Talk:AK-47/PreviousDiscussion

message: This discussion page itself has become long and rambling, with much of the content relating to disputes that have been settled. Is anyone else in favor of deleting the whole thing (or most of it) and starting over? CynicalMe 19:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in favor of a renew. —Squalla 03:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is it time to renew the discussion page?

message: This article is written, in my opinion, even better than some of the other good articles on Wikipedia. I think it may even be eligable for "featured" article. What do you all, my fellow Wikipedists, think?
:Ditto CynicalMe 01:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, although I think the M1 Garand is an even better candidate for featured article after the last major improvements in the last months. I do think this article should be classified as a "good article", however. —Squalla 03:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Isn't this at least a "good" article?

message: Toward the end of the article it mentions the WASR-10 as low-quality and having ejector problems...I have yet to find a single reputable (i.e., not word-of-mouth) source to confirm this. In fact, most sources claim the opposite is true of both the WASR-10 and the SAR-1 ... is there a reference here?
changed "most" to "much", corrosive ammo is mostly old stock --66.173.192.96 02:39, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  WASR-10 Low Quality? 

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

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

message: what's the source on US forces using the AK in Iraq because ammo for it doesn't have to be accounted for?  that doesn't make a lot of sense.  also, it is not "popular belief" that US forces commonly used the AK in vietnam.  it was used occasionally by special forces.
:Indeed. Even if they are true, I don't belief either point is documented to a level required of an encyclopedia article, so I cut them. Ashmoo 00:20, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll resist the urge to delete your comments.  No. actually the 5.56mm bullets fragment violently at close range.  Please read a little more before you make comments.  I'd suggest the "Ammo Oracle." --Asams10 17:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: read above. the main reason is better performance in sands. just compare the gap between the bolt and its cover (english?) for AK and M16. --jno 08:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: use by US forces in Vietnam, Iraq?

message: The number of units produced is mentioned 3 times on the page and a different figure is given each time:
~100 million
55-100 million
100+ million
55-100m & 100+m are mutually exclusive. Can we get a reliable estimate and make these consistent.
:It is more than 100 million according to Guinness World Records. I'll correct the errors.--Idleguy 02:06, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
::A guy at the factory was just quoted saying that around a billion total units had been produced, of which 10-12% were actually made in Russia.  Is that consistent?  I.e. that would mean around 100 million actual AK's and 900 million copies/clones.  Or do you mean 100 million total?  The 1 billion statistic was briefly in the article but removed as "bogus" diff.  I'm the one who put it in (based on seeing it in the news) but it does sound awfully high.  Phr 21:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Estimates have ranged from 30 million to 110 million or more depending on the source.  Nobody is sure, but the number isn't really meaningful in any tangible sense.  What is meaningful is that the AK-47 and its copies (legal or not) have been produced in greater numbers than any other small arm in history.--Asams10 02:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of Units Produced: not consistent

message: *The first AK-47s ... are usually said to be capable of accuracy of two MOA. Most models... are typically only capable of approximately six MOA accuracy. Most Western military rifles are capable of six MOA or better.
Is this correct? It essentially says that most AK-47s are no worse than some Western rifles. Is that what we mean to say? Perhaps comparing it to another similar weapon, like the M-16, would provide a clearer comparison. I don't know MOAs from CEPs, but when I saw this I wondered if the numbers are all correct, etc. Any thoughts? Cheers, -Willmcw June 29, 2005 08:19 (UTC)
It depends greatly on the ammo and the rifle used. 1 MOA is a 1 inch group at 100 yards, which in practical terms means you can hit a 1 inch target reliably at 100 yards. There are many AR/M16 variants that have been built to shoot sub minute groups and generally speaking even the "cheap" ARs will tend to shoot at worst 2-3 MOA. The more expensive AKs (RPK receiver VEPR, forged receiver Arsenal) with decent russian ammo will shoot 2-4 MOA (which mine does). The cheaper variants can shoot anywhere from 2-15 MOA. There is really no lower bound on how badly you can make a gun. I dont think AKs are capable of sub MOA accuracy, at least not any I have encountered. All the guys who are into precision shooting are using bolt actions or building custom AR uppers. 
The problem is that a poorly made AK will still fire while a less than well-built AR will have constant reliability problems. If they are made to more or less the same standards of quality, they perform more or less comparably out to 300-400 yards. Of course since people dont know about these things they will usually pick the cheaper AK, which forces the market to sell lots of cheap AKs rather than good ones. 
Beyond 350 yards you run into the limits of 7.62x39 ballistics (it just drops too fast beyond that range to hit anything reliably). The gun might still be accurate beyond that range (the bullets go the same place every time you fire) but you wont be able to compensate for so much drop easily. 308 and 7.62x54 kalshnikov rifles are accurate to fairly long ranges, so I think the design is still fairly tolerable for precision shooting. 
-Beerslurpy
:Wow, it sounds like you know what you're talking about. So, in light of what you've written, do you think that the text in the article is accurate? If not, can you improve it? Thanks, -Willmcw 22:01, July 9, 2005 (UTC)
It's somewhat foolish to compare AK47 to a rifle. It's a carbine. 68.81.29.74 01:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  MOA 

message: I've noticed the AK47 page (like the Simpsons' page) seems to be written by a group of knowledgable enthusiasts who sometimes have the tendency to want to include every little bit of trivia about the topic. Unfortunately, doing this reduces the clarity of the article. These are the major traps, as I see them:
* Hollywood myths. The article should be saying what the AK47 is, not what it isn't. Maybe a seperate section should be created for debunking myths. Hollywood inaccurately portrays everything from computer use, court proceedings to space travel. I think anyone seriously interested in the topic will be sceptical of info gathered from movies.
* Variants. Since there are over 50 million AK units out there, a lot of variants are going to exist. Disrupting the flow of an section about a particular feature to go onto a tangent about variants makes it hard to read. Again, putting all but the most common variants into the Variants section seems like the best solution.
* Endless operational details. There's also a tendency to include every little operational detail, from the sound the selector makes compared to other rifles to the patterning on the grip on a Polish model. Will a reader really want to know all these things, or will it just make it harder for them to get to the relevant information?
I hope I'm not sounding too critical, the page contains a lot of good material. I've been chopping a lot of these (IMO) irrelevant details out of the article as they appear and would just like to check that other editors consider it a worthwhile endevour.
Ashmoo 02:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Details Overload 

message: A user just posted an incorrect tidbit about the Assault Weapon's ban.  The assault weapon's ban did not cover the AK-47 which was severely restricted by law in 1934 and later banned in 1986 and therefore was not applicable to this article.  I'll rewrite it to mention the confusion, but the AK-47 is a fully-automatic assault RIFLE.--Asams10 15:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mostly correct, but only automatic weapons made after 1986 were banned --SodiumBenzoate 03:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Federal Assault Weapon's ban 

message: Kalashnikov may deny the link all he wants, the there's evidence: the AK-46. It is very much like StG-44, and was later modified to become the AK-47 we know now. The modification is significant, so one can not cry plagiarism outright, but it is disrespectful to deny the engineering genius of the Germans.
:Anyone to verify technical details and corrent the story?
:Also, I believe that 'how many people were killed as the direct result of the use of AK-47s?' is a very valid question, although futile.
::-The AK46 is clearly not a StG-44 clone.  Cosmetically, they may look alike, but internally, they are different.  Note the use of a rotary bolt in the Kalashnikov, as opposed to the tilting bolt of the StG-44. To strip the StG-44, you must remove the buttstock and the trigger group hinges down.  The AK-46 clearly uses a fixed buttstock and receiver, requiring only the removal of a top cover.  In the StG-44, the recoil spring telescopes within the buttstock.  In the AK-46, the recoil spring is retained within the receiver and its top cover.  In the StG-44, the cocking handle is attached to the gas piston.  In the AK-46, the cocking handle is part of the bolt carrier.  The StG-44 used a push button mag release.  The AK-46 used a flapper-type mag release.  --D.E. Watters 03:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  AK-46, the path from StG-44 to AK-47 

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

message: I screwed the page up trying to replace the AKM picture with Image:AKlash.jpg. I thought the picture would be more fitting as it shows Mikhail Kalashnikov firing an AK-47.
Please someone fix my dumb mistake.
:Hello, User:DKH (talk), I added the picture to the article. By the way, when you upload a picture you should provide it's copyright/licensing information on the image description page, otherwise it will get deleted. Shinobu 14:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help 

message: "...and its nefarious association with violent conflict"
lol at an article on a gun critisizing it for being associated with violence and conflict... Ojw 21:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Best quote, ever

message: This quote from the section:
:... This policy was mirrored in the West, with the United States providing arms to such groups as the Afghan Mujahideen.
Is it saying that the US provided AK47s to the mujahideen? If not, it should be more explicit as to what was supplied.Ashmoo 04:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  It might need more clarity, but there is some degree of balance to say that the supplying of arms (primarily the AK-47) to pro-Communist forces did not happen in a vacuum.  The United States supplied anti-tank, anti-aircraft, and IED support to the Afgan's and numerous other 'counter-Communist' forces.  It's not absurd to conclude that the US was supplying AK-47's, as we were in fact supplying small arms of all sorts to the forces and attempting to cover up our operations.  To this point, 'sanitized' AK's would have been the perfect weapons.  I doubt anybody will get confirmation on what exactly was supplied, though.  I'll try and clarify it a bit.--Asams10 04:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cultural influence

message: The operating style section. It reads like a how to guide to firing and disassembling an AK-47. It is written in a highly unencyclopedic fashion and probably is unsalvagable by the very nature of its content. I would be fine with an external link explaining how to fire and/or dissassemble an AK-47, but Wikipedia is not a how to guide. It's reproduced below in case anyone thinks there is some salvagable content here that can be readded to another section. savidan(talk) (e@) 19:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You failed to read earlier in this section where this was discussed.  It's not an operating manual, it's a description of the operating cycle of a machine.  One does not have an entry on a diesel engine without a description of how a diesel engine works, same here.  I'm putting it back. --Asams10 01:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely, but would you mind rewriting it then so it's written from that point of view that you're describing. savidan(talk) (e@) 01:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I already rewrote it once for this very reason.  I will take a look at it when I get a chance and 'sanitize' it a little more.  I wholly understand that Wikipedia isn't intended as an instruction manual, however I feel that it's important to understand the basic principles involved.--Asams10 02:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, it isn't an operating manual, it's an explanation of the principles of operation which, for the purposes of this article, are of note. I don't understand what is against the rules. Perhaps you can point out how an encyclepedic explanation of the operating cycle is not encyclepedic?--Asams10 15:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I removed 

message: Folks, the assoult rifle known here as "AK-47" has entered service (was adopted and standardized) in 1949 and not in 1947. Try to find the document «Decision of Soviet of Ministers of the USSR number 2611-1033ss» of 18.06.1949.  --jno 08:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want a philosophical and historical discussion, the AK-47 was indeed adopted in 1947, however the receiver was changed in a redesign effort in 1949. This rifle, according to a single Soviet representative, was redesignated the AK-49. The problem is that both stamped and machined receivers were being made side-by-side. Now, this model was produced for a few years and then both the original stamped model and redesigned (socket stock) model were replaced in production somewhere in 1953 or 1954 with the third generation model that was the most-produced model.  If you want to get technical, you'll lose the argument as the AK-47 was produced in three seperate models with the first one standardized in 1947 as the AK-47 and the last and most common version being standardized in 1953 or 1954.  There is no known designation for the third model other than AK-47 which is what the whole series was called. There is absolutely no reason this minutia needs to be at the top of the article or, really, anywhere in this short an article anyhow.  Feel free to add correct information later in the article, but please do more research first.--Asams10 18:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For a firearm to be "standardized" in the USSR, there was a need for a governmental document (usually "decision of soviet of ministers", sometimes "order of the ministry of defense"). What I want to point to: there is the document of 1949 and I dunno about "standardization" of 1947. I'm not trying to discuss the number of versions in production and pre-production phases. --jno 08:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds like a semantic objection you have, then.  The weapon was standardized in 1947 because that is when they began producing a model.  One HAS to standardize or else it's still a prototype. If you feel that the 1949 order was the first order, then you would be technically correct, however only correct for the second model that I have already conceded ONE Soviet official said was standardized in 1949.  The problem was, even in the absence of a KNOWN document in 1947, the rifle WAS produced and therefore must have had an official or unofficial standard.--Asams10 15:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1947: city legend still up and running 

message: Can AKs be silenced? Chris 02:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  I believe Finland has fitted Valmet and other rifles with Reflex Suppressors (that is suppressors that attach at the muzzle but have a large chamber that telescopes back over the barrel.  The reason for this is to prevent hearing loss and there is little military value.  The action noise alone is horrendous.  The primary reason you cannot effectively 'silence' an AK is that the bullet is supersonic.  The Russians, I believe, use a cartridge with a heavier bullet at subsonic velocities that can be effectively suppressed, though.--Asams10 03:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AK can be fitted with suppressors, they just need to be very large to have effect and even then, there is the issue of supersonic bullet noise and loud clanking of action. Is it possible to silence the AK (or any other assault rifle) like shown in the movies - no. Finnish military does not use suppressors in rifles, but many civilians have fitted their AK's with various types of silencers. --Mikoyan21 10:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: YES. The device name is "PBBS" (, device for fireless and soundless shooting). Go to the artillery museum at St.Petersburg, RF and see it yourself. The device is in service. Of course, it is not so efficient to be featured in movies. And big enought to be hated by servicemen. Special weapons like VSS are preferred where a real silence is required. --jno 15:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It should be noted, however, that the term "Silencer" in America is a misnomer.  The proper term is "Suppressor."  The only users of the term "Silencer" are the media, bad fiction writers, and gun control advocates.--Asams10 16:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW: While the name overstates the functional capability of the device, 'Silencer' was the term coined by the device's inventor Hiram Percy Maxim.  --D.E. Watters 23:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suppression

message: I would like to see exact date of battlefield use of 7.92 round. I know exact time for the appearance of 7.62x39 (1943, for SKS carbine), but not for German 7.92 Kurz. I know it was used in StG 44, but it was in 1944. Was it used before this time? So, conception of intermediate round could be cleared.
:*The MKb42(H) reportedly saw combat in 1942 when a number of the carbines were airdropped to Kampfgruppe Scherer in Kolm.  However, the 7.92x33mm cartridge was available as early as 1941, and other experimental assault rifle cartridges were under development in Germany during the 1930s.  Of interest is Geco's 7.75x40mm round of 1935, which was modified in 1942 by Geco to become a 7.62x39mm.  The Geco cartridge is not the exact same as the Russian 7.62x39mm, but it is awfully close. --D.E. Watters 20:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  7.62x39 vs 7.92x33 

message: Wasn't the German Sturmgewehr the first Assault Rifle? Isn't "Sturmgewehr" German for "Assault Rifle"
:Yes.  Read the article.  It's in there.--Asams10 17:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sturmgewehr

message: I've seen AK's before where they taped two magazines together on the gun. Does anyone have any pictures or sources of this?
:The Israeli's do it all the time with their M16 magazines but you don't see it done on AK's that much.  The weight of the loaded magazine is considerable.  --Asams10 05:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen plenty of pictures of that practice, and we did so also in the Army (though we had lighter plastic mags). Length & weight of the AK magazine certainly make such arrangement less comfortably though. And some instructors oppose the practice.--Mikoyan21 19:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Lots of my friends have used coupled magazines (two or even three in a batch) to speedup the weapon recharge (common practice used in Afganistan and Chechnya). Sometimes that were 40-round magazines from RPK (submachine gun) instead of native 30-round magazine. One guy even used 75-round spial magazine from RPK, but he have thrown it away after the first mission for being extremely unhandy in use. --jno 08:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Taped Magazines Question

message: " These weapons are commonly sold to rebels and faulty regimes in countries where the demand of rifles has gone up due to war. "
That is wrong. The Avtomat Kalashnikova 1947 is most commonly sold too criminals , not rebels. However the Avtomat Kalashnikova 1974 ( is that the proper name? ?? ) is the most common weapon of rebelions , regimes , and countries with a high demand for assault rifles. This does not mean they were bought , they could have been manufactured.
:No, it's not. Your command of grammer and spelling are better than your facts.--Asams10 18:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illegal Trade 

message: I did a search to find out what their designation was and didn't find anything.  I did find an article that confirmed that Albania had a single state-run factory to produce AK-47's.  This factory was looted and the guns fed the Balkan arms market. What I can't find is a pisture or designation for any of these guns.  Were they built on Soviet supplied equipment?  Does anybody have any information on this?  I know Albania produced SKS's and that discussion is rampant on the net (likely due to their having been imported recently).--Asams10 19:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Albanian Kalashnikovs? 

message: Is the AK-47 famous for the wood on the gun? If so it might be worth mentioning in the opening paragraph, I am no expert in guns so I will just leave it JayKeaton 14:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: not only for the wooden parts, for sure. --jno 10:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wood finish?