Talk:AK-47/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Spelling Question

Is it "AK-47s" or "AK-47's"?? I believe both appear in the article as it currently stands. 158.169.9.14 17:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I dont think theres a set spelling but it basicly depends. But what do i know i failed englsih ForeverDEAD 19:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

If it is plural, then it is "AK-47s". If it is posessive, then "AK-47's". I'll review it, this is a common error. DMorpheus 19:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Putting in Sudanese-made AK variant

Since my contribution's removed on the MAZ rifle, which is weird that MIC would showcase it as a submachine gun. Would it be okay if I just reference this case down since the MAZ is an AK-made foreign variant? Thanks. Ominae 10:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, looking at the web site, they have cartoon pictures of firearms like the G3, MP5, and M16. They are not, to my knowledge, license-producing ANY of these firearms. The overall quality of the web site is sketchy and there is no independant confirmation that it isn't just a stock picture and they didn't have whatever gun it was they are making. --Asams10 11:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

How about I reference it as speculative? Ominae 17:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I really appreciate your desire to add them, however I am not only unconvinced they are making it, I don't believe that the source is credible enough for an unconfirmed entry. It's already here on the talk page and it'd be nice to find a reliable reference to add it, so I think the issue has already been addressed enough without any verifcation at this time. --Asams10 17:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Andrei Kirilenko

Shouldn't this page give a possible redirection to Andrei Kirilenko of the Utah Jazz? His nickname is AK-47! Basketball110 (talk) 01:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There will defintly be no redirection as the Ak47 weapons is 10000x more notable then some basketball player. If you mean a "did you mean" kind of thing at the top there was one but someone decided to remove it for some reason. Personaly i dont think there should be a link. Esskater11 01:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I and others removed the link to Kirilenko. The reason that somebody would need a "did you mean" would be if somebody really typed in AK-47 and expected to get the article on the ball player. Since that's highly unlikely, having a link on the AK-47 page ammounts to riding the shirt-tails of the notoriety of the AK-47. Redirection? HELL NO! --Asams10 (talk) 01:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the above. If someone were looking for Kirilenko, the likelyhood they'd be searching using only the term "AK-47" is highly improbable. In fact, even just searching "AK-47 basketball" returns Kirilenko's article as the second result. No need for redirects. Parsecboy (talk) 04:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I did mean the "did you mean" thing. Basketball110 00:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

AKM break-off

Hi, just informing you that I am working on a separate entry for the AKM variant, which is severely under-represented here. It is the most prolific of the AK variants and itself led to many other successful designs, most prominent among them: The RPK light machine gun and AK-74. It holds enough changes and its own variants to warrant a separate article. Any references to the AKM can be directed here from now on. I will complete this over the weekend. Koalorka (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'd be against that for the main reason that they are essentially the same weapon. You're going to get more opposition, I'm sure. Please go through the proper procedures on this. I'm adding split tags. Sure, they aren't completetly interchangeable, but the AKM is simply a manufacturing simplification of the AK-47 involving mostly the receiver. I'd be more inclined to expand the representation of the AKM in this article instead of creating a neutered or largely duplicate article. You can't tell the AKM story without telling the AK-47 story over again.--Asams10 (talk) 20:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your input. I think the changes are numerous and significant enough to deserve it's own page, the reference to this most ubiquitous of AK variants on this page is laughable. I have material for an entire page, simply including it into the AK-47 page would result in a nightmarishly long and disproportionately detailed description of the AKM. I would also argue that based on the amount of variants alone that have spawned from the AKM (AKMS, AKMP, AKML, AKMLP, AKMSP, AKMSN, AKMSNP etc) that alone should guarantee it a separate entry. Another argument for the split would be that countries that use the AKM do not consider it a simple variant from the AK-47, but an entirely different firearm. The variances are far greater than say the AK-74 and AK-74M, but I do understand your position. Koalorka (talk) 21:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I've heard the arguments for differences but must respectfully disagree. Worked in an armory where all three weapons were being overhauled. Simply stated, the receiver is the only significant difference. We got all other parts to interchange. Liked working on the milled receivers because they didn't warp when welded, annealed, and heat treated. The bottom line was the same, though, that the AKM was modernized simply in manufacturing techniques and not design. You've got all kinds of neat info and that may warrant another article, but that doesn't mean the gun is significantly different. The AK-74 does differ, from my point of view, significantly in that virtually none of the big components interchange. We had to have two process and keep the parts separate. --Asams10 (talk) 00:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

How can you logically argue this point if at the same time you argue in favor of keeping the M240 and FN MAG articles separate. There are far more differences between the AK-47 and AKM than the M240G and MAG, or likewise the MINIMI and M249, whose integration you also shot down. The M249 is principally manufactured by FNMI and has some "light" PIP improvements. Otherwise same weapon... I believe you should redefine your view of the "variant", you're not very consistent in this regard. Also, it's not only that the receiver was stamped instead of being milled from a single slab of steel. The barrel mounting system is different (pinned), the stock has longer (deeper) mounting arms, the receiver dust cover has vertical and lateral ribs for increased strength, the barrel has a recoil compensator, it has a hammer rate retarder, the hammer is different as is the trigger. The gas relief ports behind the gas cylinder head were relocated forward to the gas block, the bolt carrier has a lighter weight and has a slightly different shape, the stock has a different shape and an additional hollow that reduced weight. The return mechanism instead of a single telescopically mounted guide rod has a "U" shaped wire spring guide. The rear sight drop arms has teeth on the left side that determine the position of the slider adjustment. The front sight post is also different (narrower at the base).

BTW I brought up the AK-74 comparing it to the AK-74M, that is a simply lightly modified variant, unlike the AK-47 to the AKM. Koalorka (talk) 01:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You must have me confused with somebody else. I chimed in for merging the FN MINIMI and M249 articles but I haven't (yet) made any comment on the M240 merger. In fact, thanks, I wasn't even watching the M240. I'll correct that. I'm all for merging the M240 and MAG articles... having worked on those as well.

As for the differences, the dust covers interchanged, the rate reducer was left out most of the time unless a spare was hanging around, the recoil compensator was also left off if none were laying around, the stocks were generally replaced being so beat up as to be unserviceable. We'd modify the AKM ones to fit the milled guns. Bolt carriers and return springs were 100% interchangeable. Gas vent holes were simple, just file notches in the AK-47 gas block if needed. We'd usually get the barrels as one assembly and toss the old one. When we ran short or had to merely replace the gas block, we could do it interchangeably. Most of the time, it was AK-47 blocks that went bad. When you look at how the previous generation had to rebuild M-1 Garands, arsenal rebuilding of the AK types was really a simple affair. You don't have a different article for 'gas trap' Garands or 'post-war' Garands but those incorporate as many changes as the AK-47 to AKM.--Asams10 (talk) 02:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Against --as I have to agree with Asams10 they are essentially the same weapon. Am not sure if it is noteable to have a page of its own.--Duchamps_comb MFA 02:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Against -- forgot to add my vote. --Asams10 (talk) 02:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Well then I get a nice visual boost for the cause too. Koalorka (talk) 02:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support - per this "I appreciate your input. I think the changes are numerous and significant enough to deserve it's own page, the reference to this most ubiquitous of AK variants on this page is laughable. I have material for an entire page, simply including it into the AK-47 page would result in a nightmarishly long and disproportionately detailed description of the AKM. I would also argue that based on the amount of variants alone that have spawned from the AKM (AKMS, AKMP, AKML, AKMLP, AKMSP, AKMSN, AKMSNP etc) that alone should guarantee it a separate entry. Another argument for the split would be that countries that use the AKM do not consider it a simple variant from the AK-47, but an entirely different firearm. The variances are far greater than say the AK-74 and AK-74M, but I do understand your position. Koalorka (talk) 21:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)" BonesBrigade 16:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, since the same argument has been presented twice, I'll defend my position. The crux of my argument is that the AKM AKMS, AKMP, AKML, AKMLP, AKMSP, AKMSN, AKMSNP, et. are all spawned from the AK-47. Your position is that they spawned from the AKM. I've already stated and supported my position that the firearms are largely interchangeable with minor differences being in construction techniques of the receiver. The handguard and buttstock, for instance, had to be different. But, that's about it. All the principle parts interchange, but again, that's not the crux. The AKM is only "M'd" or "Modernized" in construction techniques. Your two arguments, therefore, are that the AKM spawned so many variants... it did, but the AKM is a variant in and of itself... and that the AKM is significantly different. Well, it isn't. I've got intimate knowledge myself and disagreeing with me on that matter doesn't change reality. --Asams10 (talk) 17:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Then I ask you what modern firearm isn't a variant or some dramatic overhaul of an older or proven design, to what extent do we consider something a variant? The proposed break will allow us to divulge even more accurate information about the two designs and that I believe is our goal in the firearms community, we have to dispel the myth that the AK-47 is THE ONE main AK variant used in amateurish media reporting of firearms, popular culture etc. As you gentlemen are aware the AK-47 model is relatively obscure compared to the AKM, yet the AKM for some reason receives very little mention, simply due to the fact that it is seen as an irrelevant variant of the AK-47. Let's correct that. Koalorka (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The M16A2 is a fine example. A short list of the major changes would be barrel twist, barrel weight, rear sight assembly, brass deflector, forestocks, grip, buttstock, trigger, the entire trigger group, flash suppressor, etc. Now then, does the M16A2 warrant a different article? Does the M4? It's merely a shortened version of the M16A2 with fewer differences than between the M16A1 and the M16A2. How about the M16 vs. the M16A1? The upper receiver and bolt carrier were different? Does that warrant another article? It's a matter of significance which I'm sure you'll agree is subjective rather than objective. The AKM is the definitive version of the Kalashnikov, yes, but those differences between it and the earlier weapon are, in my opinion, less than those between the M16A1 and M16A2. Yes, it's amateurish to describe all assault rifles as clones of the AK-47 with nonsensical terms like 'high powered', 'banana clip', and 'bullet hose'. But that doesn’t' change the significance of the differences.

The difference here is merely in nomenclature and not in the actual firearm. A change in manufacturing on the M1 Garand caused a part that was previously milled to be stamped and riveted, but that made no change in the nomenclature. That's the United States though. What of the USSR? Who knows? If you were the least bit interested in the TDI Kriss naming battle that I was involved in, you'll probably be aware that naming throughout the firearm world is non-standard to say the least. I have to look at the firearm. In terms of the evolution of the design, the AK-47 was standardized at an early stage. In reality, the AKM was merely the series production version of the AK-47 with all of the inefficiencies in production worked out and refined. Were this an American Weapon, it would have been the "XM-4 Carbine" followed by the "XM4E1 and XM4E2" to the point of the production model, the "M4" (of course, in that period it would have been the M4 as the M3 Carbine was already taken). The folding stock version would have been the M4A1 and so on. Russia produced the AK-47 because they had to... it was the cold war and they needed an assault rifle whatever the level of refinement. So, do we have a separate article about the XM16E1 or do we roll it into the main article? The information on the AKM can be written into the AK-47 article and still keep it under the size of, say, the M1 Garand or M16 articles.

Much like the Glock articles, you can't tell the whole story of the AKM without retelling the story of the AK-47 as it's the same story. You can't tell the story of Muhammad Ali without telling the story of Cassius Clay. Who is going to go looking for the AKM article? Perhaps a small percentage of people who know. If you come to Wikipedia to learn about the AK-47, you'll end up clicking through to the AKM for the real story. It's not a different enough weapon, but that is my Never-to-be-Humble Opinion. --Asams10 (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Then in accordance with that viewpoint we should eliminate dedicated articles for nationally-produced AK variants, such as the Type 56, Romanian AIM, Polish Tantal etc. since they are merely variants with a varying degree of changes and/or production methods... Same would apply to the AK-74, apart from some minor adaptations for the 5.45 M74 round, it is still pretty much the design layout and operating concept identical to the AK, it even shares a lot of common parts with the AK. The AK family is diverse and most major variants should be noted separately, the Eastern Bloc view of the Soviet portion of the AK family consists of the AK-47, AKM, AK-74 (which includes the newer AK-10x series rifles) and RPK. Since we adopt American standards and classifications when describing American-derived firearms, we should extend this courtesy to other nations as well and their firearm developments. Koalorka (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I follow the AK-47 and could care less about the redundant articles out there such as Type 56, etc. Not sure where you're going with your American standards comments, but the AK-74 is significantly different from the AK-47 to warrant another article IMO. --Asams10 (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

As is the AKM, apart from sharing a few more parts with the AK-47 because of the identical caliber. Clear as mud right? So both our positions are now known, let's see what others have to say. Perhaps we should link this debate to the WikiProject talk page to resolve this quicker? Koalorka (talk) 19:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem. --Asams10 (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I have a slightly different perspective than some other editors about whether to split or merge certain articles such as this one. I'm interested in, and have some familiarity with, firearms, but I have less experience and a much less technical background than some others. Because of that I tend to think about splitting and merging more in terms of the articles themselves, rather than how the firearms are constructed or operate. Applying that to the current question, I think we should be talking more about what the one or two articles will be like if the AKM stays part of the AK-47 article or is split off. If there's really a lot to say about the AKM, then it should probably have its own article, even if it's mechanically quite similar to the AK-47. The WikiProject Firearms guideline is that variants should be part of the main article, but I would go so far as to say that if there's really a lot of good material about a variant, it should have its own article anyway, from the perspective of building an encyclopedia. Of course, a big part of the issue is deciding what is or is not a variant. If most of the parts are interchangeable, it may very well be a variant, but not necessarily. In the final analysis it's somewhat subjective. To use an analogy, most of the mechanical parts of mid-70s Camaros and Firebirds might have been interchangeable, but that doesn't mean that one was a variant of the other, and even if it was, probably most editors would agree that the cars should have separate articles. In conclusion, I'm not going to "vote" on whether or not the AKM should have its own article, but I would request other editors to consider the points I have made, both for this case and for other split and merge discussions. — Mudwater 21:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Against: I'd vote against a seperate article for the AKM. The arguements about why the AKM is different simply don't hold water to me. Just my opinion. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Against:I'd vote against the seperation because even though they are two different weapons, they are only different in extremely small ways. 1-4-08 Cfarinella (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Defiently not.-King Toast —Preceding unsigned comment added by King Toast (talk • contribs) 02:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

On a side note most of the agaist bring up the point that the M4 is basicly just a shortned M16A2. If you would vote against this being differnt wouldnt you surely have to say that the M4 shouldnt have its own article? BonesBrigade 03:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Against:Not really, since the M4 has a fair bit of history and design, merging it would lose a significant amount of it. In this case, I don't think there's enough history or design to warrant a separate article.--LWF (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

How could you say that without seeing first what I have to offer? I have a lot of very specific information on this subject, more than enough to fill an entire page nicely. Surely with so much opposition I see I can count on these same users opposing me now to integrate the M4 into M16A2, M240 into FN MAG and M249 into MINIMI by default since we already have a consensus here..... A lot of confusing ambiguity coming from you folks. Koalorka (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

M16, M16A1, and M16A2 are already integrated. The M4 is already a separate article though I'd not oppose integration if somebody else cared... I don't in this case. This is all a subjective matter in the end and therefore there can be no grand concensus on this matter. The difference is how much we FEEL that one variant is different enough to warrant another article. I'm for integration as a rule but I'm not going to be proactive and integrate the Mauser 98 and K98 articles anymore than you should split the M38, M44 articles from the Mosin Nagant article. If you have all of that information... enough to fill a separate article, then just make the other article, put a {{main|AK-47}} tag at the top of a new, abreviated AKM section, and wait for the flames. That would kinda save you from the whole "split" discussion that, admittedly, I started. Instead, you'd have to argue the lesser points of notability and an unlikely AFD tag. The AK-47 article only gets expanded slightly but, to appease those of us who care, we still essentially integrated. The whole AK-47 story is told on this page. Perhaps one can condense the AK-74 article and do a section here as well. Fair enough? --Asams10 (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Against The AKM is a variant of the AK 47 if you were to seperate them you would have to do the same for the M16/a1/a2/etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by G4raider (talk • contribs) 02:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well for you naysayers here is the response I received from Izhmash, the only licensed manufacturer for the AK series, including the AKM, 74, 100 series:

Dear Mr. XXX,

In my opinion AKM deserves a separate article (though of course, it should be linked to AK-47):

- AK-47 is only the initial version that further became the name of the concept. As you may know, even its very name - AK-47 - is not official, and the first AK accepted for service by the Soviet army, was officially called differently.

Though in general people tend to call AK-47 ALL Kalashnikov assault rifles (even modern), it will not correct if we talk officially or professionally. AK of 1949, AKM, AK74, AK of 100 series (101, 102, 103, 104, 105) are different generations of assault rifles with one outlook and general design.

- anyway, for the factory and designers AKM is so much different - in terms of weight, accuracy, handling during fire, rate of fire, etc. i.e. things that basically make a weapon.

- as you correctly mentioned, AKM was in production much longer and produced in larger quantities than the first AK.

Best regards,

Andrey Baryshnikov

Straight from the horse's mouth so to speak. If you haven't already noticed the AKM page does already exist in a splinter form, I will be enhancing it significantly over the next few days. Koalorka (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

While I hardly agree that the AK-47 and 49 need different articles (That's covered well enough in the section on receivers, right), it's probably good to have a concensus built before you split them off. I think that, within the concensus which seems against a break-off, you can justify keeping your article and condensing the AKM, AK-74, and AK 100 series into separate sections each with a main tag at the top that directs them to the expanded article. Further, you could gloss over the AK-47 development in the AKM article and place a main tag on the top of that one as well. I don't even think you'd need a concensus or vote to do this one as there is no material loss and the AK-47 article doesn't need to be neutered much. Then again, my merging of the Glock pistol article was described as 'Preposterous' so take what I say with the appropriate grain of salt. --Asams10 (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Against The AKM is a variant of the AK 47 if you were to seperate them you would have to do the same for the M16/a1/a2/etc.--Dudtz (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Support Strong support. The AKM probably deserves its own article more than the "AK-47" does. The AKM is the actual weapon people are talking about 99% of the time when someone says "AK-47", it's the most widely produced, copied, and proliferated weapon in history. The AKM is a visually distinct weapon with the stock, pistol grip, receiver, receiver cover, selector switch, bolt carrier, rear sight, handguards, gas tube, gas block, front sight, and muzzle break all being quite noticeably different, among other smaller differences. --Skyler Streng (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The AKM page already exists on its own if you haven't noticed. Koalorka (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Are there AK-47s that are chambered for 7.62mm Nato rounds?

Are there AK-47s that are chambered for 7.62mm Nato rounds? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.251.175.21 (talk) 23:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there are variants. But they're all civilian IIRC. Rynky (talk) 03:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe a number of South American countries use something like the MPIKB or something like that. It's an AK-47 in 7.62 NATO. Not sure if it can fire full-auto though.--LWF (talk) 04:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the Yugoslav M76 sniper rifle? It came in 7.62 NATO and 8mm Mauser. Rynky (talk) 04:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Why no reference to M16?

Why is there no reference or comparison to M16, or even similar or also see reference? Bachcell (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

There is, but there doesn't need to be. Look again at the See Also section. It's immaterial though. --Asams10 (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Use of the word "gun"

In military language, "gun" refers to artillery weapons, shotguns, machine guns, and sub-machine guns, but never rifles. Since the article is about a military weapon I propose changing all instances of "gun" with "rifle." A bit nerdy and anal, but this is an encyclopedia. Drogue (talk) 03:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Design History

This part of the article is highly vague and inaccurate. The gun which Kalashnikov contemplated in hospital was a submachine gun; Germans did not have any automatic rifles in service in 1941 and thus, Kalashnikov and his fellow soldiers could not have been worried about matching non-existent German automatic rifles. In fact, it was the Germans who envied Soviet automatic rifles! Germans did, however, have submachineguns which Soviets had very few as of 1941, and this probably prompted Kalashnikov to submit his own entry.

I'm unsure which gun exactly "Mikhtim" refers to. It could be Kalashnikov's 1944 carbine, which was influenced by Garand and M1 Carbine (not so much by PPS-43 - although Kalashnikov was highly impressed by Sudayev's design). If so, the article is wrong - Kalashnikov carbine lost out to SKS. It did, however, form the basis for his 1946 assault rifle. That rifle also did not win the competition - it made to the second round along with rifles designed by Demetev and Bulkin, and between that it was almost completely redesigned, and it was Kalashnikov's 1947 gun which became AK-47. I was going to rewrite the entire chapter and remove whole reference to "Mikhtim" since it's so vague, but given that this is a featured article, I'm not willing to make drastic changes before hearing some second opinions...--Mikoyan21 (talk) 22:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, since there were no objections, I made a revision based mostly on Bolotin's book, which is much better reference than some vague news pieces. IMHO, previous version was not FA quality material. --Mikoyan21 (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I made a few grammar changes for ya. That's "a" few... --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 22:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The article says the AK compleatly based on Stg44, but in fact the 2 weapon sheares nothing but the gas operating function and the look (I had in hand both weapon disassembled). I agree that the AK sheares a lot in design/function with many other, earlier developed weapons, but writing "Mikhail Kalashnikov denies his assault rifle was based on the German Sturmgewehr 44 assault rifle despite circumstantial evidence to the contrary.[7]" is a way to strong. You can check http://world.guns.ru/assault/as51-e.htm about the design of the 2 weapons. --katz194.244.78.104 (talk) 07:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh, I read the article and is says the AK is not completely based on the StG44. Do you read English? Try reading the sources prior to forming your opinions. Then maybe they'd even be half-baked. Soviet propoganda is mixed heavily into the history of the AK-47 but even Soviet sources claim a connection. Still, you're asserting the article says something it does not. You say that the article claims it's "Compleatly" based on the StG44. Now, unless that was not a typo and you're using a word I have never read before, then your counterclaims don't hold water. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 11:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)