Talk:AK-47

Template:Mainpage date

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.172.93 (talk • contribs)

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)

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[6], 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)

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)

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)