ak-47

[comrade_mufasa]

When did the AK-47 become the gun of the revolution? and does anyone know what is the current standerd rifle of the the U$ military.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The current US infantry weapon is the M16/M4.

The AK-47 became the weapon that symbolised revolution because it's durability made it much favoured (Much less it's accuracy tho)

[Invader Zim]

because its cheep and doesn't break despite being placed in very shitty conditions, and taking a real beating from its owners.

[TheWharGoul]

The AK-47, because of its rugged nature (can take a beating like no other and still fire) and ease of production was sold to most countries at cheap price (or countires under the warsaw pack were contracted out and produced them) Its design is based on a German weapon (StG-44 - the first assault rifle ever produced) it became the stapel weapon of the soviet union.

Its used by anyone who can afford it, and now with the break up of the USSR its sold to pretty much anywere at even cheaper price. these weapons range in quality depending on where they are being produced.. IE Czech and Russian being some of the best while other not as good.. other then that there is no other reason.

hope I didnt miss anything..

[Pawn Power]

I think it is Russian made and more then anything else, was readily available to revolutionaries.

[Dio]

USSR was practically spewing these weapons by the ass loads to their allies. Despite the fact that the AK-47 was highly reliable in harsh conditions. Its simple structure made it possible to manufacture fast and at little expense. Why do they symbolize anything? Coincidence.

[Hiero]

The recently made a new addition to teh AK family, i dont know what its called but someone would like to post the picture.

[h&s]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 09:07 AM
The recently made a new addition to the AK family, i dont know what its called but someone would like to post the picture.
The Kalashnikov vodka is the new member!
http://www.red-wine.biz/pics/generalkalashnikov.gif
The automatic Kalashnikov '47 was invented by Kalashnikov (above) as a simple automatic weapon, as he got pissed off in WWII as the Russians only had single shot rifles, and the Germans hadautomatic weapons. It is an extremely wide-spread gun due to the simplicity of the design, but more importantly because there is no patent on it. Thats why Kalashnikov needs the money from selling his name to a vodka company.

[refuse_resist]

The AK-47 is far superior to the M-16 assault rifle. It may not be as accurate, but it definatly does the trick.

[bunk]

I think the latest member of the kalashnikov family is the AN-94.

[GoaRedStar]

Auctually the M-16 is more superior then the AK-47.

and the new member of the AK family is call the AK-74

[bunk]

The AK-74 is not new it is quite old. The newest type of kalashnikov is the AN-94 Azkaban.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

No, it's not the newest is the Ak-104

But the story of the AK-47 in short. Kalashnikov a tankcommander during WW2 was wounded and talked in the hospital to soldiers and something that struck him was that the Russian submachineguns were extremely unreliable. They constantly jammed. He tooled some and after a while he invented the AK-47, which has it's influences from the German StG-44.

The AK-47 proofed to be extremely reliable, low maintanance, easy to handle and operate, cheap, easy to produce and produced in vast numbers (there is an estimated number of 80 million to 100 million! produced). This all made it very populair with geurilla, third world countries, soviet bloc countries.

But even soldiers from the west liked it. Israeli Special Forces have even used in action during the Entebbe hostage action.Operation Entebbe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Entebbe)

The wide distrubition and it's other qualities made it THE weapon of the poor against the rich, it's what the shovel had once been for angry peasants. Thus quite some nations, movements used it as a symbol of the poormans resistance. Among them: Mozambique, Burkina Faso, Uganda, Libya.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK47
http://www.ak-47.net/
http://kalashnikov.guns.ru/
http://www.sovietarmy.com/small_arms/ak-47.html

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

BTW: The StG-44 was not the first assault weapon, nor was it the first assault weapon in use. I believe it was an Italian one during WW1.

[dso79]

The AK-47 is far superior to the M-16 assault rifle.

The M-16 and the AK-47 are both great rifles. You can't really say that one is superior to the other; it just depends on the situation, though I have always preferred rifles that are based on the AK design.

[STI]

The AK-47 is superior to the M16 in most battle situations. It doesn't jam as easily from mud or sand. Even Maxim Magazine, a pro-imperialist frenzy to say the least, did a comparison between "Terrorist" forces in Afghanistan and the US (compared soldiers, weapons, etc). The AK came out ahead for the simple reason that it doesn't jam.

I'm not clear on this next point, but I heard something about the bullets used in each weapon. AK bullets 'fan out' in the body, so there's a bigger exit wound than enter wound. M16 bullets 'tumble', damaging more organs.

[dso79]

In general, AK-47 ammo is more powerful than M-16 ammo; it can penetrate trees, for example, which was very useful in the jungles of Vietnam. The amount of tissue damage caused by a bullet probably depends more on the type of bullet used, though.

[Guerrilla22]

http://club.guns.ru/images/ak107-6.jpgThe AK-107 is currently the standard issue arm of the Russian army. US special forces and airborne divisions use the M-4 carbine, all others use the M16-A2.

[monkeydust]

Well the USSR upgraded and replaced most of its AK-47s with AKMs and AK-74s.

They didn't have any need for the '47s anymore so they thought they'd just sell 'em off on the cheap - hence a lot of non-professional soldiers were equipped with them.

[sin miedo]

.223 (5.56) rounds used in m-16s/m-4s have a higher velocity and penetrate body armor easier. Because of this however, the bullets easily exit a body and create less internal damage. If you are hit by a 7.62x39 round, used in AK-47s, you will know you are hit and it will hurt (not that a .223 doesn't hurt), but they do not penetrate body armor as well and are not as accurate. The AK-74s use a 5.45 round. Purpotedly Kalashnikov was not too happy about this switching over to the new round in the 70s.

[Hiero]

Why do people shot the Ak-47 from under the arm when it has a butt, and why did they make some without a butt.

[Wiesty]

ya, sorry to tell y but the US standard gun is the M Series (M-16 etc.)
probably why the ak-47 is so popular with armed forces and revolutionaries and guirellas in latin america and throughout europe is because it was invented by the communists. And also it is way more easier to use and alot more powerful then the m series. Ask most gun experts and they will prefer the ak
i was watching something on that the other day, it was called Histories Greatest Confilicts or something then the title of the episode was the Korean War, and it had 1 part was some plane vs. another to see what was better, and then it was the M-16 (or maybe some earlier m i dont know) vs. the Ak-47 and the experts liked the ak better, they said it was easy enough for a child to handle

explained enough?

[sin miedo]

I doubt most gun experts would choose an AK-47 over an M-16. I'm not saying the M-16 is the best gun in the world, but neither is the AK-47. The AK-47 is tough and powerful but very inaccurate past a couple hundred yards. The M1A is just as powerful but more accurate. Different guns for different jobs I guess.

I personally prefer a larger caliber than the .223, and the toughness of the AK, I just don't think it is safe to say that most gun experts do too.

[dso79]

Why do people shot the Ak-47 from under the arm when it has a butt
Because they don't know how to use the fucking thing ;) . Spraying and praying is only effective when your target is standing right in front of you.


why did they make some without a butt
I don't know if they made them without a butt. Some versions have a folding stock, though, which makes it shorter and thus easier to carry and use in confined spaces.


The AK-47 is tough and powerful but very inaccurate past a couple hundred yards.
I use a Galil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galil), which is an improved version of the AK. It's just as tough and reliable as the AK-47, but it's more accurate and uses more powerful 7.62 NATO ammunition.

[PRC-UTE]

I doubt most gun experts would choose an AK-47 over an M-16. I'm not saying the M-16 is the best gun in the world, but neither is the AK-47. The AK-47 is tough and powerful but very inaccurate past a couple hundred yards. The M1A is just as powerful but more accurate. Different guns for different jobs I guess.


Actually, it depends completely on what you're using it for.

Volunteers of the IRA's and INLA preferred the M-16 for its accuracy; but as guerillas they rarely engaged the enemy close and did not usually fight in sustained static battles.

If you are a regular soldier, your best bet would be an AK or a weapon the chambers the nato 7.62, for the stopping power. Stopping power is what counts in a sustained gun battle under 300 yards.

Over that, I'd recommend putting yer mits on something like a barret light .50, which is completely legal in north america and the weapon of choice in both the US army scouts and the S Armagh IRA alike.

[sin miedo]

Sho'nuff. Won't argue with any of that. In close combat the AK-47 and clones would probably be best. SKS's are always good times as well. Same round as an AK-47, just as tough, a little more accurate, and nice and cheap. :)

Also, in Black Hawk Down (the book), a Delta soldier talks about how the soldiers using CAR-15s and M-16s would hit their targets but the guys would keep moving, the rounds wouldn't take 'em down. He says he was wishing for an M1 or an AK-47 for that stopping power.

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 09:47 AM
Why do people shot the Ak-47 from under the arm when it has a butt, and why did they make some without a butt.
If you can control the gun without having to steady it, using the stock, then why not. Although, the AK-47 is not exactly known for having great accuracy, it doesn't really have a whole lot of recoil.

Some people remove the butt, so they can manuever the gun in tight spaces and for combat at close range. The M-4 actually has a collapsable stock, as does the SKS and AKS.

[Paradox]

He tooled some and after a while he invented the AK-47, which has it's influences from the German StG-44.


I was under the impression that this was untrue. On a website the name of which I don't recall, I remember reading that the AK was not influenced or based on the German weapon. Also, that marine guy from "Mail Call" on the History Channel said this was not the case. I also remember reading somewhere that the AK was actually influenced by the SKS. Haven't really searched for any links to verify this though. So far, no website says that the AK was based on the SKS, only that it was made to replace it. The two weapons are quite similar though, aren't they? I've never used an AK, but I do have a Yugo SKS. Never stripped it down though, I'm not a gun expert, and I need to buy a manual first. Anyways, does anyone know for sure, whether it was the German weapon or the SKS which was the basis for the AK?

[sin miedo]

The SKS does not have a collapsable stock, unless you were to put one on yourself. The AK is an amalgam of designs I would say. But I could be wrong.

[RedAnarchist]

Should people be talking about firearms on this forum? There could be someone just begging for an excuse to shut this place down.

[BOZG]

It's perfectly legal.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Bleeding liberals. Thanks to them we can't defend ourselves.

I would rather have one of these, (http://world.guns.ru/assault/as20-e.htm) as they would make sense in a country which is a member of NATO such as mine, and can also be converted to this, (http://world.guns.ru/smg/smg12-e.htm) which also uses a common NATO round.

[h&s]

Thanks to them we can't defend ourselves.

Defend yourself from whom?
Now I'm not disagreeing with you as I used to (I actually agree with you now), but who do you actually need to defend yourself from? The gun you showed us is an assault weapon, not a defensive one. I'm just interested to hear what you would use this gun for in peace time.

[sin miedo]

If peace time turned to war time?

I'm not a militia nut or anything, and I believe that fully automatic weapons should be illegal, but the assault gun ban enacted in '94 was so flawed it was almost worthless. It was easy to get around the restrictions. If the U.S. (or whoever else) wishes to ban "assault" rifles, go ahead. But don't do it half-assed.

I myself, am personally fine with assault rifles being legal, as long as proper safety measures are in place. By making them illegal, all you are doing is restricting them from legal hands. Canada has just as many guns per-person as does the U.S., but half of our gun-related problems. It is not the laws, it's our crazy ass culture. Our society needs to change before we can resolve our problems.

[Paradox]

I believe that fully automatic weapons should be illegal, but the assault gun ban enacted in '94 was so flawed it was almost worthless. It was easy to get around the restrictions. If the U.S. (or whoever else) wishes to ban "assault" rifles, go ahead.

Ok, ban assault rifles. ;)


I myself, am personally fine with assault rifles being legal, as long as proper safety measures are in place. By making them illegal, all you are doing is restricting them from legal hands.

??? :blink: ??? You said we should ban assault rifles in the beginning of your post, then, at the end of your post, said it's wrong to ban them because it keeps them out of legal hands? I'm sorry, but this sounds like a contradiction to me. What do you mean by "legal hands," people who aren't criminals? What would an assault rifle be used for by a civilian, outside of insurgency or criminal activity? Or perhaps I misunderstood you. Are you saying to ban only the fully automatic versions of assault rifles, but keep semi-auto versions legal, such as semi-auto AK-47s? Care to elaborate?

[BOZG]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 05:44 PM
Bleeding liberals. Thanks to them we can't defend ourselves.

I would rather have one of these, (http://world.guns.ru/assault/as20-e.htm) as they would make sense in a country which is a member of NATO such as mine, and can also be converted to this, (http://world.guns.ru/smg/smg12-e.htm) which also uses a common NATO round.
I think Steyr's are the standard weapon of the Irish Army.

[sin miedo]

I never said they should ban assault rifles. I prefer they remain legal because I enjoy assault rifles, but if the government wants to ban them I'm not gonna do a whole lot to stop them besides signing a few petitions and maybe sending some letters (I'm lazy). I'm just against them doing this half-assed business they tried and claiming it's the only thing keeping homicidal killers from shooting up schools. Either go all out or don't bother. It's my same stance with drugs. If alcohol is legal, them marijuana should be legal. If they want to make alcohol illegal, go ahead and try, it'll make my life a little harder but I'll still be able to find booze, but for the love of god be consistent (not that consistency was ever a trait of governments).

As for "legal" hands, I view assault rifles first and foremost as a form of entertainment. For anyone who hasn't shot a gun before, it is extremely fun. It is very satisfying to get a good round of target practice in. I'm not gonna analyze why this is fun, it just is. I also view assault rifles and guns of any form, as a sort of trump-card we regular citizens hold against the government. The reason the framers of the Constitution added the 2nd amendment was to ensure that we had some "real" power against our friends in Washington. And sooner or later the shit will hit the fan in the U.S. All empires fall, Pax Americana is no exception. Already decline can be seen, and already we are witnessing the raping of our personal freedoms and civil rights. Hopefully I'll be long gone when the real bad-times roll up, as you can witness in my sig I am no fan of war. But I am also not naive. I just want insurance, just in case.

Er.. that didn't really answer the "legal" hands thing. Banning assault rifles will do little to stop gun violence. Those who still really want to obtain assault rifles will be able to do so. It just means the type who are obtaining them are most likely nefarious characters who plan on doing rotten things with the weapons. And "upstanding" citizens who might like to own an assault rifle most likely will not obtain one because he doesn't have the right connections. And it will be that much harder for him to defend himself and his family when the government decides to tell us how to cut our hair and sends us to Wal-Mart work camps.

Remember, Hitler's Germany was the first modern nation-state to ban guns.

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by sin [email protected] 26 2004, 04:42 AM
The SKS does not have a collapsable stock, unless you were to put one on yourself. The AK is an amalgam of designs I would say. But I could be wrong.
I was refering to the later model Chinese models, not the model used by the Soviet Union before the AK, which indeed does not have a collapsible stock.

[sin miedo]

Norincos (chinese SKS) don't have collapsable stocks either. To my knowledge, no SKS was mass produced with a collapsable stock. If you have proof that they were I would be glad to see. A few paratrooper ones might have been produced, but I have never seen one.

[Cal]

There's far too much pent up testosterone on this topic.


A worrying knowledge of guns as well

[sin miedo]

Is that so? Please explain.

[Cal]

thats an ironic signature considering your knowledgeon this topic,


As for "legal" hands, I view assault rifles first and foremost as a form of entertainment



And "upstanding" citizens who might like to own an assault rifle



What does an upstanding citizen need with an assault rifle!!

Don't give me that hunting bollocks, doesn't give the elk many options!!

[cccpcommie]

when your part of a revolution to change lives for atleast a long time to forever, you want to make it happen when you are alive..they used ak-47s to spray clouds of bullets at their opponents and hit as many as they can. The ak47 held up like no other..yes it was not that accurate but it wasnt made for accuracy..and me myself being a gun "expert" i would take a kalashnikov over an m16 because of durability and its "riot-ending" capabilities.. ;)

[stitch]

Banning guns would not have any effect on gun-related crime at all. As stated before, Canada has as many guns per capita as the USA does, but half the gun-related crimes. This is just because of the society.
The answer to defeating crime is not in giving the citizens the right to guns, or trying to take everyone's guns away, because humanity always finds a way. People will get guns if they want them, and like sin miedo said, they will likely end up in the hands of criminals.
It is not hard to agree that crime is mostly caused by poverty (and if not caused by it directly, very strongly related), and poverty is caused by lack of education. It is not petty issues like whether or not to refuse the right to own a weapon that we should focus on, but dedicate our energy to larger, more important things like education.
I also want to say that although it should be everyone's right to own a weapon if they want to, I don't believe in violent revolution. Gandhi believed in non-violent protest. By using acts of violence and trying to force your ideas on someone else, you only turn yourself into a fascist. I see no place for guns in an attempt to set up a more advanced self-government.

[dso79]

thats an ironic signature considering your knowledgeon this topic

The fact that someone likes guns doesn't mean he is a violent person. I own two assault rifles, but I only use them for sports shooting, not for personal protection or hunting (or violent revolution, for that matter).

[Wiesty]

well the north vietnamese one vietnam useing ak's

[Cal]

The fact that someone likes guns doesn't mean he is a violent person

Im sure it doesnt take a big leap to get there though.

Sports shooting!! Is assault rifle target shooting going to become an olympic sport!

Maybe they don't need banning but re-classifying as sports entertainment devices!

[sin miedo]

Cal, anything I type here will be inadequate in convincing you of who I really am. You are the one reading a few lines and presuming you know me. You do not. People are complicated characters. The world is complicated. Some of the nicest, calmest, most intelligent, open-minded people I know also own firearms. None of them hunt, none of them get their kicks from harming other living beings, and neither do I. Guns are not my life, they are one hobby of many, forgive me for educating myself and being curious about subjects that I once had no knowledge of.

As for shooting as a form of entertainment, I have made my case, target shooting with any form of firearm is enjoyable, it is satisfying to watch your progress as your aiming skills improve over time. Stitch and others also made a number of good points. I really don't know what else to say.

[stitch]

What me and a few friends are really into is airsoft and paintball. For those who don't know, airsoft is using underpowered pellet guns to play games and stuff in forests. When we use rubber pellets like we normally do, they sting alot but are not strong enough to actually penetrate the skin. Some people that play airsoft use metal pellets that can actually leave small cuts in your skin if you get hit from close enough (and so they wear vests and masks.) Paintball is also really fun to play. The fun has nothing to do with hurting other people, but just in the competition. Theres more natural competition in sports like paintball than in any other. All the natural human elements come into play. Your courage, your ability to fight, your leadership. It hurts when you get hit but that only makes it more fun.
Its pretty much the same thing with owning real guns.

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by sin [email protected] 28 2004, 04:55 AM
Norincos (chinese SKS) don't have collapsable stocks either. To my knowledge, no SKS was mass produced with a collapsable stock. If you have proof that they were I would be glad to see. A few paratrooper ones might have been produced, but I have never seen one.
Norinco isn't the only Chinese manufactuer of the SKS. If you follow this link, and click on the poly tech section of the page, you can see pics of poly tech sks with a collapasable stock. It tried to post the pics on here, but they weren't the right format.
http://www.sksman.com/

[sin miedo]

I'm sorry man, I went to the web site and the only poly tech portion I could find was for scopes. I went to every SKS portion and still could not find any poly tech collapsible stock SKSs. I searched the web and poly tech is indeed another exporter of chinese SKSs (as far as I can find out apparently Norinco and Poly tech share in the capacity of exporting weapons manufactured by a number of chinese factories). But I still cannot find any SKS exported by poly tech that was manufactured with either a folding stock or collapsible stock. It's not that I don't believe you, it's just that I'd have to see it (or read about it) for myself, you know?

[king Royale]

Norinco isn't the only Chinese manufactuer of the SKS. If you follow this link, and click on the poly tech section of the page, you can see pics of poly tech sks with a collapasable stock.

My friend has 20 SKS's, but they don't look anything like AK's even with a banana clip. To bad he's a Republican... :huh:

[Cal]

Cal, anything I type here will be inadequate in convincing you of who I really am. You are the one reading a few lines and presuming you know me.

Apologies, I'm sorry if I implied that you were a violent person.

It's just difficult coming from the culture I do then seeing people describing assault rifles as essentially entertainment devices, but I apologise for the 'dig' at you.

[sin miedo]

I guess I can understand where you are coming from. Firearms, especially assault rifles, after all, were made for killing. Seeing people talk about firearms this casually when that is not something one is used too can probably be a bit unnerving. But I have been around firearms all my life, and I would never use one for violence unless myself or a loved one were in immediate threat of extreme violence (not just some fist fight). So no worries amigo, all's good.

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by king [email protected] 30 2004, 10:53 PM

Norinco isn't the only Chinese manufactuer of the SKS. If you follow this link, and click on the poly tech section of the page, you can see pics of poly tech sks with a collapasable stock.

My friend has 20 SKS's, but they don't look anything like AK's even with a banana clip. To bad he's a Republican... :huh:
20? That's quite a little collection e's got going on there.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I don't believe in violent revolution.

Anf if the bourgeousie become violent towards your peaceful reavolution? what then? will you 'go quietly into the night'? Let those bastards commit atrocities against you without a fight?

All that ghandi crap is good for is setting up new masters.


What does an upstanding citizen need with an assault rifle!!

In classless society, self-defence. Pistols, shotguns and submachine guns do not have the range and power of assault rifles, and bolt-action/semi-auto rifles are for sniping and lack the magazine capacity for other operations.


Don't give me that hunting bollocks, doesn't give the elk many options!!

Assault rifles are not suited for hunting purposes, they are military weapons.
If you want to give the elk a chance, play a hunting game instead. Hunting should be for the provision of food and other animal products (Fur, horns etc) not 'sport'.

I hate pacifists.

[DISTURBEDrbl911]

ah yes, the kalishnikov, the most used weapon in militaries around the world easily outstrips the m16/m4, although the US is now begging to replace the m16/m4s with a new line of H&K assault rifles, using the same nato round. i like the kalishnikov better because it does have a larger bore, more resiliant, the svd dragunov, the sniper version of the Ak is a highly accurate rifle, the aks are made out of wood, and metal, and now the new plastics and polymer stocks, but they have many more metal parts on them than the US rifles, i like a rifle that looks like a rifle, not a childs plastic play thing. aks are made by china, korea, russia, and just about every other country in the world.

i believe in a violent revolution, if necessary, however if the revolution can exist and be succesful i would rather have it that way, leave war as a last result, just like bush hahahahahahahahaha no but i actually mean it when i say it. but yes, if an armed revolution ever did occur, you can count me in, and i will get my hands on whatever weapons possible

[Cal]

In classless society, self-defence. Pistols, shotguns and submachine guns do not have the range and power of assault rifles, and bolt-action/semi-auto rifles are for sniping and lack the magazine capacity for other operations.

Sounds like a place I will want to live! if the only way to stay safe in your class less society is to be armed with an assault rifle then i'll give it a miss thanks.


I hate pacifists.

are pacifists less equal than others in your class less society.