Talk:AK-47/Archive 2

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)

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 is repeated almost word for word in AK-47, 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/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 17:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The point is, there are AK variants with identical milled receiver than AK-47 (Finnish RK62, for example) which are much lighter. Stock does explain part of this difference, but not friggin' 800 grams! --Mikoyan21 11:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, it seems the dispute is solved. Finnish literature says that weight of Type 54 (AK-47 type2/3) is 3.6 to 4.0 kg empty, so average would be 3.8 kg - same as in Bolotin's book. Also, a collector who owns a type 3 AK-47 weighted his gun and it was 4.0kg empty, 4.4 with magazine. --Mikoyan21 12:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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


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


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


 * I conditionally agree. First of all, you are confusing tolerance with clearance in this discussion.  A tolerance is the allowable difference in acceptable parts within the gun.  a clearance is the room between moving parts to allow for fouling and debris. That said, the AK-47 is generally made with very loose tolerances by Western standards in all respects be it metalurgy, dimensional, or finish. And yes it does lessen combat effectiveness despite what might be reported. Think of it with respect to shotgun patterns.  The AK-47 is an open choke, and the M16 is full choke.  This has the effect of encouraging full-auto spray and pray tactics by users of the AK-47.  This is a truly effective tactical doctrine for large scale attack and defense. Get every rifleman shooting.  The problem is, this weapon is being used by mental retards singly or in small groups. It becomes drastically less effective the smaller the group and the greater the range. Sure, close-in engagements (out to about 30 yards) are roughly equivelant, but give me an M16 (no matter how unreliable) any day of the week beyond that range.
 * What weed are you smoking, guys? NO military in the world practice so-called "full-auto spray and pray" tactics. Even in Iraq or Somali. Soldiers are being trained to AIM in every military. Of course, most militias don't train even this, but those who survive for longer usually get it. And I did use AK-74. It can definitely hit human-size targets 100-200 m away, even for average shooter with minimal training. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.49.172.93 (talk • contribs).


 * You are correct that professional soldiers are trained to aim. And nobody has "spray & pray" as doctrine. But fact is, thats what it devolves into in conscript/peasant armies. They point, en masse. And if you have a somewhat inaccurate weapon to begin with (as the AK is compared to to modern western assualt rifles) it becomes the practice even more so...What the heck - maybe the problem is in the training/discipline? Engr105th 02:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and a well trained shooter can work at about 300 yards. Something above that is generally more of marksman work. "Spraying" is used occasionally by some militant forces, but only to discourage enemy from advancing, not for real attack. Low tolerances in AK are made possible by simple construction. But the weapon is as accurate as intended, and sufficient for distances up to 300, not 30 yards (or did you mean 300?). At 30 yards the weapon of choice is pistol or SMG. AK's inaccuracy becomes noticeable only above 200 yards, where it can miss a few inches. Generally for a trained shooter it's about twice less accurate than AR-15. May be significantly worse without prior AK training, the aiming and general shooting techniques are somewhat different. --CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 04:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

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


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

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


 * Umm.. just dropped in to look as this is the Featured Article today. The animated "AK-47 in Operation" gif is pretty neat, but a little choppy: I wonder if the uninitiated would understand what is happening there..
 * But anyway, regarding this discusion about accuracy I find it a bit confusing as currently worded. It says, "This reliability comes at the cost of accuracy, as the looser tolerances do not allow the precision and consistency that are required of more accurate firearms. However it is important to bear in mind that although accuracy was not the feature most desired of this design, it is still present."
 * If you boil that statement down it rather conflictingly indicates that, "This reliability comes at the cost of accuracy...However...accuracy...is still present." I think that you might want to cut this statement out altogether and replace it with something that combines the previous two statements in this discussion regarding the tradeoff between combat accuracy and combat reliability...Darentig 15:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

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

links to ak-47 sites
I added a link to my ak-47 discussion board, it was deleted - a link to www.ak-47.net remains. www.ak-47.net is a commercial site, if my link was removed, I ask that the link to ak-47.net also be removed. The link to my site displayed one (1) google banner at the top, ak-47.net has 5 banners on the first page. Please allow me to re-add my link, or please remove the link to ak-47.net. - --21kev 17:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Commercial site? I'm not so sure about that. The AK-47.net site is an outstanding and impartial site.  I don't see why your site should be here but I do see why AK-47.net should be. Persuade us and support your arguments well.  It appears that all of the activity on YOUR board is you.  This appears to be a pure vanity link.--Asams10 21:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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


 * To answer your question, have a look at External links, which should hopefully clarify things a bit. Cheers,
 * -- Chris  ( blather  •  contribs ) [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom (3-5).svg|20px]] 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)

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 is repeated almost word for word in AK-47, 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/Mcomm |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)