Talk:AK-47

No Criticisms Section

¿Why is there no “Criticisms” section? There are several complaints about the weap, most especially the accuracy issues. (Above there is a section addressing whether or not they were based on the German StG44; That could also be included there.)71.34.68.186 (talk) 15:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC) A. REDDSON

Yeah, um, Didn't you quit? I'm sure you quit. Here's the diff: [1].

As for your comments, yes, there are criticisms of the AK-47, however where they are in the article is fine. A criticism that the weapon is inaccurate is erroneous. Nobody ever said it is supposed to be accurate by Western standards and it is plenty accurate by Soviet standards. Also, it wasn't 'based' on the StG44 and that fact is clearly stated in the text. It was moreso based on the M1 Garand and Remington Model 8 though the StG44 certainly contributed. All firearms are derivative. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, nor care, if it was based on something else; was offering that to resolve the matter above. As to the accuracy (and other) issues, other firearms-realted articles have a Criticism section; The lack of one here shows a significant LACK of nuetrality ("This one's better than that one" kind of thinking). And no, person atacks on me AREN'T going to change things.71.34.68.186 (talk) 06:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)A REDDSON

Poor build quality in some variants, not accuracy, is what I hear most in the way of complaints. All we need is to address any negative issue appropriately in the article text. We don't need a whole "Criticism" section to cover one bad point. Also, there's no way that arguments about how the weapon was derived would be appropriate to a Criticism section. Binksternet (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

There are in fact several issues; Accuracy (a 30° cone is not "accurate enough" untill you have thousands of guns going off at the same time), quality control (including a how lot from a factory that passed QC only to discover in the feild the bolt carries were malformed), etc. Again, if you're doing it with others, you should be doing it the same for all; Otherwise, a distinct impression of favortism arises. 71.34.68.186 (talk) 06:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)A REDDSON

Well, a 30 degree cone is NOT what you get with an AK-47. In fact, US Army tests demonstrated accuracy on par with our Garand with Soviet firearms firing Soviet ammo. Now, when you put the rifle together in a clay hut in Afganistan, your accuracy will suffer some, but you're still looking at a sub-10 MOA rifle. Clearly, your statistic of 30 degrees is a wild and absurd exaggeration and strains the limits of my good faith assumption abilities. And no matter how many times you revert it, you said you were quitting. I even bid you goodbye. So I'll just ask the question... are you back? Are you going to continue what it was you quit over the first time or would you like to join the community and work towards improving Wikipedia? If so, you're not off to a good start. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 06:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The 30° statistic came from Russian records; However, it is not unreasonable to leave “specific” numbers out until the numbers can be independently confirmed (someone who can read Russian might be helpful here). BTW, “30° cone” means 15° up, down, left, or right, not 30° in any direction, if that was confusing. Since you make this such an issue, I did “quit” in the sense I don’t waste time changing pages just for you to revert them over and over again- But I wasn't the one who was banned. Now, the original issue (getting BACK on topic) is the AK-Series has no “Criticism” section, when others do. This presents an undeniable perception of favoritism to the AK’s over others; Creating a whole section for others pointing out their flaws item by item, when one isn’t presented here, makes it appear that this one is being favored over another. A simple analogy would be vacuum cleaners- Say ABC has a tendency to jam and clog, while XYZ has a tendency to not suck up all the dirt (weak motor perhaps). Creating a list of ABC’s weaknesses, but mentioning XYZ’s only in passing (as if they’re unimportant), is the same as calling ABC a piece of junk, while effectively ignoring XYZ’s. On to another issue, perhaps the resemblances to the German gun shouldn’t go there, but read this completely THEN say no: “Criticisms: Accuracy issues… Jamming issues from extended abuse… Poor Quality Control from rushed production schedules… Questions of cloning the StG44… (other issues if they develop)”, the elipises meaning to indicate a new line; I could build the example. 71.34.68.186 (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)A. REDDSON

You are arguing that the lack of a criticism section makes this article biased. Can you please point out the criticism section in M16 rifle? Or in SA80, Steyr AUG, or Heckler & Koch G36? Parsecboy (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism sections are an indication of poor writing, and usually exist simply as a dumping ground for editors with axes to grind. End of story. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, criticism sections are indicative of a poorly developed article in my view. They're used by poorly informed editors to fill the void with meaningless content. I use the "chocolate sprinkles" argument against "Criticism" type sections, that is, most if not all small arms lack chocolate sprinkles, therefore, most of them can be considered flawed. Of course that's a goofy example of misusing relativistic comparisons, but you get the idea. Instead, try to develop the page by describing the weapon's features so the reader can determine for him/herself what this particular design lacks and where it excels. Koalorka (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to combine three comments into one for brevity and clarity:

Parsecboy: You are arguing that the lack of a criticism section makes this article biased. Can you please point out the criticism section in M16 rifle? Or in SA80, Steyr AUG, or Heckler & Koch G36?

Chris Cunningham: Criticism sections are an indication of poor writing, and usually exist simply as a dumping ground for editors with axes to grind. End of story.

Koalorka: Agreed, criticism sections are indicative of a poorly developed article in my view. They're used by poorly informed editors to fill the void with meaningless content. I use the "chocolate sprinkles" argument against "Criticism" type sections, that is, most if not all small arms lack chocolate sprinkles, therefore, most of them can be considered flawed. Of course that's a goofy example of misusing relativistic comparisons, but you get the idea. Instead, try to develop the page by describing the weapon's features so the reader can determine for him/herself what this particular design lacks and where it excels.

Ok. I didn't write it, and no, the M-16 and SA-80 do NOT specifically such a section, and no one until now had suggested that; The AR-15, however, does have a big fat one. Perhaps THAT article needs "review," rather than this one.71.34.68.186 (talk) 06:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)A. REDDSON

The "Criticism" section on the AR-15 is actually not criticism, it's highlighting the safety issues between using 5.56 in rifles chambered for .223; it probably needs to be renamed. Parsecboy (talk) 12:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Either way, if it's just the one article, this should probably be adressed there alone. 71.34.68.186 (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)A. REDDSON

Uh-oh

I can see a possible edit war starting over this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AK-47&curid=1348&diff=287722265&oldid=287554246 Keep it like it is for now. Old Al (talk) 21:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Dubious claims in licensing section

The article says:

The Izhevsk Machine Tool Factory acquired a patent in 1999, making manufacture of the Kalashnikov rifle system by anyone other than themselves illegal. However, nearly one million AK-47 assault rifles are manufactured illegally each year.

This is a highly dubious claim because different countries have different laws. What is illegal in Russia may be perfectly legal in China or the U.S. In what country is the gun patented? Russia is not part of the WTO, so WTO rules would not apply if the gun is only patented in Russia. It also seems questionable to have something patented 50 years after invention. Is something even patentable in most countries at that point? --JHP (talk) 03:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is very dubious claim. The actual patent is probably http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?wo=1999005467&IA=IB1997001597&DISPLAY=DESC - which patents some improvement (maybe in AK-100 series?) over original design, and cites AK-47 as prior art. I don't know the details of the claims though, so I'm not editing the article.
-- Mentin (talk) 01:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The AK-47 hasn't been produced by anyone since the 1950s.. Koalorka (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

O rlly? Were do you think we find all these "like new AK-47's" in iraq and places like that? The AKM was invented in 1951 thats an upgraded AK-47 so what are you talking about?

First Usage

When was the first time the AK-47 was used was it in the Korean War, French-IndoChina War or the Vietnam War? Anyone.--Coffeekid (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

AKM phased out?

Is the AK-47 still being manufactured in Russia itself or are all the plants now producing the AK-74 and its derivatives? I saw nothing of this in the article.Mytg8 (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The 7.62 AK variants are still manufactured in Russia and used by the Russian law enforcement but the are being replaced by the 5.45 AK however I do not think the 7.62 AK will be completely gone from the Russian law enforcement any time soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.2.39.64 (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Effective Range

Someone edited its effective range 200 to 800-1000m. This is nonsense, please dont change as incorrect —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madmajor-896 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

And we all know the ranges that you come up with are all 100% accurate and trustworthy. — DanMP5 15:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's see some cites for the changes. The effective range is definitely not the same as having settings on the sights. Binksternet (talk) 16:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

<=Here is where we go to Google books:

• Gregg Lee Carter says 300 m.
• Doug Richardson says 300–400 m on page 125.
• Shelford Bidwell says 400 m semi-auto, 300 m auto, on page 199.
• Ray Bonds says semi-auto 400 m, on page 196.
• Kevin Dockery says 300 m.

Gee, that's enough authority for me. Binksternet (talk) 00:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Russian's use term "range of direct shot" that means distance, that bullet can cover from 2m height line of shooting. For AK (AK-47 is not official name, just AK) it is 525m, for AK-74 - 625m.Ходок (talk) 13:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

cultural influence section/flags

in the part about the ak being on the flag of other nations/groups/militias etc, can we add FARC, id think it is deserving, they are known widely throughout the western world i would think? any ideas? heres a link to the flag, and article: (cool looking flag i might add)

wikipedia article on FARC and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_FARC-EP.svg

thanks for your time, this was just a suggestion. i read the section and thought why not add them weather you like them or not. MACKEL ♠ 15:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Picture

AK-47 ?

Hi, can you tell me, if the gun on this photo is an AK-47? Thanks Lipedia (talk) 15:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Look at bayonet - it is chinese Type 56. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ходок (talk • contribs) 20:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking at a bayonet isn't the best way to identify an AK variant. However you are correct that it's a Norinco Type 56, in that it has a hooded front sight instead of the open front sight on the AK47. Spartan198 (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Grammar

"The World Bank estimates that out of the 500 million total firearms available worldwide, 100 million are of the Kalashnikov family, and 75 million of which are AK-47s." should be "The World Bank estimates that out of the 500 million total firearms available worldwide, 100 million are of the Kalashnikov family, 75 million of which are AK-47s." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faceless Enemy (talk • contribs) 21:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Saddam's golden guns

Hmm, searched the article, its complete history, this discussion and its archives, and nothing at all on Saddam's gold-plated AK-47s, Tabuks, and Dragunovs ? Nothing in those corresponding articles either. Weird. Here's a couple of sources: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1810856420070618 and http://www.ak-47.us/Gold_AK47.php --Jerome Potts (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)