Talk:AK-47/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

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)

I don't understand the licensing section. How can one aquire a patent in 1999 on something made public in 1947 and widely produced all over the world since 60-th? The patent duration is just 20 years, and one has to show novelty.

I performed search, and found the patent this section probably refers to http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?wo=1999005467&IA=IB1997001597&DISPLAY=DESC

Is references AK-47 and AKM as known prior art, and the only claim is an improvement of old design. So they might have patent on some later modification (maybe AK-100 series?), but not AK-47 or AK-74. The title of the patent "Automatic weapon, Kalashnikov Assault Rifle" makes it sound like they patented any AK, but it is pure FUD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mentin (talk • contribs) 20:14, 4 May 2009 (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)

Lord of War quote

I don't think it belongs in here. It's pretty, but it's not really a valid source. Faceless Enemy (talk) 17:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• IMDB is used as a ref on Wikipedia all the time.WaxonWaxov (talk) 12:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

And IMDB, being a movie/television database, counts as a source of information on firearms how? Spartan198 (talk) 04:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Silencer

Can the AK-47 be silenced? BleedingEffect (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes.

Flag of Mozambique

{{editsemiprotect}} Please replace "Flag of Mozambique" with "Flag of Mozambique". 219.111.119.62 (talk) 06:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

A secondary source for the Kalishnakov in popular culture

I just stumbled over this article: William J. Dewey, "AK-47S for the Ancestors," Journal of Religion in Africa, vol. 24, Fasc. 4 (Nov., 1994), pp. 358-374. I haven't done more than to glance over it & notice a photo of a ceremonial knife in the shape of an AK-47, & notice an interesting sentence or two. If anyone would be interested in evaluating & merging the material in this article, I'd be happy to share a copy of it. -- llywrch (talk) 05:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Name of article

There is no such a weapon as AK-47, never was. Article should be called AK\AKM. AK-47 is just a popular nickname. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.17.191.66 (talk) 06:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

You are right. But it would be to difficult to rename the article, because it is more popular name (despite the fact it is incorrect), and even very small amount of weapon fans know that (I think). Zaqq (talk) 15:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Article is named correctly. We use the most common name in English.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

So what? There were no such rifles like post-1947 "AK-47" or "AKS-47". It is wrong to write about AKS-47, when there was no such rifle. It would be correctly to add some information about it's "common (incorrect) name" and to name this rifle as AK in article. Zaqq (talk) 12:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. If there is a misconception, Wikipedia's responsibility as a dictionary is to dispel it. The mistake even creeps back to Russia through American video games. AK-47 was a prototype name, AK the official production name.

I think the call for "common English name" is biased, because editors would not let people refer to the military-issued M16 rifle as XM16 or AR-15.46.73.23.219 (talk) 12:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Mistake

Guys there is no such gun AK-47, there is AK, AKM, AK-74. AK-47 is incorrect. Read russian wikipedia if you dont know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.234.173.32 (talk) 11:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

There was an AK-47. 1947 prototype. An yes, correct name is AK. But such rifle as "AKS-47" never existed! Zaqq (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Article is named correctly. We use the most common name in English.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean, most common incorrect name? AK 47 was a prototype, but rifle that we all talk about is AK, and it looks different then prototype AK-47. Also on main pircture is not AK-47, it is two different rifles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.234.173.32 (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The name of the article is the name of the weapon in English. Did you read the link I provided? WP:UCN
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Unregistered user is right. There are no AK-47 images in that article. It is like to name article about magazine under the name "clip", because it is more common (even gun owners can call magazine that way). Zaqq (talk) 15:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

'Metre' vs 'Meter'

I was doing a small edit on an unrelated matter, and I noticed that both the British/Canadian/Australian spelling 'metre' and the US spelling 'meter' are both used intermixed throughout the article. To avoid settling on any region-specific spelling, would it probably be better to just abbreviate them all?--L1A1 FAL (talk) 20:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Add an information about REAL name of this weapon

AK-47 is an incorrect name. It is a common name used only in English language. It was never known as an AK-47 in Soviet Union. AK-47 is a name of 1947 prototype. Here is an AK-47 in Moscow Military Museum. It was officially adopted as an AK (7,62-мм автомат Калашникова (АК)). Folding stock variant is called AKS. Yes, there was an AK-47, but "AKS-47" is fictional weapon. You can leave article's name, but add an information about real name of this weapon. Wikipedia must contain true information.

Proof:

• AK manual (1952)
• AK manual (1957)
• AK manual (1967)
• AK repair manual (1958) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaqq (talk • contribs) 09:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

To quote Berean Hunter: "We use the most common name in English." Not saying you are wrong, but it doesn't matter if it was called the "M16" in the USSR - the most common name in English is "AK-47" whether formally correct or not.

If you want to add a notation about the formal Soviet designation I have no opposition to that, so long as it is just a mention in the lead, and you do not re-label the whole article--L1A1 FAL (talk) 05:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

My English is not very good, so it would be better if someone else add that information. Add a notation in article's entry. No need to change its name in entire article, well-defined notation is enough. Zaqq (talk) 12:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

If I don't see anyone post opposition to that over the next few days on this talk page, then I'll add a note in the lead.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 15:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

What more needs to be added? This is from the first paragraph in the lead: "It is officially known as Avtomat Kalashnikova (Автомат Калашникова). It is also known as a Kalashnikov, an "AK", or, in Russian slang, Kalash.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, that should settle it then. I pay more attention to changes in articles, so I didn't even take notice that it was there. I assumed since User:Zaqq was still bringing it up that there was no mention of it at all.

On a side note though I kinda concur with him about the 'AKS-47' thing. I for one can't say I notice that used very often at all, I usually just see 'AKS' in reference to under-folding AK-47s. Maybe I just tune that out elsewhere when I notice it though.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I've tweaked some of the occurrences of "AKS-47" & changed them to just "AKS", but I left some of them when they indicated mod versions. If you know how to reconcile this, please do.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 18:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I think those changes are a fair compromise--L1A1 FAL (talk) 19:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It is officially known as Avtomat Kalashnikova (Автомат Калашникова). That's not full official naming. Writing incomplete official name is kinda wrong. As I said it should be well-defined notation. Also good idea would be to write that AK-47 is a common (and incorrect) name too. Zaqq (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

We're not concerned with official naming conventions. The english publication from FN Herstal gives the official name of that weapon as FN Light Automatic Rifle, calibre 7.62 mm NATO ...but to everyone else it is simply a FAL. Australia's official name for an L1A1 is The Self-Loading Rifle, 7.62 mm L1A1 (from the Manual of Land Warfare: Part Two Volume 4 Pamphlet #5, 1983) or alternatively, SAF Lithgow's official documentation for the Department of Defence calls it The Rifle Equipment, 7.62 mm L1 A1. These technical monikers aren't daily use common names.

Do you have a reliable source which states that the name AK-47 is wrong?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 18:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Cool, my username is an example! Anyway, I think I finally get what Zaqq wants: currently, it says "Avtomat Kalashnikova (Автомат Калашникова)" but I think he specifically wants "AK (7,62-мм автомат Калашникова (АК))" instead. Provided I understand this right now, I think that its kinda splitting hairs, but I can see his point. If he adds only that in the lead (only replacing the current Russian name there), I wouldn't revert it, though I might tag it CN. As for stating 'AK-47' as wrong, yes, there should be a cited source.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 19:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Cited sources? M. Popenker for example. Official manuals are not cited sources?

FN Light Automatic Rifle, calibre 7.62 mm NATO ...but to everyone else it is simply a FAL

That's why official designation of AK is 7,62-мм автомат Калашникова (АК). Calling it AK is correct too. Avtomat Kalashnikova (автомат Калашникова) is correct name for 1949 AK and for any other AK (AKM, AK103, etc). And of course AK-47 is a correct name only for 1947 prototype. Zaqq (talk) 11:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, since this is the English version of wikipedia, AK-47 is the correct name. Like others have said, we should make mention of what it is called by the people who make it, but 'AK-47' is the correct name in English. This is according to wikipedia policy. Ashmoo (talk) 13:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Calling it AK-47 creates misunderstood, because you call AK AK-47 in English, when there are already an AK-47 (1947 prototype). It's like calling FN FAL... M16A4. I ask you to add a notation about real and correct, not to change AK-47 to AK in article. Write about "'AK-47' is the correct name in English" and about correct name not in English to let people know the true designation/name. Zaqq (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, can we please just end this already? There is no solid source for it being incorrect, but that isn't to say that it isnt incorrect. Let's just stick with having the formal Russian name included. A picture of a manual cover is a dubious source, btw. A PDF of a complete operational manual with proper information for a citation would be better. As far as I am concerned, world.guns.ru is a shaky source too - I have noticed errors in the past on there (although most may have just been spelling/grammar errors). And the FAL-M16A4 comparison is a big stretch.

MY VOTE: I suggest we specifically add (or change the current Russian designation there to) "7,62-мм автомат Калашникова (АК)" or whatever the hell it is (obviously leaving all other references to the term "AK-47" alone), and just close this already. there is no actual source for "AK-47" being wrong, so, I don't think anything should be done regarding that at this time.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 20:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

"A PDF of a complete operational manual with proper information for a citation would be better"

I have every manual which screenshots I posted before.

"I have noticed errors in the past on there (although most may have just been spelling/grammar errors)."

Maxim Popenker is very skilled in firearms. But his spelling is not so good and he is the only guy who works on his website I think (so no one can correct his grammar).

"there is no actual source for "AK-47" being wrong"

Because there only sources that say it is called AK, not "AK-47".

"I suggest we specifically add..."

It needs well-defined notation.

Zaqq (talk) 21:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is the link to those manuals (sorry, couldn't find my 1952 manual): link (DJVU) Zaqq (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

"I have every manual which screenshots I posted before."

do you have the entire manual or just the cover (in addition to the links you posted earlier)

"Maxim Popenker is very skilled in firearms. But his spelling is not so good and he is the only guy who works on his website I think (so no one can correct his grammar)."

As I said it was usually spelling/grammar issues if I remember (I haven't visited the site in some time), although being Russian, it may not be a fair comparison to note grammar issues. Genarally speaking though if I see a source that has a lot of spelling/grammar mistakes, it does lead me to think that if they don't bother with writing correctly, why would they bother with accurate research. Again though, in the case of a Russian website, that might not be a fair way to analyze it. I sure can't say I'm fluent in another language.

"Because there only sources that say it is called AK, not "AK-47"."

They cite the use of the name "AK". Unless there is a line that explicitly includes a disclaimer like "the term 'AK-47' is a propaganda term made up by the American media complex machine and use of said term shall be punishable by a slow painful death" or whatever than it is not actually proof that it is incorrect, just that it is not the official designation by the Soviet/Russian military. Technically speaking, just because it isn't official does not make it wrong. Comparable to AR-15 vs M16. Whereas AR-15 is the original commercial (not military) designation, many civilians not particularly knowledgeable on firearms upon seeing someone shooting an AR-15 rifle at a shooting range would call it an M16, which is technically only correct if it is a weapon in US military service, or weapons explicitly marked as such, but an M16 is still essentially an AR-15 anyway.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 21:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

"do you have the entire manual or just the cover (in addition to the links you posted earlier)"

I posted a link before to 4 manuals.

"They cite the use of the name "AK"."

They cite that prototypes were named AK-46 and AK-47, and final 1949 version is called AK. English page about AK on English version of Popenker's site is called "Modern Firearms - AK-47 AKM", Russian version page is called "Современное стрелковое оружие мира - AK АКМ." Interesting fact.

"many civilians not particularly knowledgeable on firearms upon seeing someone shooting an AR-15"

We are not talking about civilians poorly versed in firearms. Such civilians usually call every weapon that resembles AK as AK-47 (AK74, AK105, Galil, AN94, etc).

I didn't find any cited source that it is incorrect. Because English sources say that is called AK-47, Russian sources say it is called AK.

How will you call this rifle: 1, 2? It is 1947 prototype, true AK-47. Here is second model of AK-47 (note the receiver, grip). 1949-1951 AK (note new charging handle), post-1949 AK (note new receiver, grip, magazine). Zaqq (talk) 11:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Just write about real Russian name and leave this article alone. I understand that AK-47 is common English name. Only thing that I don't like is a misunderstanding before 1947 and 1949 versions. Zaqq (talk) 11:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

"We are not talking about civilians poorly versed in firearms. Such civilians usually call every weapon that resembles AK as AK-47 (AK74, AK105, Galil, AN94, etc)."

You just kinda proved my point. Most civilians could give a rats behind about proper formal names for whatever gun.

"I posted a link before to 4 manuals."

"A) I didn't see that before I posted, and when I tried to I got an edit conflict. So, I had to re-add my comment and B) I did examine the link, and its actually a download torrent for said manuals

"::How will you call this rifle: 1, 2? It is 1947 prototype, true AK-47. Here is second model of AK-47 (note the receiver, grip). 1949-1951 AK (note new charging handle), post-1949 AK (note new receiver, grip, magazine)."

Those are all just images. None of them are labeled, in Russian or in English.

"::I didn't find any cited source that it is incorrect. Because English sources say that is called AK-47, Russian sources say it is called AK."

That pretty much closes the discussion then. Unless you can find a source that EXPLICITLY says the name "AK-47" should be declared incorrect here, then continuing this discussion is an exercise in futility.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Can you at least write about Russian designation? I can do it myself, but I want your agreement.

"and its actually a download torrent for said manuals" ??? It's just click & download link. Zaqq (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Removed File:Albanian soldier with AK47.jpg

user:Albaniantrojan has requested this photo be removed, as the person pictured has recently died. The photo is not necessary to the article, and is easily replaced (I would argue that no photo is needed in that section, but I digress). To user:Barek and User:Daniel J. Leivick: please read wikipedia:vandalism, and refrain from calling edits vandalism that are not. Buddy431 (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Albaniantrojan replaced the image with an animated gif (now deleted) of a hand giving the middle finger. Regardless of his reasoning this is vandalism. --Daniel 18:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I've already replied on my user talk page - essentially restating what Daniel stated above that the overall pattern of behavior was clearly vandalism. In addition, please be aware that Wikipedia is not censored - so the reason given for removal is not a factor. That said, the newly substituted image is a reasonable replacement - and arguably a better image of the rifle itself being utilized, so I have no issues with the new image being used. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The overall pattern was not clearly vandalism - it was clearly a new editor who was frustrated with his changes being continuously reverted. The one edit with the offensive image was vandalism, and I apologize for calling out the reverters' characterizations of it as such. Buddy431 (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Avtomat Fedorov

The MP44 is mentioned at least a couple of times in the article but the earlier Russian Avtomat Fedorov doesn't recieve a mention. I wonder how much this plays a role in the Ak's development, since Fedorov himself ended up in charge of Soviet small arms design. The Mp-44 saw much more widespread use but the Fedorov predates it by a couple of decades and was used consistently almost until the point the Ak was introduced.--Senor Freebie (talk) 09:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Not an accurate weapon

I think the horrible inaccuracy of the AK-47 should be elaborated upon. The article mentions loose tolerances, but the main reason the AK-47 was inaccurate was that the bolt was off-center so that every time you fired the rifle the barrel would wobble. The weapon was designed as a "spray and shoot" weapon; as a sniper rifle it would be worthless. Anybody an expert on this aspect of the AK-47 out there that could elaborate on this? Why was the bolt designed off-center? I should point out that while the USA sustained 58,000 soldiers dead in the Vietnam War, there were 1.1 million North Vietnamese that were killed. Accuracy counts, (airpower aside). 63.192.100.101 (talk) 12:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Even taking away armor, artillery, airpower, ect. The Vietnamese Army and Viet Cong in particular were far more accurate than the United States. The number of rounds of ammunition spent for each Vietnamese casualty is an exceedingly high number. 69.204.25.225 (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think you're dead wrong. The AK can be plenty accurate. I don't know where you got the stuff about the bolt being off-center from, but I've never seen it in the AKs I've taken apart. A significant proportion of the AK's reputation for inaccuracy is the fact that its user base isn't exactly the cream of the crop when it comes to accuracy. See http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/02/the-weakness-of-taliban-marksmanship/ and http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/afghan-marksmen-forget-the-fables/. Also see Comparison_of_the_AK-47_and_M16#Ammunition. The AK is at the low end of accuracy among service rifles, but it's not horrendous. 6 MOA is only "horrendous" if you're talking about sniper rifles or other accuracy-oriented classes of weapon. Faceless Enemy (talk) 22:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

In what sense off-centre? The modifications in the AKM series, particularly the muzzle modifaction, suggest that inaccuracy problems were caused by the weapon kicking upwards. I have to admit I've never fired one, but have stripped and reassembled a Type 3 and an AKM and didn't notice the feature you mention. Slightlymuddy (talk) 13:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

"Accuracy" is a relative, not an absolute term. Even with the same rifle model, accuracy will vary depending on manufacturer, manufacturing tools & tolerances, materials used, weapon age, maintenance, environment, ammunition, operator etc. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Numbers of AKs

The previous citation for AK numbers from a World Bank report itself cited the Small Arms Survey Report I have now added as a reference. However it is interesting that the SAS themselves cite no authoritative source for their assertion ;-). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slightlymuddy (talk • contribs) 17:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Binksternet - I don't understand why you keep reinserting the sentence about the World Bank into the Illicit trade section. As the above points out, the report you are citing refers to the Small Arms Survey Annual Report of 2004 as its source, so including it is redundant. Slightlymuddy (talk) 13:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I see now. Binksternet (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is the Title AK-47??

The Russian army never used this designation. The correct title should be "AK" without any number.

Google translate the Russian Wikipedia, they mention on the beginning that "AK-47" is incorrect. (the only gun that can properly be called AK-47 is the prototype which is slightly different from the gun adopted in 1949)

Shouldn't the English Wikipedia specify that although widely used "AK-47" is not correct?

Also the part on how the gun was designed contains some errors and is not complete.

An example: The AK-1 and AK-2 are two variants of the same prototype (AK-46) the first one using a milled and the second one a stamped receiver.

Also, Zaytsev managed to convince Kalashnikov to radically change the design because it almost didn't make it to the second round of the competition.

Unlike what the article mentions the gun performed worse than its competitors. (Who would throw to trash a winning design anyway?)

The AK-47 is the prototype that was created after that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.128.146.75 (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

AK-47 is the commonly used name in English. Per WP:COMMONNAME, we use that name even though it is not official. Binksternet (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Commonly used by idiots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.195.86.245 (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

This ha been discussed before(Talk:AK-47/Archive_6#Add_an_information_about_REAL_name_of_this_weapon) and calling people who use the term "AK-47" to refer to the weapon, as "idiots" is not helping your case.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link L1A1.

«To quote Berean Hunter: "We use the most common name in English." Not saying you are wrong, but it doesn't matter if it was called the "M16" in the USSR - the most common name in English is "AK-47" whether formally correct or not.»

Bullshit. Russian idiots calls it «AK-47» too. You want a proof? Just type «автомат ак-47» in Google. So, «it's common name in English because my illiterate friends, illiterate game developers and illiterate me calls it "AK-47"» is not an argument. It's like calling a firearm magazine a «clip».

I must specify that I have nothing in common with the guy from the third message

I still find that the article isn't precise enough, it states that the official name is AK but does not say that some people find the name "AK-47" incorrect. I'll ad something to that sentence.

The second point of my argument still stands, the AK-46 did not perform any better than its opponents. Here's a Google-translate of the russian version of Wikipedia:

According to the results of the second round of the competition first Kalashnikov assault rifle was found unfit for further mining. However, Kalashnikov was able to challenge this decision, achieving permission for further fine-tuning of the sample, in which he was acquainted with some help of the committee members with whom he had served together since 1943, and was allowed to refine the machine. For this purpose, he returned to the Carpet, which is probably using his connections to the study of arms of competitors in the competition, together with the designer Kovrov plant number 2 A. Zaitsev in the shortest time actually worked out a new machine, and for a variety of symptoms can be concluded that in his designs are widely used elements (including a device node key), borrowed from others submitted for the contest or just a pre-existing models.

This should be corrected. --109.128.205.21 (talk) 11:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The manufacture (Izhmash) calls it the “AK-47”…see the following reference from the Izhmash catalog[2]…If the manufacture calls it the “AK-47” on their English language page, then that is what we should call it on our English language page. --71.22.156.40 (talk) 16:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

201,000 hits on Google Books for "AK-47", including a number of books under this name specifically dedicated to the subject... Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Photo bias

Why the bias towards photos showing the US military handling this weapon when they are not even a user? Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm no expert on image use on Wiki, but there are a lot of American editors on here, and images of US military personnel are usually considered US government works (and therefore in the public domain as far as I am aware). I think foreign images are sometimes a little more difficult to determine the licensing stuff for. Hope I helped a little.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect weight

For some reason, the weight is incorrect again. As said in earlier discussion, empty weight of AK-47 is about 3.8kg. AK magazine is heavy, but there is no way that full magazine weights over 1.4 kilograms. --213.216.208.242 (talk) 08:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed; Modern Firearms gives its unloaded weight with magazine is 4.3 kg. I trust Modern Firearms over some dude on Future Weapons. According to my back of the envelope calculations, 30 rounds of 7.62x39 should be about 0.53 kilos. That's a total weight of 4.8 kilos, not 5.2. I'm going to change it for now, though to the unloaded weight (as given in the source) rather than my calculated weight.Faceless Enemy (talk) 21:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Derivative?

Any thoughts on what this is - it doesn't appear to be any of the derivatives that are listed in the template on the page.Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• It looks like a South African R6 to me. Faceless Enemy (talk) 23:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Changing AK-47 to AK

AK-47 is incorrect. The rifle is called "AK", thus every modification is called "AKM", "AKSU", "AK-74" etc. 47 is a second prototype after "46". The first official AK was significantly different from so called "AK-47". Read russian page about AK and you'll get the point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Letheflow (talk • contribs) 13:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you the same person who keeps bringing up this issue about every six months or so? If not, this has been discussed here and here before. Sorry if I come across a bit rough, but this issue is getting really old, and frankly, does really not need to be discussed again. --L1A1 FAL (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

use for "psycho" killings

should there be a section considering or listing the malign use instances of this weapon or the debate around access to it  ? as per latest USA pres candidate debate--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 02:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

typical small arms firefight range

"based upon research that showed that most firefights happen within 400 meters and that contemporary rifles were over-powered for most small arms combat"

That seems to be a typo - it's been 30 years now I served in the Army, but 400m (approx. 1300ft) seems rather far-fetched (pun intended). About 150-200 m (approx. 490-650ft) seems realistic as - long-range - firefight with assault rifles. We where never trained for distances more than 300m (approx. 980ft), anyway (on a Heckler&Koch G3).77.180.46.106 (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The wording in the article seems to agree with what you're saying. It says within 400 meters, which means 400 or less. -- Fyrefly (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

AK 47 is in call of duty

i think you should add that it is a gun in the call of duty games — Preceding unsigned comment added by 01infamous10 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

No. This article is about a real world weapon. Its appearances in fiction, though incredibly numerous, have had such a tiny impact, compared to its vast real world influences, so much so, that it hardly bares mentioning at all, let alone a single appearance in a shoot 'em up video game. --Daniel 17:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It was featured in Call of Duty 4 Modern Warfare (a Type I with AKM top cover) , Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 (actually an AK-103), Call of Duty Black Ops (actually a 5.45x39mm M74 variant) , Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3 (actually an AK-103), Call of Duty Black Ops II (the same 5.45x39mm M74 variant as BO1) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.51.57.78 (talk) 19:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Ballistics Overstatement

After reviewing this article's archives to see if it has been discussed before, i'd like to ask if anyone else thinks that the "Ballistics" section is over-reaching here when it says:

The 7.62×39mm cartridge produces significant wounding effects if the projectile tumbles in tissue;[49] but it produces relatively minor wounds when the projectile exits the body before beginning to yaw.[50][51].

This is true of most, if not all, full-metal-jacket bullets, and is irrelevant to the gun they are shot from (granted the barrel length may play a part). This is an article about the gun, not the performance of a particular bullet that is commonly shot through it. Also, reference 50 (Roberts GK, (21 May 2008) DTIC.mil "U.S. Military Small Arms Ammunition Failures and Solutions" NDIA Dallas, Texas) is an opinion power-point presented at a conference. I am not asking to debate the effectiveness of 7.62×39, just the appropriateness of the last two sentences of the ballistics section. The merits of the 7.62×39 can be best presented on the 7.62×39 page. I think the ballistics section should read:

The standard AK series of assualt rifles fires the 7.62×39mm cartridge with a muzzle velocity of 715 m/s.[7][48] Projectile weight is normally 8 g (123 grains). The battle range for this combination is around 350 metres (1,150 ft).[8]

That is all. Those facts are relevant to the AK. The performance of the common FMJ bullets fired from it are not. Any thoughts? BeadleB (talk) 06:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the ballistics should be discussed only in relation to how the AK-47 itself might affect the bullet flight or wounding pattern. Which is to say, not so much. Binksternet (talk) 14:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

For as brief as the original is, I don't think it's out of place to make a mention of the round's characteristics. It could give the impression that it's unique to the rifle, but I think the original's worded to avoid that sufficiently. Shadowjams (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

History/Design

"The Germans were the first to pioneer the assault rifle concept, during World War II..."

This is VASTLY incorrect. First, the .30 Carbine employed by US forces was the first fielded model purposely built under the then nebulous concept of a light rifle (though it would not end up being fielded with select fire until two years after entering service for reasons noted in its own article) and there are even earlier examples of the assault rifle concept cited on the very page linked to in the above statement. This opening line should be changed to reflect that development on the assault rifle concept began in several countries in early 40s, of which the United States and Germany were the first to field them. 98.197.11.102 (talk) 22:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC) anon

The Germans were the first to widely embrace the concept. There were a few curiosities like the Fedorov Avtomat, but the Wehrmacht really took the concept and ran with it. As for the M1 carbine, I disagree for a number of reasons.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 03:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

+1 to this; the M1 Carbine was a carbine, not an assault rifle. And .30 Carbine is a souped-up pistol cartridge, not a cut-down rifle cartridge. Faceless Enemy (talk) 14:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

That's like saying a McIntosh is an apple, not a fruit. Most assault rifles are carbines, including the AK-47 and the StG 44. Also, "cut-down rifle cartridge" and "souped-up pistol cartridge" are irrelevant terms. The .30 Carbine is an intermediate cartridge, which is all that matters with regard to the definition of an assault rifle. Additionally, the .30 Carbine is not a "souped-up pistol cartridge" in the first place; it is a rimless version of the .32 SL, which is a rifle cartridge. Not all rifle cartridges have bottleneck cases (e.g., .45-70 Government), and not all pistol cartridges have straight wall cases (e.g., .30 Luger). The only thing that prevents the M1 Carbine from being an assault rifle is that it is not selective-fire (though it was originally intended to be, which means they had the full concept of an assault rifle in mind while developing the M1 Carbine in the late '30s / early '40s). The M2 Carbine (selective-fire version of the M1 Carbine) was most certainly an assault rifle, by definition. – MaximRecoil (talk) 09:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

This comment added by 89.189.191.5 (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC) has been removed for civility violation--71.22.156.40 (talk) 05:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I thought the AVF-16 was first? Also known as Federov Avtomat. 74.51.57.78 (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

First paragraph

I'm leaving a forewarning note here that I'm going to rework the first paragraph. My reason for doing that isn't as much addressing the mildly controversial issue as to which was the first assault rifle (in service). I could replace the Russian sources cited there with quite a few ones in English (and by Western authors) that say practically the same thing; I've done that in the Fedorov Avtomat itself. (And probably someone could dig up references saying that the StG 44 was far more significant because it was built in numbers two orders of magnitude greater; obviously Americans did not care much about the Fedorov avtomat, but were sufficiently impressed by the Sturmgewehr to name the entire class of weapons from that.) What I think the first paragraph in this article's history section should focus on is explaining the origin of the word/concept 'avtomat' in Russian usage. So I'm going to rewrite it from that angle, which has the side benefit that will probably be less controversial and so less liable to attract edit warring. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

production

ive heard that in bulgaria were made one of the best ak's i dont know about other countries i you could add somethink about that or another section for the table — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.11.150.184 (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

factual accuracy is disputed

The following discussion can be found on Materialscientist talk page.--RAF910 (talk) 02:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

How would you like me to proceed?

It appears that I was mistaken about the foreign language references. Wiki only request that a translation be provided when challenged.

However, that said... I reverted an edit by a user who promptly added a "factual accuracy is disputed" and a "primarily may relate to a different subject, or to only one aspect rather than the subject as a whole" tags to his own edit and justified it by stating "This section has serious problems; the Russian sources are being twisted a fair bit. I'll fix it at some point; compare with the current version of Fedorov Avtomat, which uses the same sources." to his "Edit summary"

Also, the same edit reverted many English language references that say something completely different. Including an interview with Mikhail Kalashnikov (the man who designed the AK-47) who clearly stated that he designed the AK-47 to counter the overwhelming firepower that the Germans brought to bear during WW2.

None of the English language references said a word about the Fedorov Avtomat. Even the the Fedorov Avtomat page that said user referred to does not definitely confirm the rifles claim to be an assault rifle much less the first assault rifle. It appears to be a point contention among firearms experts. "Jane's" and "Small Arms of the World" (the worlds foremost firearm encyclopedias) call it an "early predecessor or ancestor to the modern assault rifle." While some gun writers disagree or call it "prototype assault rifle" or "the father of all subsequent military assault rifles"

No matter the case, none of the references used say that the Fedorov Avtomat had anything to do with the development of the AK-47. It was just a rifle that the Russians deployed in the final months of WW1, they only made ~3000 before the 1930s and more or less abandoned before WW2 started. It would be like saying that the Browning BAR was the Grandfather of the M16; when the only things they have in common is that they are both automatic rifles and they were both used by the U.S. Military.

I am now at a lost...if I make any attempt to edit this page again I could be blocked.

Please, respond to this request and tell me how to proceed.--RAF910 (talk) 00:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

You are surely welcome to edit that page, and indeed, many issues there are a matter of opinion (like whether the Fedorov Avtomat was related to the AK). I only objected blanket removal of foreign sources, especially in a foreign-topic article (Google translate provides a comprehensible summary), though replacing off-line sources with on-line sources is welcome. Materialscientist (talk) 00:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

WOW...that was fast!

My point is that the foreign sources "factual accuracy is disputed" even by the editor who inserted them. While no one has questioned the validity of the English language sources, they were simply removed without explanation.

My question is, If I were to revert your edit on the grounds that the "factual accuracy is disputed" even by the user who inserted them would you be O.K. with you, and could I be BLOCKED by another user?--RAF910 (talk) 00:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

You can redo your edits, reverting mine, and you won't get blocked. All I ask is not to remove foreign sources only because they are not written in English (an abstract example, izmash pages are likely reliable and not biased). Here, you stripped references from some facts, leaving them unsourced. Materialscientist (talk) 00:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Before I revert your edit and just for the record...I'm the one trying to re-add the Izhmash references it was the other editor that removed them.--RAF910 (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

O.K. I'm about to make my edit...I'm also adding the following quote from an Associated Press interview with Kalashnikov himself...

"It was before he started designing the gun that he slept badly, worried about the superior weapons that Nazi soldiers were using with grisly effectiveness against the Red Army in World War II. He saw them at close range himself, while fighting on the front lines. While hospitalized with wounds after a Nazi shell hit his tank in the 1941 battle of Bryansk, Kalashnikov decided to design an automatic rifle combining the best features of the American M1 and the German StG44. "Blame the Nazi Germans for making me become a gun designer," said Kalashnikov, frail but sharp at age 87. "I always wanted to construct agriculture machinery.".....AK-47 Inventor Doesn't Lose Sleep Over Havoc Wrought With His Invention. Published July 06, 2007. Associated Press

I hope this meets with your satisfaction.--RAF910 (talk) 02:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

As promised above, I've rewritten the first two paragraphs in way that is more balanced and explanatory rather than engage in cheap boosterism, I hope. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Bulkin

According to [3], Bulkin who was also a young designer, mysteriously disappeared in 1948. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Fedorov again

I had to revert this again. Rottman etc. clearly make the connection between the power of the cartridge and their choice to classify the Fedorov Avtomat as an assault rifle. Replacing the info about the power of the cartridge with something about its availability (and cited from a different source), although still factually true, violates WP:SYNT and clearly misleads. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

image of AK-74 & RPK-74 used in this article

A disagreement has occurred over the appearance of this image. Editors of this article are welcome to comment here or over at Commons. – JBarta (talk) 00:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Flag

I feel that the fact that the AK-47 is on the Flag of Mozambique needs to be mentioned more prominently, in the lead or shortly thereafter. Any objections? Abductive (reasoning) 18:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

• I disagree. It's mere trivia, and doesn't merit more than a short mention. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 18:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no such thing as AK-47!

Title. The gun is "AK" or Automat Kalashnikova. No "-47". Look at Russian article. However, AK-74 is correct naming. 93.129.8.114 (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC) This comment "More recently they have been seen in the hands of Islamic groups such as the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Iraq." is non-factual and is simply pure conjecture and nothing more. If we the people have to prove what we write here, so does wikipedia reps and others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.82.83.2 (talk) 22:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Remove problem sentence

I recommend that we remove the last sentence from the first paragraph (please see below in bold)...This sentence is not necessarily and is the source of repeated edit reverts. Specifically, editors are changing "AK-74" to "AK-47"

The AK-47 is a selective-fire, gas-operated 7.62×39mm assault rifle, first developed in the Soviet Union by Mikhail Kalashnikov. It is officially known in the Soviet documentation as Avtomat Kalashnikova (Russian: Автомат Калашникова). It is also known as Kalashnikov, AK, or in Russian slang, Kalash. No number was present in the Soviet military nomenclature for Kalashnikov's assault rifles until the adoption of the AK-74........--RAF910 (talk) 00:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, definitely should be removed.--Dmol (talk) 02:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The information within the sentence is encyclopedic. It's also part of the reason why I tried to go in more detail with my first version.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AK-47&oldid=613144916

People just don't believe that AK can go without 47 in the russian nomenclature.

I'd suggest to add a small section in the "history" part of the article if this is too long for the headline.--83.21.165.27 (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Also look at the last two discussion topics. If we state clearly that the russians never used "AK-47", I think we get closer to a consensus and avoid people who do multiple edits claiming "there ain't no AK-47 thingy".--83.21.165.27 (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

You are confusing two different issues.

The first issue, is renaming the article to Avtomat Kalashnikova because some editors believe there is no such thing as an AK-47. Despite the fact that this is the English language page...despite the fact that Wiki common name policy applies...and despite the fact that the manufacture itself calls the gun AK-47 (see http://www.izhmash.ru/eng/product/akm.shtml).

The second issue, the second and third sentences in this article clearly states "It is officially known in the Soviet documentation as Avtomat Kalashnikova (Russian: Автомат Калашникова). It is also known as Kalashnikov, AK, or in Russian slang, Kalash." And, that the next sentence "No number was present in the Soviet military nomenclature for Kalashnikov's assault rifles until the adoption of the AK-74." is needlessly causing confusion and resulting in unnecessary edit reverts. In fact, it has already been reverted once more while this discussion has been taking place. Also, there is simply no reason to restate this info over and over again.

In the English speaking world, this rifle is called the AK-47, manufacture itself calls it the AK-47 (see http://www.izhmash.ru/eng/product/akm.shtml), and 100 years from now it will still be called the AK-47. There is nothing that Wikipedia can do to change this simple fact, no matter how hard some editors may wish it so.--RAF910 (talk) 00:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

-I don't see the problem with going into more detail about the name, or more exacly what the name wasn't for russians. If anything the confusion caused by this sentence proves that more precision is needed for people to understand.

The manufacture started to call it AK-47 fairly recently, on its English website, due precisely to the influence of the English speaking world (read: customers)

I'd even say that it's quite an interesting issue in the field of linguistics on how what was first an error in "translation" (since the AK-47 for the russians was a prototype) became the normal name in English and then got to influence the original. And I think that the etymology of the name is something that has its place in an encyclopedia.

You'll also notice that maybe because the issue of the name is never tackled in the article, we don't have a mention of the names of the prototypes (AK-46, 47, 48). As these would be even more confusing for an English speaker without a bit of explanation. Telling someone that the AK-47 was a prototype for the AK-47 would be just weird, especially if you go on to say there was an AK-48 afterwards --83.8.187.81 (talk) 12:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Again, the article already states "It is officially known in the Soviet documentation as Avtomat Kalashnikova (Russian: Автомат Калашникова). It is also known as Kalashnikov, AK, or in Russian slang, Kalash." The following sentence "No number was present in the Soviet military nomenclature for Kalashnikov's assault rifles until the adoption of the AK-74." is needlessly causing confusion and resulting in unnecessary edit reverts.

The interesting linguistic translation is nonsense an irrelevant to the article. It is trivial information that is obviously confusing the reader. And, placed in the article and as you insinuated above as an off-hand slap at English speakers for not being smart enough to know what it's called in Russian.--RAF910 (talk) 14:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm open for suggestions on how you'd name the various prototypes (and that's not trivial for this article and needs to be done at some point) without adressing the issue of having homonyms.

Sure you can avoid mentioning them, but isn't it the purpose of an encyclopedia to give information?

I don't see where you got the idea that etymology is irrelevant. And having information that confuses the reader means it needs clarification, not deletion. --79.186.161.107 (talk) 16:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is absolute proof to just how confusing this one sentence is...Again, the article already states "It is officially known in the Soviet documentation as Avtomat Kalashnikova (Russian: Автомат Калашникова). It is also known as Kalashnikov, AK, or in Russian slang, Kalash." The following sentence "No number was present in the Soviet military nomenclature for Kalashnikov's assault rifles until the adoption of the AK-74." is needlessly causing confusion and resulting in unnecessary edit reverts. Please note, that nowhere in the sentence in question is the word prototype used...yet we now have editors (see above) that have somehow read prototype into the sentence. Also, the sentence is unreferenced and inaccurate as the manufacture itself calls it the rifle the AK-47 (see http://www.izhmash.ru/eng/product/akm.shtml).--RAF910 (talk) 00:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The word prototype was present in this version:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AK-47&oldid=613144916

For some reason you had problems with it, so I changed it to the current version that you didn't at the time dispute.

So for the x-th time, I've got no problem with changing this sentence as it's demontrably confusing, but rather that deleting it I find preferable to expand on the informations that I mentionned.

And when did the manufacturer (or rather what's left of it after it's 2012 bankrupcy) become the Soviet army? I'd like to see any document from the USSR that refers by AK-47 to anything but a prototype. Also no need to repeat ad nauseam the same couple of sentences, it adds nothing to the discussion.--79.186.161.107 (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

AK-47 is the common name for this rifle. It is so common that the manufacture itself calls it the AK-47 (see http://www.izhmash.ru/eng/product/akm.shtml). Now you are claiming that the manufacture is not a reliable source information as to the name of the products that they make and sell. Clearly, you are a POV pusher and I will no longer entertain you. I will now delete the sentence in question--RAF910 (talk) 15:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

We're talking from the historical perspective here. If some marketing genius decides tomorrow that the product should be called cheese sandwich instead of AK-47 it has no bearing on the past.

And when did I say that AK-47 isn't the common name for this gun? I said there are prototypes reffered to by homonyms to AK-47, and there needs to be some explanation on the context of Soviet nomenclature in order to not cause confusion on the matter.

I'll add back the sentence in question. Now we can go play the good ol' edition war or wait and see what the rest of the community has to say about it.--83.20.35.25 (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Non-state users

• Provisional IRA
  • O'Brien, Brendan (1 September 2014). O'Brien Pocket History of the IRA. O'Brien Press, Limited. pp. 145–. ISBN 978-1-84717-727-8.
  • Moloney, Ed (1 November 2003). "Prologue". A Secret History of the IRA. W. W. Norton. ISBN 978-0-393-32502-7.
  • O'Brien, Brendan (1993). The Long War: The IRA and Sinn Féin, 1985 to Today. Syracuse University Press. pp. 279–. ISBN 978-0-8156-0319-1.

This entry was deleted with the edit summary, "rvt: there are too many non-state users to list, start a new article if notable".[4] I'm not sure I follow the logic of that. I only added a single entry, one which is very notable and very well sourced. There is no limit on space in the article and no one seems to mind allocating space to much less notable users, such as Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic and Sao Tome and Principe, often based on much less reliable sources:

• https://www.flickr.com/photos/dvids/7591704762/
• http://www.flickr.com/photos/usarmyafrica/5505821033/
• http://thegambiavoice.blogspot.ca/2011/05/members-of-gambia-armed-forces.html
• https://africadefensejournal.wordpress.com/2011/05/24/burkina-nouveau-mouvement-de-colere-des-militaires-a-ouagadougou/

If there's a proposal to move all users to a separate article, that might be sensible. But to discriminate against some users based on their status, regardless of the number or quality of sources, seems like a violation of WP:NPOV. BTW, I've looked through article talk pages and project talk pages, and I can't find any place where this rule was discussed. Please let me know what I'm missing. Rezin (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

There are guidelines for article length, and yes, there is a limit when an article becomes unmanageable, both from the technical and reliability points. Current length is 100k, which is significant. Lists are hard to maintain, because there are constant attempts by new users to update them (history shows), and better move to separate articles. I expect the number of non-state users to be much larger than that of state users, no slight to IRA and your sources. Materialscientist (talk) 00:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, so we can move all the users to a separate page. AK-47 users Any objection to that solution? While there may be numerous non-state users, I doubt very many of them are notable and can be verified with reliable source. Another solution would be to trim the poorly sourced state users. A third solution is to split out another block of information such as "History" or "Variants", either either of which could stand alone. There are many solutions that are better than deleting well-sourced information whose inclusion is mandated by NPOV. Rezin (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

(ec) There is this usual problem: we can argue which source is reliable (and many new additions are simply unsourced), but often not which user is notable, because of lacking guidelines, i.e. we have potential edit wars. I'd strongly prefer to move the entire list (states and non-states) into a daughter article - this list has been an eternal pain anyway. Materialscientist (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure. I bet this list accounts for more vandalism and bad editing than the rest of the article combined. Moving the users to a standalone list may make it less of a target. Since this is such a prominent article, I'll post a split tag so we can do this as a formal proposal. Rezin (talk) 00:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Split "Users" to "List of AK-47 users"

The article is very long. The "Users" section is a frequent target of vandalism and poor quality edits. The readability and stability of the article would be improved by splitting the "Users" section into a standalone article. Doing so would also allow us to add more information about the dates, quantities, sources, etc., of the uses. The material is all sourced and there are similar lists already in existence. Rezin (talk) 00:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support. The article is too long right now. Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support as mentioned above. Materialscientist (talk) 01:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support to shorten and enhance the article. Bluewavedragon (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: While I'm generally in favour of reducing the current page length, I'm not certain the existing section in itself contains enough information to stand as an article of its own. Wikipedia has enough stub lists as it is. A well written, more comprehensive database of users and variants, such as was accomplished with T-54/55 operators and variants would be far more desirable. --Katangais (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with both your points. However to get to a comprehensive database of users and variants we need to start by splitting it off into a standalone article. Rezin (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
    • With respect, I've heard that before and the result is usually another one of hundreds of existing standalone lists that wither like that for years. If we're so keen to achieve this hypothetical comprehensive database, we must first expand the existing section so it can qualify for proper article status, or draft it elsewhere before submitting it for review. --Katangais (talk) 19:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
      • I understand your concern. Please read the thread above, #Non-state users. As it stands, with the whole article being so long, there is no room to add even one more entry. Rezin (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Thanks. And I would reiterate to others following this discussion: while I fully comprehend how imperative it is that the page be trimmed, and creating a daughter page the easiest and quickest short-term solution, that list on its own cannot an article make. What I would propose at this point is creating a draft representative of the expanded section and pitching it as an AFC. --Katangais (talk) 21:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support Would prefer to delete the thing though. There's no need to list the users of a product, any product, on an encyclopedia.—indopug (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support I would go further and argue for a removal of the map (other gun articles don't have them) or a mayor overhaul. Without further quantification it also seems ideologically motivated - to make the world look "AK-47". Esp. to include list "derivatives" and include guns like the Daewoo K-2 is troubling. Does the bolt action make a derivative? Lastly, it seems out of date with the list below (Germany, South Korea ...). Also see File_talk:AK47map.svg for more. 77.5.76.235 (talk)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 11 external links on AK-47. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.izhmash.ru/eng/product/akm.shtml
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.powercustom.com/AKPages/MikhailKalashnikov.htm
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.powercustom.com/AKPages/MikhailKalashnikov.htm
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.izhmash.ru/eng/product/gp-34.shtml
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.izhmash.ru/eng/product/ak103.shtml
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.upiasia.com/Security/2009/11/16/russia_confronts_pakistan_china_over_copied_weapons/5776/
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.ssrresourcecentre.org/2010/10/22/latest-edition-of-the-ssr-monitor-burundi-focuses-on-armed-forces-reform/
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.elsalvador.com/mwedh/nota/nota_completa.asp?
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.gbcghana.com/index.php?id=1.368921
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://magharebia.com/en_GB/articles/awi/features/2011/11/29/feature-04
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.defence.pk/pakistan-army/

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Map image

There could be improvements to the article; in the meantime, the image is useful to show the international significance of state use of the AK-47. What improvements would you like to see? Scr★pIron^IV 19:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

You reverted my edit and claimed I did not argue about it. That's not correct. I did as part of my edits and brought up multiple arguments:

• The Map claims that some countries may or may have used the AK-47 at some point or a "derivative" of it. This is a very fishy claim especially without quantification. Who uses or used how many? I can tell you that MP5 are widely used. Does a map of all countries with "some" unknown quantity add information? Either you make a map of current users or former users but not both without showing which is which and quantification.
• Secondly, these information are present in the article and thus redundant. The article is actually much less ambiguous and more informative.
• The article, esp. the Users section is currently heavily favoured to be split off because the article is to long. As such, the map makes it even longer. When "Users" are actually split off, the map may be added again. As is it makes the article longer for no reason. Again, it literally adds nothing new!
• The Map itself is not referenced directly. How come Germany is or may have been (See how informative this is? Is it used or not? In what manner?) an AK-47 user? The answer is above in the article: East Germany used it. It's not in the map or "Users" section.
• The Map also makes an implicit claim what is and is not a derivative. Esp. to include list "derivatives" and include inspired guns like the Daewoo_K-2 is troubling. Does the bolt action make a derivative?
• Lastly, it seems out of date with the list below (Germany).

Without further quantification this seems ideologically motivated - to make the world look "AK-47". I also noted this at File_talk:AK47map.svg

The combined effect of the above facts the map uninformative. What is your claimed informational value of the map? "The world uses AK-47" is about all it shows, and it does this in doubtfully informative manner. Without any better arguments then "international significance" (Which the article shows much more informative), I will temporarily delete the map and you may re-add it when you have more claims. I will also escalate this as an unjust prevention of preprofessional beneficial edits without much substance. 217.186.51.33 (talk) 20:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

As a picture speaks a thousand words, so does this visualization of the widespread use of this particular firearm. Certainly, if you are confused by the term derivative, then we can clarify it. Forgive me if the TWINKLE template's wording was less than appropriate; we are at least discussing it. In the meantime, you do not have consensus to remove the image; you are reverting multiple editors and edit warring. Scr★pIron^IV 20:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I am reverting two editors who are unable to argue their case beyond "this shows usage". Again, that's good. If Users get their own article, improve on it. As it is, this map says one thing and one thing only: "There may or may not at one time have been some usage by somebody in that county of some AK-47 variant or a claimed 'derivate'". You think that has merit? Again what would an MP5 map look like. Very similar, with different countries, and about the same amount of them. The maps intended claim "the world uses AK-47" is not even covered by the map, due to the missing quantities. Your reluctance to accept these arguments is puzzling. 217.186.51.33 (talk) 20:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

* And make that three editors if you remove the image again. You have no consensus to remove the image. Currently the discussion about Users is still ongoing, and the image stays until that is decided. Even if we were to split the article you still do not have consensus to delete the image. Three users versus one IP is not consensus. The image does, in fact, show useful information (graphic depiction for visual learning people) and I do not see that it is trying to propagate any message like "the world uses AK." Your point that the map has inaccurate information is debatable. The use of the words former, current and derivatives pretty much smothers that. If other users feel it is questionable, then that will be discussed eventually. Meanwhile, you have no consensus to remove the image, which may not be perfect but is usable. Please refrain from beginning an unjustified edit war and adding more to IP users' bad record. Respectfully, Green547 (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Interesting comparison, why don't you create an MP-5 image and make such a comparison? This image adds value to the article because is iondicates STATE use of the firearm, thus its prolific nature. There is no better way to represent that, than to show how truly widespread its use is. Are you truly suggesting that the MP-5 is in equivalent state use? Here is the list of derivatives for you, since you are apparently confused by it.[5] Generally, firearms built under license, some with local modifications.

As far as accepting your arguments; the image is plain enough. it's not that "someone, somewhere" in that country has used one, it is that the government of that state equipped them to their troops. Plenty of Americans own them, but the U.S. is not on the list. The AK-47 is the most widely produced and equipped firearm in the world. The image shows what that looks like. Scr★pIron^IV 20:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we mean service forces, but what forces? There are many small units all over the globe using different weapons in small quantities. The image does not tell us: Who used it and is no longer using it? Who uses it now? How many? With these information not present or intermingled the map does not actually show something. It's like claiming "Places where it is or was at some point 30C' - That does not tell us the current temprature. It also does not help us to understand how often it was 30C' and thus it does not tell us concrete information. Tell me in a sentence that the map shows, please. As you said "show how truly widespread its use is": That's the point, it does not actually show this. It's conjecture to say it shows this ... Germany does not use the weapon. It mixes past and present claims into a fish and broad claim of apparent usage.

Towards your list, the K2 is on this list and Korea is referenced in the map article (but not shown) as a User. Show me where this firearm is a licensed derivative. It isn't. This maps purpose to exist is to broadly claim (the colors are not even explained). 217.186.51.33 (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you really want that kind of detail, then I would strongly suggest you do the research to break it down to that level. Maybe you can even create your own image, and use all the colors of the rainbow to represent it. And if you have found an error in the Category for including the K2, then I suggest you also fix that. For the rest of us, the map says what it means to say, and is clear enough. The moon is not made of green cheese [6] Scr★pIron^IV 21:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, ScrapIronIV is right. It's not like that. From the picture we get a clear sense of AK-47's areas, past and present. It's impossible to have perfectly accurate maps as gun usage in different countries will overlap and change rapidly. There's no reason to remove this image unless you're some sort of extreme deletionist who wants to erase everything that isn't exactly perfect, and that's not the way to shorten articles. The image is still useful in giving an average idea. And with the caption we can clarify everything. Green547 (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• As stated above "a picture speaks a thousand words" and the map provides an effective visual representation of the AKs world wide usage. If the IP user (AKA: USER 217.186.51.33, USER 77.5.76.235 & USER 95.114.212.6) has a problem with the current map, then it is his responsibility to create a new map. If he has a problem with the information provided on the maps commons page, then it is his responsibility to make the necessary corrections. If he is unwilling and/or unable to do these things then the current map should stand as is...I will go one step further...even if the user section is removed, the map is such a powerful representation it should remain as a quick reference guide.--RAF910 (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll agree with you, RAF910. Provided they get consensus to add said new map. And especially on your last point, I think so too. Green547 (talk) 03:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

How many cows does it take to illegally buy an AK in Kenya

[112] says you could buy an AK for the price of 4 cows in 2005. This would be (depending on type of cow) from a minimum of $2000 up to $6000. Seems a bit unrealistically high. 178.221.125.66 (talk) 10:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on AK-47. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=lwL4KnN1LtH&b=5285925&ct=7227769
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://archives.pia.gov.ph/?m=12&sec=reader&rp=1&fi=p060902.htm&no=3&date=09/02/2006

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Correct name

As some of people already have mentioned above here many times, the correct naming of this weapon is just AK, not so called 'AK-47'. Firstly, the Soviets (Russians, in this case) had never given any numbers (year abbreviations) to markings of their infantry weapons in general, the sole exception of this being the AK-74, its variants (AKS-74, AKS-74U), light machine gun version (RPK-74) and successors (AK-74M, AKS-74M and commercial AK-100 series), but that all is only due to purely logical reason because there was simply no alternative for its naming, since the AK-74 was then already the third version (AK, AKM, AK-74) and even sixth variant (AK, AKS, AKM, AKMS, AKMSU, AK-74) of the series.

To simplify things, if the AK is really called 'AK-47', then the AKM would be logically called 'AK-59', and the AK-74M would be 'AK-91'. Moreover, then everything else of their infantry weaponry would have year abbreviation in its name, as an example, the PK general/multi purpose machine gun would actually be called 'PK-61', the semi automatic/self loading (sniper) rifle SVD would be the 'SVD-63', the RPK light machine gun would be 'RPK-61', semi automatic pistol PM would be 'PM-51' and so on. This fact also stands for older, former Red Army weapons, the PPŠ (PPSH) sub machine gun is not 'PPSH-41', the PPS is not 'PPS-43' the TT is just a TT, not 'TT-30/33'.

The best thing of all is that the sole Russian Wikipedia is a perfect example and proof of everything mentioned, right under everyone's noses - but obviously somebody who is here more interested in pure and dumb childish popularity instead of historical facts, prevents this and other such articles from correct naming.

As a conclude, that dull term 'AK-47' along with everything else like 'PPSH-41, PPS-43, TT-33' undoubtedly came from the West, more precisely from the Americans, because that is usually their practice for markings, which they also 'assigned' for the Soviet weapons. In this case, the term 'AK-47' probably came immediately during the Vietnam war, where the American army firstly met the AK. They, of course, did not know about weapons name until they captured first of those rifles along with their instruction manuals, on which the inscriptions was always 'Avtomat Kalašnjikova obrasca 1947 goda' (Automatic Kalashnikov of year 1947 pattern) what they, logically, shortened simply to 'AK-47' - with time, that incorrect term was spread literally far and wide.

So please, get over that dull, incorrect and ignorant term 'AK-47' at once and stick exclusively to the historical facts, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.4.16 (talk) 11:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• Per WP:COMMONNAME we use "the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)", i.e. AK-47, AKM, AK-74/M and so on. Each language version of Wikipedia also has its own rules and is independent of all others, so what people on the Russian WP do or don't is totally irrelevant. Thomas.W ^talk 11:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

About the article's name again

AK-47 was never entered service because it was just a prototype for the competition. The final version entered service in 1949 and was called 7.62mm avtomat Kalashnikova or just AK, not AK-47. You can't find "AK-47" mentioned in the weapons manuals and it wasn't called so even unofficially in the Soviet/Russian military forces. In other words, it's just wrong and the fact that "well, people widely use it" doesn't make any difference, though we could, no, must mention it in the article instead of spreading another misconception. Insjke (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Words get their meaning from usage. If everyone calls it the AK-47 then it's called the AK-47, full stop. RoflCopter404 (talk) 04:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

So if everyone calls Lamiaceae mint, is it called mint? That's flawed logic. 180.180.12.121 (talk) 09:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Calling AKM "another version of AK-47" is like calling "M16A3" "another version of M16A1". M4 is also based M16, but it's not M16. People say it, but does it make them right? Russian wikipedia article uses the right name - AK 7.62. Officially, there were about 2000 AK-47 produced for field tests in 1947, but mass production of AK (7.62) began in 1949, and by that time it was modified version of AK-47, and the official name didn't have any numbers in it (47 was like "test index" if you can call it that way). It was simply AK 7.62 (type 1949, and later types). Then there is AKM (1959), which isn't based on the failed field test AK-47, but on later versions of AK 7.62. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.126.144 (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Since the "AK-47" doesn't exist, or has never existed, the use of the term is indeed confusing. Since it's a folklore term, it could be its own stand-alone article which redirects to an article using the correct names of all the variants. But trying to make sense of the article when it keeps referring to the non-existent "AK-47" is exhausting. Santamoly (talk) 02:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Such semantics are mere distraction. Words and names are created by people; the name in common use for this particular firearm is AK-47. It may not have been created with that name, but it has been referred to by that name for over 60 years. The horse has died Scr★pIron^IV 14:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, from your position. Why this article: GM New Look bus - have name "GM New Look bus" but not "fishbowl" article M3 submachine gun - have name "M3 submachine gun" but not "Grease Gun" or "the Greaser",article Thompson submachine gun - have name "Thompson submachine gun" but not "Tommy-Gun" or "Tomphson", etc ? . "Words and names are created by people" isn't it? I think that technical articles shall bear the official name. After oficial name you can write "also commonly known by the nickname" ..... iiimixiii@ya.ru 91.217.2.231 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on AK-47. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.oxfam.de/files/20060623_theak47_200kb.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/vol15no4/154arms.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.astynomia.gr/images/stories/DOCS/Attachment11480_ENHMEROTIKO_EKAM_ENGL.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6539945
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ethiopiabook.com/galleryimg/l/print-advert-371.jpg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929102901/http://kalashnikov.guns.ru/ to http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/11/ff_ak47/all/1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929102901/http://kalashnikov.guns.ru/ to http://www.kalashnikov.ru/upload/medialibrary/8c5/04_07.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929102901/http://kalashnikov.guns.ru/ to http://www.kalashnikov.ru/upload/medialibrary/910/018_023.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929102901/http://kalashnikov.guns.ru/ to http://www.kalashnikov.ru/upload/medialibrary/499/018_022.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929102901/http://kalashnikov.guns.ru/ to http://www.kalashnikov.ru/upload/medialibrary/843/016_022.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929102901/http://kalashnikov.guns.ru/ to http://www.kalashnikov.ru/upload/medialibrary/b62/064_066.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

test (link video media)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtUk_RxGQhI video https://rg.ru/2014/06/01/ak-site.html officiale

M16 16A2E3, adapted for the use of American sailors and special forces units "seals" (eng. US NAVY SEALS). For the shooting of "interest for the sake of" two major special forces were called, which in turn were shot regular AK-74M

http://tvzvezda.ru/news/forces/content/201412110745-9894.htm

Without the text and video. If you fight, if the weather is not a picnic if the ice around if rain or wind, M16 repeat the success of the M1A1 Abrams tank is breaking most machines. Vietnam - claim - cleaning M16 more than 2 times each day. If there is a fight ..... forget, it's time to clean.

No problem) In 2015, the German federal government and the Ministry of Defence acknowledged that the G36 has a large enough problems with accuracy, and its use should be limited due to overheating during continuous shooting or high temperature [1] [8]. https://rg.ru/2015/04/18/avtomat-site.html

If you're standing, and to fall = lie, forget you break M16 Are you ready to drop $ 1,000 on concrete from a height of 1 meter 5 times? you can bet that the M16 does not slomaetsya? = Show me a link to the media (official test). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.162.80.137 (talk) 15:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

https://topwar.ru/24191-i-opyat-sravnenie-ak-i-m16.html test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TsNIITochMash — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.162.80.137 (talk) 15:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

The naming issue

I agree that the weapon's official name is just AK, but it's widely called AK-47 due to there being other weapons with AK in their name. Thus the AK-47 acts as an identification mark. Besides if there is a talk about the naming of the AK (AK-47), shouldn't there be one for the Tiger II? I mean everyone calls it "King Tiger" when it's actual name (correct translation from German to English) is "Royal Tiger". Thank You for reading this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yanuchi Uchiha (talk • contribs) 06:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

This is covered by WP:COMMONNAME. "AK-47" seems correct according to that policy. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Lead picture?

Should the lead picture be a picture of an AK without a bayonet? Would anyone have a problem with me swapping the first and second pictures? El cid, el campeador (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The second (currently) one without the bayonet is clearer, and also gives a larger image of the weapon for the same limits of image size. That should be the lead. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The second image is of a Type 2, which apparently is not representative of the rifles in use today. I suppose that could be a consideration although they look the same to me. The second image is certainly preferable otherwise. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Article scope

Is this article supposed to be about "the" AK-47, which describes the early models that have no other common moniker? Or is it about the family of Kalashnikov rifles which extends to the AKM, the AK-74 and beyond? If the latter, then what is the purpose of the Kalashnikov rifle article? I think this needs to be sorted out instead of continually conflating the two subject domains. I understand that many Western sources are equally guilty of blurring the distinction between the original AK-47 types and their later derivatives which have other names, so it can be hard to determine exactly what they are talking about, but I don't think the wiki should carry the ambiguity further. Sources that are unclear about their meaning should be deprecated, as there seems to be enough sources that make the distinction between actual AK-47s and AKs in general. Ham Pastrami (talk) 13:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

 I agree, we should remove that part and put a link to the Kalashnikov rifle page.  I will commence with the changes.  AA Quantum (talk) 01:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

 My only question now is what to do with the production outside of Russia part.  AA Quantum (talk) 01:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

'Automatic Kalashnikov'

'Avtomat Kalashnikova' literally means 'Kalashnikov's assault rifle'. Kalashnikov is a name of a person, he can't be automatic. The word 'avtomat' is not even an adjective, it's a noun and it doesn't mean 'automatic'. Ogomemnon (talk) 03:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on AK-47. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.elsalvador.com/mwedh/nota/nota_completa.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ethiopiabook.com/galleryimg/l/print-advert-371.jpg
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.astynomia.gr/images/stories/DOCS/Attachment11480_ENHMEROTIKO_EKAM_ENGL.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://archives.pia.gov.ph/?m=12&sec=reader&rp=1&fi=p060902.htm&no=3&date=09%2F02%2F2006
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150903182400/http://raigap.livejournal.com/87857.html?mode=reply to http://raigap.livejournal.com/87857.html?mode=reply

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on AK-47. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006075455/http://www.arsenal-bg.com/defense_police/7%2C62ar-m1-m1f.htm to http://www.arsenal-bg.com/defense_police/7%2C62ar-m1-m1f.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2017

Purple111111111 (talk) 04:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

There is no such term or category as an "assault weapon" in the firearms industry. Where is the reference that the AK47 was called this when it was invented??? It does not exist and that reference should not be used. This term was created by politicians in certain jurisdictions in order to create a class of rifles purely based on cosmetic features taken from Hollywood Films so that laws could be created to register them and restrict ownership. The proper term is a semi-automatic or in some versions of this gun fully automatic rifle or long gun.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 04:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on AK-47. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20131017212241/http://www.afrikitalia.it/burkina-faso-ces-mesures-presidentielles-qui-font-plaisir-a-larmee/ to http://www.afrikitalia.it/burkina-faso-ces-mesures-presidentielles-qui-font-plaisir-a-larmee/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120814224007/http://www.aolnews.com/2010/08/10/narcocorridos-the-songs-of-mexicos-drug-war/ to http://www.aolnews.com/2010/08/10/narcocorridos-the-songs-of-mexicos-drug-war/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130210034642/http://www.bernardelli.com/en/index.htm to http://www.bernardelli.com/en/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131018004815/http://www.crtv.cm/cont/nouvelles/nouvelles_sola_fr.php?idField=10126&table=nouvelles&sub=special to http://www.crtv.cm/cont/nouvelles/nouvelles_sola_fr.php?idField=10126&table=nouvelles&sub=special
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.astynomia.gr/images/stories/DOCS/Attachment11480_ENHMEROTIKO_EKAM_ENGL.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101027095921/http://ofbindia.nic.in/products/data/weapons/wsc/21.htm to http://ofbindia.nic.in/products/data/weapons/wsc/21.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924105851/http://www.statehouse.gm/army-recuits-gradu_300307.htm to http://www.statehouse.gm/army-recuits-gradu_300307.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121120180843/http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher%2CHRW%2C%2CKEN%2C3cfe0db94%2C0.html to http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher%2CHRW%2C%2CKEN%2C3cfe0db94%2C0.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

AK-47 in Cambodia

Can anybody please add the :
Cambodian Civil War
Cambodian–Vietnamese War
to the AK-47 war list? This page is protected and i can't edit.

Camb17 (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• You need to provide a citation for your request here before change can be made, Poeticbent talk 18:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Poeticbent: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13006828 Camb17 (talk) 18:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to "Cambodia profile - Timeline" by the BBC (5 September 2017), but the AK-47 rifle is not mentioned anywhere there. Please keep looking. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 19:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Poeticbent: https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fichef.bbci.co.uk%2Fnews%2F624%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2F76151000%2Fjpg%2F_76151881_khmerrougephnompenh170475_afp.jpg&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fworld-asia-pacific-13006828&docid=pvxnoVsJkggJXM&tbnid=9ij6-X4Q7-ucKM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwjZm9L9_PrWAhXn7YMKHa6nDhQQMwhAKA8wDw..i&w=624&h=401&client=ms-android-att-aio-us&bih=448&biw=320&q=cambodian%20civil%20war&ved=0ahUKEwjZm9L9_PrWAhXn7YMKHa6nDhQQMwhAKA8wDw&iact=mrc&uact=8 Camb17 (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Just so you know, Camb17 (talk · contribs), looking at a photograph showing a truck with guerillas on top is not how the referencing works around here. You need an article that mentions both the Cambodian Civil War and the use of AK-47. Here's one such article:

— Christopher Jones (December 20, 1981), "IN THE LAND OF THE KHMER ROUGE." The New York Times

Anyhow, consider it done, Poeticbent talk 20:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Translation of "avtomat"

I believe to translate Avtomat Kalashnikova as Kalashnikov's Automatic Rifle to be incorrect. In Russian terminology, avtomat is very clearly defined, in what you might call Russian ISO standards, the ГОСТ standards. As per ГОСТ 28653—90, an avtomat is defined under point 36 as an automatic carbine. Therefore I think it should be translated as Kalashnikov's Automatic Carbine Thom430 (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Does Botswana use AK-47 and AKM assault rifles?

The AK-47 and AKM page says Botswana uses the rifle and i searched Botswana solders to see if Botswana uses AK-47s, i often see Botswana using FN FAL battle rifles which makes me think Botswana is not a AK-47 user. Does anybody have a image or a video of Botswana solders using AK-47s? AZ2001 (talk) 04:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Is the AK-47 based on the M1 Garand and STG-44? - concept section

The concept of the AK-47 includes a claim, which says that Kalashnikov took the best features of the M1 and STG-44. This is a claim which is made, by an unnamed journalist from AP via Fox News. There is absolutely no argumentation for this claim in the source, it's quite simply just some random journalist's claim. However, it is put in quotation marks, which can lead the reader to think Kalashnikov said this during the interview, which seemingly he did not say at all.

The following sentence "Kalashnikov's team had access to these weapons and had no need to "reinvent the wheel"." in the same section, seems to be added from no where. It is not in the AP via Fox News source, neither is it from Bolotin 1995 p. 123-124. It also reads like it has a connection with the Bolotin source, yet it doesn't, giving a false impression. Ergo, it seems it be the opinion injected at some point by an editor.

It seems to me, there is a very vague narrative of the AK-47 being based on the M1 Garand and STG-44; lack of originality with Kalashnikov. But the basis for this is not there. While it is likely that the AK-47 was borrowed from other weapons, this shouldn't be sourced with a single unnamed journalist's speculative opinion. If this is indeed the case, there has to be a better technical source.

I would recommend the proponents of this view, actually write a more detailed section about what and how exactly the AK-47 borrows from the M1 and STG-44 and not from previous Soviet weapons. If not, please allow me to delete this section that is misleading and not informative in it's current state, without having to go into an editing war.

CarlGGHamilton (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

i'd like to play angel in angel and devil here

   Illicit trade
   See also: Crime in Russia § Arms trafficking

It's completely unfair to associate "illegal weapons smuggling" with Russia. It's in-appropriate for an "encyclopedia" to do it.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:400:4EF0:4D42:D473:5DF6:16A0 (talk) 00:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

there is no such thing as an assault weapon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spottedfeather (talk • contribs) 17:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

The first thing you should notice is that you're not removing "assault weapon" from this article, you're removing "assault rifle". Please review the articles assault weapon and assault rifle to understand the distinction. Then go to those articles' talk pages and review past discussions, to understand why these Wikipedia articles are the way they are. Finally, consider that linking to a self-published blog post that relies on the opinions of David Kopel, a partisan advocate, isn't going to carry any weight with Wikipedia editors. Your best chance of gaining any consensus is to cite independent reliable sources.

I know the idea here is that people who know nothing about guns are spreading misinformation, but consider that if you are ignorant of how Wikipedia works, you're making the same error. You can and will be taken seriously but you have to put in some effort first. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm with Dennis on this. Regardless of the reliability of Kopel on the subject, Spottedfeather, your edit removed the term "Assault Rifle", not "Assault Weapon". I agree that Assault Weapon is a nebulous term but Assault Rifle is not and the AK-47 is most definitely an assault rifle. Springee (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2018

175.100.13.55 (talk) 12:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as you have not requested a change.
Please request your change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2019

change "standing for постояннаяon" to "standing for постоянная" AiSatan (talk) 11:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done NiciVampireHeart 16:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Receiver types article

There is a useful article explaining the various ak receiver types, including akm, here: https://web.archive.org/web/20190605083619/http://browningmgs.com/T2T3/Kalashnikov.htm Used archive.org as the original article is down, recommend adding it to the external links section. Note that I'm an anonymous user without an account and have no intention of making one, hence why I'm giving the link for someone else to add. --2600:1700:ADF0:6390:5CB4:2C24:A702:C9AD (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2019

S lekhraj (talk) 04:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Awesome Aasim 05:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Conflicts missing

Hello, I was surprised at how short the conflict list is. I suggest adding those:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_conflict_in_Myanmar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_invasion_of_East_Timor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lankan_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepalese_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naxalite%E2%80%93Maoist_insurgency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir_conflict https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurgency_in_Khyber_Pakhtunkhwa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Civil_War_(1992%E2%80%931996)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abkhaz%E2%80%93Georgian_conflict https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagorno-Karabakh_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Chechen_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnistria_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbass https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_Civil_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemeni_Civil_War_(1994) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemeni_Civil_War_(2015%E2%80%93present) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Lebanon_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinai_insurgency

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somali_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chadian%E2%80%93Libyan_conflict https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angolan_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrean_War_of_Independence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrean%E2%80%93Ethiopian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Sudanese_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sudanese_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Darfur https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Sahara_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Mali_conflict

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaraguan_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvadoran_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemalan_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colombian_conflict — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.237.230.100 (talk) 00:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

South vietnam

South Vietnamesecalso has THe AK47 Malaysia 6 (talk) 01:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Not based on the Sturmgewehr

It should be more well known that the StG-44 didn't influence the AK-47. The AK-47 is more accurately described as combined aspects from previous Russo-Soviet weapons, such as the shape of the Federov Avtomat and cartridge of the SKS. The silhouette resemblance between the AK-47 and the RPD which came before it is also far more similar than that of the StG-44. It's nigh-impossible for the RPD to be based on the StG-44 as they came out the same year. The AK-47 can most simply and accurately be described as a far more compact variant of the RPD, with a lighter and shorter barrel as well a more user friendly handguard and stock. They also disassemble in far more different fashion in comparison to something like the StG-44 and M16.

(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-20774823eac910290f307f92006f3eea)

The M16/StG-44's disassembly is admittedly much easier to perform, requiring little tooling and simply 'clicking' apart and back together again, hence why the M16/AR15 has much more commercial diversity in parts, attachments, and modifications, while the AK is harder to disassemble, as you'll never find an AK-47 or AKM being dissassembled in such a 'clicky' and 'slidy' fashion. Later AK models such as the 74, 74M, and 12/15 are however much more keen on modular disassembly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8A:4000:C480:68BD:BEC2:6BF3:B086 (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

self referencing link in the article

Kalashnikov grenade launcher link points to itself. (well, to the same section of the same article where the link itself is.)

89.134.199.32 (talk) 22:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC).

Official name and the Russian name.

Why are there so many wrong things in the first paragraph?

"The AK-47, officially known as the Avtomat Kalashnikova (Russian: Автома́т Кала́шникова, lit. 'Kalashnikov's assault rifle'; also known as the Kalashnikov or just AK)"

It should be more like this (Even tho we all know that AK-47 is not the correct name..)

"The AK-47, officially known as the 7.62-mm Avtomat Kalashnikova (Russian: 7,62-мм Aвтомат Калашникова, lit. 'Kalashnikov's assault rifle in 7.62mm'; also known as the Kalashnikov or just AK)"

There is no "а́" in "Aвтомат Калашникова" and the official name is not the full one. If you're not gonna use the correct official name, at least fix the Russian name...

Houmik (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Changed first production Date

Hi,

I'm usually an autor of the German Wikipedia and there the current main autor of the AK-47 article (Kalaschnikow). I checked the English version here to finde possible mistakes I made and saw that the first production date is 1949 while the most books I own say that the first production took place in 1948. So I changed it and I hope I used the very different quotation system correctly.

Sources:

• The AK47 Story, Evolution of the Kalashnikov Weapons written by Edward Clinton Ezell at Stackpole Books Harrisburg, PA 1986
• AK47 Assault Rifle The real weapon of mass destruction written by Nigel Bennet at The History Press Brimscombe Port 2011
• AK47 The Complete Kalashnikov Family of Assault Rifles written by Duncan Long at Paladin Press Boulder, Colorado 1988
• The AK-47 and AK-74 Kalashnikov Rifles and Their Variations written by Joe Poyer at North Cape Publications inc. Tustin, California 2004
• Kalashnikov AK47 Series The 7.62 × 39 mm Assault Rifles in Detail written by Martin J. Brayley at The Crowood Press Ramsbury, Marlborough 2013

Greetings — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Helmut (talk • contribs) 17:18:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Automatic?

I came to this article to find out if the AK-47 is an automatic, semi-automatic, or what. It's not until section "2 Design" I got an unambiguous answer. I think "automatic, semi-automatic, or what" should be included in the introductory description at the top of the article. Thanks.Nei1 (talk) 13:38, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Assault Rifles are selective fire, semi-auto variants are available for civilian purchase.--99.162.189.196 (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2021

End! Hoang Khanh Wiki OutLook (talk) 08:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Volteer1 (talk) 09:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2021

AK 47 does not stand for or refer to. Kalashnikov's assault rifle as is quoted in your text. It is clearly noted towards the end of the read what AK 47 is referring. It means exactly Avtomat Kalashnikova 1947. Avtomat is automatic and Kalashnikov was the designer in 1947. 2602:306:8B28:C90:A53A:C08B:2C3F:DE30 (talk) 07:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done - I'm not sure what change you want made. Please be more specific, "replace X with Y"... - Adolphus79 (talk) 08:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2021

In the first paragraph of the article it is stated that "Автома́т Kalishnakov" translates literally to "assault kalishnakov" however Автома́т actually translates to "automatic". This is actually referenced within this wikipedia article in the history section when kalishnakov is quoted. 73.193.127.9 (talk) 06:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done - I don't even speak Russian, but clearly "Автома́т" is "automat-ic", not "assault"... - Adolphus79 (talk) 07:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)