Talk:AK-47/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

variants

"Military variants only. If no link is provided, the difference is in name only, and all features and functions are identical to the Soviet equivalent model in parentheses. Summary of information presented in Poyer's The AK-47 and AK-74 Kalashnikov Rifles and Their Variations."

Why is this in quotes in the article? Does this mean it's plagerism? --Gbleem 13:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

No, the quotes are not there for any reason. I've removed them.CynicalMe 14:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there any reason to include "federal law regulating the assembly or possession of semi-automatic AK-47–type weapons in the United States" and long list of "parts that may be imported to the US"? --81.197.239.57 13:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely no reason. These have nothing to do with the AK-47 beyond the fact that surplus AK's are finding their way into American assembled semi-auto guns.--Asams10 15:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

So I removed most of that. --81.197.239.57 16:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

And as expected, that didnt work...problem is that it isnt particular AK-47 -law, but applied to all "parts kits" whatever weapon those remains are from. And I think that barrel imports are also now forbidden. --81.197.239.57 17:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Correct, starting back in December, all parts kits imported have to have the barrel torch-cut as well as the receiver.CynicalMe 23:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I did some research on one of the variants mentioned in Russian variants list, the AKMSU. According to people who have more knowledge about Ak rifles this is not a production variant, infact it's not even original Russian. This is a pakistani made rifle using Russian and homemade parts. I suggest removal of this one FW200 16:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

AKP

The AKP is a pistol variant of the Kalashnikov. After seeing an auction on one here, I thought it was worth mentioning. Also, could somebody upload this picture to Wiki? I would do it myself, but I've never been very good at figuring out the whole Copyright thing. CeeWhy2

No, that's not a military model. It's not even the model designation used by the 'remanufacturer'. These are kit-built guns made from a mix of new and surplus parts by hundreds of people and start-up companies in the United States.--Asams10 14:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

comparison of quality between AK variants

can someone who has knowledge of this add some info on the subject? is the russian model preferred? et cetera... AlexOvShaolin 03:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Advertisements as links

I removed two links plugging a book by Larry Kahaner: "AK-47: The Weapon That Changed the Face of War." This is a work of opinion and the Washington Post article was an opinion piece and, as such, is not encyclopedic. It is more appropriate to reference books for an entry rather than place advertisements for them in links. In this case, the book itself is an opinion piece and references should be closely scrutinized.--Asams10 17:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

To say that Kahaner's book is a "work of opinion" is pointlessly reductive. The book is actually a well-researched history of the gun's impact on war and society. It's impossible for any journalist or historian not to be informed and thereby slanted by his or her own outlook or "opinion" (check out any other featured article, say, Margaret Thatcher, and tell me whether every one of the External Links is devoid of some kind of slant or POV).

I assume you have some quibble with what you perceive as the author's agenda, but that doesn't make the book any less notable or relevant to those wishing to learn more about the gun's legacy. To me, a book heavy on social/historical analysis is every bit as important as a link to a dry technical manual. I agree this should be added to the references, but I don't think it's entirely inappropriate to include information about a book like this in the External Links. If it's the commercial aspect of the website to which you object, we could probably add a link directly to the article's first chapter, which is available on several websites.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 19:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

They are not quibbles and Larry makes it clear, from what I've read, that the work is one of reinforced opinion. The fact that he plugs the book by writing an opinion piece (yes, in the opinion section, not 'books' or 'world events'). He sums the article by mocking Kalashnikov's view that his weapon was merely a tool and not intrinsicly evil. That's the basic pretense of the rifle as a symbol of such rather than a tool wielded by the Soviet Union and others to spread Communism. He chose the Washington Post to print it and even THEY had to put it in the opinion section. Did I mention opinions yet? I have one, you have one, and obviously Larry has one. My point is that this work can be referenced as such, not placed as an advertisement under the links section. The first link directed you to the plug page for the book, clearly an advertisement. The second directed you to the opinion piece with the sole purpose of teasing and selling the book. Encyclopedic links are fine, but this goes over the board.--Asams10 21:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

PP-19 & S12K

I have seen a variant that i don't think you've mentioned

the PP-19 sports an odd magazine, it runs from the barrel along the foregrip to the chamber and spirals down the tubual magazine. Makes it very short and stock and has a larger magazine capacity. It has been chambered to accept 9mm rounds, I think its a variant of the AK-74, as its pretty short.

also I think there is the S12K, which I've heard has been completely rechambered to take 12G shotgun shells. Weather it can fire full auto, i don't know.

anyway, do these variants exsist?

many thanks --Wouse101 23:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The weapon you speak of is located in this article: Bizon.--Asams10 00:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is there little mention SKS?

There are very few internal design differences between the SKS and the AK-47 in the regards to the internal workings between these two rifles, save for the trigger that allows for fully automatic fire on the AK-47. On the SKS, there are two moving parts inside of the gas cylinder that works the bolt back after a round is fired. On the AK, this part has been replaced by one, if I recall correctly that is. Simonov's design must have had a large influence on Kalashnikov, but that is not mentioned here. Brenden 18:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong. There are significant differences in all mechanisms, construction, etc. About the only thing they have in common is that both have a piston located on top of the barrel. There is no mention of the SKS because it's another gun. See that article if you want to know about that gun.--Asams10 01:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You can't tell me that Kalashnikov did not make a few design improvements to the SKS when developing the AK-47. Look at both the SKS and the AK when they have been field stripped. Beyond a few obvious differences (take down of the receiver, the trigger containing two sears, and the type of bolt operation to eject a spent cartridge out of the side as opposed to the top) they look strikingly similar. The AK features less parts than the SKS (an obvious improvement) and a few changes to address jamming issues. Brenden 05:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what to say here. They're as different as a wankel engine and a standard piston engine. And, yes, I can tell you that they are different in virtually every way. You say the sky is red... it's obvious that it's blue to me, but I'm not willing to go through all the trouble proving it to you.--Asams10 05:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This one will be a bear to solve...Here's my take: Its almost impossible that Kalashnikov the designer didn't or wouldn't use parts or systems from pre-existing designs such as the SKS. The advantage of already haivng the machining and manufacturing in place (or as near to the specs as they could get) is obvious. Engr105th 02:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, SKS must be mentioned here as "predecessor" of AK just for its cartridge, which was used for AK weapon system (so called, "intermediate cartridge" - Russian: промежуточный патрон)! This is why the AK was named "avtomat" (relatively new class of weapon in USSR), and not "assault rifle", and not "machinegun-psitol". --jno 06:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The SKS is definitely a predecessor of the AKM. Anybody that argues differently is just plain wrong. The SKS was the standard Soviet infantry rifle for a couple of years following World War 2. It was replaced by the AK-47. It preceded the AK-47, therefore it was the predecessor. Now that we have that out of the way, the argument that the AK-47 has similar design and operation to that of the M1 Garand is just plain dumb. I personally own an SKS (Original Russian Tula manufacture, an AKM (Maadi Egyptian manufactured model imported as the ARM by Intra Arms) and an M1 Garand (Springfield with an 749,xxx Serial number). The mechanisms of the M1 Garand and that of the AKM are very different. The bolt carrier operates in a completely different manner on the two rifles. The return spring on the garand is located inside the operating rod below the barrel, it operates the action by pushing the operating rod foward, which pulls the bolt closed (not like the SKS). On the AK it is located inside of the back of the bolt carrier assembly and operates the bolt by pushing it closed (exactly like the SKS.) The operating rod connects to the Garands bolt carrier by fitting into a cam in the side of it. This allows for a magazine below the action, since the gas system and operating rod are located below the barrel. Very different than the AK design. The gas system on the AK is on the top of the barrel, and the gas piston is attached directly to the bolt carrier assembly. This differs from the SKS in one way only. The Gas piston on the SKS is detached from the bolt carrier, and cycles the action by pushing against a gas tube extension rod that presses against the face of the bolt carrier assembly. Other than that they are the same system. I could go on and on about the similarities between the SKS and the AKM, and then go on to show the similarities of the SKS and the SVT, but this is the internet and some idiot that has never fired a rifle in his life will know better and correct me. So why waste the time? UtahWatchdog 08:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry this reply is late, but I just noticed somebody else had commented. Look at the bolt and bolt carrier of your AK-47 head on. Now, look at the same on the Garand, head on. Imagine that little round part on the side of your Garand bolt being moved 90 degrees clockwise. Now, imagine the extractor and ejector being moved about 20 degrees to eject from the side instead of at an angle. Now, look at the raceway on your Garand operating rod and your AK bolt carriers. Now, look at the side of the AK trigger group assembled (yeah, you'll need a little imagination for this) and then look at the side of your Garand trigger group. Other than moving the op rod to the top of the barrel, all of the geometry is IDENTICAL. Again, and as it says in the text, Kalashnikov's team SIMPLIFIED the Garand operating system and put it in a SIMPLIFIED StG44 receiver, fed it from a SIMPLIFIED StG44 magazine using a cartridge with virtually the same design concept as the StG44 cartridge. If you disagree, you're wrong. These are facts that can be ascertained by just looking at the weapons and are supported by volumes of circumstantial and real evidence even the words of Kalashnikov himself. That's it, end of story. To deny it flys in the face of logic.--Asams10 06:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Is the B.S. of it [the AK-47] owing more to the M1 Garand than the SKS going to be replaced or not? Brenden 05:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Even Kalashnikov himself has admitted that he borrowed features from the M1 Garand. See "Kalashnikov: The Arms and the Man" by Ed Ezell. The SKS uses a completely different locking mechanism than the AK. The only thing the SKS and AK have in common is the location of the gas cylinder above the barrel (also featured in previous Russian designs) and the 7.62x39mm cartridge. D.E. Watters 05:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

He may have borrowed some features from the Garand, but the Garand wasn't the sole influence in the design of the AK-47. I own an AKM, Garand, and SKS (among many other rifles). Field strip the three rifles and place their parts next to each other. You will see which rifle the AKM more closely represents. Maybe Simonov ripped off the design of the Garand too? UtahWatchdog 04:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure you may think the two rotating lugs in the Garand and the Kalashnikov are similar, but I wouldn't say its a rip-off. The thing that really makes me irritated is saying that the AK-47 was based of the Sturmgewehr 44. Many guns have their similarities and differences, think of all the bolt action rifles based on the Mauser. I have an SKS and an AK-47 (or AKM if it makes anyone happy) and I see the external differences and internal differences. SKS should not be in the article because Kalashnikov's design is different from Siminov's design, and especially Garand's design. --Chinese3126 22:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed "Disassembly" section.

In the section I noticed a few instances of the word "He", and replaced it with words "The operator". It occurred 2 times and thought who's "He"? Using the word "He" could also make it seem only males use the AK-47, and not all operators of the AK-47 are male. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.131.57.148 (talk) 23:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Man does not automatically refer to the male sex, regardless of what feminazis claim. We are all part of MANkind are we not? Brenden 05:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Changing article to AKM

I realise this would be a big shift, but the association most people have when they think of the AK-47 is actually the AKM, as that was the source of the soviet bloc knockoffs. Just because it's the commonly assumed name, there's no reason to promote ignorance. Therefore, I propose shifting the "social impact" information to a new article under AKM, covering the name confusion in addition. Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Madmoomix (talk • contribs) 18:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

i absoulty agree with you. ignorce shouldnt be ecused because its the norm. either i suggestthe AKM become its own artical and link to this page. change page name to AKM or change page name to "avotomat kalashnikov" as it would refer properly to all variants

Please learn how to capitalize, punctuate, and sign your posts. AK-47 is a generic term denoting DOZENS of models that are functionally identical.--Asams10 03:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I always forget to sign my posts. But they're not the same. There are many differences. First off many people think of the AK-47 as an AKM. And second what about AK-74's they have a completely different round. Encyclopedias are meant to educate not promote ingnoranes. Because this page refers to almost every variant of the AK series it should be addressed as such. And also the its only called the AK-47 by Western countries just because we call it something doesn't mean it's correct.(Esskater11 16:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC))

Trivia

This article seems to very popular and it seems like it needs to have some trivia. Anyone object? I have a quote from Lord of War about the ak-47 that is very interesting and is perfect to put in the trivia section.--M79 specialist 22:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Trivia is not acceptable per this consensus.

And if you bothered to look, this quote is already included in Wikiquote.CynicalMe 06:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Very Trevial it seems...THE arms debate: 'Turning the gun on himself' http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/2006/06/26/turning_on_his_gun_himself.html

This is a link to a BLOG, not a legitemate news or journal article. Basically an unsupported rant written in stream-of-consciousness style. Probably PCP or LSD induced. Just my opinion there. I don't have a reference. :-) --Asams10 20:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrong place for this

I have removed this, as it is should be cleaned. "circumstantial evidence" is cool, but there are other opinions, that should be mentioned.--Oleg Str 10:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool, you didn't like two words in a section so you blanked the section and commented on it in the middle of the talk page under a COMPLETELY unrelated subject? --Asams10 15:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Mac-90 Redirect.

Mac-90 redirects to this page, i myself knew they were similar but thought they were different, if this is the case could somone please inform me of what the differences are or if not then my mistake. 88.108.138.26 19:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Images removed?

Does someone know why the images on the side showing the different variants were removed? (The different receivers.) I thought they were pretty cool images... andkore 03:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Legality Too long?

I think this sections too i mean insted of like evry main country in the world it could probaly be condesned into a 3 or 4 paragraphs. i mean people would much rather no what amde the AK great and combat use then why its illegal. This is my opion what does everyone else think(Esskater11 17:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC))

It should not even be on the page. This should be a description of the gun, not the laws of countries. Brenden 05:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Asams10 06:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks that section always ruined the page for me and made me hate it for some od reason, its much more berable to look at now(ForeverDEAD 02:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC))

MAC-90

MAC-90 redirects to this. But why? I'm no expert on guns or anything, and I wiki'd MAC-90 and it came to this, but nothing here talks about it. Is it just an alias? Some sort of knockoff? Can this be explained in well..novice terms? --72.89.244.206 23:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I think its a misspelling of the Norinco MAK-90 which is a Chinese version of the AK-47.--I already forgot 23:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Artical needs to be completly changed in my opioion.

This artical lacks depth, it doesnt focus on what made the gun great and more on variants and illict trade and were its legal to have one. the history of the gun should really be almost the entire page not a short section of it.(ForeverDEAD 16:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC))

Thai peace activist

I just restored the sentence about the Thai peace activist using a AK-47 as a guitar, previously removed with the comment "With 100 million of the things made, you can't mention every trivial thing here." My arguments for its relevance:

• The paragraph is about positive uses of AK-47, of which this is a good example.
• The previous sentence talks about an AK-47 turned into a guitar as a peace symbol; it is interesting to note that this symbolism has been used elsewhere. Neither use is more "trivial" than the other.
• To show that this particular use of an AK-47 is not considered trivial by major news sources, I submit the following references:
  • "AK-47 guitar used to achieve peace", The Manila Times, 3 June 2006
  • "Guitar man strikes a peace note in south", The Straits Times (Singapore), April 27, 2006
  • "I bring my guitar to see militants and sing songs ...", Herald Sun (Australia), June 3, 2006
  • "Thai musician turns rifle into guitar on peace mission", Agence France Presse, June 1, 2006

AxelBoldt 00:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, search AK-47 and you'll get quite a few hits. This guy is trying to get attention and it worked. That doesn't mean that he deserves mention under an article about the AK-47. I bet you'll find the AK-47 featured in some really neato movies too, but they don't deserve mention. Uh, who's guitar was he using, btw, if you're going to argue that the guy who turns AK's into Guitars is JUST AS relevant. This guy is a copycat or a user of the other's guitars and he's trying to get attention.--Asams10 03:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

All the four articles I quoted are about this particular Thai musician and his AK-47-turned guitar, not about AK-47's in general. Your edit comment "a guy who uses an AK-47, uh, like tens of millions of other people" ignores the fact that using a transformed AK-47 as a peace symbol seems to be a fairly rare and newsworthy use. Further, do you have any evidence for your claim that the Thai musician copied the idea or acquired the guitar from the Columbian guy? None of the articles I've read mention it, but it would be interesting to add this detail to the article if you can support it. AxelBoldt 15:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a buddy who has a lamp made out of an AK-47. He even made it himself from scrap AK parts. Surely that's more important than music. I mean, without light, everything would be, well, dark. How would the guitar maker be able to see what he was doing?? So whaddyathink? Should I add my lamp-making buddy? —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. BTW, how many mentionings in the international press did your buddy get for his important lamps? AxelBoldt 15:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a publicity stunt. You're either under the dillusion that this encyclopedic or you're trolling for people who'll stand up for the quality and relavancy standards of GOOD articles. Make another article about this guy if you want but don't crowd a fine article like this one... please.--Asams10 15:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I have seen a table made from M-14 stocks. The stocks even flare out and look pretty decent. I'd like one that has little slots on the top where I can put spent casings and fill it in with acrylic. I'm a recycling advocate, so that means I should, by the same logic, put entries under recycling, gun control, acrylic, 7.62x51 NATO, the M-14, and because the M14 was decended from the M1 Garand, I'll put a paragraph in that article too. Pictures all around, too. Yeah, maybe I should change my point of view on this one. Thanks, Thern, I like where you're going with this.--Asams10 06:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Guns are fun. I think I may add myself. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 07:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Peace, love, and magnum.

I don't see how non-notable personal items relate to the symbolism and international attention garnered by the rifle in question. I'm not sure if the section should be added to the article, but the use of personal items for an arguments against AxelBoldt's addition don't substantiate a removal from the cultural influence section. --I already forgot 21:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I was joking. My point, if there was one, was that I don't think the entry belongs at all. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

International attention? Okay, he cited 4 articles. I'll go through and every instance where an AK-47 was mentioned in more than three international articles, I'll add it to this article? It's not a question of significance, it's a question or relevance. What does this add to the article? How many gun-guitar entries do we need in an article about the gun? For those that follow my edits, you'll note that I'm a stickler for not having trivia in an article, but even I found it interesting about the gun-guitar dude... uh, the ARTIST who makes them, not the wannabe who has garnered 'international attention' over using his. Let's pick the more significant of the two and go with it.--Asams10 03:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I hate trivia sections. They just don't belong. And don't get me started on video game refs. As to the matter at hand, I think the AK bears mentioning in the article about the guitarist, but the guitarist or even the guitar maker don't bear mentioning in the article about the AK. It's a matter of heirachy. Should we put his name in an article about the amp he uses, the brand of guitar string he uses, the model of tour bus he rides in? All that stuff belongs in his article, not the other way around. The flow is in one direction. Swiming upstream is a rare exception, not the rule. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

China

Why are the Type 81 and QLZ-87 listed as variants of the AK-47? The only copy of the AK-47 the Chinese ever produced was the Type 56 assault rifle. The Type 81 while externally some-what resembling an AK-47 the external and internal differences make it a completely different assault rifle, just as the Indian INSAS assault rifle is based on the AK-47 but is a very different assault rifle. The QLZ-87 on the other hand is completely different! It's a squad-manned automatic grenade launcher which has absolutely nothing to do with AK-47. These two entries under 'Variants' under 'Production outside of Russia' should be removed. --Semi-Lobster 15:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You've got my vote. Take them out!--Asams10 15:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Consider them removed! (since I doubt anybody would object since you seem to be the most active person in these discussions and this is pretty cut and dry). --Semi-Lobster 12:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Iraq 2007 section

Does it really need its own section shouldnt it be more in illicet trade section?(ForeverDEAD 23:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC))

Recent move

Could the person who moved the page please have a disscution on the move(note im actualy for the title). i think its fair we have another discusion. competly sorry if there was a disscusion i couldnt find one(ForeverDEAD 02:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC))

Cultural Influence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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