Talk:AK-47/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Great Video On the History and Durability of the AK-47

I ran across this great video on the History and Durability of the AK-47. Please review and let me know what you think, I have attached the link: History of the AK-47 VideoIt is truly an exceptional weapon. Thank you for your time.

Previous Discussion

I've moved the previous discussions to Talk:AK-47/PreviousDiscussion because myself and several others feel that the old Talk page has become overly long and rambling, with multiple revistings of previously settled subjects. I think that it would be best for new discussion to take place here. If someone would like to revisit debates from the previous discussion, those could be copied and pasted to here without making the whole page unreadable. Thank you. CynicalMe 16:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

TKB-517 Relation?

Did the AK-47 lead to the TKB-517 or were they both different projects? User:EX STAB 02:04 4th April 2007

Production Abroad

I've been writing some pages and expanding others on the variants that are linked to in the table (Production Abroad). Help and input is always appreciated. CynicalMe 22:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Licensing

I think the issue of licensing is one that we should expand upon. I'd like to include information on exactly who and where licences have been granted for production of the AK and variants, and compare that with unlicensed copies. CynicalMe 17:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You reverted my edit, which I based on the articles [1], [2] (the articles are in Russian). I will look for more details (written in English if possible) later, but I am sure my edit had merit. (Igny 18:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)) Update: A quote from article from NY Times Archives [3] : Russian arms officials say that no other nation has a valid license to make the AK-47 and its many derivatives and clones, Also see [4] for much more. If I see no objections from you anymore, I will add the license issue back to the article.

I didn't remove it, I gave it its own section because I thought it was important. Please add those sources to the article CynicalMe 18:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I misread your edit. (Igny 18:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC))

Legal Status: Canadian Law

I've added the three variants allowed under Canadian Firearms legislation. The source is the Canadian Firearms Center Fact Sheet which covers restricted and prohibited firearms. The specific Order in Council covering the AK-47 and variants is Former Prohibited Weapons Order No. 13, which can be found in the citation link as well as an external link at the bottom of the Page. 65.95.118.215 18:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the citation on the Valmets. It is much appreciated. CynicalMe 18:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Cultural Influence

Should we have a sep. article for Cultural Influence of the AK-47? CynicalMe 08:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

In the U.S., movie makers often arm criminals, gang members and terrorist characters with AK's. However, not all influences of the AK have been violent. In 2006, Colombian musician and peace activist César López devised the escopetarra, an AK converted into a guitar. One sold for US$17,000 in a fundraiser held to benefit the victims of anti-personnel mines, while another was exhibited at the United Nations' Conference on Disarmament.

I propose this paragraph be either removed from the article. At best it's irrelevant, and it seems like an unnecessarily defensive statement. It may be valid to note that it's the weapon of choice for depiction in movies (is this really only in the U.S., btw?) but the parts following are superfluous and don't really contribute anything to the article. Also, "some guy made a guitar out of one" isn't exactly what I would call a noteworthy cultural influence, and I would question whether being part of an exhibit in a conference on disarmament could even be considered an (implied positive) influence. The fundraiser is mildly interesting, but probably doesn't deserve to make the article, either, and anyway speaks more to the negative influence of landmines than the positive influence of automatic assault rifles. --Orinthe 15:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, I don't see many similarities between the AK-47 and the assault rifle depicted on the flag of Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Council.

it is in production to this day

Where? Folks, the AK-47 is dead. Only its clones could survive. --jno 11:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, the original wording was kind of vague. What was meant what that weapons based on the design are still in production. I've fixed it. CynicalMe 22:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

But the desgin is obviously inheirent in the AK-101 and its newer gas powered model. So still life in the old girl yet.If it works, stick with it. True that some are still being spat out as replicas by gunsmiths in pakistan and around the middle east (see michael palins "around the world in 80 days" documentry), but even if its being built with, more modern fabrication techniques, it still is the same old AK. Just newer. I suppose an original would be pretty beat by now. --Wouse101 23:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

But wait, doesn't North Korea still produce AK-47s? I thought they did, although maybe they have graduated to the AKM. And what about the Chinese? Do they still produce AK-47s for their military (I don't know)? --AK person

Nah basicly everyones gto AKM's now and days, besdies a very few gurrilas(Esskater11 04:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC))

What the article lacks

Info should be added in the history section about:
1.Combat use (impact on global conflicts like the Vietnam war, or regional and civil wars in Africa)
2.Why the AK-47 was great (in the 1950s and later)
3.Why the AK-47 is not so great (in the begining of the XXI century, why is it inferior to newer assult rifles like G-36) Mieciu K 20:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. But what do you mean by "impact" on global conflicts? For the most part, infantry weapons do not determine the outcome of wars.CynicalMe 20:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Usually not but for example during the Vietnam war the AK-47 gave the vietrnamese side the chance to engage american ground forces at almost equall terms (not counting air and artillery support). And I have heard that in Africa there are AK's used in civil wars on a daily basis that have not seen a gunsmith for 30 years (if not for the AK-47 wars in such places might have looked totaly different). Mieciu K 20:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You are right about the AK being used in Africa and its durability. However, I dispute that anything would be different had it not been there.The fact is that in most of the African civil wars, each side is armed with almost identical weapons (soviet bloc). If not the AK, then some other gun (they'd just have to buy them more often).CynicalMe 21:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but what about point 2 and 3? Mieciu K 22:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Why the AK was great? I think its main point in favor is ruggedness and reliability, which is covered in the article. The reasons why it is inferior to modern assault rifles basically boil down to being less accurate, which is also mentioned already. Inferiority is a very subjective matter. Granted, most new weapons are much more accurate, but they are also far less reliable. How many of them can be buried in a bog for a year and still function without a cleaning?CynicalMe 22:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me jump in if I may...The AK was "great" because it was basically FREE. They were literally given away to revolutionaries, who had little to no chance of buying FNs, M16s, or other "professional soldier" weapons. I've often heard - to my occasional annoyance - some kinda quote from some Clint Eastwood movie about the AK being the "preferred weapon of the enemy" or some such. Point is, "comrade" had no choice - it was all he could get in bulk numbers!
Also, as an aside, "buried in a bog for a year and still function without a cleaning..." PLease be careful about David Hackworth quotes or war stories. Don't get me wrong - I liked him and miss him....but he had as much BS as he had guts; he was never above exaggeration. Engr105th 01:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Superfluous bolding in the introduction

Many things are obvious in Wikipedia, it's an encyclopedia after all; if it can be made clearer, than it probably should. As for the bolded fragments, nobody complained before.[5]

There's such a thing as overemphasizing an obvious point. Things should be made exactly as clear as they should be—clearer than that belongs at simple.wikipedia.org or in a baby book. Overemphasizing the obvious is talking down to the reader. Cluttering an article with bold word fragments distracts the eye and reduces readability—if anything, italics should be used for emphasis rather than bold, which is reserved for the title term in the lead line. That no one complained isn't much of an argument, and now that I've complained, it is no longer true. —Michael Z. 2006-07-20 23:14 Z

I agree that the bolding is not necessary. CynicalMe 23:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

First let me say that I'm not gonna keep arguing on this matter, much less with an administrator. I don't really mind leaving it unbolded, and of course it is not really necessary. But I don't think your arguments are good enough. The point is not whether the bolding is necessary or not. We all know what AK-47 stands for, and that is stated in the very first line of the article. However, with all the Greek characters and ocidental equivalent, I don't see why it wouldn't be at least reasonable to have the respective characters bolded. Unlike a small acronym or whatever, there's a lot of text in there explaining the abbreviaton, and bolding the initials is not just a matter of clarification, it also simplifies the reading. It's not as obvious as you make it sound, and it's not as if there's a sentence explaining word-by-word, letter-by-letter where the name is taken from. That would be overemphasizing.

The excess of apostrophes ( ' ) may be confusing and/or distracting, but that's not true for the article itself, since it obviously only appears in the editing field. If distracting text is the problem, then we might as well take off all the templates and tables from the article to make the editing field cleaner and easier to use. I guess that's a matter of opinion; personally I never had problems editing this article because of the bolding in the first line—it's as distracting as any other code in the text. As for "talking down to the reader", I'm sorry, but that doesn't make much sense to me. If that's "talking down", then we have a hell of a lot of work to do. But again, if you and/or others really think it is so damn dead obvious, I sure as hell won't keep the discussion going. —Squalla 00:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not about the edit field, but about the type visible to the reader of the article. Boldface formatting is almost always visual overkill (pick up any book and try to find where the typographer used a bold font, aside from headings). Italics should practically always be used, except for the title term in the leading line, which is intended to stand out over everything else on the page. I wouldn't normally have much of a problem with italics, but here we'd be using it in an already italicized foreign phrase. Italicized italics are conventionally formatted in a roman font—in this case it loses the impact (sample below).

Picking out individual letters in words with bold or italics is a bit messy in the best cases. Better to keep the intro simple and neat, since the abbreviation is rather self-evident anyway. —Michael Z. 2006-07-21 04:15 Z

The AK-47 ([Автомат Калашникова образца 1947 года, Avtomat Kalashnikova 1947] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: text has italic markup (help)) is a gas-operated assault rifle designed by Mikhail Kalashnikov, produced by Russian manufacturer IZH and used in many Eastern bloc nations during the Cold War. It was adopted and standardized in 1947. Compared with the autoloading rifles used in World War II, the AK-47 was generally lighter, more compact, with a shorter range, a smaller 7.62 × 39 mm cartridge, and was capable of selective fire. It was one of the first true assault rifles and remains the most widely used. The AK-47 and its numerous variants and descendants have been produced in greater numbers than any other assault rifle and are in production to this day.

I would prefer "It remains one of the most widly used." Mieciu K 12:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Anything comparable in use? Maybe Enfild? I aint sure. --jno 14:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I am refering to just the AK-47 rifle and not to the entire 7.62 × 39 mm "AK family" like the AKM and other Chinese and Warsaw Pact versions. Mieciu K 14:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Then it can be changed to reflect the fact that it is the design, and not this precise model, that is the most widely used. Would that work? CynicalMe 15:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

That would work for me. Mieciu K 16:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems ok, but by sheer numbers that still exist (something like 50 million), isn't the AK-47 the most widely used? --AK person

Design background

From the article:

The resulting Sturmgewehr 44 (StG44) was not the first rifle to use these features; it was preceded by earlier Italian and Russian designs, such as the Tokarev SVT-40.

Since I'm curious, and I'm sure others are too, which Italian designs? Links or at least names would be helpfull. WegianWarrior 05:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Generally lighter than WWII auto-loading rifles? I guess I'll have to look that one up; I thought most 1940s semi-automatics were a little under 10 pounds (Kalashnikov, Garand, Walther G 43, the early Soviets). I think there is a misconception that submachineguns are lighter than assault rifles, which are lighter than battle rifles; if you compare weapons from the same era, you'll usually find little weight difference (Thompsons similar in weight to Garands; MAC-10s similar in weight to CAR-15s, etc.) Boris B 18:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

There are duplicate sentences in this and the next section. L

Yes, a large part of AK-47#Design_background is repeated almost word for word in AK-47#Receiver_development_history, surprised it got overlooked in feature article nomination. Vespine 04:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Not lighter

Okay, according to Jane's Guns Recognition Guide, the Tokarev SVT-38 weighs 3.95 kg, the Garand M1 weighs 4.3 kg, the M1 Carbine weighs 2.36 kg, the Simonov SKS weighs 3.86 kg, the Ljungman AG42 weighs 4.71 kg, and I couldn't find the Walther or Mauser sniper rifles ('41 / '43). Among selective-fire weapons, the MP 43 (Sturmgewehr 44) weighs 5.22 kg, the Simonov AVS-36 weighs 4.4 kg, the Rheinmetall FG 42 weighs 4.5 kg, and the Browning Automatic Rifle weighs 7.28 kg (although Jane's considers the latter a machinegun); I assume the M2 carbine is similar in weight to the M1. The AK-47 itself is reported at 4.3 kg. I'll do the edit. Boris B 18:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, it was about its soviet predessors, like 5+ kg PPSh? --jno 10:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

What's that about the SVT40. The SVT40 is, just like a Garand or G43, a semi-automatic rifle and nothing more. It shares none of the features that make an assualt rifle: It's not select-fire, it's not chambered for an intermediate cartridge and it does not have the typical in-line stock layout with a seperate pistol grip that all modern assault rifles share. It really doesn't belong there as it's just confusing the reader. If anything that should be the Fedorov design of 1910. ClydeFrog 4 August 2006

I agree that the SVT isn't a good example of a "proto-assault rifle". The features it shares with the AK (gas operation, bullet diameter, being designed in the USSR) might be worth mentioning but they are not peculiar to assault rifles. I, too, am curious about the Italian designs and the Fedorov. IIRC, the only military autoloader which used an intermediate cartridge before the MP 43 / Sturmgewehr was the M1 Carbine, (which this article doesn't mention, I suppose because it was rather on the weak side of "intermediate") or perhaps the American commercial rifles (Winchester or Remington? don't remember) which got pressed into air-to-air fights occasionally at the beginning WWI. Boris B 00:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the Italian design being referred to is the Cei-Rigotti, and the Russian is the Federov Avtomat. Anyone know for sure? Boris B 07:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'd been trying to track that down. CynicalMe 20:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the weight issue, Bolotin's book "Soviet small arms" claimed that AK-47 weights 3.8kg empty, and commonly quoted figure 4.3kg is it's loaded weight. Can anyone confirm or deny these figures? Certainly given that most of the other AK variants are in the 3 to 3.8kg range, it would seem strange that AK-47 would weight that much. For example, Finnish rk62 has milled receiver and it only weights 3.6kg empty. --Mikoyan21 16:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the heavier figure may be referring to the milled receiver variant.CynicalMe 17:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It depends on the receiver and the stock (more variants). Some lighter variants also use weaker cartrigdes (5.56x45, 5.45x39). CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 17:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The point is, there are AK variants with identical milled receiver than AK-47 (Finnish RK62, for example) which are much lighter. Stock does explain part of this difference, but not friggin' 800 grams! --Mikoyan21 11:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it seems the dispute is solved. Finnish literature says that weight of Type 54 (AK-47 type2/3) is 3.6 to 4.0 kg empty, so average would be 3.8 kg - same as in Bolotin's book. Also, a collector who owns a type 3 AK-47 weighted his gun and it was 4.0kg empty, 4.4 with magazine. --Mikoyan21 12:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

In Service spec

The order to enter service was of 1949, not 1951. The document in question is the Decision of Soviet of Ministers of the USSR number 2611-1033ss of 18.06.1949 (AK has entered service) and the Order of the Ministry of Defense number 0086 of 29.06.1949 (AK was announced in the army) --jno 10:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy

This article seems to want to affirm the accuracy of the AK so much that it ends up being somewhat confusing. It argues that although the gun's moving parts are designed with loose tolerances, this does not incur an accuracy penalty. Strictly speaking, this is not possible; all things being equal, accurate guns are accurate because their parts are more precisely machined and constructed. If the AK's construction were made more precise it invariably would be more accurate. It is true however, that the AK was not designed for long-distance combat and so very high accuracy was not a goal of its design. It is AS ACCURATE AS IT NEEDS TO BE. But let's not say that its loose tolerances do not hamper accurracy; that is not true. Geminatea 00:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I agree. "This reliability comes without a cost of accuracy, as the looser tolerances still allow the precision and consistency that are required of accurate firearms." This sounds "too good to be true". Maybe it should say, "This cost on accuracy posed by these loose tolerances has proven very acceptable in a combat weapon" or something like that, if the sentence is even necessary. I'm also a little curious about the next sentence - I didn't know Soviet infantry doctrine was different from anyone else's in this regard. Most countries moved to an assault rifle for short-range fire by most infantrymen, with specialist sniper/marksman weapons (which I suppose would have been Mosin-Nagants when the AK-47 was created, and SVDs later?) It just seems like run-of-the-mill post-war doctrine but I could be wrong. -Boris B 04:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. Someone came through and changed the wording so that the sentence has the opposite meaning. I've changed it back. CynicalMe 06:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I conditionally agree. First of all, you are confusing tolerance with clearance in this discussion. A tolerance is the allowable difference in acceptable parts within the gun. a clearance is the room between moving parts to allow for fouling and debris. That said, the AK-47 is generally made with very loose tolerances by Western standards in all respects be it metalurgy, dimensional, or finish. And yes it does lessen combat effectiveness despite what might be reported. Think of it with respect to shotgun patterns. The AK-47 is an open choke, and the M16 is full choke. This has the effect of encouraging full-auto spray and pray tactics by users of the AK-47. This is a truly effective tactical doctrine for large scale attack and defense. Get every rifleman shooting. The problem is, this weapon is being used by mental retards singly or in small groups. It becomes drastically less effective the smaller the group and the greater the range. Sure, close-in engagements (out to about 30 yards) are roughly equivelant, but give me an M16 (no matter how unreliable) any day of the week beyond that range.

What weed are you smoking, guys? NO military in the world practice so-called "full-auto spray and pray" tactics. Even in Iraq or Somali. Soldiers are being trained to AIM in every military. Of course, most militias don't train even this, but those who survive for longer usually get it. And I did use AK-74. It can definitely hit human-size targets 100-200 m away, even for average shooter with minimal training.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.49.172.93 (talk • contribs).

You are correct that professional soldiers are trained to aim. And nobody has "spray & pray" as doctrine. But fact is, thats what it devolves into in conscript/peasant armies. They point, en masse. And if you have a somewhat inaccurate weapon to begin with (as the AK is compared to to modern western assualt rifles) it becomes the practice even more so...What the heck - maybe the problem is in the training/discipline? Engr105th 02:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and a well trained shooter can work at about 300 yards. Something above that is generally more of marksman work. "Spraying" is used occasionally by some militant forces, but only to discourage enemy from advancing, not for real attack. Low tolerances in AK are made possible by simple construction. But the weapon is as accurate as intended, and sufficient for distances up to 300, not 30 yards (or did you mean 300?). At 30 yards the weapon of choice is pistol or SMG. AK's inaccuracy becomes noticeable only above 200 yards, where it can miss a few inches. Generally for a trained shooter it's about twice less accurate than AR-15. May be significantly worse without prior AK training, the aiming and general shooting techniques are somewhat different. --CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 04:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that in my use of the AK,the main factor in accurate fire has always been the poor sights that they have,when upgraded sights are installed,first round hits with crappy chinese ammo at 200yds+ on a head size target were easy.I must be clear that the rifle in question was a chinese Mak90 of questionable quality that I owned,I think I paid US139 for it and abused it on a regular basis.Having said all that,with a good sighting system and no other work it was a good shooter out to 300yrds.Safn1949 22:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

If you don't mind comments from the ex post facto peanut gallery, European-style flat notch and post sights as on the AK47 are NOT crude and are NOT inaccurate provided you are familiar with them. I think the problem is too many recreational American shooters are spoiled on scopes, overtrained on aperture sights, and unwilling to admit that they need work. Kensai Max 14:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Effective range

I've been following this discussion with interest. What concerns me is the "Effective range" field in the data table. It is incorrect to confuse accuracy with effective range, but what is and what should this figure be based on? Maximum theoretical distance bullet will travel if fired at optimum trajectory? (Several miles). Maximum theoretical distance bullet will travel at supersonic velocity? (possibly >1000yds). Maximum distance average American gun enthusiast can hit human-sized target? (300yds). Maximum distance average sub-saharan African militiaman can hit human sized target? (~30yds). We need a non-subjective yardstick to base these figures on. --Admbws 15:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Umm.. just dropped in to look as this is the Featured Article today. The animated "AK-47 in Operation" gif is pretty neat, but a little choppy: I wonder if the uninitiated would understand what is happening there..

But anyway, regarding this discusion about accuracy I find it a bit confusing as currently worded. It says, "This reliability comes at the cost of accuracy, as the looser tolerances do not allow the precision and consistency that are required of more accurate firearms. However it is important to bear in mind that although accuracy was not the feature most desired of this design, it is still present."

If you boil that statement down it rather conflictingly indicates that, "This reliability comes at the cost of accuracy...However...accuracy...is still present." I think that you might want to cut this statement out altogether and replace it with something that combines the previous two statements in this discussion regarding the tradeoff between combat accuracy and combat reliability...Darentig 15:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The US military defines "effective range" as the shorter of these two: the distance at which the round will retain 60 ft/lb of impact energy OR the longest range that a round fired by an excellent rifleman has a > 50% chance of landing in a 20 inch circle (size the military uses for an "average" torso target). For an M16 (mechanical/inherent accuracy of 1-2 minutes of angle) this is 500m--although match shooters can make decent hits at 1km with a specialized, sub-moa rifle. For an AK, with an inherent accuracy of 2-6moa depending on manufacture, 250-300m is the accepted figure. Of course, a trooper in most military organizations using the AK, to say nothing of a terrorist, is nowhere near as good a marksman as a US Marine or soldier, so in reality the effective range in their hands is probably much shorter.

links to ak-47 sites

I added a link to my ak-47 discussion board, it was deleted - a link to www.ak-47.net remains. www.ak-47.net is a commercial site, if my link was removed, I ask that the link to ak-47.net also be removed. The link to my site displayed one (1) google banner at the top, ak-47.net has 5 banners on the first page. Please allow me to re-add my link, or please remove the link to ak-47.net. - --21kev 17:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Commercial site? I'm not so sure about that. The AK-47.net site is an outstanding and impartial site. I don't see why your site should be here but I do see why AK-47.net should be. Persuade us and support your arguments well. It appears that all of the activity on YOUR board is you. This appears to be a pure vanity link.--Asams10 21:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Does wikipedia have a section explaining the qualifications a site needs to be listed in the external links? Asams, can you point me to the guidelines so I may read them? --21kev 21:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

One link is not worth aruging about, I withdraw request to be listed in this topic. Have a nice day :).--21kev 21:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

To answer your question, have a look at Wikipedia:External links, which should hopefully clarify things a bit. Cheers,

-- Chris (blather • contribs) 22:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Africa

You thinks at I are a racist when a sey at Ak-47 use by black people in africa but it not rasism, it is the truth. Go in at google.se and look. Killerman2 06:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This weapon is in use by whites, blacks, reds, yellows, etc. I'd say, I know no human race which have not used an AK or its derivatives. But if you wanna highlight the role of the AK in specific conflicts, just find a better place within the article. --jno 12:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Killerman2's comment here: huh? Am I supposed to understand what is being said here?--Raulpascal 15:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No Criticisms Section

Tje Russians Main firearms today are the AK74, AK74u, AKS74u, SVD, and the makarov 9x18 pistol.

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

who is the ak47 still in use with? the akm took over pretty quickly, and I think the ak47 is pretty much entirely retired —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.145.129 (talk) 22:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, um, Didn't you quit? I'm sure you quit. Here's the diff: [6].

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Kalashnikov rifle consistently gives better than 6 minutes of angle at 100 meters with indifferent ammunition and much tighter with selected ammunition. That's about a 6 inch group at 100 yards or about an 18 inch group at 300 yards, the max useful range for an assault rifle. A 30 degree cone of fire would be a 1,800 inch spread at 100 yards; I question the accuracy of the translation if it came from Russian records. Naaman Brown (talk) 20:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uh-oh

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

Dubious claims in licensing section

The article says:

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

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

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

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

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

The only patent over AK rifle design covers modifications made over AK-47 and AKM (stated as prior art and public domain) in newer AK-74 and AK-100s (they are patented). But - there could be also trademarks, banning production of weapons labelled AK-47 by anyone except Izhmash JSC (therefore Arsenal make their AK variant under the name AR) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RussianTrooper (talk • contribs) 16:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

First Usage

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

Some border dispute most likely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.68.169 (talk) 04:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

AKM phased out?

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

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

Effective Range

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

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

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

<=Here is where we go to Google books:

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

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

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

cultural influence section/flags

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

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

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

Picture

AK-47 ?

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

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

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

Grammar

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

Saddam's golden guns

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

Seems Ironic that Russians don't use the AK 47

I think Russia still use AK-47 variants but not the original design, but a variant still counts so Russia should be on the list —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.95.125 (talk) 16:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The Russian Federation has never used it, so no. 74.14.130.49 (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Some russian Special forces use AKM, I think. Not AK. Zaqq (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Super Mario 64?!

M64 link follows to Super Mario 64... lol :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.209.114.142 (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I always suspected Mario was a communist. :P Spartan198 (talk) 04:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite of part of article

Let me start by saying that I was born in Russia, am Russian and very proud of Kalashnikov. However parts of the article were blatant POV, phrasing sentences in a way to underline USA alone fought the Cold War (when UK for example as well as others were in 100% cooperation). The article was skewed. This article should be about this wonderful gun, and not about some people's views that American movies unfairly portray suicide bombers. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 01:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a pretty massive article. Can you please quote the sections that you think need work? Faceless Enemy (talk) 09:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Presumably the almost entirely unsourced "Cultural influence" section, easily the weakest part of an otherwise pretty high-quality article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)