Talk:AK-47

WASR-10 Low Quality?

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

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

Attention

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

reorg

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

Active v. passive voice

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

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

To this:

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

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

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

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

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

Overhaul

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

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

use by US forces in Vietnam, Iraq?

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

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

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

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

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

Variants

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

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

You forgot poland, er I mean you forgot the RPK. It isnt linked from this page at all, even though it is basically an AK47 with a longer barrel and a thicker receiver. It takes all the same magazines and parts. --Beerslurpy 4 July 2005 20:42 (UTC)

Number of Units Produced: not consistent

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

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

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

MOA

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

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

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

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

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

-Beerslurpy

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

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

Details Overload

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

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

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

Photo

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

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

Major Rewrite

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

Basketball?

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

Federal Assault Weapon's ban

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

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

Combat Effectiveness

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

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

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

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

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

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

Czech VZ58

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

Relationship to Stg-44

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

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

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

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

Question:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyone to verify technical details and corrent the story?

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

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

Long-Stroke vs. Short-Stroke gas systems.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Operating cycle

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