Talk:AK-74

Keep it separate

The AK-74 is a different firearm all together. Though it is related to the AK-47 the changes made and the reasons for them set it apart. Why else would the Russian military have made such a huge and expensive change in their frontline combat weapon when they already had a tried and true one in place? Trust me, a comment noting their relationship is justified in each article, but they are truely different.

LOL It's 90% the same gun chambered for a different cartridge. I'd bet you've fired neither one. Riddley 02:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. It is certainly NOT "a different firearm all together". There are differences, but the biggest one is the different chambering. CynicalMe 02:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The M4 Carbine isn't included on the M16 page and shouldn't be. Same here. Gяaρнic 20:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but you could make the case that the M-4 should be at least mentioned, since it is a direct derivative of the M-16. I agree with Riddley that the AK-74 and 47 are almost the same. I own both, and if you look closely at the two, you will find that the design, operation, feel, size (almost) etc. are exactly the same between the 47 and the 74, or actually, the AKM and the AK-74. The only differences are the cartridge, the muzzle brake on the 74, a grenade launching lug on the 74, and the ID cuts in the stock (and a couple of teeny-weeny changes, like a grooved buttplate). Everythng else is fundamentally the same. AK person 02:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Major Revision

I've revised this article and tried to clear up some misunderstandings, fantasies, and conjecture, and bad ballistics understanding surrounding the 5.45 x 39 mm cartridge and bullet. It's arranged as more of a complement to the AK-47 page but differs in the necessary areas.

Bullet Yaw is against international law?

The only international law concerning rifle bullets used in war is rifle hollow points. They're not allowed. In one case where a US bullet has a tiny HP on top, there were some controversy, in which it was deem acceptable because the bullet, despite the tiny HP, did not perform like a regular rifle HP. However, I do not know of any law that concerns with bullet yaw, and said bullet yaw not only occurs when soft targets are struck, but covers such as wood. A comparison of the AK-47 and M16 by a show on Discovery Channel (I suspect it was in collaboration with BBC, it has mainly British experts and a British narrator) had a high-speed shot of the AK bullet tumbling end to end after passing through a wooden barrier.

The Hague Convention of 1899 & 1907, Declaration III, and international treaty, covers the prohibited use of expanding ammunition. 26 countries attended, Mexico and the United States were the only two countries in attendance from the Americas. Russia was a participant at the 1899 & 1907 conventions. No cite was found showing they signed either treaty. Link follows:Link to Hague Convention Declaration III

No international law!

There is no international law. You're talking conventions and treaties. At any rate, ALL bullets will yaw. The smaller the bullet and the higher the velocity, the greater the tendancy to yaw. International conventions and treaties specify the use of ammuniton that causes undue sufferring beyond their military asset. The use of soft-point and hollow-point ammunition arguably causes the same damage as a modern, well designed 5.56 bullet.--Asams10 17:31, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Additons I made

I added the little firearms table featured in other firearms articles to this article. --Skyler Streng 23:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Pulling "Children's Section"

I've pulled the 'children's section' of this article here to the discussion. In keeping in line with the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia, we don't need a listing of each of the hundreds of times you've watched "Die Another Day" or other such movies and thought the AK's were cool. Also, we don't need a laundry list of video games in the main article. I think there might be a call for a "Firearms in Movies" article with a listing of guns and the movies they've appeared in. A similar article could be made for Video Games if somebody is so inclined. Just keep it out of this article, please. Deleted text here:

• The AK-74 is held by enemies in Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon games series.
• The AK-74 is available in the Hitman game series, during missions in Russia.
• Known as the AKS-74 in Sony's SOCOM: US Navy SEALs II
• In the Act of War : Direct Action game, the Consortium faction's basic rifle infantry uses the AK-74.
• A variation of the AK-74, it is labeled as a KSI-74 in Perfect Dark Zero.
• In Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty the Gurlukovich soldiers use silenced/suppressed AKS74u's a shortened variant, also it is gained by the main character Raiden.
• The weapon is attained (As the 'KF7 Soviet') when fighting the KGB in GoldenEye 007 for the Nintendo 64. Rareware is notorious for altering the names of known guns for copyright reasons.
• The AK-74 is widely available in the video game James Bond 007: Everything or Nothing.
• The AK-74 is available in the computer game Soldier of Fortune II
• In 24: The Game, the M80 is a featured weapon in several missions.
• One of the 10 primary weapons in the popular online game Soldat is the AK-74.

--Asams10 17:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

thank you! it gets just as bad on sports car pages... -- 69.35.37.97 00:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Image

Why not an image of the rifle in the article?

What? An image is right there NeoExelor 04:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

What makes this an assault rifle while the US M2 Carbine isn't? -Boris B 23:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not an article about the M2 Carbine, so your question would be better posed on that article's talk page. CynicalMe 00:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh. I understand why M2 Carbine redirects to M1 Carbine. Talk on that article compares the M2 to the AK-47 and Sturmgewehr 44, weapons with much higher muzzle energy. That's not true of the AK-74. Maybe this isn't particularly pertinent to Wikipedia though, so I'm happy to drop it. -Boris B 06:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy

Seeing as how people generally get all worked up about the supposed deadly accuracy of Western small-caliber assault rifles (When was the last time any ordinary footsoldier hit anything with his weapon in real combat at 500 yards? By skill instead of luck? Never.), it would be interesting to see how the AK-74 using a broadly comparable design philosophy stacks up in the accuracy department. In any event the article would benefit by its inclusion.

I note that the 500m effective range listed would put the AK-74 on par with the vaunted accuracy of the M-16 and in the middle of the sighting marks of the G36. Kensai Max 15:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

No, the AK design is inherintly less accurate than the M16 design. This is not argued by anybody in the know. You seem to acknowledge this by starting your statement with the suggestion that nobody can shoot at 500 yards anyhow. This is bunk. I shoot high-power rifle matches and, at 600 yards, even I can get decent scores with my modified AR-15. However, whatever ranges are listed, soldiers rarely ENGAGE targets beyond 300 yards. At that range, the M16 still has a distinct advantage over the AK. This isn't bravado, it's fact. --Asams10 18:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, but be honest. You got decent scores w/ the AR-15, but nobody was shooting at you. I have been in combat in Iraq, at short and long range, and believe me, when a bunch of guys are shooting at you, you won't usually take the time to line up a perfect shot. I perfectly agree with the assertion that at practical combat ranges, the AK-74 is just as accurate and effective. Remember too that combat accuracy does not mean shooting a one inch group. Combat accuracy means hitting the center-of-mass, and both the M-16 and the AK-74 fit the bill here. However, from a purely objective POV, the M16/AR-15 is probably more accurate out of the box. --AK person

If the effective range listed for both guns in their wiki articles is based on the same standards (I assume US Army ones), the AK-74 has accuracy on par with a standard-issue M-16. Now, the AR-15 design can probably be accurized to a much higher degree, but that's completely irrelevant with the ordinary infantryman's assault rifle and only comes into play when talking about marksman rifles - and I note that the Russians have had the Dragunov (at the ranges involved, a far more effective weapon than any 5.56mm rifle) at a squad level for far longer than we have been deploying marksmen.

Did you even read what I wrote? I quote, "When was the last time any ordinary footsoldier hit anything with his weapon in REAL COMBAT at 500 yards?" Target shooting and theoretical ranges are completely irrelevant here. You yourself admit that accuracy beyond 300m for an assault rifle means little beyond better shot placement at the range of real-world firefights - <300m.

Now, that the AK-47 is less absolutely accurate than the M-16 is not open to debate. It's an entirely earlier generation of weapon firing a larger, slower bullet - still quite straight enough to put all its bullets inside a torso-sized target at 300 yards if you aim straight. The question at hand here is the accuracy of its small-caliber successor, the AK-74, whose effective range is listed as 500m in the article - merely 50m short of the M-16's. Assuming the standards are the same, the M-16 has no real advantage in accuracy over the AK-74, while its usual disadvantages remain in full force.

On a tangent, people continually spout off that a marginally more accurate weapon translates to a real advantage in a firefight. I have yet to see anyone actually back that statement up substantially. I have a hard time seeing how better accuracy will make up even one soldier's gun jamming due to its delicate, easily-fouled design in a serious battle. Kensai Max 16:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I see where this is going. Not going to argue with you. You're wrong on most points, but I doubt you'd admit it, so there's no point in me wasting your time. I concede you are more stuburn. You can have your point that the effective ranges are equivelant.--Asams10 18:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Wrong on most points how? By your declaration? Give me a break. You say yourself that you refuse to argue, so you effectively concede ALL points to me. I don't mind winning an argument on the first reply, but I can be surprisingly reasonable about differing viewpoints.

Stubborn? I refused to accept your unqualified dismissal of the "AK" system (not all of which are made equal), your hasty misinterpretation of my previous post, your irrelevant tangent on target-shooting and your often-repeated, never-proven mantra about the advantages of a somewhat more accurate weapon in a frantic firefight. You want to make claims, back them up and understand your opponent's. Kensai Max 22:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Not conceding any points but the one I mentioned. I'm refusing to engage. --Asams10 00:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

If you had no interest in debate you wouldn't post in the first place. You either debate or concede - refusing to debate is concession. Kensai Max 14:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Uh, no. You don't get to tell me I have to debate. You're proving my point and this is silly. Good day.--Asams10 17:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Snipe and run is a valid tactic in warfare, but you look like a fool in an argument. If you want to, that's your business, but you're not getting the last word here. Kensai Max 23:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

For the record, personal attacks don't make your argument right, either. Again, this is silly.--Asams10 02:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Proof makes your argument right. Kensai Max 23:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

So, prove your argument then... and this is still silly.--Asams10 00:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You're the one making broad claims that require proof. Kensai Max 05:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

No, nothing broad. I just said your broad claims were wrong. You're trying to browbeat me into conceding like you've done a bunch of times in previous 'talk page wars' with other users.--Asams10 14:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to review your claims. As your claim is the extremely vague "wrong on most points", I'll assume that you object to my entire argument besides points you have explicitly agreed with.

1. Implication that the AK-74 is not as accurate as a stock M-16 by the use of weasel words. If the effective ranges are the same and they were tested to the same standards of accuracy, they are equally accurate. Full stop.

2. That the Russians have not been using designated marksmen for far longer than we have. I note that the Dragunov was in service in 1963 and we've only started talking about the concept recently.

3. That the AK-47 will not put most of its bullets inside a man's torso at 300m. I'm under the impression that US Army standard for effective range is >50% of rounds inside a 20-in diameter circle. I assume they know what they're doing when they test - or do you have some kind of insider info you'd like to share?

4. This is the big one, that a marginally more accurate weapon actually means something in a real firefight. Can you supply one single source saying that this is true by something other than testimony and opinion? Tests with obvious bias aren't going to fly either. Joe Infantryman may have been in a few firefights, but I doubt he's used an AK-47 in half of them and an M-16 in the other half and can even hope to scientifically compare their effectiveness. And the only people in the military who could make that kind of comparison... aren't going to be spouting off on the internet.

Hell, even the United States Military agrees with me here - or are you going to be claiming that an M-4 carbine can shoot the same kind of groups as a full-sized M-16? I note that with a barrel-length only slightly shorter than a stock AK-47's, an M-4 has an equivalent effective range of 300m. As far as handiness goes, the AK-74, while longer than the AK-47, is still some six centimeters shorter overall than a full M-16 and has a ten-centimeter shorter barrel (same lenght as the '47's) with an insignificant drop in effective range.

My claims are either common knowledge, simple logic, or not accepting unfounded claims at face value. Care to refute them by argument instead of open denial? Kensai Max 18:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I give up. I concede you have more time on your hands than I do. The AK-74 is, however, less accurate than the M16. Your arguing with flawed logic, therefore any argument I get into will be tedious. Again, this is silly. You keep trying to get the last word in so I'll just let you. I don't have enough time for this. You're still wrong.--Asams10 21:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I concede that you're remarkably insistent. Cheers. Kensai Max 01:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Holy crap, both of you used some bad arguing. As a third party, I can honestly say that Asams sounds like he can't back up his position when he refuses to argue. And Kensai, you use some ad hominems that could really be left out. I would say that from a bench, the M-16 is probably more accurate. However, in combat both probably would have equal effectiveness. AK person 03:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The AK is built to looser tolerances, has a creepier, stiffer trigger assembly, poor ergonomics by modern standards, a short sight radius with a forward mounted rear ramp sight and cruder adjustments. By definition, it isn't even close to as accurate as a factory AR series, even disregarding the usually crappy tolerance Eastern bloc ammo. And I speak as someone who's used an AR for 22 years in the military and has combat match trophies and related specialty training to back it up:)

The AK is adequately accurate for the use for which it is intended--infantry fire by illiterate peasants.

I wouldn't want to get shot by either of them.

Are we done now?Mzmadmike 00:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Illiterate peasants? That's a grossly inaccurate and inappropriate generalization. Some guy 19:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

As usual from the AK-hating crowd...

I have some experience with mechanical engineering. There are a lot of tolerances in a gun that are irrelevant to the actual accuracy of the weapon, namely all of those which do not relate to the chamber and barrel when the round is locked into position and ready to fire. All firearms have very precise chamber dimensioning as a simple fact of operation - the AK's advantage in that area is that is uses a fairly conical round that goes in and out easily. Saying that an AK is inaccurate because it has loose tolerances is misleading because the tolerancing has to do with moving parts of the gun that are only moving after the round has left the barrel and which thus have nothing to do with its mechancial accuracy.

This is proven quite clearly by the fact that AKs can be accurized - there are highly successful marksman rifles built off the action, like the Dragunov, and variants on the action that are generally known as accurate rifles such as the SIG 550! The Kalashnikov action is no more inherently inaccurate than any other gas piston action, end of story.

As such almost all accuracy issues with the platform have to do with the ammunition used. 7.62x39 ammo is fairly low-velocity and is not ballistically suited to long range fire, as such the standard AKM platform has its range limited by the ballistics of the round and the inconsistencies of its manufacture (and before you start talking about how superior Western ammo is to commie stuff, I highly suggest you look at the service ammo tests at boxoftruth.com showing Western service ammo getting 2MOA out of a highly accurized AR-15). The 5.45x39 round is a high-velocity round that is going to give you roughly the same ballistic performance as NATO 5.56 ammunition and as such the modernized AK-74 has a much longer effective range, comparable to any 5.56 rifle. It's highly worth noting that very accurate target rounds have been made by wildcatting 5.45mm ammunition, such as the 6mm PPC.

The sights on an AK are not an issue, nor are the ergonomics. I shoot on flat sights all the time and don't feel a significant accuracy difference. As long as the ergonomics of a weapon aren't egregious soldiers will deal with it and learn to love it.

And don't give me that "illiterate peasant spray and pray" line. The Russian Army was never composed of illiterate peasants and if you push the issue you're simply denying reality. Good day. 24.59.197.249 01:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC) (this is Kensai Max, I forgot to sign in before writing this)

I agree with you somewhat with the fact that the tolerances outside of the action don't affect the round that has already left the chamber, HOWEVER, They DO affect shot follow through. The larger tolerances have an effect of pretty much moving the rifle around. If you watch an ak47(or 74) fire in slow motion, you can see the action really moving things around. The AR15 doesn't have this problem because of the gas system it uses. And for all of those people who say that the AR isn't reliable don't know what they're talking about. The only problem the army ever had with it was when they said it was self cleaning, and used extremely dirty ammunition, and didn't issue cleaning kits. If it was as bad of a weapon as people say, we wouldn't use it.70.127.8.35 (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

And this folks is why we don't allow user feedback or "impressions" in firearms articles... Koalorka (talk) 00:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Loud?

Sure, it's noiser than the 47, but I never thought the 74 was "extremely" loud. Any thoughts? (67.175.99.33 07:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC))

Well, if you stand to one side or the other and get the full effect of the muzzle blast, it can be very loud, even louder than the M-16, in my experience. AK person 03:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Magazines?

Are the magazines made of plastic or bakelite? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.116.98.179 (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Good Question. The simple answer is "yes." The first Magazines were made of an orange/red bakelite. They changed sometime in...1982 or 83, if I remember right. They switched to polyamide (plastic) mags for 2 reasons: The bakelite mags had a tendancy to crack from the cold and harsh use in Afghanistan, and they reflected sunlight too much. The first Poly mags were a "plum" color (kind of a brown purple color; both of the "in action" pictures in the article have AK-74s with the plum colered furniture), then at about the time they switched from plum to black furniture (~1990), they also changed the mag color to black. AK person 03:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Operators ??

China seems haven't use any ak74, they use self-made Type 81. China only use 7.26mm and 5.8mm cartridge. Never see any report they use 5.45mm.

No, they have apparently stayed away from it, prefering their own designs AK person 03:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Estonia DOES NOT use G36 as primary service rifle, we use AK4 instead.

Picure mislabeling

I think that the pic of the Naval Infantryman with the AK-74 is mislabeled. The "M" designation would mean that the 74 has the plastic folding stock that all AK-74M's have. To have the triangular stock in the picture means that it has to be an AKS-74, not an AK-74M. whatever it is, the AK-74M already has a side folding stock, so there is no "S" in its nomenclature. AK person 03:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

a silly mistake, it's just a late production model AKS-74.

Totally Inaccurate

Bunk article. The 7.62 x 39 has been shown to be "ineffective" under 200m??? Ridiculous. And the 5.45 was shown 20 years ago NOT to fragment in the body. This article is bogus. 69.226.24.162

By who? I am not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I want proof. I do agree with you that the 200m argument is crap, though.

7.62X39 is not "ineffective" under 200m. However, it is not as effective as the smaller cartridges, based on wound studies. I'll make a note and see if I can amend the section slightly.Mzmadmike 00:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You are right, it does not fragment. It does tumble, however

New Reference for review, and need updating...

Regarding the effective of the AK-74, I find the following article interesting. Please review for comment before adding it to the reference section.

Korac, Zelimer, "Terminal ballistics of the Russian AK 74 assault rifle: Two wounded patients and experimental findings"; Military Medicine, December 2001

I also found that the reference to Fackler's article is dead. It needs updating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pasvorn (talk • contribs) 17:21, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Today I noticed that there is an article for AKS-74. I would like to propose that it be merged into this article per WP:GUNS#Variants, which specifically states that telescoping, retractable, and other stock variations be merged into the parent gun's article.--LWF (talk) 05:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support - duh, for anybody that knows me, but the two weapons are clearly the same with minor differences... many more differences than in the Glock, but still not enough to justify a separate article. --Asams10 (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support per proposal. AKS-74 doesn't need its own article. Nburden ^(T) 00:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like this article should have a section on the variants. If someone could do that it would be good, since I don't have enough time to do it for a while.--LWF (talk) 01:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It's done. I sure seem to be doing a lot of merges lately...--LWF (talk) 04:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Another merge proposal, AKS-74U

I'm about to re-write most of the article and I believe the AKS-74U should be included, it's a variant of the AKS-74 with a shorter barrel and a different sight setup and some minor changes to the gas system and dust cover. But it is still considered a part of the AK-74 family. Thoughts? Comments? Koalorka (talk) 02:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, some things to consider would be if significant portions of history and/or design would be lost, and if not, if merging would make this article too long.--LWF (talk) 03:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Apart from merging the AKS-74U I plan on rewriting most of the AK-74 article. It would be no longer than say my Heckler & Koch G36 re-write, but would have a similar structure with a detailed development history, technical design and variants (including the proposed AKS-74U). Hope I can count your support! Koalorka (talk) 03:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest making the rewrite first in a subpage then when it is done we could then decided if its all good if you catch my drift BonesBrigade 04:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Check out my user page and scroll through the articles I've rewritten, that will give you a good idea of what I plan on doing. Of course valuable facts already present in this version will be included but quite frankly, there aren't that many.... Koalorka (talk) 05:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty happy with the article now. What do you guys think? The nice folks at Izhmash were even kind enough to donate a high-res image of the AK-74M image to illustrate the article. Koalorka (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the AKS-74U should have its own article (epsecially since there was still things about it that could be expanded apon that I never had time to add), either (preferably) that or at least its own distinct section in this article. As far as your rewrite is concerned, it's got a lot of great info in it, but I feel the wording and structure needs to be slightly optimized. But still good work. Skyler Streng (talk) 04:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Intermediate Cartridge

What ever happened to 7.62x39? It's also an intermediate cartridge, and came before 5.45. SO how the AK-74 the first Russian weapon in an intermediate caliber?Rynky (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Some confusion arising from intermediate calibre and intermediate cartridge perhaps? Geoff B (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, it was wrong. I corrected it. --Asams10 (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought it was fishy. Rynky (talk) 20:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Technically, it is a small caliber in terms of bore diameter. The term 'intermediate caliber' is used to describe cartridge power, not bore diameter or velocity. The first of these type of cartridges was the German 7.92x33mm however the American 30 Carbine was developed alongside it and for much the same reason. --Asams10 (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The Soviets make a distinction between the M43 and M74 cartridges, our established phraseology does not necessarily apply. Koalorka (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you're losing something in the translation there. "Intermediate" clearly means between something and something else. Since there is nothing on the other side, the M74 cannot be intermediate. Either get a better translation or, as I'd already edited it out, leave it out. --Asams10 (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The M74 is most definitely an intermediate round, no confusion there, just like the analogous intermediate 5.56x45mm cartridge, after which it was modeled. Koalorka (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

True, it is an intermediate cartridge, however it replaced another intermediate cartridge. It's not an intermediate caliber (bore diameter) though and it's clearly a small caliber, intermediate power coartridge like the 5.56x45 and the half-dozen other SCHV's out there. However, it was not the first intermediate cartridge. Perhaps you can say it was the first small-caliber cartridge. Not sure if it says so, but Kalashnikov was against the SCHV concept and, I believe, still speaks about it being inferior to the cartridge it replaced. I'd tend to agree in principle, but I prefer intermediate calibers like the 6.5mm Grendal or 6mm SAW. --Asams10 (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I doubt most all of the things said about Kalashnikov in relation to the AK-74, some sources say he was enthusiastic, other say hesitant but willing, still others say he was forced, and still others say he did it, didn't like it, but saw it as a good way to revitalize the design.--LWF (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Saw this in a television interview, but I agree with your sentiment. Even Kalashnikov's statements are often contradictory. I find no real fault with the 5.45 ammunition. In fact, I think it's better designed than anything out there. Very efficient, reliable, inexpensive (compared to the 5.56) and much lighter. --Asams10 (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

True, much of the surplus Soviet/Russian ammo is of unusual quality for surplus. A good friend that happens to be a gunsmith explained that they sold their surplus not because it didn't meet their usual quality standards, but because they needed the money, unlike some surplus out there.--LWF (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Flag of Russia?

Why is English Wikipedia different? Just compare our description of the rifle to any other. We clearly show a far greater depth of insight than any other, that's why. And the AK-74M and the AK-100 series are all Russian-developed in the 1990s. Koalorka (talk) 11:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The heading is called place of origin; not place of series produced in the 1990s. El_C 11:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. The origin of the AK-74M and AK-100 series is the Russian Federation. Koalorka (talk) 11:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That fails to respond to my point about the origin of the original model, not the AK-101, etc. El_C 11:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we're both aware that the original AK-74 was developed in what was then the Soviet Union. The Russian flag signifies continuing development of the platform. We've had a huge discussion on this somewhere and came to the conclusion that origin flags should portray the historical state entity of origin. That's why we have German-made weapon articles built during WWII "decorated" with the Nazi Germany flag rather than just Germany. I cannot find the discussion. Koalorka (talk) 11:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not a conventional designation in other infoboxes I'm aware of. Short of examples that are linked, I'd like a 3rd opinion. El_C 11:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Take a look around. The Walther PPK - Weimar Republic, HK G3, HK33, MP5 - West Germany etc etc. Koalorka (talk) 11:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This is becoming tendentious. You can't even bother offering links? Walther PPK has only one place of origin. El_C 11:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, than what exactly is it that you're contesting? Dual flags are used, see M249 SAW, M240. Koalorka (talk) 11:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That looks like an exceptional circumstance; we already have articles on the series. El_C 11:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your last comment? There are quite a few more I can point out if that's what you're seeking..? Koalorka (talk) 11:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That is what I'm seeking. El_C 11:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Nagant M1895 and Mosin-Nagant off the top of my head. Koalorka (talk) 12:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, whatever. El_C 12:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

AKS-74U

Is the AKS-74U an assault rifle or an SMG? Some websites list it as a assault rifle, but some video games (such as Call of Duty 4 and Battlefield Bad Company) list it as an SMG. 69.76.52.218 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Submachine gun's by definition fire a pistol cartridge. The 5.45x39mm M74 round is an intermediate rifle cartridge, so the AKS-74U is an assault rifle, a compact one. It could also be classified as a carbine, but the definition is rather blurred and used in American nomenclature almost exclusively. Koalorka (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

How many :)

• How many items produced? --Berserkerus (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Velocity of bullet

I don't understand why the shortened version would create a smaller muzzle velocity. It's counter-intuitive that a shorter barrel would create more resistance on the projectile. Is this correct, or am I confused? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.181.58.51 (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

A longer barrel ensures that high-pressure propellant gases have a longer time to interact with the projectile, a short barrel prevents the projectile from absorbing most of the kinetic energy. Koalorka (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Use in Iraq

Does anyone know if Iraqi soldiers and/or policemen use these? If there is I'll add the flag and name to The Users List. Thanks.All of the Names Were Taken (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Not as far as I know. They were supplied with recently produced AKM's from either Romania/Poland/Bulgaria. Prior to that, Iraq had only AKM's and a few older models. Koalorka (talk) 01:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Armor Piercing?

The AK's bullets are mostly solid steel and do not fragment. Are these things armor piercing? Is there possibly alternative ammo for them that does fragment?

http://www.btammolabs.com/fackler/ak74_wounding_potential.pdf

AThousandYoung (talk) 05:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum. The talk page is for comments or suggestions related to improving the article. Koalorka (talk) 05:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

merge

I think this article should be merged with the AK-101 and AK-103 articles because they are pretty much the same as the AK-74M except that they take different calibers. 72.129.158.17 (talk) 23:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Koalorka (talk) 04:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Angola

Scroll down this thread and there are some photos of Angolan Special Forces using the AK-74M rifle. 13dble (talk) 13dble (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)