Mikhail Kalashnikov Passed.

[Tony Stark]

At the bottom of the page is his mower design.

http://kalashnikov-weapons-museum.ak47-guide.com/ch8.html

Didn't have a curved grass magazine like I expected! :)/>/>

Alvis 3.1

Hmm. Clever how the cutting portion is forward of the wheelbase. Although the cutting diameter limits it to the smallest of gardens. But if the alternative for cutting your grass was a scythe or a goat, then maybe there was some market. And unlike a goat, it won't eat things it's not supposed to.

Now, that Shampur (the handler for shashlik) on the other hand....five times the BBQ? Pure. Genius.

Edited December 29, 2013 by Tony Stark

[Sebastijan]

The basic design of the AK47 was a good design in 1943, and was considered to be the finest infantry weapon in the 1950's and 1960's. Yet time marches on. The design had some issues that were unknown till many years later. And trust me it wasn't without it's own share of problems just like anything else would have been. It's main issue beside the lack of accuracy was noise. It was a very noisy rifle. If the person you were going to shoot was 200 yards away; you were OK. Yet you would probably miss him as well. You could hear the safety at 300 yards in the jungle. Both rifles (M16 and AK47) had a noisy magazine system (even the red Russian magazines were noisy). The Russians and the Israelis were the only folks to address this issue. There were ways to make them quieter in the M16, but the latch on the AK was also a killer when silence was deadly. It has been said that the AK 47 was the preferred weapon of U.S. Special Forces in Vietnam. Maybe, but probably never. There were a very small handful of SOG teams that tried using them, but all went back to something else.(they could use anything they wanted). SOG teams did use a modified RPD on many occasions, but that was mostly heavy teams and hatchet teams. The basic AK47 has been redesigned many times. Some are better than others, but they all pretty shot about the same. The one serious advantage the AK design had was that it was cheap to build. They could simply just spit them out. Others took that design and rebuilt it into a better design (Israel). The Germans did their own with the HK's. The UK and a couple others moved into a different direction, and that's their own business. As I said time marches on!

gary

I haven't had a pleasure of shooting with the original Russian built AK-47, but during my Army day, I've fired around 500 rounds from a M70AB2 rifle, which was licence built in Yugoslavia and had some improvements over the original AK (better cooling, mine thrower attachement plus sight, night sight) and all I can say is that hitting the target at 300m with a single shot was no big feat. Even if the target was prone. 2-3 round short bursts were also accurate enough to hit the standing target at 300m, while prone was harder to hit. I don't know wheter was this due to a high tolerances set by Zastava factory, but 300m target was really a norm. Even the adjustable iron sight was set at 300m by default. I am also not sure about the magazine noise you are reffering to. While empty, it did rattle a bit, but when there were a few rounds loaded and the spring under load, it was as solid as it can be. Beside the cheap manufacturing costs I think the best and most important feature was its reliability in any kind of weather of terrain. I've fired it in mud, snow, rain, dust and never ever had one stuck round or anything. It just worked on and on. And its design of a few basic pieces, which are all rather large, makes servicing it a breeze even at night... towards the end of my service, we were disassembling and reassembling our rifles blindfolded in less than a minute.

[TheFlyingDutchman]

Hey,

I'd like to apologize to what I said yesterday, especially to 'toadwbg'. I overreacted quite a bit.

I am very anti-war (no, I'm not a hippie) and it really depresses me how many people and money are wasted into warfare while we have to deal with world wide issues for which we need every cent and every good brain. It's one of the reasons that I very rarely build military model subjects and when I do I build unarmed transport/trainer aircraft. I don't want any more assocations to useless slaughters and dead people in my display shelf. Yes, I still think that Mikhail Kalashnikov DID contribute to a lot of deaths by helping to invent the weapons that were used in the war and I still don't think that's a good thing. I don't want to demonize Kalashnikov but I felt a bit addressed by Toadbwg's comment, that's why I (over)reacted. Sorry for that.

greets Jelle

Edited December 29, 2013 by TheFlyingDutchman

[GreyGhost]

Out of war comes many advances in peace time. Look at all the advances that came about from WWII weapons alone.

-Gregg

[JB2013]

My salute to a patriot, an innovative inventor, and a hero to his country!

His legacy will live on ... in over 50 million copies of his prized creation.

Mr. Kalashnikov ... das vadanya

Edited December 29, 2013 by JB2013

[Horrido]

Hey,

I'd like to apologize to what I said yesterday, especially to 'toadwbg'. I overreacted quite a bit.

I am very anti-war (no, I'm not a hippie) and it really depresses me how many people and money are wasted into warfare while we have to deal with world wide issues for which we need every cent and every good brain. It's one of the reasons that I very rarely build military model subjects and when I do I build unarmed transport/trainer aircraft. I don't want any more assocations to useless slaughters and dead people in my display shelf. Yes, I still think that Mikhail Kalashnikov DID contribute to a lot of deaths by helping to invent the weapons that were used in the war and I still don't think that's a good thing. I don't want to demonize Kalashnikov but I felt a bit addressed by Toadbwg's comment, that's why I (over)reacted. Sorry for that.

greets Jelle

No worries, I understand and relate to where you're coming from. I also feel it's important to keep this proverb in mind:

"Amongst the porcupines, rape is unknown."

[Dave Williams]

Not sure I'd call the Israeli AK (Galil) a better design. They made some improvements, but they came at a price. For sure, it was much better built, but it was heavier because they used a machined receiver and more expensive to produce. About the only improvements were the better (but heavier) side folding stock instead of the original AK underfolder, and the fire selector lever under the left side of the receiver, which allowed taking the gun off safe without changing the grip (although it's somewhat stiff to operate is it's connected to and operates the standard AK port cover/selector on the right side). Even the Israelis don't use the Galil much any more, and their number pale against the number of standard AKs made.

[ChesshireCat]

I haven't had a pleasure of shooting with the original Russian built AK-47, but during my Army day, I've fired around 500 rounds from a M70AB2 rifle, which was licence built in Yugoslavia and had some improvements over the original AK (better cooling, mine thrower attachement plus sight, night sight) and all I can say is that hitting the target at 300m with a single shot was no big feat. Even if the target was prone. 2-3 round short bursts were also accurate enough to hit the standing target at 300m, while prone was harder to hit. I don't know wheter was this due to a high tolerances set by Zastava factory, but 300m target was really a norm. Even the adjustable iron sight was set at 300m by default. I am also not sure about the magazine noise you are reffering to. While empty, it did rattle a bit, but when there were a few rounds loaded and the spring under load, it was as solid as it can be. Beside the cheap manufacturing costs I think the best and most important feature was its reliability in any kind of weather of terrain. I've fired it in mud, snow, rain, dust and never ever had one stuck round or anything. It just worked on and on. And its design of a few basic pieces, which are all rather large, makes servicing it a breeze even at night... towards the end of my service, we were disassembling and reassembling our rifles blindfolded in less than a minute.

you must have had an AK47 like nobody has ever seen! I had the Hungarian assault rifle in my possession for about six weeks. Easily the best of that lot. Was repossessed off an East German on the Lao border. Most all AK's I've shot were four inch shooters at 100 yards at best, and some were even worse. That means you have about 150 yards of range for an accurate kill zone hit (the size of your hand). The AK platform is by far the most reliable, yet the competing rifles that are usually knocked are still pretty good. And trust me I've seen the AK platform malfunction! They all will. In close quarters the AK should be as good as it gets, but it isn't. Even an M2 carbine is better. You change out the mag and you can hear it click almost two hundred yards. The safety is even worse, and that's why most end users kept the gun off safe (also rather dangerous). Neither the M16 or the AK with a bayonet is worth the trouble. Your better off grabbing the barrel and swinging it like a base ball bat. Even the entrenching tool was better. At 100 yards the typical mil spec M16 will shoot 1.5" groups or less with mil spec amnmo. Multiply that by three and your still in the kill zone. Four hundred yards is seriously pushing an M16, and energy is very anemic at that range (about 400 ft.lb.), but the typical 123 grain bullet used in the AK has slightly over 300 ft.lb. of energy at that range. Plus about 60" of drop. Of course the M2 carbine is a little less. That's why they are both known as 150 yard weapons. Nothing wrong with that when you consider that the vast majority of KIA's happen under one hundred yards. Then we take the newest AR of the lot. The one chambered in 6.8mm. It'll easily push a 100 grain bullet to 2500fps. With the typical 250 yard military zero, it's point blank out to 300 yards. Has almost 500 ft.lb. of energy at 400 yards (still kinda light) Not 7.62x51 ballistics for sure, but a vast improvement.

gary

[rustywelder]

Not sure I'd call the Israeli AK (Galil) a better design. They made some improvements, but they came at a price. For sure, it was much better built, but it was heavier because they used a machined receiver and more expensive to produce. About the only improvements were the better (but heavier) side folding stock instead of the original AK underfolder, and the fire selector lever under the left side of the receiver, which allowed taking the gun off safe without changing the grip (although it's somewhat stiff to operate is it's connected to and operates the standard AK port cover/selector on the right side). Even the Israelis don't use the Galil much any more, and their number pale against the number of standard AKs made.

Having had range time with the AK-47, AK-74 and Galil.I would mention one more improvement the galil added. It replaced the notch and post sights on the AK with their very short distance between front and rear sight. With a very good aperture with a nice long and thereby more accurate distance between front and rear.

[ChesshireCat]

Not sure I'd call the Israeli AK (Galil) a better design. They made some improvements, but they came at a price. For sure, it was much better built, but it was heavier because they used a machined receiver and more expensive to produce. About the only improvements were the better (but heavier) side folding stock instead of the original AK underfolder, and the fire selector lever under the left side of the receiver, which allowed taking the gun off safe without changing the grip (although it's somewhat stiff to operate is it's connected to and operates the standard AK port cover/selector on the right side). Even the Israelis don't use the Galil much any more, and their number pale against the number of standard AKs made.

The Galil has a much quieter operating system. Actually, using modern machine centers or transfer systems you'd be surprised at how fast a receiver can be made (about one every ten minutes). Plus if you look around, you'd be surprised at who is using them. The AK system with a stamped steel receiver still has to be machined after being formed. A modern transfer system will index every three to four minutes with a completed receiver coming off everytime it indexes.

gary

[toadwbg]

you must have had an AK47 like nobody has ever seen! I had the Hungarian assault rifle in my possession for about six weeks. Easily the best of that lot. Was repossessed off an East German on the Lao border. Most all AK's I've shot were four inch shooters at 100 yards at best, and some were even worse. That means you have about 150 yards of range for an accurate kill zone hit (the size of your hand). The AK platform is by far the most reliable, yet the competing rifles that are usually knocked are still pretty good. And trust me I've seen the AK platform malfunction! They all will. In close quarters the AK should be as good as it gets, but it isn't. Even an M2 carbine is better. You change out the mag and you can hear it click almost two hundred yards. The safety is even worse, and that's why most end users kept the gun off safe (also rather dangerous). Neither the M16 or the AK with a bayonet is worth the trouble. Your better off grabbing the barrel and swinging it like a base ball bat. Even the entrenching tool was better. At 100 yards the typical mil spec M16 will shoot 1.5" groups or less with mil spec amnmo. Multiply that by three and your still in the kill zone. Four hundred yards is seriously pushing an M16, and energy is very anemic at that range (about 400 ft.lb.), but the typical 123 grain bullet used in the AK has slightly over 300 ft.lb. of energy at that range. Plus about 60" of drop. Of course the M2 carbine is a little less. That's why they are both known as 150 yard weapons. Nothing wrong with that when you consider that the vast majority of KIA's happen under one hundred yards. Then we take the newest AR of the lot. The one chambered in 6.8mm. It'll easily push a 100 grain bullet to 2500fps. With the typical 250 yard military zero, it's point blank out to 300 yards. Has almost 500 ft.lb. of energy at 400 yards (still kinda light) Not 7.62x51 ballistics for sure, but a vast improvement.

gary

QFT

All that said, the M-4/M-16/AR-15 and AK are different rifles for different users. I say own both :cheers:/>

Edited December 29, 2013 by toadwbg

[rustywelder]

QFT :cheers:/>

All that said, the M-4/M-16/AR-15 and AK are different rifles for different users. I say get both :cheers:/>

My thoughts exactly!

[ChesshireCat]

Having had range time with the AK-47, AK-74 and Galil.I would mention one more improvement the galil added. It replaced the notch and post sights on the AK with their very short distance between front and rear sight. With a very good aperture with a nice long and thereby more accurate distance between front and rear.

I've seen Galil's but have never shot one. They felt good, and seemed to have a good balance to them. How accurate they are, I can't positively say. Of the modern rifles, I still like HK's better than the others. But I will tell you right up front that I shot a heavy barreled Olympic AR15 in 5.56 awhile back. The ammo I used was hand loaded for a bolt action rifle in .223, and was really not right for a 5.56 chamber. I still shot .60" five shot groups with it at 100 yards with a cheap $30 scope bought at a flea market. I think the rifle would have shot half inch groups effortlessly with better ammo.

gary

[rustywelder]

I've seen Galil's but have never shot one. They felt good, and seemed to have a good balance to them. How accurate they are, I can't positively say. Of the modern rifles, I still like HK's better than the others. But I will tell you right up front that I shot a heavy barreled Olympic AR15 in 5.56 awhile back. The ammo I used was hand loaded for a bolt action rifle in .223, and was really not right for a 5.56 chamber. I still shot .60" five shot groups with it at 100 yards with a cheap $30 scope bought at a flea market. I think the rifle would have shot half inch groups effortlessly with better ammo.

gary

From my relatively breif experience I was holding roughly 1" five shot groups at 100yds. Which is about what I manage with a service grade AR at the same distance.

[Dave Williams]

Having had range time with the AK-47, AK-74 and Galil.I would mention one more improvement the galil added. It replaced the notch and post sights on the AK with their very short distance between front and rear sight. With a very good aperture with a nice long and thereby more accurate distance between front and rear.

Forgot about that. My ARM in the back of my safe and I haven't pulled it out in a while.

The Galil has a much quieter operating system. Actually, using modern machine centers or transfer systems you'd be surprised at how fast a receiver can be made (about one every ten minutes). Plus if you look around, you'd be surprised at who is using them. The AK system with a stamped steel receiver still has to be machined after being formed. A modern transfer system will index every three to four minutes with a completed receiver coming off everytime it indexes.

gary

Not sure what a "quieter operating system" means. When you fire a round, the "boom" outweighs any noise of the action cycling, unless you have a super efficient suppressor, and most Galils aren't used suppressed. Didn't mention anything about how fast or efficient a receiver can be made. Just said the Galil is heavier and more expensive since the receiver requires a lot of machining (much more than a stamped AK). I'm sure Galils are still in use, and know South Africa made some as the R4 and R5, but it's still a heavy gun, and heavier than other AKs. Notably, they aren't the main weapons of the IDF any more. Granted, a lot of the reason is that the US supplied tons of much cheaper M16/M4s, but few felt the Galil was enough of an improvement over the AK to keep making them in quantity. Even the Russians didn't feel the improvements were important enough to incorporate them into the AK-74, except the side folding stock. The Gail is a good gun, but it just didn't really go anywhere or materially change future AK designs.

[Kalashnikov-47]

“I sleep soundly. I created a weapon to defend the motherland. It was not my fault that

it was sometimes used where it should not have been. That is the fault of politicians."

~ Mikhail Kalashnikov

[toadwbg]

“I sleep soundly. I created a weapon to defend the motherland. It was not my fault that

it was sometimes used where it should not have been. That is the fault of politicians."

~ Mikhail Kalashnikov

Great quote

[crazydon]

Given a choice (which I did make when I moved from M-1 carbine collecting to wanting something that was easier to find ammo for) I'd say AR all day long. You can get any flavor you want either off the rack or custom build your own like I've started doing the past year.

That doesn't count the 2 I sold during the panic early this year, for a tidy profit

Main reason I went AR was the 223 round round, its a common US made round you don't have to worry about import sanctions being imposed on. Most AK ammo here in the US is imported, given politics it could be banned from importation by decree at any time. Reloading would be a problem for AK ammo since most the ammo sold here in the US is steel cased, not brass.

Also, while I'd love a new AK myself prices on those haven't come down since the "panic" early this year, AR parts on the other hand have since the market is flooded due to overproduction.

Military versions I like the comment I saw once, the AK is basically a light fully auto SAW that happens to have a semi suto feature. The M-16 is a semi auto rifle that happens to be able to fire full auto. Drop me on a remote planet with a unlimited supply of ammo but nothing else I'll want a AK.....drop me on planet Earth with a supply chain....I'll take the AR/M16 platfrom

Edited December 30, 2013 by crazydon

[ChesshireCat]

Having had range time with the AK-47, AK-74 and Galil.I would mention one more improvement the galil added. It replaced the notch and post sights on the AK with their very short distance between front and rear sight. With a very good aperture with a nice long and thereby more accurate distance between front and rear.

The front and rear sights are vastly different on the Hungarian assault Rifle. Look nothing like the typical AK unless you get up real close. The sight picture is pretty good for off hand shooting. The action itself is fairly quiet and doesn't rattle. The stock is a little more noisier than the wood stock on the typical AK, but still not bad. Group size is in the three inch range at 100 yards, but each shot and each group are repeatable. That's why it was issued to the Russian elite, but still most went to Cambodia. They built 5000 of them altogether and all were built by CZ or BRUNO. Mine now dwells in a government warehouse in Maryland. Given the choice of it or a CAR 15 (I had one), I'd take that rifle any day of the week. But compared to a standard issue M16 with forward assist, the nod always goes with the M16.

glt

[ChesshireCat]

From my relatively breif experience I was holding roughly 1" five shot groups at 100yds. Which is about what I manage with a service grade AR at the same distance.

my first M16 was so old that it had the AR15 logo cast into the receiver. It was one with the short buffer and light weight spring. Shot well, and I had no trouble with it. They changed the buffer spring in it with a much heavier one. Later the added the heavier buffer. Then a month or so later they changed the whole upper receiver group. Never had a problem all along the way. The rifle was capable of shooting sparrows at 100 yards with one shot all day long.

gary