Talk:AK-47/PreviousDiscussion

Is it time to renew the discussion page?

This discussion page itself has become long and rambling, with much of the content relating to disputes that have been settled. Is anyone else in favor of deleting the whole thing (or most of it) and starting over? CynicalMe 19:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favor of a renew. —Squalla 03:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this at least a "good" article?

This article is written, in my opinion, even better than some of the other good articles on Wikipedia. I think it may even be eligable for "featured" article. What do you all, my fellow Wikipedists, think?

Ditto CynicalMe 01:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, although I think the M1 Garand is an even better candidate for featured article after the last major improvements in the last months. I do think this article should be classified as a "good article", however. —Squalla 03:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Avtomat

I was wondering, what actomat refers to. I can make a few guesses, but I know next to no russian.

The word Automat refers to a weapon that is not quite a SMG and not quite a Rifle.

--There is no such word "actomat" in Russian, it is avtomat (English: Automat). Avtomat in general is a device that performs something automatically. In Russia, the automatic handguns are called automat, the US equivalent is the automatic assault rifle. I would say it was probably influenced by the street language as a shortcut and then adopted mainstream.

WASR-10 Low Quality?

Toward the end of the article it mentions the WASR-10 as low-quality and having ejector problems...I have yet to find a single reputable (i.e., not word-of-mouth) source to confirm this. In fact, most sources claim the opposite is true of both the WASR-10 and the SAR-1 ... is there a reference here?

changed "most" to "much", corrosive ammo is mostly old stock --66.173.192.96 02:39, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Attention

Perhaps the person placing the "in need of attention" notice would like to state what they think is wrong with the article as it stands -- Cabalamat 16:36, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

reorg

So I redid this article a lot. Don't have time to do everything I'd like; better wikification, more logical and consistent organization, a characteristics table like at M14 (rifle), and a comparison chart between the AK and previous infantry weapons are on all on my wish list. Feel free to beat me to it! --Twinxor 04:11, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Active v. passive voice

I prefer active to passive voice, because it is simpler and clearer, hence I prefer this:

To fire, insert a loaded magazine, move the right selector lever on the right to the bottom position, and pull back and release the cocking lever on the right top. Aim and pull the trigger.

To this:

To fire, a loaded magazine is inserted, the right selector lever on the right is moved to the bottom position, and the cocking lever on the right top is pulled back and released. The gun is aimed and the trigger is pulled.

-- Cabalamat 20:41, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The reason why I modified it originally was because I think the style of "active voice" sounds too much like instructions on how to shoot. Suitable for a terrorist handbook, not for an encyclopedia. But maybe that's just me. 130.233.16.105 15:04, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, 130.233.16.105 is quite obviously right on this point. If I had time right now, I would revert Cabalamat's changes myself.

I think 130.233.16.105's problem was the using the Imperative, which seems odd in an encyclopedia article. I changed it to the impersonal active voice. ie Insert a loaded magazine to the user inserts a loaded magazine. I hope this satifies the style concerns of all parties. Ashmoo 07:04, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Overhaul

I'm going to embark on a quite a major overhaul on this page (including spinning out material to other, more relevant pages where needed), if no-one objects. It reads rather like a history of Eastern Bloc rifles over the last fifty years than an article about the AK47, as it stands. Dan100 23:47, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Done. Dan100 22:31, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

use by US forces in Vietnam, Iraq?

what's the source on US forces using the AK in Iraq because ammo for it doesn't have to be accounted for? that doesn't make a lot of sense. also, it is not "popular belief" that US forces commonly used the AK in vietnam. it was used occasionally by special forces.

Indeed. Even if they are true, I don't belief either point is documented to a level required of an encyclopedia article, so I cut them. Ashmoo 00:20, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The reason why US troops are using AK-47s is because they are more reliable for harsh conditions(sand) and probably due to more AK-47 ammo availible. I once watched on tv about the AK-47 and how someone put one underwater for a month or a year(I cant really remember which) and all he had to do was hit the ejection port with a hammer to get it working. Dudtz 7/21/05 1:12 PM EST

Actually, it's not about reliability or ammo surplus, but because there are simply not enough guns for U.S. forces to go around. You'll notice that most of the AK47 users are tankers or scouts or engineers, not frontline infantery. 68.81.29.74 01:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Then why do I see US troops carrying Kalashnikovs when they search houses. Dudtz 11/30/05 8:22 PM EST

Its because the bullets are fatter and do more damage than those of m4s and m16s, which "overpenetrate" at point blank.-- 05:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll resist the urge to delete your comments. No. actually the 5.56mm bullets fragment violently at close range. Please read a little more before you make comments. I'd suggest the "Ammo Oracle." --Asams10 17:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Even the oracle says the rounds show "inconsistent" fragmentation. The 5.56mm has proven over and again that it has weak stopping power. This is why most US troops shoot for the head. The 7.62x39mm has far superior penetration as well as stopping power, and does not rely on fragmentation to kill.

Um ... there're plenty of US assault rifles for our troops. This takes into account how quickly we could produce them (m-16s). Are you sure its not how common the ammo is, the durability, the much lower cost of production, or an amalgam of the three? 69.218.230.181 12:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

read above. the main reason is better performance in sands. just compare the gap between the bolt and its cover (english?) for AK and M16. --jno 08:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yea ... I'm just coming up with more than one reason, as having only one reason makes for a weak argument.

Actually the AK is used by tank crews because most are commonly only issued one m4 and they want more than one rifle for defense if they run into problems. It is NOT because there is a rifle shortage. Also some Special Forces prefer the AK to the m16/4 because it is more reliable in harsh conditions.

Variants

Is the AK-74 considered a variant of the AK-47, or a new weapon entirely? Oberiko 23:49, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's a 5.45mm weapon based upon, and modified from, the AK-47. Dan100 08:23, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

You forgot poland, er I mean you forgot the RPK. It isnt linked from this page at all, even though it is basically an AK47 with a longer barrel and a thicker receiver. It takes all the same magazines and parts.

This has been fixed CynicalMe 19:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

--Beerslurpy 4 July 2005 20:42 (UTC)

Number of Units Produced: not consistent

The number of units produced is mentioned 3 times on the page and a different figure is given each time: ~100 million 55-100 million 100+ million

55-100m & 100+m are mutually exclusive. Can we get a reliable estimate and make these consistent.

It is more than 100 million according to Guinness World Records. I'll correct the errors.--Idleguy 02:06, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

A guy at the factory was just quoted saying that around a billion total units had been produced, of which 10-12% were actually made in Russia. Is that consistent? I.e. that would mean around 100 million actual AK's and 900 million copies/clones. Or do you mean 100 million total? The 1 billion statistic was briefly in the article but removed as "bogus" diff. I'm the one who put it in (based on seeing it in the news) but it does sound awfully high. Phr 21:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Estimates have ranged from 30 million to 110 million or more depending on the source. Nobody is sure, but the number isn't really meaningful in any tangible sense. What is meaningful is that the AK-47 and its copies (legal or not) have been produced in greater numbers than any other small arm in history.--Asams10 02:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

MOA

• The first AK-47s ... are usually said to be capable of accuracy of two MOA. Most models... are typically only capable of approximately six MOA accuracy. Most Western military rifles are capable of six MOA or better.

Is this correct? It essentially says that most AK-47s are no worse than some Western rifles. Is that what we mean to say? Perhaps comparing it to another similar weapon, like the M-16, would provide a clearer comparison. I don't know MOAs from CEPs, but when I saw this I wondered if the numbers are all correct, etc. Any thoughts? Cheers, -Willmcw June 29, 2005 08:19 (UTC)

It depends greatly on the ammo and the rifle used. 1 MOA is a 1 inch group at 100 yards, which in practical terms means you can hit a 1 inch target reliably at 100 yards. There are many AR/M16 variants that have been built to shoot sub minute groups and generally speaking even the "cheap" ARs will tend to shoot at worst 2-3 MOA. The more expensive AKs (RPK receiver VEPR, forged receiver Arsenal) with decent russian ammo will shoot 2-4 MOA (which mine does). The cheaper variants can shoot anywhere from 2-15 MOA. There is really no lower bound on how badly you can make a gun. I dont think AKs are capable of sub MOA accuracy, at least not any I have encountered. All the guys who are into precision shooting are using bolt actions or building custom AR uppers.

The problem is that a poorly made AK will still fire while a less than well-built AR will have constant reliability problems. If they are made to more or less the same standards of quality, they perform more or less comparably out to 300-400 yards. Of course since people dont know about these things they will usually pick the cheaper AK, which forces the market to sell lots of cheap AKs rather than good ones.

Beyond 350 yards you run into the limits of 7.62x39 ballistics (it just drops too fast beyond that range to hit anything reliably). The gun might still be accurate beyond that range (the bullets go the same place every time you fire) but you wont be able to compensate for so much drop easily. 308 and 7.62x54 kalshnikov rifles are accurate to fairly long ranges, so I think the design is still fairly tolerable for precision shooting. -Beerslurpy

Wow, it sounds like you know what you're talking about. So, in light of what you've written, do you think that the text in the article is accurate? If not, can you improve it? Thanks, -Willmcw 22:01, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

It's somewhat foolish to compare AK47 to a rifle. It's a carbine. 68.81.29.74 01:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Details Overload

I've noticed the AK47 page (like the Simpsons' page) seems to be written by a group of knowledgable enthusiasts who sometimes have the tendency to want to include every little bit of trivia about the topic. Unfortunately, doing this reduces the clarity of the article. These are the major traps, as I see them:

• Hollywood myths. The article should be saying what the AK47 is, not what it isn't. Maybe a seperate section should be created for debunking myths. Hollywood inaccurately portrays everything from computer use, court proceedings to space travel. I think anyone seriously interested in the topic will be sceptical of info gathered from movies.
• Variants. Since there are over 50 million AK units out there, a lot of variants are going to exist. Disrupting the flow of an section about a particular feature to go onto a tangent about variants makes it hard to read. Again, putting all but the most common variants into the Variants section seems like the best solution.
• Endless operational details. There's also a tendency to include every little operational detail, from the sound the selector makes compared to other rifles to the patterning on the grip on a Polish model. Will a reader really want to know all these things, or will it just make it harder for them to get to the relevant information?

I hope I'm not sounding too critical, the page contains a lot of good material. I've been chopping a lot of these (IMO) irrelevant details out of the article as they appear and would just like to check that other editors consider it a worthwhile endevour. Ashmoo 02:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Photo

I think that a better photo of AK-47 would be in order (some without a shadow for starters). Also, we could put a photo of some soldier in action with Kalashnikov (which is probably easy to find) -- Obradović Goran (ta^lk 19:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The caption of the current photo (of a US marine) doesnt make much sense to me, not knowing much about the subject. It seems like maybe there's a grammatical error, (East German made?) but I may just be misunderstanding it. In either case, could someone make it clearer? --Someones life 16:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

This article definately needs a better top photo - this one is of a toy. This is a Tokyo Marui 6mm airsoft AK47. It is distinquishable by the characteristic grain of its plastic "wood" furniture. there has to be a picture of a real AK-47 out there somewhere. -- Kyobonitsuki 18:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot of good pictures of the AK-47 out there on the web. The problem is finding a non-copyrighted one. —Squalla 18:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

If it's really a toy, then the caption should say so. Shinobu 16:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, for verification, that is the TM AK-47. It should be changed.

I own several AK-47s. I will take some pictures and post them along with a notice giving up rights to them.

Sounds good. Try to put it on a white background, too. Thanks.

Major Rewrite

I took the liberty of doing a major rewrite. I've gutted the conjecture, inuendo, and hype and I've tried to separate this weapon from the AK-74 which I've also rewritten. There was a lot of crap here, to be honest. They listed 'versions' to include a laundry list of guns which might have been influenced, but tended to muddy the facts of this article. Hopefully this will be clear and concise instead of rambling and opinionated. I'm not perfect, but I've tried to stick to the spirit of the article, the AK-47. The AK-74 is another story and that page need much more information on the 5.45 cartridge. The outright idiotic comments that predated this article reflect a spattering of fantasy, anti-war rhetoric, and a basic misunderstanding of the context in which the round was developed. See that article.

Basketball?

I'm cutting the reference to a basketball player again. Including every silly reference to the use of the phrase, "AK-47" doesn't provide continuity. If you want, include it in the links section.

Federal Assault Weapon's ban

A user just posted an incorrect tidbit about the Assault Weapon's ban. The assault weapon's ban did not cover the AK-47 which was severely restricted by law in 1934 and later banned in 1986 and therefore was not applicable to this article. I'll rewrite it to mention the confusion, but the AK-47 is a fully-automatic assault RIFLE.--Asams10 15:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Mostly correct, but only automatic weapons made after 1986 were banned --SodiumBenzoate 03:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Combat Effectiveness

I deleted an addition about combat effectiveness. I'd like to explain why. The AK-47 is an assault weapon, not a sniper rifle. The gun moves around when fired and fully-automatic fire is difficult to place on point targets. This is actually a desireable feature for the Soviet combat doctorine. Taking poorly trained soldiers and giving them each a machinegun allowed mass charges with thousands of bullets being fired in the general direction of the enemy during the crucial advancing portion of the charge. This charge is supported with aircraft, tanks, submachineguns, heavy machineguns, and snipers. The Soviet Union never intended their soldiers to fight like their American enemies. Therefore, all talk about the relative inaccuracy of the weapon in full-auto or its projectile in single-fire is irrelevant.--Asams10 18:14, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

If recoil and inaccuracy are such desirable effect the why two of the follwing things have happened:

a) 5,45 mm round was created with reduced recoil and improved ballistics for AK-74 b) Soviet Army recruits were trained two fire only two-round borsts at a time.

Until you can come up with a satisfactory answer, I will place back the combat effectieness section. .--lorus77 18:14, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Another point to consider, original research is not permitted on wikipedia. So whatever the combat effectiveness of the AK47, unless someone else has written about it you shouldn't be putting it up here. Saying: facts X, Y & Z point to poor combat effectiveness sounds like original research to me (unless you are getting it from some other literature). Ashmoo 23:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

What you're posting, lorus77, is conjecture and not based in any factual foundation. In reality, the ammunition the Russians manufacture is more perfectly reliable and accurate by their standards. You can't compare it to a hunting rifle or M16. If you've ever been in combat, which I doubt, you'd realize that your heart is beating way too fast to aim the gun. You're better off shooting quick on instinct and ducking back for cover for fear the other guy has the golden BB going downrange. The logic of the Combat Effectiveness section is the same logic that was abandoned in the 60's and may it rest in peace.--Asams10 07:44, August 30, 2005 (UTC) (UTC)

Some points as someone who is been in the Russian army:

Yes. The Russian solders are trained to fire in short bursts (2, 3 rounds if possible). Common sense: If not you will empty your cartridge in a few blinks of an eye. The modern AK recoil is very very very low. Accurate aim is possible. Combat effectiveness is reliability as a first priority. You cannot test your weapon every day; you may not be able to maintain it every day, combat engagements does not happen every day. Yet when it does happen, you want your weapon to fire. All you want in the world is that your weapon will fire.

Your comments on the modern AK apply to the AK-74, not the AK-47 or AKM. The AK-74 is indeed highly effective in the area of burst control. So effective, in fact, that you have to be careful your bursts don't travel down when you fire instead of climb.--Asams10 14:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The original AK-47 is much harder to control and has a good recoil. However, the point here seems deviated from the AK-47 into the general doctrine of combat effectiveness for the assault riffle. My understanding is that while it is important in specific applications to have a certain properties for the assault rifle, the main factors for combat effectiveness (of assault rifle) remain the same: reliability and firepower. I absolutely agree with you that precision here is not the main priority, but we still could talk about the combat effectiveness based on its main purpose. AK-47 fits this bill, so from my point of view it has a very high combat effectiveness.

Czech VZ58

Listen, the VZ58 is so different from the AK-47 that it doesn't need to be anywhere near this article. There are so many other guns which share the same layout and caliber that it would take an entire article to describe them. The reason they don't get included is that they are not AK-47's. That's like including the Yugo in an article about the Chevy Suburban because both have four wheels and use gasoline. Please stop stomping on the article! --Asams10 15:36, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Relationship to Stg-44

I removed the part where it was claimed that 7.62x39 was derived from 7.92x33. This is NOT true. Instead, the Russian round is apparently derived from experimental Völlmer 7.75x40 round, derived in the '30s but not adapted.

As for the Stg-44: both AK and STG-44 employ long-piston stroke gas operating principle. So, it is not correct to say that they have nothing in common. However, Stg employs tilting bolt locking mechanism (like FAL) whilst AK has rotating bolt. --Mikoyan21 10:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Please don't try to suggest that the 7.62x39 wasn't developed directly from the 7.92x33. It's patently obvious that the Soviets, being on the receiving end of the German round, realized the significance and set about copying it in concept and execution. Slightly more capacity for greater range, slightly smaller bullet so they could be made on old machinery but so similar in almost every other way as to be laughable. Every other major round they make is derivative, why not this one? The 7.62 Tokarev is a 7.62 Mauser. The 9x18 Makarov is derived from the 9mm ultra. The 5.45 has a novel bullet, but the round was designed as an "answer" the the US 5.56. Those in the former Soviet Union engage in this false pride. What they should do is revel in their ability to adopt other's concepts (hey, just look at their space shuttle!) Don't try to pretend that it's anything different than it is though.--Asams10 16:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I am not suggesting anything, I am stating a fact. Völlmer round is almost identical to M1943, whilst 7.92Kurz is much different. I thought I said very clearly that M1943 is derived from a German round, just that it's not the 7.92Kurz where it is derived. 7.62x39 and 7.92x33 are pretty much contemporary, whilst Völlmer round was derived several years before. --Mikoyan21 01:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Development of automatic/self-loading gas operated rifles with various locking mechanisms began in pre- Soviet Russia starting with Fedorovs "Avtomat" of 1916 with its distinctive over the barrel gas port. Followed by Simonovs AVS-36 and so on. German self-loading gas operated rifle development including STG-44 began to appear by late 1941.

The notion that AK47 is a derivative of STG-44 is speculative at best. Considering M. Kalashnikovs background and existing base of earlier Russian/Soviet designs, it is obvious that his design derived from yearlies Fedorov/Simonov concepts.

STG-44/7.92mm Kurz cartridge combination was not a true "assault rifle" concept as we understand it today, it was simply a propaganda term, while the true concept did not go further then a heavy SMG, even though initially it was dubbed as Machinen Karabine.

Common misconceptions on Russian ammunition are based on simple lack of knowledge of historical events, economical circumstances, and military doctrines. 7.62 was adopted as a universal caliber for all small arms, which makes perfect economic sense.

German weapons/ammunition rightfully earned their reputation during various conflicts, and were adopted for their proven effectiveness and minimal retooling costs of manufacture.

7.62 Mauser and 7.62 Tokarev are very effective military rounds, and both outperform 9mm Luger in military applications. Thus German recognition of PPSch-41 superior performance at medium ranges and superior penetration of heavy winter uniforms.

Ballistics 7.62x39 and 7.92x33 have little in common, just as M1 carbine 7.62x33 has little in common with true assault rifle cartridges.

The 5.45X39 is hardly a "novel" round, since its reliable effectiveness exceeds that of 5.56x45. Stating that Soviet 5.45 was designed as an "answer" to US 5.56 round is also far fetched, because while the 5.56x45 derived from the .223 Winchester "varminteer" hunting cartridge, the Soviet cartridge evolved from a clearly military round. NATO 5.56X45 is a straight brass case cartridge, design inherent to hunting cartridges, while Soviet 5.45x39 is a tapered steel lacquer sealed case military cartridge, the latter being cheaper to manufacture, more reliable in feeding/extraction do to tapered case with longer shelf life.

M. Kalashnikov opted for modernisation of the 7.62x39 in stead of standardisation of the 5.45, but the decreased weight of the new cartridge allowed the advantage of increased ammo load per individual soldier.

The space shuttle comment clearly shows the dilettant pseudo oppinionism on the matter.

In stead of blindly accepting stereotypical factoids, numerous historical sources clearly document the development of the Russian/Soviet small arms industry.

Please, join the community and SIGN your next dialogue. I'll answer your questions with this short thought. It's circumstantial. I'll present exhibits A, B, C, and D.

Exhibit A is the 7.62x54R. Adopted in 1891. Hmmm, shortly after the adoption of the 303 British in 1887/1888. Go figure. Quite similar cartridges. (The US adopted the similar 30/40 Krag shortly thereafter).

Exhibit B is the 7.62x25 Tokarev. Adopted in 1930. The virtually IDENTICAL to the 30 Borchardt and Mauser cartridges adopted in 1893.

Exhibit C is the 9mm Makarov. Adopted AFTER WWII and surprisingly similar to the 9mm Ultra which the Russians captured.

Exhibit D is the 5.45x39. Followed close on the heals of development and fielding of the 5.56. Go figure.

With the Russians rightfully adopting each new fangled weapons fad in kind (and copying the B29, for instance, rivet by rivet) why would they have bothered coming up with new cartridges, rifles, etc. when there were perfectly well developed foreign designs?

Let me list a few more from the Aviation field. The IL-76 (C-141), the AN-124 (C-5), the Buran Space Shuttle (duh, our space shuttle), SU-25 (Northrop YA-9), etc. The Russians have a LONG history of coppying enemy technology. They can protest all they want, their revisionist history is unreliable at best. It's obvious to me and I can accept it. Don't let pride stand in the way of the evidence.--Asams10 07:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I can state it for a fact that Il-76, An-124 and Su-25 have NOTHING to do with C-141, C-5 and YA-9 respectively. Anyone who claims such has obviously never actually seen these planes. --Mikoyan21 18:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

That's an apologists view at best. I'll list the TU-4 and the Buran as two other aircraft. The Tupolev Tu-4 was a near rivet-for-rivet copy of the American B-29. The Buran couldn't have been a direct copy as the Soviets didn't own a copy. The same can be said of the following Aircraft pairs that I'll wikify. You be the judge: Ilyushin Il-76 and Boeing C-141. The Antonov An-124 and the Lockheed C-5. The Sukhoi Su-25 and the Northrop YA-9. I can go on... Concorde, B-1 Lancer. It gets boring after a while.

I already listed the Buran, which had been admittedly copied from the American shuttle aerodynamically. Other than the Su-25 and Buran, I have had occassion to examine each and every aircraft listed. Further, I am a Structures Mechanic with the US Air Force and have examined these aircraft in-depth from the point of view of a riveter. I can say, unequivically, that the planform and shape were both direct adaptations of the American designs. The Soviets utilized more primitive construction techniques and materials as well as taking shortcuts at the expense of weight for the sake of cost and simplicity. Now, what are your qualifications, MIG-21? I don't have to do a doctoral thesis on this, it's common knowledge and plainly obvious from just a passing glance. Not only that, it's LOGICAL. The equation is: The Americans did this therefore we can do it almost as good and we can make more of them cheaper.--Asams10 19:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, the YA-9 was at March AFB, California at the time. I'm still of the opinion that the A-10 was the better aircraft and am glad they bought it instead. I've also examined both the YF-22 and YF-23 and thought the YF-23 the better design. I think we made the WRONG choice in that instance, but the F22 seems to be coming into its own.--Asams10 19:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Righto. Il-76 have only very basic superficial similarity - by same logic, B-29 is copy of B-17. To claim that one is copy of another is ludicrous. Ditto for An-124 and C-5. As for YA-9 and Su-25, the Frogtfoot cannot be copy of YA-9 because (well, that and plain common sense) when Su-25 was conceived, YA-9 did not exist either. Of course Soviets did copy some foreign designs - just not the ones mentioned. Btw, if we go that route, DC-9 is copy of Caravelle, Bradley is copy of BMP-1, M-16 is copy of AG-42... <rolls eyes> --Mikoyan21 21:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't even try to keep a rational discussion against propaganda. As every good boy know, every soviet thing is just an ugly copy of western achievement. --jno 09:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

That's funny, but not entirely true. Both the Americans and Soviets copied everything they knew from the GERMANS!--Asams10 16:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Really cool! And Germans have copied everything from prehistoric arians! Do you know about german expeditions to Tibet? --jno 11:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Tibet? No. I suspect it has something to do with Nazi history, though. The Germans have always been innovative folk, especially in terms of warfare. Look at the Submarine, the Airplane, the Rocket, the Tank, and the Firearm. During the late 18th and early to mid 20th centuries, the Germans were an the vanguard of design and innovation. One thing the Russians always managed to do was take technology to a simpler, more durable, and cheaper place. The Germans always seem to over-engineer things and make them to too-close tolerances for mass production.--Asams10 19:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Question:

How many people has the AK-47 killed ever since it was first made? --Shultz 10:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean "How many people have been killed using the AK-47 since it was first made?", if so then I don't know :) - FrancisTyers 01:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Shultz, your question implies that the AK47 is capable of killing people. It's not a person, it's a tool. That's like asking how many people water has killed. How many people have died as a result of the AK-47's use? Perhaps. The AK-47 and it's many offspring are not sentient beings, they are tools. Those who personify inanimate objects are doomed to be slaves. You must assign credit and blame to the user of the weapon. While I may contemplate a hammer, I do not muse over how many people in history have been bludgoned by hammers. Wiki hammer and see how much discussion there is of killing? The hammer is an effective weapon that is responsible for possibly hundreds of thousands of deaths both in terms of murder, warfare, and accidents. Give it a rest and put a band-aid on your bleeding heart.

the difference between a hammer and an AK47 is that AK47s were designed to kill people, whereas the hammer was designed to affix nails. you can't just compare them like that. however difficult it may be to answer the question, it is still relevant to think of how many times this particular tool has fulfilled its use, just as it would be relevant to ask 'how many nails have been affixed by a hammer since it's invention'. --Someones life 20:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Throughout history, hammers and axes have always had the dual purpose of warfare and 'civil' utility, as has the gun. The AK47 is perfectly capable of sitting in a gun safe save for a few choice weekends a year where it does nothing but poke holes in paper and break big dirt clods into little dirt clods. The AK74 has notches in the muzzle brake which allow it to cut wires (barbed wire in this case) when the gun is fired with a wire resting in these notches. What the original statement and Question STILL inplies, no matter how much you deny it, is that the guns are doing the killing. The AK47 kills nobody, the user does the killing. More people die by water than by firearms. This counts drowning by accident, tsunami, flood, homicide, etc. That does not mean that the water has killed them. They were killed by accident, murder, or happenstance. Your logic is flawed.

When someone is fatally shot, the autopsy report usually gives the cause of death as "gunshot wound", not "killed by [name of person]". The question is a valid one. Asking how many people have been killed by water (in all those different ways) is also valid. Phr 10:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Your analogy is way off. When somebody is drowned in a murder, they do not put the water on trial. The bullet is not tried, nor is the powder, primer, firing pin, hammer, trigger, bolt, barrel, the entire firearm, or even the manufacturer of the firearm (anymore). It is the human mind that triggers the chain of events that leads to the bullet causing the damage which, in turn, causes death. When they put a gun on trial, your point will be valid. Nice try.--Asams10 14:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you're somehow embarassed by the question about how many people have been killed by AK-47's. The article about the atomic bomb correctly comes right out and states numbers about how many people were killed by A-bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Opinions can differ about what the correct numbers are but nobody says the figure is meaningless or irrelevant or shouldn't be included in the article. And yet your arguments about the AK47 apply to the A-bomb in the exact same way. The bomb is not tried, nor is the explosive shell around the plutonium core, the neutron source, the airplane that dropped it. The human mind triggered the chain of events that led to the bombing. But the A-bomb article does not, and should not, back away from naming a figure for the number of people killed. It's completely valid to ask about a similar figure for the AK47. So, nice try yourself. Phr 23:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to stop feeding you on this. Have a nice day.--Asams10 06:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

In Rwanda, at least 800,000 people were killed using AK-47's. Considering the fact that the AK-47 and its clones have been produced in extraordinary quantities (think millions) and are mainly used in those parts of the world where self-defense weapons are actually needed, but usually aren't (if you catch my drift), I think the real number of deaths will be perhaps even an order of magnitude larger. Shinobu 14:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

That these MURDERERS choose the AK-47 is merely a testament to the success of this TOOL in the function for which it was designed. It's an inexpensive way to fire numerous prjectiles in a short period of time. I do catch your drift, do you catch the other side of the argument? If you think Genocide is a new thing, you're mistaken. When they don't have machineguns, they use everything else available, down to rocks. The Nazis used poison gas. Arab terrorists prefer bombs. The Mongols used swords and arrows. This personification of an inanimate object is really rediculous.--Asams10 21:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't personify the AK-47, I just tried to answer the question, without going off at a tangent. Inanimate objects can, in fact, kill. Even if they are made to do so. That's why we have the word "to murder" in the first place. I could not possibly consider an AK-47 a murderer, because an AK-47 can't think. By the way, have you ever heard this quote? "Guns don't kill people - bullets do!" ;-) Shinobu 11:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

AK-46, the path from StG-44 to AK-47

Kalashnikov may deny the link all he wants, the there's evidence: the AK-46. It is very much like StG-44, and was later modified to become the AK-47 we know now. The modification is significant, so one can not cry plagiarism outright, but it is disrespectful to deny the engineering genius of the Germans.

Anyone to verify technical details and corrent the story?

Also, I believe that 'how many people were killed as the direct result of the use of AK-47s?' is a very valid question, although futile.

-The AK46 is clearly not a StG-44 clone. Cosmetically, they may look alike, but internally, they are different. Note the use of a rotary bolt in the Kalashnikov, as opposed to the tilting bolt of the StG-44. To strip the StG-44, you must remove the buttstock and the trigger group hinges down. The AK-46 clearly uses a fixed buttstock and receiver, requiring only the removal of a top cover. In the StG-44, the recoil spring telescopes within the buttstock. In the AK-46, the recoil spring is retained within the receiver and its top cover. In the StG-44, the cocking handle is attached to the gas piston. In the AK-46, the cocking handle is part of the bolt carrier. The StG-44 used a push button mag release. The AK-46 used a flapper-type mag release. --D.E. Watters 03:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Long-Stroke vs. Short-Stroke gas systems.

Instead of getting into a reversion war, let's discuss the terms. The term "Long-Stroke" defines a gas operating system which consists of a piston and cylinder which take low-pressure gas from near the muzzle and keep that gas in contact with the piston through a long period of time. The classic example of a long-stroke gun is the M1 Garand.

A Short-Stroke system utilizes high pressure gas from midway down the barrel and a very-short dwell time on the piston head to impart the energy needed to operate the action. Those weapons whose short-stroke pistons are attached to the bolt carrier are commonly mislabeled long-stroke. In reality, they are short stroke and vent gas very quickly like every other short-stroke system on the market. The fact that the piston head travels with the bolt carrier does not change the nature of the operation.

Yes, Jane's is wrong as are the majority of sources out there. It's a much-repeated error and nobody stops to look at the actual operation of the weapon. No reason to repeat it here again.--Asams10 09:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• FWIW: Can you provide a citation for this? --D.E. Watters 22:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I can't. Unfortunately, there are few internet sources that apply and there is just too much research to do to provide a hard reference. The term "short-stroke" is most often used to describe the M-1 Carbine's gas system. This is a true short stroke, but gun folk tended to get confused. The limited number of gas systems on the market at that time meant that there were few other 'short stroke' systems to label. Use of this term grew to include other type of 'tappet' systems like the SVT-38/40 and SKS. Unfortunately, the meaning of 'short-stroke' got lost and intermingled with 'tappet' systems. To be exact, the M-1 Carbine has a 'short-stroke,' closed, tappet style gas system. The AK-47 has a short-stroke, rear vented, system with the piston loosely fixed to the bolt carrier. The AKM is similar, but it is vented to the side prior to the rearward venting.

A parallel should be drawn with automobile cylinders from where the term was first drawn. A 'short-stroke' cylinder is one in which the stroke is less than the diameter of the cylinder. In a long-stroke, the stroke is longer than the diameter of the cylinder. The only long-stroke firearm I'm aware of that needs to be listed that way is the Garand. Long-stroke systems can not use the high pressure, middle-of-the-barrel port that the AK-47 uses. It would tear the gun to pieces. All long-stroke systems have the port towards the front of the barrel.--Asams10 01:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Operating cycle

Thanks Asams10 for putting this section into the 3rd person. Although it does make it slightly more wordy, it is now in a much more encyc. style. Ashmoo 23:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Help

I screwed the page up trying to replace the AKM picture with Image:AKlash.jpg. I thought the picture would be more fitting as it shows Mikhail Kalashnikov firing an AK-47.

Please someone fix my dumb mistake.

Hello, User:DKH (talk), I added the picture to the article. By the way, when you upload a picture you should provide it's copyright/licensing information on the image description page, otherwise it will get deleted. Shinobu 14:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

AK-47 is inexistant name

the first Kalashnikov's assoult rifle entered service was named just AK (for Avtomat Kalashnikova). without year suffix. AK-47 is semi-official name entered common use after multiple upgrades of the original weapon. --jno 10:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all, it's "nonexistent" not "inexistant". Secondly, if you want to make the case that it does not exist, I would give you oustanding odds that it does. Finally, you'll have to provide more than one source that states that the AK-47 was ever type classified as the AK instead, you not being one of those, before I'll not just revert it back as inaccurate.--Asams10 19:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an english-speaking person (i'm a russian), hence the first correction is accepted.

As of the second point, I have no access to the archive of soviet ministry of defense, which would be the ultimate source (the order to accept a weapon into the service) to clarify the issue. My opinion in the post is based on many readings. Plus, some conclusions based on names of the next and related versions of AK: AKM, AKMS, RPK - all of them had no year suffix. Well, their "full name" incuded the year of service entry as "XXX obraztsa 19YY goda" in russian. The name "AK-47" was first seen by me in foreign sources.

As far as i know, the only "AK-47" (with just this "word" stamped on) is stored in the museum and differs from AK entered service in 1949 as автомат АК кал. 7,62х39 ("assoult rifle AK cal. 7.62x39", quoted by a quote of the order of 18 July 1949). After modernization in 1952, the AK became AKM (still without year suffix). I could find a reference to the text of that order at www.kalashnikovfund.ru, but the site seem to be down.

The document in question is the Decision of Soviet of Ministers of the USSR number 2611-1033ss of 18.06.1949 (AK has entered service) and the Order of the Ministry of Defense number 0086 of 29.06.1949 (AK was announced in the army) --jno 11:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

More rumor found: the name "AK-47" was in use before the book "Directions of firing" ("Nastavlenie po strelkovomu delu") was printed. --jno 11:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Best quote, ever

"...and its nefarious association with violent conflict"

lol at an article on a gun critisizing it for being associated with violence and conflict... Ojw 21:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Cultural influence

This quote from the section:

... This policy was mirrored in the West, with the United States providing arms to such groups as the Afghan Mujahideen.

Is it saying that the US provided AK47s to the mujahideen? If not, it should be more explicit as to what was supplied.Ashmoo 04:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It might need more clarity, but there is some degree of balance to say that the supplying of arms (primarily the AK-47) to pro-Communist forces did not happen in a vacuum. The United States supplied anti-tank, anti-aircraft, and IED support to the Afgan's and numerous other 'counter-Communist' forces. It's not absurd to conclude that the US was supplying AK-47's, as we were in fact supplying small arms of all sorts to the forces and attempting to cover up our operations. To this point, 'sanitized' AK's would have been the perfect weapons. I doubt anybody will get confirmation on what exactly was supplied, though. I'll try and clarify it a bit.--Asams10 04:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed

The operating style section. It reads like a how to guide to firing and disassembling an AK-47. It is written in a highly unencyclopedic fashion and probably is unsalvagable by the very nature of its content. I would be fine with an external link explaining how to fire and/or dissassemble an AK-47, but Wikipedia is not a how to guide. It's reproduced below in case anyone thinks there is some salvagable content here that can be readded to another section. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 19:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You failed to read earlier in this section where this was discussed. It's not an operating manual, it's a description of the operating cycle of a machine. One does not have an entry on a diesel engine without a description of how a diesel engine works, same here. I'm putting it back. --Asams10 01:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, but would you mind rewriting it then so it's written from that point of view that you're describing. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 01:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I already rewrote it once for this very reason. I will take a look at it when I get a chance and 'sanitize' it a little more. I wholly understand that Wikipedia isn't intended as an instruction manual, however I feel that it's important to understand the basic principles involved.--Asams10 02:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again, it isn't an operating manual, it's an explanation of the principles of operation which, for the purposes of this article, are of note. I don't understand what is against the rules. Perhaps you can point out how an encyclepedic explanation of the operating cycle is not encyclepedic?--Asams10 15:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

1947: city legend still up and running

Folks, the assoult rifle known here as "AK-47" has entered service (was adopted and standardized) in 1949 and not in 1947. Try to find the document «Decision of Soviet of Ministers of the USSR number 2611-1033ss» of 18.06.1949. [1] --jno 08:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

If you want a philosophical and historical discussion, the AK-47 was indeed adopted in 1947, however the receiver was changed in a redesign effort in 1949. This rifle, according to a single Soviet representative, was redesignated the AK-49. The problem is that both stamped and machined receivers were being made side-by-side. Now, this model was produced for a few years and then both the original stamped model and redesigned (socket stock) model were replaced in production somewhere in 1953 or 1954 with the third generation model that was the most-produced model. If you want to get technical, you'll lose the argument as the AK-47 was produced in three seperate models with the first one standardized in 1947 as the AK-47 and the last and most common version being standardized in 1953 or 1954. There is no known designation for the third model other than AK-47 which is what the whole series was called. There is absolutely no reason this minutia needs to be at the top of the article or, really, anywhere in this short an article anyhow. Feel free to add correct information later in the article, but please do more research first.--Asams10 18:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

For a firearm to be "standardized" in the USSR, there was a need for a governmental document (usually "decision of soviet of ministers", sometimes "order of the ministry of defense"). What I want to point to: there is the document of 1949 and I dunno about "standardization" of 1947. I'm not trying to discuss the number of versions in production and pre-production phases. --jno 08:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like a semantic objection you have, then. The weapon was standardized in 1947 because that is when they began producing a model. One HAS to standardize or else it's still a prototype. If you feel that the 1949 order was the first order, then you would be technically correct, however only correct for the second model that I have already conceded ONE Soviet official said was standardized in 1949. The problem was, even in the absence of a KNOWN document in 1947, the rifle WAS produced and therefore must have had an official or unofficial standard.--Asams10 15:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Again this nonsense about StG.44 and etc.

Can you accept the fact that AK is not an assembly of different features of different guns? Kalashnikov may have used many other guns as reference, but in the end he designed his own. Also shorter round is not an idea that was clear only for those superhuman Germans and picked later by stupid Russians. 7.62x39 appeared in 1943 (and designing started well before this), so is pretty much independent of german short round.

It's a fact that Kalashnikov's design team had access to all of the weapons in question. It's also a fact that the bolt of the AK-47 is a simplification of the Garand concept as is the trigger group. The layout of the weapon is identical to the StG 44. It would be quite the coincidence if the two weapons most admired by the Russians were used as the foundation of their new weapon. Those who deny the nearly direct connection between the weapons puzzle me. Please sign your posts.--Asams10 23:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

were used as the foundation causing flame and should be considered harmful. I.Newton was "standing on shoulders of titans", wasn't he? Why M.Kalashnikov cannot use all the previous expirience to create his designs? There was an interview with the M.K., where he stated that he was aware of that designs, but didn't copy them. --jno 08:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Kalashnikov is no Newton. That's the main problem. New ideas in firearms are few and far between. As an organizer, figurehead, and engineer, I have no doubt that Kalashnikov was up to the task. I will give him and his design team every bit of credit they deserve for that. The issue I have is that great minds, John Browning, Hiram Maxim, John Pedersen, Bill Ruger etc., deserve more credit for what makes the AK-47 great than does Kalashnikov. Heck, I'd even throw Garand as a better contemporary along with Ruger. While this may be a matter of opinion, it's well founded in evidence. Lacking an unlikely admission that Soviet propoganda MIGHT be wrong, my arguments for downplaying Kalashnikov's design and significance can't ever prevail for those who believe the hype. By the way, nobody says he copied any one design. It is OBVIOUS, though, that design elements were copied. Bolt design and camming system: Garand. Trigger mechansim: Garand. Gas piston: StG44. Magazine: StG44. Receiver construction and weapon layout: StG44. Cartridge concept: StG44. Safety: Browning. I give credit to the Kalashnikov team for some minor innovations and for integrating the receiver elements into one. I'll also give them credit for the typical Soviet competency of simplification for mass production. If I SAID that he copied the StG44, Garand, or any other SINGLE weapon, then I misspoke. I don't think I was saying that, though.--Asams10 18:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

This is pointless. The fact is that nearly everything in firearms was invented by year 1900, and the little which remained to be invented was found by 1930. Sure, Kalashnikov actually invented very little of his own for AK-47, but this is true to nearly every post-WW1 weapons designer. So there is no reason to single out Kalashnikov and his team for this - guys like Stoner did just same. There was no other way. --Mikoyan21 10:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, if it'd be an aircraft, i'd continue the flame ;-)

That's not my territory. I can point a man who know alot about the firearms. That's Max Popenker at guns.ru - you may want to contact him. Too many things here look like matter of estimations (opinions? my english fails here) for me. --jno 10:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I've corresponded with Max in the past. I'm not an expert either. If he has access to primary source information that contradicts this, fine. Yes, it is conjecture, but it is deeply supported by the facts. In the Soviet Union, facts were few and far between. It's hard to believe a government who intentionally concealed and distorted the truth as a matter of public policy.--Asams10 16:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Garand copy? Not nonsense.

I've got a bit of a source, and it's sitting in the St. Petersburg Artillery Museum. It's a Kalashnikov self-loading carbine that looks like a love child of the SKS and Garand. Best of all, it uses the Garand en-Bloc clip, safety, and bolt mechanism but in layout resembles an SKS very closely. Kalashnikov was said to make no secret of his fondness for Garand's designs. While this is understandable... the Garand is a great weapon... it's also darned good circumstantial evidence that at least the OBVIOUS Garand origins are quite plausable. So, why would anybody deny the German origins of the Cartridge and weapon layout? V.A. Degtyarev had a MKb42H on his desk in February of 1943 about the same time the M43 was designed. Why? So, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Kalashnikov trodded along having never seen or been inspired by the StG44... Maybe it was the MKb42H which is of similar layout?--Asams10 21:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Didn't you just in other bit prove how Garand has what you called 'true long stroke gas piston system' whilst AK did not? Really, the similarities between Garand and AK are extremely vague, no more similar than AK and FAL. In fact, much better case could be made that M-16 is copy of AG-42...--Mikoyan21 21:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that the AK-47 gas system was a copy of the Garand. You can't argue with me based on something I did not say. For the bolt and trigger mechanisms, however, the similarities are, in fact, striking. The Garand bolt is directly copied in almost every respect. The lug arrangement, locking arangement, extractor shape and arrangement, shape and geometry of the unlocking raceway. The other similarity is in the trigger group. The trigger, hammer, and secondary sear interact exactly as they do in the Garand however they are greatly simplified in the AK. The Gas system of the AK is a short-stroke gas system. The Garand has a long-stroke gas system. See Gas operated article for an in-depth description. Suffice it to say, the gas system on the AK is unique in that it is unitized to the bolt carrier (in much the same way as the Garand) however it is a short-stroke system like the FAL.

Not sure where you'd get the M-16 vs. AG-42 similarity. The M16 uses direct impingement, like the AG42, however it utilizes the bolt for a piston and the gas carrier for a cylinder whereas the Sweedish rifle used the gas tube itself as the piston and the bolt carrier for a cylinder. You obviously don't have a mechanical engineering background or a background in arms design, however your objections to this comparrison seem based on something other than fact. It was a fact that Kalashnikov based his trigger and bolt mechanisms on the Garand as much as it's a Fact that Gene Stoner based his bolt on Mel Johnson's bolt. The difference is that Stoner credited Johnson whereas Kalashnikov lies and says it was he and he alone that devised this wonderful battle rifle... blah... blah... blah. Had the AK-47 been introduced by an American company, they would be violating the Garand patents. Looking at earlier Kalashnikov prototypes that use the same safety and en-bloc clip in addition to the aforementioned bolt, bolt carrier, and trigger mechanism, it's easy to trace the development of those best features of the Garand design into the AK-47 design of today.

Now, tell me that the safety wasn't copied from the Browning/Remington model 8 and I can truly dismiss your arguments out of hand!  ;-) --Asams10 23:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't get where you get that Garand trigger mechanism is similar to AK one. Hammer is different, spring is completely different...some copy! As far as I know, AK trigger mechanism is based on some old Browning design. Bolt operation is, of course, completely different in Garand and AK. AK's bolt is in separate bolt carrier, Garands' is not. As for the bolt being "directly copied in almost every respect" obviously you have never actually seen them next to each other. They are almost completely different in every respect - and they had to be, given dramatic differences' in rifles operation. In fact, the only commonalities are the lugging arrangements, in that they both have two lugging locks. So based on this one feature, you claim that AK is a Garand "descendant". By same logic, F-16 is P-39 "descendant" - they both have tri-cycle undercarriage! --Mikoyan21 00:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you actually read my posts? Have you actually examined the weapons? Just because you lack the ability to see the similarities doesn't mean they aren't there. I can't argue with ignorance, so I'll bow out of this discussion. I didn't add the link you keep reverting, by the way.--Asams10 01:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and let me add that just about every weapon designed after 1920 or so is merely a combination of previously invented features. Hence, your argument about Kalashnikov's "unoriginality" is moot, because all his contemporaries and successors were similarly "unoriginal" and merely combined and refined basic innovations of earlier designers. --Mikoyan21 00:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, you're arguing with somebody else on this one. I'll have to shake my head in disbelief.--Asams10 01:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me quote your own words on this:"The issue I have is that great minds, John Browning, Hiram Maxim, John Pedersen, Bill Ruger etc., deserve more credit for what makes the AK-47 great than does Kalashnikov. Heck, I'd even throw Garand as a better contemporary along with Ruger." Or is this "somebody else"? Let me add on the first point that nowhere in the literature, and I do mean nowhere, it is stated that AK-47 is a copy of Garand. The reasons are obvious - gas system is almost totally different, operating is different, magazine is different...the list goes on...yes, the bolts have similarities, but not as much as with M1 Carbine, which is more often quoted as an inspiration for Kalashnikov than Garand.--Mikoyan21 01:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

More of the same. Like trying to discuss evolution with the Pope.--Asams10 02:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Since you are not even trying to dispute my points anymore, I consider that consensus is reached. --Mikoyan21 07:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You are refusing to dispute anything I say, so, yes, the concensus is that you are wrong. If you consider yourself right and refuse to argue any of the facts, then you are not worthy of the discussion. I obviously disagree and even this fact you ignore. I'd say something else, but Wikipedia frowns on personal attacks.--Asams10 16:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I've disputed your arguments, but you just above refused to answer them, making this about 3rd time when you contradict your own words within this discussion. But to bring more facts to discussion, I dug out the book "Soviet Small Arms and Ammunition" by D.N Bolotin, which has some info about early Soviet assault rifle projects, including development of AK-47. In entry about Kalashnikov 1944 carbine, Kalashnikov specificially mentions Garand as an inspiration, this is contrary to your claims that Kalashnikov pretends to have invented everything himself. Interestingly, 1946-Kalashnikov has a thumb safety and apparently a separate selector. Unfortunately, text makes no mention at which point safety/selector design was changed. Noteworthy is also 1944 pattern Sudajev assault rifle, which has already exact same layout (and similar magazine) as AK, except it has wooden stock and longer barrel with bipod (It has also similar safety than AK-47). So Kalashnikov was probably correct when saying that he did not copy Stg-44 in any way - same basic layout was already used in earlier designs, also, all other early Soviet prototypes I've seen had same layout.--Mikoyan21 17:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

So, as I said, Kalashnikov did copy portions of the Garand rifle? What in the HELL did I contradict myself on? Please list the specific passage or passages side-by-side and make me look like a fool. I'm waiting.--Asams10 18:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You specificially claimed that you have not discredited Kalashnikov, although just above is a quote where you do exactly that. Also, you have not responded any to my technical points, but instead claim that I have not responded to you, though my responses are just above, plain to everyone to see. Nobody was denying that Garand did influence AK-47 (along with several other weapons), I was denying that AK is "originated" from Garand, which it does not. Anyway, based on information on Bolotin book (and couple of other Soviet sources) I believe that better and more accurate version of AK's origins can be written. --Mikoyan21 19:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I never stated that the AK originated from the Garand as it does not. I stated that key design elements were borrowed directly from the Garand. Which technical points are you speaking of? You make the assertion that the Garand Bolt and the AK bolt are different, I can find little difference. Please, place my contradictory quotes side by side or I'll assume you're concedeing that I did not contradict myself in the face of having no proof. Don't get me wrong, I don't think you're a troll, I just think that you are mistaken.--Asams10 20:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Let me spell it out to you. I pointed out that you had discredited Kalashnikov. You answered: "Again, you're arguing with somebody else on this one." Yet there is your own quote about the matter: "The issue I have is that great minds, John Browning, Hiram Maxim, John Pedersen, Bill Ruger etc., deserve more credit for what makes the AK-47 great than does Kalashnikov. Heck, I'd even throw Garand as a better contemporary along with Ruger." oh and another gem: "The difference is that Stoner credited Johnson whereas Kalashnikov lies and says it was he and he alone that devised this wonderful battle rifle... blah... blah... blah." I rest my case. As for the bolts, as anyone can plainly see, they have signifant differences, whilst admittably also similarities. Certainly they are not "almost identical" as you claimed. And whilst the bolt is quite essential part of the design, so is bolt carrier (completely different between AK and Garand), gas system (ditto), cartridge feeding & magazine (ditto) receiver construction...I mean, Vz-58 has similar locking system as Walther P-38, yet you sure don't find anyone claiming that vz originated from Walther, which is pretty obvious given that P-38 is a pistol and Vz-58 is a rifle... --Mikoyan21 21:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've decided you're indeed trolling.--Asams10 22:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Y'know, it's funny that you claim that you're not biased in any way, yet you directly discredit Kalashnikov about his inventions and how he supposedly doesn't credit anyone else (despite this being shown false). Makes one wonder what exactly is your agenda, especially in the light of your earlier comments about Soviet aircraft copying (equally completely misdirected). Anyway, I'll leave it that. I may modify the article abit in near future based on information in Bolotin book (+some other sources), if no one else opposes. --Mikoyan21 09:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The Soviets, Kalashnikov included, have a long history of three things which apply in this situation. One, they either completely copy designs or borrow from Western designs and alter them to be compatible with Soviet manufacturing. This was clear in the case of, say, the Buran space shuttle. The designers did not hide the fact that it was easier to use a near exact aerodynamic model of the American Shuttle. Why reinvent the wheel? Why do their own research, testing, and aerodynamic studies when the US had spent billions doing the same? The Second thing they do well is to simplify existing designs for mass production using comparatively low-quality materials, low-skilled labor, and fewer machine operations. Finally, they are very good at LYING about what was done, who did it, when it was done, how it was done, and why it was done. Soviet doctorine clearly used information of all sorts as a weapon to be weilded as surely as one would weild a Kalashnikov rifle. This makes nearly every tidbit of information that comes out of the Soviet Union suspect. That is my prejudice, the same as I hold for Nazi Germany, a firm distrust in this information. --Asams10 23:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

1. The part about Buran (even if mostly true) is completely irrelevant about AK design history. 2. You have not shown any evidence that Kalashnikov or Soviets specificially lied about design history of AK-47. Kalashnikov has sometimes been accused of taking too much credit for himself (he certainly seems to have somewhat big ego) but that is about the contributions of his fellow Soviet designers, not his possible foreign inspirations. As I've said, it's pretty much impossible (and certainly unsensible) to design a weapon without any influence of previous designs and Kalashnikov and AK-47 are no different in this respect. Glock for example is often said to have been "revolutionary" but actually almost none of its' "new" features are that, they have all been used in previous designs before Gaston G. set to work. --Mikoyan21 19:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Mikoyan21, don't spend your time on Asams10's religion. You may grep this discussion for his postings and find any discussion useless. --jno 08:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Suppression

Can AKs be silenced? Chris 02:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

No. I believe Finland has fitted Valmet and other rifles with Reflex Suppressors (that is suppressors that attach at the muzzle but have a large chamber that telescopes back over the barrel. The reason for this is to prevent hearing loss and there is little military value. The action noise alone is horrendous. The primary reason you cannot effectively 'silence' an AK is that the bullet is supersonic. The Russians, I believe, use a cartridge with a heavier bullet at subsonic velocities that can be effectively suppressed, though.--Asams10 03:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

AK can be fitted with suppressors, they just need to be very large to have effect and even then, there is the issue of supersonic bullet noise and loud clanking of action. Is it possible to silence the AK (or any other assault rifle) like shown in the movies - no. Finnish military does not use suppressors in rifles, but many civilians have fitted their AK's with various types of silencers. --Mikoyan21 10:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

YES. The device name is "PBBS" (Russian: ПББС, device for fireless and soundless shooting). Go to the artillery museum at St.Petersburg, RF and see it yourself. The device is in service. Of course, it is not so efficient to be featured in movies. And big enought to be hated by servicemen. Special weapons like VSS are preferred where a real silence is required. --jno 15:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted, however, that the term "Silencer" in America is a misnomer. The proper term is "Suppressor." The only users of the term "Silencer" are the media, bad fiction writers, and gun control advocates.--Asams10 16:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

FWIW: While the name overstates the functional capability of the device, 'Silencer' was the term coined by the device's inventor Hiram Percy Maxim. --D.E. Watters 23:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

7.62x39 vs 7.92x33

I would like to see exact date of battlefield use of 7.92 round. I know exact time for the appearance of 7.62x39 (1943, for SKS carbine), but not for German 7.92 Kurz. I know it was used in StG 44, but it was in 1944. Was it used before this time? So, conception of intermediate round could be cleared.

• The MKb42(H) reportedly saw combat in 1942 when a number of the carbines were airdropped to Kampfgruppe Scherer in Kolm. However, the 7.92x33mm cartridge was available as early as 1941, and other experimental assault rifle cartridges were under development in Germany during the 1930s. Of interest is Geco's 7.75x40mm round of 1935, which was modified in 1942 by Geco to become a 7.62x39mm. The Geco cartridge is not the exact same as the Russian 7.62x39mm, but it is awfully close. --D.E. Watters 20:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Sturmgewehr

Wasn't the German Sturmgewehr the first Assault Rifle? Isn't "Sturmgewehr" German for "Assault Rifle"

Yes. Read the article. It's in there.--Asams10 17:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Taped Magazines Question

I've seen AK's before where they taped two magazines together on the gun. Does anyone have any pictures or sources of this?

The Israeli's do it all the time with their M16 magazines but you don't see it done on AK's that much. The weight of the loaded magazine is considerable. --Asams10 05:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I've seen plenty of pictures of that practice, and we did so also in the Army (though we had lighter plastic mags). Length & weight of the AK magazine certainly make such arrangement less comfortably though. And some instructors oppose the practice.--Mikoyan21 19:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Lots of my friends have used coupled magazines (two or even three in a batch) to speedup the weapon recharge (common practice used in Afganistan and Chechnya). Sometimes that were 40-round magazines from RPK (submachine gun) instead of native 30-round magazine. One guy even used 75-round spial magazine from RPK, but he have thrown it away after the first mission for being extremely unhandy in use. --jno 08:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Illegal Trade

" These weapons are commonly sold to rebels and faulty regimes in countries where the demand of rifles has gone up due to war. "

That is wrong. The Avtomat Kalashnikova 1947 is most commonly sold too criminals , not rebels. However the Avtomat Kalashnikova 1974 ( is that the proper name? ?? ) is the most common weapon of rebelions , regimes , and countries with a high demand for assault rifles. This does not mean they were bought , they could have been manufactured.

No, it's not. Your command of grammer and spelling are better than your facts.--Asams10 18:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Albanian Kalashnikovs?

I did a search to find out what their designation was and didn't find anything. I did find an article that confirmed that Albania had a single state-run factory to produce AK-47's. This factory was looted and the guns fed the Balkan arms market. What I can't find is a pisture or designation for any of these guns. Were they built on Soviet supplied equipment? Does anybody have any information on this? I know Albania produced SKS's and that discussion is rampant on the net (likely due to their having been imported recently).--Asams10 19:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Wood finish?

Is the AK-47 famous for the wood on the gun? If so it might be worth mentioning in the opening paragraph, I am no expert in guns so I will just leave it JayKeaton 14:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

not only for the wooden parts, for sure. --jno 10:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)