Talk:AK-47

Cultural Influence

Why is there a Cultural influence heading? What is allowed under it? "AK-47 Sub" is the name of a deli in San Francisco; is that allowed? How about AK-47 in songs, books, films, plays and other cultural creations? Binksternet 22:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think what there going for is things that had a notable impact on the weapon. the ak47 may of had a impact on that sub or movie but the movie nor sub had impact on the gun.(ForeverDEAD 22:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC))

I'm fine with that. Continuing along that line: Does having the gun on the flags of a few countries impact the weapon? How does having a handful of them made into musical instruments affect the weapon? Binksternet 22:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

having the flags? It shows how people have used the weapon because of its greatness or whatever and have been so important to its nations history the put it on their flag. Its quite hard explain for me but think about it anyone can make a movie with the AK47 as a plot of make one into a guitar but to have on on a entire nations flag is extremely notable.(ForeverDEAD 22:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC))

The flags are there because those flags came as a result of the history of those nations, who consider the AK-47 part of their cultural identity, having an effect on them in a real wide way. Lists of movies, games, etc. don't really belong as the ubiquity of the AK-47 has been covered in the article already. The guitar is in their because it was sold and procedes used to promote peace, which I would say is a rather notable effect.--LWF 23:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, those gun-guitars will strike most casual observers as a pro-gun modification, no matter the sword-into-plowshares intent of the artist. At any rate, I don't see why the Cultural influence section can't be a) changed to "AKs on National Flags" with non-flag paragraphs deleted or b) opened up to valid cultural references where the AK-47 is basic to the reference.

In my opinion, allowable cultural references shouldn't be restricted to cases where the cultural reference had an effect on the gun itself. I think it's enough that the gun had an effect on the cultural reference. Binksternet 18:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Binksternet's second paragraph; you guys have got it backwards. The "cultural impact" in question is not the impact of culture on the weapon, it's the impact of the weapon on various cultures. Therefore, the fact that several countries and other groups have the Kalashnikov on their flags is very notable. The gun-guitars are less so, but can still be listed. Parsecboy 19:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Once the decision has been made to include "the impact of the weapon on various cultures" then it follows that movies, songs, books etc. that have the AK-47 as a major plot point should be welcome under "Cultural Influence". Movies, songs, and books are central to culture. Binksternet 19:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Spelling Question

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

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

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

Putting in Sudanese-made AK variant

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

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

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

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

Andrei Kirilenko

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

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

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

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

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

AKM break-off

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Mr. XXX,

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

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

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

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

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

Best regards,

Andrey Baryshnikov

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why no reference to M16?

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

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

Use of the word "gun"

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

Design History

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

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

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

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

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

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

Possible non-neutral point of view

This statement "Mikhail Kalashnikov denies his assault rifle was based on the German StG44 assault rifle despite circumstantial evidence to the contrary." does not seem neutral. I'm not sure how to re-word this, or even if it is accurate. If it is not (or is partially) true, it needs to be more specific. GotPSP (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Fact: Kalashnikov vehemently denies that his rifle was "Based" on the StG44.

Fact: There is significant evidence to the contrary.

Both of these facts are well documented in the references. This is about as curt and non-POV as it can get. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 16:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The grammar of that sentence is really bad, thus making the statement confusing. Is the evidence contradicting the statement that the AK-47 is based on the St44, or is it evidence contradicting Mikhail Kalashnikov's assertions that it was purely original? Intranetusa (talk) 23:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I just deleted the portion that said "despite circumstantial evidence to the contrary." because 1. It is confusing and needs to be reworded 2. The source (link # 7) has nothing regarding the background of the St44 and AK47 - the link instead is a website comparing the Israeli IM Gali to the AK-47. Intranetusa (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

"Circumstantial evidence that Mikhail Kalashnikov based his design on the German StG44 assault rifle despite Kalashnikov's claims to the contrary." could be put in a wholly seperate section (see contraerises, below).71.34.68.186 (talk) 15:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC) A. REDDSON

Re-Direct

Any reason why Kalishnakov Re-directs here? I would assume it would direct to either the man or to a list of AK weapons or at least a separate re-direct page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.208.147 (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right. So, I've changed "Kalishnakov" to redirect to the "Kalashnikov" disambiguation page instead of to this "AK-47" article. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Dust cover for ejection port?

I question this phrasing: "The fire selector acts as a dust cover for the ejection port when placed on safe.".

As far as I can see, the fire selector acts as a dust cover for some opening, but it's not the ejection port, which is situated in front of the fire selector, and is operated by the cocking handle. The opening which the fire selector covers is also way too narrow to eject spent casings.88.131.91.2 (talk) 08:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking that's correct. More broadly any dirt that enters through that opening could conceivably obstruct the ejection port, but I'm not sure that's ever been reported as an issue with this weapon - on the contrary. DMorpheus (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I recall that I added that the safety acts as a dust cover, but I don't recall saying that it is for the ejection port. I thought I said bolt, or something of that nature.--LWF (talk) 01:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The Safety covers the rear portion of the ejection opening or the raceway where the charging handle goes. It obstructs debris from entering through this opening. The rest of the ejection port is obstructed by the bolt carrier. So, yes, the safety acts as a dust cover but the bolt carrier covers the actual ejection path of the opening. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 11:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the charging handle don't move that far back, it stops at the end of the ejection port. If nothing else, it would be a clumsy and potentially dangerous construction if you couldn't cock it while the safety is on. 88.131.91.2 (talk) 12:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong. The Charging handle will only move enough to half-way extract a cargridge so that you can 'press-check' a rifle on safety. The charging handle travels pretty near to the end of the open slot in the receiver cover. Remember, the bolt carrier does not just move back the distance of the extracted case to eject it. In practice, the distance is 2 to 2.5 times the length of a cartridge. The first inch or so just unlocks the bolt, then the bolt overtravels the magazine significantly to allow the mag spring to push the top cartridge into feeding position. Bottom line is what I said, the bolt itself only travels rearward about an inch before the charging handle stops against the Safety. About what else you said, you don't seem to have even a basic understanding about how the firearm operates or its manual of arms to be making those statements. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 13:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Calm down, I might be wrong, I've only seen them operated and held them, I have not used one myself, which is why I qualified my statement with "pretty sure". My original point still stands, though, it's not a cover for the ejection port. 88.131.91.2 (talk) 09:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Calm down? How in the world are you reading anger or agitation into what I say. Sitting back in my easy chair, taping away and trying to make the world a better place.--Nukes4Tots (talk) 13:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

To throw in my additional 2 cents, there are plenty of firearms that will not charge with the safety on, for example, 1911 type pistols. This is not a "clumsy or potentially dangerous construction", it is actually an extra layer of safety; i.e., the weapon cannot chamber a round unless the operator is intent on firing it. Parsecboy (talk) 14:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, and sensible on the shooting range, but in combat, it's nice to have a round chambered and ready as you go in, so you just have to flick the safety and be ready to fire, especially as the AK series have a faily stiff fire selector anyway. The AR rifles have gone that path, it's perfectly possible to cock them on safe. 88.131.91.2 (talk) 09:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to qualify my statement by saying where I've been or what I've done, but since you've not used the firearm, you might not understand the manual of arms. There is no bolt hold-open. You afix a loaded magazine, pull the charging handle to the rear, and release it. This serves first to cock the hammer and then chamber a cartridge. Unless your next step is to fire the rifle, you should put the safety on for two reasons, to keep dirt from getting into the action and to avoid an Accidental or Negligent discharge. At this point, you can confirm that a cartridge is actually in the chamber without any finesse at all, pull the charging handle as far back as it will go... there's the cartridge halfway out of the chamber. You can't easilly do this with the M4 or most other weapons out there. Once the magazine is empty, the manual of arms is the same. Replace the magazine, rack the slide, fire or put the weapon on safe. I habitually check the safety to ensure it's not there (rub the finger on the side of the receiver) until ready to fire. BTW, the Selector wasn't stiff on my rifles. Now, after reading all of this and understanding the advantage of the press-check, how does having the selector where it is HINDER you in any way? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 13:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't this discussion start as a question of what part of the AK-47 that has the safety for a dustcover? The fact of the matter is, it does act as a dustcover, and yes it does prevent the chambering of a round. This isn't supposed to be a forum for discussing whether or not that is a good thing, what we are supposed to be doing is figuring out the exact language to use when informing readers that it acts as a dustcover. Perhaps a clearer way of putting it is to say that it acts as a dustcover for parts of the internal mechanism? Any thoughts?--LWF (talk) 13:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it went off topic, sorry. I also agree with your suggestion for a new wording. 88.131.91.2 (talk) 08:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That seems fine to me as well. Parsecboy (talk) 13:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Number built ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.120.131.231 (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Side by Side comparison of the StG44

Totally copied from this rifle. You can't allow the creator of the Ak47 just lie and say he didn't copy it. It looks like an EXACT copy. A side by side photo along with pointers and arrows should show the similarities. --Ericg33 (talk) 02:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

And what are the similarities if I may ask? Koalorka (talk) 03:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

First, externaly there are numerous important and basic differences. Internally, the two are very dissimilar. What one cannot deny, though, is that the AK-47 concept was borne from experience on the receiving end of the MP43/44/StG44. Though Kalashnikov was a proud man and a braggart, I don't believe he has ever flat-out lied and said that the StG44 did not influenence the design any. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 03:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read this section. It makes it quite clear that the gas system and layout are very similar to that of the StG44, but that the internal workings are not the same.--LWF (talk) 03:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

simple put, he took the mp-44 gas system/layout(and whatelse more), simplified/updated the gun with concepts of other guns. So this is a new design? Hardly, it is more an improvement. Deny or not, the AK-47 is far too similar to the mp-44 to be a "new design". Not counting that the mp-44 came out 1944 in combat, and at this time Kalashnikov weapons were only test or paper ones. If the mp-44 had being further upgraded he would end in the AK-47, not the contrary. Are they identical? Hell no. Did Kalashnikov simple copy the mp-44? Also, NO, he updated it. But, did he created an original design/weapon? NO. - PHWeberbauer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.116.193.221 (talk) 17:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not an improvement of the StG44. An improvement implies that he had an StG44 in front of him, looked at it, decided what parts of the design needed improvement, and redesigned them. That is clearly not the case. A more accurate description of the process would be that he looked at the layout, decided that it was well laid out, and then proceeded to make a rifle of similar layout by using his own knowledge, and borrowing ideas from other designs.--LWF (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The AK-47 was more influenced by Browning and Garand than any others. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

"Illicit Trade" section removed

The single source in this section is an advocacy group with the sole purpose of international arms regulation. If someone can find a more reliable source for the claims in this section please restore it with proper citations. According to WP:V, "Questionable sources include websites and publications that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, are promotional in nature, or express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist or pseudoscience." [emphasis mine] —Memotype::T 22:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you're going out on a limb with this one. --Winged Brick (talk) 14:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

How do you mean? —Memotype::T 14:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to track them down, but there have been hundreds of reports done on AK-47 illicit trade. You should only remove content if it is not verifiable, not if you disagree with the politics of a single source. Put a reference tag on it or, hey, do a search for illegal AK-47. Among other things, you'll come up with a shipment of thousands of Chinese Type 56 AK's meant for the US Black Market. Also look into the arms markets in Somalia, Pakistan, Afganistan, South-American communits rebels, etc. --Winged Brick (talk) 15:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

If the single source has verifiable information, their cite stands. Doesn't matter what their ulterior motive is. Binksternet (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Well... verifiable information would mean secondary sources which agree. To Brick: I didn't say I was taking it down because I disagreed with their policies. As for not wanting to track down the sources, the burden is on you if you want to reinsert the section. Also, finding a single shipment of thousands doesn't mean they are the most traded weapon as the section claimed. —Memotype::T 19:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

IRA use

Changed "Ireland Irish Republican Army" to "United Kingdom Irish Republican Army", as the various forms of IRA (while using the AK-47) were based in the United Kingdom. "Ireland Irish Republican Army" is POV - it states as though it were fact the Feinian opinion that the IRAs that operated in Northern Ireland are legitimate Army of Ireland. CMarshall (talk) 09:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The IRA is the UK and saying otherwise is POV? Okay. I don't think either should be listed. --Winged Brick (talk) 14:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Counterfeit AKs?

Can someone please describe to me how an AK can be "counterfeit"? The AK-47 design is not patented or copyrighted. What distinguishes an "authentic" AK from a "counterfeit"? —Memotype::T 20:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, guess I should RTFA. I see that a patent was applied for in 1999. Still seems a bit strange... oh well. —Memotype::T 20:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I would replace the word counterfeit with "unlicensed copy". Koalorka (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Philippines

Accrding to this website [1] the Philippine National Police (SWAT) in Santiago City does in fact use a number of AK-47 assult rifles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.37.68.65 (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

An internet forum says so huh? Koalorka (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's a sample of the scholarly discourse from this highly regarded website:

Can we even install any optical sights/scopes for these AKs? These weapons are really powerful!

Now these crazy bastard NPAs cannot just hide from the trees and 7" thick walls har har har har... :lol: :afro:

Surely this meets the standards of WP:RS and WP:V. C'mon, Koalorka, you're just picking on this guy. Parsecboy (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed article for AK-47 derivatives

Currently the AK-47 has four different and overlapping locations that could technically be used to list firearms related to its design and principles: AK-47 variants, Category:Kalashnikov derivatives, List of weapons influenced by the Kalashnikov design, and AK-47#Variants. This is highly disorganised and inconsistent, and the distinctions between the four are neither clear nor concise. Furthermore, AK-47 variants does not talk about AK-47 variants, but rather merely touches upon how civilian variants can differ and discusses their background, without much important content. That simply does not fit the title.

I propose that a new article entitled AK-47 family be created, and so as to list and detail all variants and derivatives of the rifle, while the other aforementioned articles (except AK-47#Variants) be abandoned and/or merged into this new article. The firearms could be arranged into table form, to facilitate comparisons of technical details amongst the different iterations of the rifle. To further categorize all the different firearms that would qualify as part of the 'family' of the AK-47, there could be three sections to sort them under:

• Official variants (e.g: AKM, AK-74, AK-101);
• Derivatives (e.g: RK 62, TKB-517, Type 56 assault rifle); and
• Influenced designs (e.g: Daewoo K2, SIG SG 550, SAR 21).

In addition, there can be a 'Related' category for firearms such as the RPD and SKS which are certainly not descendants of the AK-47 but have nonetheless been related to its development.

This will help sort out the mess of categorization currently present with the AK-47 family of weapons. While none of us should have any problem with knowing what to consider an 'Official variant' of the AK-47, I acknowledge that there will be some difficulty in defining and distinguishing a 'Derivative' from an 'Influenced design', however that should not prevent the creation of this article. This problem will have to be solved whether or not this unified article is created. In particular, we could discuss and come to a consensus on defining and distinguishing them, and since both types will be present on the same article, it will be easier to debate and reorganize them should any dispute arise.

In addition, I propose that Category:Kalashnikov derivatives be abandoned and a new category Category:AK-47 family be used to replace it, as a category that can be used on all of the weapons that qualify to be listed in the AK-47 family article.

People might begin draw parallels with the AR-15 variants article. However, AR-15 variants first and foremost only lists official Colt variants on the AR-15 design. That is not what this proposal is about. What I am proposing is that, in addition to the official variants, there should also be the inclusion of related firearms designs beyond those of Izhmash.

Also, with regards to the concern that this article might become a mundane list of minor design revisions like that on AR-15 variants, do remember that there Izhmash has produced relatively few different variants of each model and that this article includes a wide variety of firearms related to one another yet very different, so the article will not be filled out with insignificant model revisions and there will be a large number of significant differences to compare.

I put forward this proposal, as my input on the apparent disorganization related to the subject matter. Any discussion? Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 19:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a unified AK variants article is a good idea. However the categories should be:

• Soviet Variants (AK-47 (Type 1-3), AKM, AKMS, AK-74, AK-74M, AK-101 - AK-106, etc.)
• Other Variants (Warsaw Pact and Others, like PM md. 63, AR-M1, Type 56, M92, RK-62, etc.)
• Derivatives (Anything not distinctly milled AK (AK-47), AKM, 90 degree gas block AK (AK-74), like INSAS, Galil, etc.)
• Other Weapons using Kalashnikov system (generally Kalashnikov system DMRs and SMGs - PSL, M76/77, Tabuk, PM md. 96 RATMIL, PP-19 Bizon, etc.)
• Influenced designs (SIG rifles, AK-107/108, AEK-971/972/973, K2, etc.)

No need to extend the definition to the SAR-21 or TKB-517, nevermind SKS, PKM.

--Ayceman (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

AK47 gas system

The AK47 does use the same gas operation as the STG44 which is a long stroke piston operation but this is insignificant information as many rifles of the time used this system such as the Garand and Bren. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SWAT Pointman (talk • contribs) 03:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Page protection for unrelenting hourly vandalism?

I believe this page should be under some sort of protection or editing limit due to the sheer volume of vandalism that it attracts. Koalorka (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I've requested protection at WP:RPP. — DanMP5 21:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It's been protected from IP's in the past. This isn't the only firearms article that gets such scrutiny. The M16 and M4 articles are also prime targets. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Chechnya

Chechnya is not a country, it is a part of Russia. Since that it must be removed from the list of users (you wouldn't include Texas or a Alabama as independent users of M16, don't you?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.249.78.20 (talk) 09:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. And whatever the local forces used is most likely an AKM of some sort. The Model 49 or AK-47 as it is commonly called was obscenely rare. Koalorka (talk) 13:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleting talk entries by anon IP

why someoncetry to delete discussion ?? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:AK-47&oldid=272644945 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:AK-47&oldid=272545282 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:AK-47&oldid=272544003 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:AK-47&oldid=272539192 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.252.40.64 (talk) 08:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Your talk entries are getting deleted because you have been childishly disruptive and when you try to be serious your English is poorly constructed and hard to understand. Even this most recent question of yours should have been written as "Why did someone try to delete my discussion entries?" If your English skills are not up to writing questions, answers and statements, why do you think you can edit an English encyclopedia? You don't sign your talk entries with four tildes and you are making a mess of orderly discussion threads. Your IP address appears to be dynamically assigned and you haven't yet chosen a user name so we can keep track. I don't think you are ready to help make the AK-47 article better. Binksternet (talk) 10:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

User:DanMP5 seems to think he's seen you before at another firearms page. Are you the Vietnamese editor known as User:Huyphuc1981 nb? If so, please log in, observe and respect talk page formatting, and sign your talk entries. A calm discussion, one point at a time, will help people here understand your concern. Binksternet (talk) 10:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Chrome lining & primer chemistry

I have edited the article regarding the purpose of chrome lining versus corrosive priming mixtures. The article formerly stated that the corrosive effect of 20th century military primers was due to "mercuric salts". Mercuric residues are indeed hard on brass, causing embrittlement and can reduce the life of cases used in reloading. However, the primary cause of rusted barrels, gas systems & etc. is the Potassium chlorate used in such mixes. When fired this is converted to Potassium chloride which is somewhat hygroscopic and fairly corrosive in combination with water- (think salt water in contct with steel...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.188.117 (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Most produced AK variant?

Which AK rifle variant was the most produced? I'm a little confused, because the article says that the AK-47 1948-51 7.62x39mm is the rarest but doesn't specify which is the most common AK variant. --68.173.155.76 (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

AKM is the most produced variant. That's even before counting the dozens of licensed and unlicensed copies of the AKM. True "AK-47" rifles are, indeed, rare. Try not to get caught up in the nomenclature and different variations. This is a product that has been improved and modified continuously since its inception. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

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: [2].

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