Talk:AK-47/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

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)

US legality of the semi-automatic

I'm confused about the legality of semi-automatics. Is it legal to import semi-automatic weapons? If it is then I can assemble them in the US? --Gbleem 00:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to whomever changed the legality section. Is it legal to import semi-automatic versions? If it is then the 10 part rule would not apply? --Gbleem 17:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not legal to import them, since they are considered to have no "sporting purpose"CynicalMe 17:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

"Currently, the only federal law regulating the assembly or possession of semi-automatic AK-47–type weapons in the United States is 18 USC 922r. Commonly known as "922r", this section prohibits the domestic assembly of any firearm which would be ineligible for importation. The effect of this is that no more than 10 of the parts from the following list may be imported (manufactured outside the U.S.):"

This paragraph just does not make sense. If I make my rifle from parts made in the U.S. that would still be assembly of a rifle that is illegal to import. Maybe we need a separate article on the legality of automatic and semi-automatic rifles. This issue applies to other guns also. --Gbleem 20:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, it is illegal to assemble a rifle using imported parts if the assembled rifle would not be eligible for importation. By including ten or more US-made parts, the rifle is technically considered to be of US origin, and thus, is not covered by import regulations. The only AK-47 variants that can be legally imported for civilian sale are those that cannot accept a magazine greater than 10 rounds in capacity and do not have non-sporting features such flash hiders, a muzzle device capable of launching rifle grenades, pistol grips, and folding stocks. D.E. Watters 00:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

What about semi-auto burst? Dudtz 9/22/06 5:30 PM EST

I assume you mean burst fire. That is not semi-automatic, and is also illegal. CynicalMe 21:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

What if I had a federal weapons permit or tax stamp? Dudtz 9/25/06 6:24 PM EST

A fully automatic AK-47 can be legally purchased provided that the individual has proper licensing and such. Also, high capacity magazines and other goodies(bayonet lug, folding stock, etc.) are perfectly legal in most states. Bald Chihuahua

Since getting the permits requires the permission of local law enforcement authorities, such permits are almost impossible to get for average citizens. Plus you will also pay thousands of dollars for a legal machine gun. CynicalMe 17:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hugo Schmeisser a co-designer?

is there any evidence that proves he worked on the design of the the AK? There is no citiation in the Hugo Schmeisser paragraphs.

By August 1945 the Red Army had created 50 Stg 44s from existing assembly parts, and had begun inspecting their design. 10785 sheets of technical designs were confiscated by the Soviets as part of their research. In October 1945 Hugo Schmeisser was forced to work for the Red Army and instructed to continue development of new weapons. Schmeisser's brilliance continued to impress the Red Army, and he, along with other weapons designers and their families, was relocated to the USSR. On October 24, 1946 The German specialists rode a train to Izhevsk in the southern Ural Mountains, where a center of Russian firearms development was located. Hugo Schmeisser's work while in the Red Army in Izhevsk (1946-1952) is shrouded in darkness. Little is known of his life during this period, until 1952 when he and other German specialists returned home to Germany.

what source is this information from? and if the work he did between 1946-1952 is "shrouded in darkness", how can he be thought to be a co-designer. It would just be speculation to think he was involved in AK-47 development.

Source

Book RU: "Все пистолеты мира" "Ян Хогг" und "Джон Уикс" Book

schmeisser-international.de

The words like work while in the Red Army display very little knowlege of soviet reality. I would not trust that source without further confirmation.

• About the schmeisser-international project (in russian)
• schmeisser.com.ua
• a bit more about H.S. in Izhevsk (in russian)

--jno 14:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Invisible section

There is a section of this article between liscencing and see also that says:

Weapon of Tears Weapon of horror; Weapon of sadness and grief; Magnificently obtuse.

This section is not visible to editing, nor in a preview of the page. What is going on?

Simple vandalism. Probably that section got deleted before you tried to edit it. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 03:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Confusing?

Umm...it mentions in the article that to make more effective close range weaponry: "this was done by shortening the 8 mm Mauser cartridge to 33 mm and using a lighter bullet." ..last I checked, although I'm no gun expert, 8 mm was shorter than 33 mm. If this is indeed accurate, it's worded somewhat poorly. (new to wikipedia, just trying to help)67.142.130.27 03:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)JSto

Yeah, that got me too. Maybe they meant from 33 mm? --Wafulz 03:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The confusion lies in the fact that the figures given are measurements of two different things: 8mm is the diameter of the bullet (width), 33mm is the length of the entire cartridge. This means the original 8mm bullet cartridge was longer then 33mm before it was shortened, but not giving the original length makes it confusing if you are not familiar with firearms.Vespine 04:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I modified the article to clearly state "diameter" and "length". It was indeed very confusing for non-firearms experts; at first I thought it must be a mistake. Redquark 04:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, 33mm is the length of the 7.92mm Kurz' cartridge case. The full-size 7.92mm Mauser (8mm Mauser) has a cartridge case 57mm long. This is why we should use the full metric designations, in this case: 7.92x33mm Kurz vs. 7.92x57mm Mauser. D.E. Watters 11:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Repeated Paragraph

The following two paragraphs are repeated in the article not even a page below where it originally appears:

There were many difficulties during the initial phase of production. The first production models had stamped sheet metal receivers. Difficulties were encountered welding the guide and ejector rails causing high rejection rates. Instead of halting production, a heavy machined receiver was substituted for the sheet metal receiver. This was a more costly process, but the use of machined receivers accelerated production as tooling and labor for the earlier Mosin-Nagant rifle's machined receiver were easily adapted. Partly because of these problems, the Soviets were not able to distribute large numbers of the new rifle to soldiers until 1956. During this time, production of the interim SKS rifle continued.

Once manufacturing difficulties had been overcome, a redesigned version designated the AKM (M for modernized or upgraded—in Russian: Автомат Калашникова Модернизированный) was introduced in 1959. This new model used a stamped sheet metal receiver and featured a slanted muzzle brake on the end of the barrel to compensate for muzzle rise under recoil. In addition, a hammer retarder was added in order to prevent the weapon from firing out of battery (without the bolt being fully closed) during rapid or automatic fire. This is also sometimes referred to as a "cyclic rate reducer", or simply "rate reducer", as it also has the effect of reducing the number of rounds fired per minute during automatic fire. It was also lighter than the previous, roughly two-thirds of the weight. Both licensed and unlicensed production of the Kalashnikov weapons abroad were almost exclusively of the AKM, partially due to the much easier production of the stamped receiver. This model is the most commonly encountered, having been produced in much greater quantities. All rifles based on the Kalashnikov design are frequently referred to as AK-47s in the West, although this is only correct when applied to rifles based on the original 3 receiver types. In most former Eastern Bloc countries, the weapon is known simply as the "Kalashnikov".

I cannot fix it because I know next to nothing about these weapons. How can an error this great slip through and have the article nominated as FA? Kareeser|^Talk! 04:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

My bad, the issue is fixed now. Kareeser|^Talk! 04:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I fixed it. The duplication happened some time after the article was promoted. FAs do have a tendency to deteriorate sometimes... Redquark 04:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

"Production Outside of Russia" section with unusual quotes

I haven't touched this because it may well be more meaningful to someone who knows more than I do (nothing) on the topic, but what's the section with the quotes doing at the top of that table? Should it be there visible, or should it in fact be commented out? BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 09:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism-Tag is an Eyesore

Can this page be protected without the tag? It destroys the article's appearance. 194.46.249.183 20:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe it can. However, the tag will likely be removed in the near future, as the article makes its way down the Featured Article of the Day list. CynicalMe 21:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, actually it can be protected without the tag. However, protecting articles that appear on the main page is not a good idea. See User:Raul654/protection. Pagrashtak 23:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

List of weapons influenced by the Kalashnikov design

Not sure of the best place to post this, so here goes....

Per discussion at CfD the Category:List of weapons influenced by the Kalashnikov design has been "listified" to List of weapons influenced by the Kalashnikov design. I've done the basic wikifying, but someone probably wants to do some additional clean-up work. Regards --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Kirilenko

I don't feel that a disambig link to an athlete's nickname is appropriate. After all, people who know about the athlete aren't going to search for him by his nickname, and people that know what his nickname is are probably going to know what it refers to. Please discuss.CynicalMe 14:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Nicknames and disambiguation

paraphrased from comment left on Asams10's talk page

Several editors have been removing my addition of disambiguation link at the top of the AK-47 article. I appreciate your (unspecified) reason for doing so--namely, that you don't want a serious firearms article to be cluttered with silly references to material that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Let me explain why you are mistaken and why I do not require the consensus of the editors of this article to include my link:

There is an established precedence on Wikipedia to disambiguate nicknames of sports players and other notable people. I am listing some examples.

Let's start with basketball players:

• Enter KG into the Search field. You are directed to a disambiguation page with a list of entries, among which is Kevin Garnett.
• Enter Mailman. Once again you find yourself on a dab page that lists Karl Malone

Try some other famous athletes:

• Go to the Rocket article. The first line is a disambiguation link, linking to a page that lists Roger Clemens, among others nicknamed Rocket.
• The first line of the Juice article contians a disambiguation link, wherein we can find a link to O.J. Simpson
• The first line of the Diesel article disambiguates to several people nicknamed "Diesel"

The inclusion of these disambiguations is not controversial. And neither should be my re-insertion of the disambiguation statement in the AK-47 article. You many not realize or believe this, but for many basketball fans, "AK-47" refers primarily to the forward Andrei Kirilenko. The name of the gun is secondary. This makes a disambiguation appropriate.

You may wish to reply that I require "consensus" in order to sully your featured article with a basketball player link. That may be true, but it's not the consensus of the 2 or 3 editors who frequent this article that I need--a broader consensus among Wikipedians has already been reached concerning the appropriate way to provide disambiguation for articles whose titles might possibly refer to one or more thing:

When a user searches for a particular term, he or she may have something else in mind than what actually appears. In this case, a friendly link to the alternative article is placed at the top.

This guideline could not be clearer, nor more reasonable. Please stop reverting my inclusion of the disambiguation link without addressing these points.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 14:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing as precedent. Just because something is done (possibly wrongly) on another page does not mean there is consensus. --Mmx1 22:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Disambiguation itself is a guideline and, thus, by definition, reflects the consensus of Wikipedians.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 22:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

But it says nothing about criteria for creating disambigs. --Mmx1 22:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not just me, but a host of users who are trying to prevent you from linking to a minor article from a monster article like this. My name can be Richard Nixon, but that would not mean I deserve a disambig statement at the beginning of the Nixon article. If you agree that AK-47 should be disambig'd to the BB player, why shouldn't I use the same logic to say I want my own Disambig link at the beginning of the article? If you say that's absurd, then disambig is not a right and we argue merely about what level of relevance there is to the disambig. I feel that you must show a statisticaly significant percentage (2.5%) of people who type AK-47 are really searching for the basketball player and not for the gun. Show us that. None of us would argue that you may create your own disambig page and link the main article there, however it is my sincere belief that you are a fan of this player, his team, and/or basketball in general and feel that this trivial reference is fleeting and not encyclopedic. --Asams10 04:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Linking to a dedicated disambig page, when there's a lot of meanings, is one thing; however, when there is only one link, it might be necessary to decide whether it is appropriate. In this case the article about Andrei Kirilenko mentions his nickname only in section "Trivia", so I guess he's better known by his name; so disambig link will probably serve only very little purpose.

If there were several things to disambig, page would be appropriate, but here it's just not useful, IMHO. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 05:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that in this particular case the disambiguation link is appropriate, given the notability of said basketball player and his nickname, neither of which appear, to me, relevant enough to grant a disambiguation message at the start of this page. As CP/M pointed out, if there were/are enough distinct references to "AK-47", a disambiguation page (e.g. AK-47 (disambiguation) could be created, with "AK-47" redirecting here, and this template at the start of the page; I guess that would be more appropriate.
—Squalla 15:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

If I cared enough, I could demonstrate, using a variety of reliable sources, that Kirlenko is widely considered one of the best and most notable forwards currently playing basketball and that "AK-47" is his primary nickname, every bit as legitimate (and frequently used by journalists and fans, since his full name is such a mouthful) as the examples I listed above ("Rocket" for Clemens and "The Juice" for O.J., etc.). But this would require effort that would better be devoted to improving other articles (perhaps starting with AK-47's apparently underwhelming article, which I have not read in quite some time). By the way, to respond to Asams10 edit summary[1], I am truly sorry that I broke "multiple revert rule." I am a big fan of that rule and do my best to comply, but I must not have kept accurate count of my recent reversions. It won't happen again. On the other hand, I believe Asams10 has misused the term "vanity entry," unless he is baselessly supposing that I am (or am somehow associated with) the basketball player in question.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 12:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

mac 90

The local news said the kid with the gun had a mac 90 that was similar to an ak 47. I found a picture on a website. Is it an ak-47 copy? --Gbleem 23:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The MAK-90 is a Chinese variant of the AK-47 which was made for export to civilian markets. It uses a different receiver and is semi-automatic. CynicalMe 07:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Does the mac90 diserve it's own article or should all the ak-47 variants be in this article? Should we have have redirects to ak-47? --Gbleem 13:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It does not deserve its own article. It does not have any significant differences from the regular AK (besides being semi-automatic).CynicalMe 14:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

OK I added a bunch of redirects. --Gbleem 04:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)