using the 74. We know there are plenty of armories that have the 74 models.

[Spartan198]

Originally Posted by Excalibur

I just never understand the inaccuracies of the modern Russian military in varies films still using AK47 variants when they should be using the 74. We know there are plenty of armories that have the 74 models.

Believe me, I'd love to see Russian soldiers in movies just as accurately depicted as American troops are. But as has been said, it's a matter of most directors not caring as well as the economics of procuring the weapons and enough blanks. Though I'd still be hard pressed to deny that mock-ups like this are convincing enough to convey the illusion for me. Same goes for an "M4" with an SP1 or A1 lower, since most viewers only pay attention to the upper receiver unit and accessories attached to it.

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by Spartan198

Though I'd still be hard pressed to deny that mock-ups like this are convincing enough to convey the illusion for me.

Yeah, true. I don't know how many times I saw "GoldenEye" over the years (and since it was one of my favorite James Bond movies, I saw it quite often on VHS) before I realized that the "AK-74s" in the movie were mostly visually modified Type 56s. To someone with only a casual interest in firearms, the difference will not be apparent at all.

Originally Posted by Spartan198

I also read MPM's post on the GoldenEye talk page and it made a lot of sense. I wish there were more directors that cared about the guns.

Retrospectively, I think that the theory I've articulated in this topic is more likely than his explanation (keep in mind that he and I both posted on that talk page more than four years ago), but his explanation is certainly not implausible.

[SPEMack618]

Originally Posted by MT2008

To someone with only a casual interest in firearms, the difference will not be apparent at all.

Heck, I've got more than a casual interest in guns, and have fired both a -74 and -47 in familirization and didn't realize that the Goldeneye guns were modified Type 56s until coming here.

And Goldeneye is probably my favorite James Bond movie. it is also the first one I ever saw in theaters.

[Excalibur]

I think nowadays, western armories can supplement their lack of AK74s with replicas like Airsoft if they are for non firing scenes.

[Chitoryu12]

Originally Posted by Excalibur

I think nowadays, western armories can supplement their lack of AK74s with replicas like Airsoft if they are for non firing scenes.

Airsoft has been a major boon to the film and TV industry; there's large supplies of weapons that are realistic down to pretty much every detail that will appear on film, to the point where the guns are literally indistinguishable from each other until you take them apart (and cover up any necessary markings, of course). Some of them are real enough to fool people who are used to firearms until they examine it in more detail. All for a price that's not only cheaper than a fully automatic assault rifle (plus the blank conversion and ammo), but has almost no legal strings attached.

And that's not even getting into minor background actors and weapons walls, where you can get away with buying the $30 Wal-Mart guns, optionally dolling them up to look more convincing. Not to mention that with CGI improving and the pool of talented (enough) special effects wizards and animators increasing, you can often just give your actors cheap airsoft guns and use digital firing effects.