AK47 assault rifle designer Kalashnikov dies at 94

[webfact]

AK47 assault rifle designer Kalashnikov dies at 94

(BBC) The inventor of the Kalashnikov assault rifle, Mikhail Kalashnikov, has died aged 94, Russian officials say.

The automatic rifle he designed became one of the world's most familiar and widely used weapons.

Its comparative simplicity made it cheap to manufacture, as well as reliable and easy to maintain.

Although honoured by the state, Kalashnikov made little money from his gun. He once said he would have been better off designing a lawn mower.

Kalashnikov was admitted to hospital with internal bleeding in November.

Full story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25497013


-- BBC 2013-12-24

[krisb]

Ironic he was admitted for internal bleeding. So were millions that had been shot from his invention.

[Crossy]

Any way you look at it, his invention certainly helped shape world history.

[NeverSure]

The AK 47 is a POS used because it is cheap to make. It is used by underfunded 3rd world countries.

It wasn't revolutionary. It wasn't put into production until after WWII when there we already awesome automatic rifles in use including the Browning and others.

Yes the gun is cheap and reliable. It's also woefully underpowered and inaccurate, and lacking in distance. But for poor countries needing some kind of weapon, it was stamped out with poor tolerances in great numbers because that's all they had.

Yes, he would have been better off designing a lawn mower.

RIP

[Sayonarax]

The AK 47 is a POS used because it is cheap to make. It is used by underfunded 3rd world countries.

It wasn't revolutionary. It wasn't put into production until after WWII when there we already awesome automatic rifles in use including the Browning and others.

Yes the gun is cheap and reliable. It's also woefully underpowered and inaccurate, and lacking in distance. But for poor countries needing some kind of weapon, it was stamped out with poor tolerances in great numbers because that's all they had.

Yes, he would have been better off designing a lawn mower.

RIP

Under powered? It'd knock you to the floor. Do you even know what your talking about there Skippy?

Ak-47 use a 115g bullets vs M-16 55g, so your telling me its underpowered? Stand out on the range and tell me which hurts more.

[NeverSure]

The AK 47 is a POS used because it is cheap to make. It is used by underfunded 3rd world countries.

It wasn't revolutionary. It wasn't put into production until after WWII when there we already awesome automatic rifles in use including the Browning and others.

Yes the gun is cheap and reliable. It's also woefully underpowered and inaccurate, and lacking in distance. But for poor countries needing some kind of weapon, it was stamped out with poor tolerances in great numbers because that's all they had.

Yes, he would have been better off designing a lawn mower.

RIP

Under powered? It'd knock you to the floor. Do you even know what your talking about there Skippy?

Ak-47 use a 115g bullets vs M-16 55g, so your telling me its underpowered? Stand out on the range and tell me which hurts more.

AK 47 Muzzle velocity, 715 m/s (2,350 ft/s)

Effective range 300 metres (330 yd) full auto

Link

M-16 Muzzle velocity 3,110 ft/s (948 m/s)

Effective range 550 meters (point target) 800 meters (area target)

Link

Oh, and the military uses 62 - 70 grain bullets in the M16, no longer 55 gr. And the bullet is traveling so fast it tumbles and breaks on impact, causing multiple wound channels.

The AK 47 is a wimp.

Edited December 24, 2013 by NeverSure

[Sayonarax]

The AK 47 is a POS used because it is cheap to make. It is used by underfunded 3rd world countries.

It wasn't revolutionary. It wasn't put into production until after WWII when there we already awesome automatic rifles in use including the Browning and others.

Yes the gun is cheap and reliable. It's also woefully underpowered and inaccurate, and lacking in distance. But for poor countries needing some kind of weapon, it was stamped out with poor tolerances in great numbers because that's all they had.

Yes, he would have been better off designing a lawn mower.

RIP

Under powered? It'd knock you to the floor. Do you even know what your talking about there Skippy?

Ak-47 use a 115g bullets vs M-16 55g, so your telling me its underpowered? Stand out on the range and tell me which hurts more.

AK 47 Muzzle velocity, 715 m/s (2,350 ft/s)

Effective range 300 metres (330 yd) full auto

Link

M-16 Muzzle velocity 3,110 ft/s (948 m/s)

Effective range 550 meters (point target) 800 meters (area target)

Link

Oh, and the military uses 62 - 70 grain bullets in the M16, no longer 55 gr. And the bullet is traveling so fast it tumbles and breaks on impact, causing multiple wound channels.

The AK 47 is a wimp.

Why are you posting the velocitys only? You said it was underpowered, which one can only assume you mean stopping power. So why don't you post the energy? Because you know an AK-47 has more stopping power. Maths dont lie.

[Publicus]

The AK 47 is a POS used because it is cheap to make. It is used by underfunded 3rd world countries.

It wasn't revolutionary. It wasn't put into production until after WWII when there we already awesome automatic rifles in use including the Browning and others.

Yes the gun is cheap and reliable. It's also woefully underpowered and inaccurate, and lacking in distance. But for poor countries needing some kind of weapon, it was stamped out with poor tolerances in great numbers because that's all they had.

Yes, he would have been better off designing a lawn mower.

RIP

Under powered? It'd knock you to the floor. Do you even know what your talking about there Skippy?

Ak-47 use a 115g bullets vs M-16 55g, so your telling me its underpowered? Stand out on the range and tell me which hurts more.

If you're standing out in front of me I'd take either an AK-47 or an M-16. But for you Biff I'd take an AK-47 cause I could get to shred you pretty well.

If you're equivalent to being out in center field of Yankee Stadium and I'm at home plate I'd pop you with an M-16. Forget the Kalashnikov cause in that scenario you could stand there and laugh off anyone using it against you.

But it's he who laughs last and all of that.

[Donnie Brasco]

Didn't jamb if kept clean. Fired in all kinds of weather.

You could buy one for a hundred bucks just about anywhere.

Supply your own stock and grip.

Magazines were five dollars.

Rounds were a dollar apiece.

Most wars are fought with small arms.

Damned straight it changed the world.

[Publicus]

Didn't jamb if kept clean. Fired in all kinds of weather. You could buy one for a hundred bucks just about anywhere. Supply your own stock and grip. Magazines were five dollars. Rounds were a dollar apiece. Most wars are fought with small arms. Damned straight it changed the world.

Positively?

For the better?

[F430murci]

As much as I like M16, the AK47 is a much better weapon. Every Vietnam Vet I know said they would throw down an M16 and puck up an AK 47 and AK ammo.

[Sayonarax]

The AK 47 is a POS used because it is cheap to make. It is used by underfunded 3rd world countries.

It wasn't revolutionary. It wasn't put into production until after WWII when there we already awesome automatic rifles in use including the Browning and others.

Yes the gun is cheap and reliable. It's also woefully underpowered and inaccurate, and lacking in distance. But for poor countries needing some kind of weapon, it was stamped out with poor tolerances in great numbers because that's all they had.

Yes, he would have been better off designing a lawn mower.

RIP

Under powered? It'd knock you to the floor. Do you even know what your talking about there Skippy?

Ak-47 use a 115g bullets vs M-16 55g, so your telling me its underpowered? Stand out on the range and tell me which hurts more.

If you're standing out in front of me I'd take either an AK-47 or an M-16. But for you Biff I'd take an AK-47 cause I could get to shred you pretty well.

If you're equivalent to being out in center field of Yankee Stadium and I'm at home plate I'd pop you with an M-16. Forget the Kalashnikov cause in that scenario you could stand there and laugh off anyone using it against you.

But it's he who laughs last and all of that.

Whats this got to do with stopping power?

Edited December 24, 2013 by Sayonarax

[Soutpeel]

The AK 47 is a POS used because it is cheap to make. It is used by underfunded 3rd world countries.

It wasn't revolutionary. It wasn't put into production until after WWII when there we already awesome automatic rifles in use including the Browning and others.

Yes the gun is cheap and reliable. It's also woefully underpowered and inaccurate, and lacking in distance. But for poor countries needing some kind of weapon, it was stamped out with poor tolerances in great numbers because that's all they had.

Yes, he would have been better off designing a lawn mower.

RIP

Under powered? It'd knock you to the floor. Do you even know what your talking about there Skippy?

Ak-47 use a 115g bullets vs M-16 55g, so your telling me its underpowered? Stand out on the range and tell me which hurts more.

If you're standing out in front of me I'd take either an AK-47 or an M-16. But for you Biff I'd take an AK-47 cause I could get to shred you pretty well.

If you're equivalent to being out in center field of Yankee Stadium and I'm at home plate I'd pop you with an M-16. Forget the Kalashnikov cause in that scenario you could stand there and laugh off anyone using it against you.

But it's he who laughs last and all of that.

Whats this got to do with stopping power?

Nice to see the apple pie and white picket fence boys are out in force waving the flag as usual

AK-47 the best assault rifle ever produced, it really did change the world more than any other firearm in history

[NeverSure]

Under powered? It'd knock you to the floor. Do you even know what your talking about there Skippy?

Ak-47 use a 115g bullets vs M-16 55g, so your telling me its underpowered? Stand out on the range and tell me which hurts more.

If you're standing out in front of me I'd take either an AK-47 or an M-16. But for you Biff I'd take an AK-47 cause I could get to shred you pretty well.

If you're equivalent to being out in center field of Yankee Stadium and I'm at home plate I'd pop you with an M-16. Forget the Kalashnikov cause in that scenario you could stand there and laugh off anyone using it against you.

But it's he who laughs last and all of that.

Whats this got to do with stopping power?

Nice to see the apple pie and white picket fence boys are out in force waving the flag as usual

AK-47 the best assault rifle ever produced, it really did change the world more than any other firearm in history

The AK 47 was built by com-block countries to the cheapest standards possible. The receivers are stamped out of 1mm steel and then put through several bending and riveting operations to make a "receiver." That "receiver" won't hold a barrel well and accuracy is lost.

They have almost exactly the same power, bullet and range as a 30-30 carbine, and a maximum range of 300 meters. They were built for economy, and to loose standards so they wouldn't jamb. When imported into the US they are often swapped out with a milled receiver and a decent barrel so you can actually hit something.

By contrast, the M14 (.308) has a muzzle velocity of 2800 fps and a range of 800 meters, shooting about the same weight bullet. It is dead on accurate, too. There are sniper rifle variants of it which would/could never happen with an AK-47.

The AK 47 is what it is. A cheap, com-block, loose tolerance, run-in-the-dirt dependable but inaccurate and underpowered weapon.

[Publicus]

The AK 47 is a POS used because it is cheap to make. It is used by underfunded 3rd world countries.

It wasn't revolutionary. It wasn't put into production until after WWII when there we already awesome automatic rifles in use including the Browning and others.

Yes the gun is cheap and reliable. It's also woefully underpowered and inaccurate, and lacking in distance. But for poor countries needing some kind of weapon, it was stamped out with poor tolerances in great numbers because that's all they had.

Yes, he would have been better off designing a lawn mower.

RIP

Under powered? It'd knock you to the floor. Do you even know what your talking about there Skippy?

Ak-47 use a 115g bullets vs M-16 55g, so your telling me its underpowered? Stand out on the range and tell me which hurts more.

If you're standing out in front of me I'd take either an AK-47 or an M-16. But for you Biff I'd take an AK-47 cause I could get to shred you pretty well.

If you're equivalent to being out in center field of Yankee Stadium and I'm at home plate I'd pop you with an M-16. Forget the Kalashnikov cause in that scenario you could stand there and laugh off anyone using it against you.

But it's he who laughs last and all of that.

Whats this got to do with stopping power?

I'm simply saying that if varmint-grade accuracy (and modular flexibility) determine the better weapon, it's the M-16.

However, If a heavier hitting, more reliable shorter ranged weapon is better, then I'd pretty much want the AK-47.

Close in the M-16 round is physically effective, but close in the AK-47 is more likely to stop an enemy psychologically as well as physically. The poster NeverSure has expressed in other threads that he likes a shotgun for close-in situations, such as inside the home, and that's very fine too.

I'd choose the AK-47 close-in over the M-16 not because it's superior to the M-16 at that range, but as light and as short as the M-16 is, the AK-47 is more manipulatable up close and personal.

Besides, I never could hit the broad side of a barn at ten paces with a .45

And yes, grunts in the Nam testify they liked the AK-47 because it fired even if you didn't clean it for a month and because it was in fact psychologically effective up close, at close range. But on the whole, even the M-16 of the time was a better overall weapon due to its accuracy - you just had to keep it clean. Happily the post-Vietnam versions of it are eons more reliable in this respect.

Also, in the field M-16 ammunition is hard to come by outside of your own supply chain, whereas AK-47 ammo is more common to find.

Still, a great weakness of the AK-47 in intense firefights at close range is that its wooden stock catches fire in your hands when you're engaged in a string of successive fire.

These are some considerations, by no means everything.

And the winner is - the M-16!

[NeverSure]

Lessee...

Stopping power. We're dealing with full metal jackets here, not expansive hollow points. An AK is likely to punch a hole without doing deadly damage. An M16 round at its high speed will upset upon impact. It has been known for an M16/AR-15 round to hit someone in the chest, upset, and exit through his butt. All the while the round was tumbling, doing much more damage than its diameter would predict. That guy's all done and basted.

At close range, the M16 on full automatic will not have nearly as much kick or muzzle rise as an AK, and will stay on target longer. More hits.

The average shooter flinches and misses at the loud noise and heavy kick of a rifle which an AK has in spades but the M16 lacks. The M16 is a sweet shooter.

The M16 can shoot a fly off the top of someone's head at 50 yards while the AK might be lucky to hit the head. More likely to miss everything.

In the field, the standard carry is 200 M16 rounds. My unscientific guess is that an M16 round is about 1/3 the size and weight of an AK round. The person with the M16 could therefore carry 3X as many rounds.

I practice at 500 yards with my M16. An AK would fall way short of hitting any target at that distance. It would kick up dust well short of the target.

An AK is a cheaply made com-block weapon with low accuracy while the M16 is high quality and very accurate made to NATO specs. If you happen to have an extra $20,000 + $500 for a license laying around, you too can own one. Link

[Credo]

Be careful. It's hard to argue about guns with those American boys! One thing they do know is their firearms.

[Scott]

Off-topic post deleted.

[Soutpeel]

Off-topic post deleted.

Allow me to rephrase then

One suspects the AK-47 has won wars than the M-16, irrespective of the perceived superior technical specification .....100 million users can't be wrong

And its use has certainly changed the modern world more than any other firearm

Each to their own personally I prefer the R4/R5

[Nemesis7]

Mikhail Kalashnikov needs to be praised for his design. However we use it thats not his fault.

[joboss]

The AK 47 is a POS used because it is cheap to make. It is used by underfunded 3rd world countries.

It wasn't revolutionary. It wasn't put into production until after WWII when there we already awesome automatic rifles in use including the Browning and others.

Yes the gun is cheap and reliable. It's also woefully underpowered and inaccurate, and lacking in distance. But for poor countries needing some kind of weapon, it was stamped out with poor tolerances in great numbers because that's all they had.

Yes, he would have been better off designing a lawn mower.

RIP

Under powered? It'd knock you to the floor. Do you even know what your talking about there Skippy?

Ak-47 use a 115g bullets vs M-16 55g, so your telling me its underpowered? Stand out on the range and tell me which hurts more.

Haha, Maybe he will take you up on it. He knows the AK47 is woefully underpowered and inaccurate. I suggest 300 metres for fairness.

[rotary]

More peace through better firepower, long live the AR-47

[laobali]

Any way you look at it, his invention certainly helped shape world history.

That man has had a lot to answer for!

[StasD]

R.I.P.

[Costas2008]

I'm glad to see all the political experts in TV giving us all their expertise on weapons.

Thai Visa....the Hub.....of experts

Edited December 24, 2013 by Costas2008

[SICHONSTEVE]

Any way you look at it, his invention certainly helped shape world history.

Not for the better though - unlike the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan!!

At least he was honest enough to admit that he would have got a bigger cut with a lawnmower!!

Edited December 24, 2013 by SICHONSTEVE

[sunshine51]

Seems that there are a few folks here who prefer a weapon that jams constantly in the past & present,

is definitely accurate out to a better distance than 7.62x39 (AK round) but has little stopping power

at that distance, is a bitch to keep clean under combat conditions and was adopted by the US military

over a better weapon due to corporate lobbying. The better weapon was the Stoner.

There's nothing wrong with the AK series of weapon one dam_n bit. The early ones were very inaccurate

but Soviet doctrine back then made it plain that division strength amounts of troops would swarm an

objective and every grunt would have an automatic weapon in his hands. Tactic being to fire and ensure

the enemy would keep their heads down until kills could be accomplished in CQB range...which even the

first AK's could easily do. Tactics change...and Mikhail Klashnikov designed better weapons but stayed

with a familiar, proven design. Take the new AK 102...it's not just a simple sheet metal stamped out weapon

and it's very accurate out to 800 meters...I know I have fired them on trips into Russia....not from reading

BS on the internet.

Another thing...all bullets tumble upon impact with a fleshy target...not just the 5.56mm. Granted the 5.56

has a nasty habit of fragnenting inside a target...even without hitting bone. This is due to two main reasons;

the first is its high velocity while the second is the thin copper outer cladding of the round...as it slows down

upon entrance (looses about 80% of the velocity & energy as all rounds do) the lead antimony filler has more

inertia than the outer bullet cladding can contain and causes the bullet to fragment. A larger & heavier round

auch as the 7.62x39 or the 7.62x51 has the ability to stay intact and "at range" just plow through a target.

What does more damage than just a simple bullet is the physics involved...Terminal Ballistics its called &

I'm not gonna give a lecture here on it either....go and Google the term. It will involve velocities & shock waves

but y'all should be able to understand.

In the current conflict areas of Afghanistan & Iraq the allies have been bringing back the 7.62 in heaps. Why?

Because it has the range, it has the velocity and it has the stopping that the 5.56 just cannot match. This is

also or has also been complicated by bad guys with AK's shooting "good guys" from behind stone or cement

block walls, buildings etc and the 5.56 just can't penetrate that stuff. Sure a .50 will penetrate but not every

one carries that do they...a 7.62 can wreck a wall in short order FYI.

Accurate or not...the old Vietnam era AK's fired a nasty round that killed a lotta good men & women and

wounded countless others. You armchair weapons experts can argue your logic all the time but I highly doubt

any of you have been an active participant in a two way shooting gallery. I have & was hit twice...I know what

that "underpowered" 7.62x39 round can do. I highly doubt you do.

Edited December 24, 2013 by sunshine51

[NeverSure]

Seems that there are a few folks here who prefer a weapon that jams constantly in the past & present,

is definitely accurate out to a better distance than 7.62x39 (AK round) but has little stopping power

at that distance, is a bitch to keep clean under combat conditions and was adopted by the US military

over a better weapon due to corporate lobbying. The better weapon was the Stoner.

There's nothing wrong with the AK series of weapon one dam_n bit. The early ones were very inaccurate

but Soviet doctrine back then made it plain that division strength amounts of troops would swarm an

objective and every grunt would have an automatic weapon in his hands. Tactic being to fire and ensure

the enemy would keep their heads down until kills could be accomplished in CQB range...which even the

first AK's could easily do. Tactics change...and Mikhail Klashnikov designed better weapons but stayed

with a familiar, proven design. Take the new AK 102..

it's not just a simple sheet metal stamped out weapon

and it's very accurate out to 800 meters...I know I have fired them on trips into Russia....not from reading

BS on the internet.

The topic isn't about the "new" AK 102. It's about the AK 47 POS.

Another thing...all bullets tumble upon impact with a fleshy target...not just the 5.56mm. Granted the 5.56

has a nasty habit of fragnenting inside a target...even without hitting bone. This is due to two main reasons;

the first is its high velocity while the second is the thin copper outer cladding of the round...as it slows down

upon entrance (looses about 80% of the velocity & energy as all rounds do) the lead antimony filler has more

inertia than the outer bullet cladding can contain and causes the bullet to fragment. A larger & heavier round

auch as the 7.62x39 or the 7.62x51 has the ability to stay intact and "at range" just plow through a target.

What does more damage than just a simple bullet is the physics involved...Terminal Ballistics its called &

I'm not gonna give a lecture here on it either....go and Google the term. It will involve velocities & shock waves

but y'all should be able to understand.

The idea in combat is to wound. Kill isn't necessary. A wounded combatant needs a couple of more people to aid

him, so one good wound takes at least 3 people out of the fight. This is where accuracy comes in and the AK 47 didn't have it.

In the current conflict areas of Afghanistan & Iraq the allies have been bringing back the 7.62 in heaps. Why?

Because it has the range, it has the velocity and it has the stopping that the 5.56 just cannot match.

Agreed, but the 7.62 Nato has far more range than an AK 47 so it isn't apples and apples. The 5.56 certainly has more stopping power

than any AK 47 at 500 yards because it can actually hit something. In Afghanistan for instance, where there are open spaces and long ranges,

the Taliban are severely handicapped with an AK 47 over either the 5.56 or 7.62 Nato cartridges.

This is

also or has also been complicated by bad guys with AK's shooting "good guys" from behind stone or cement

block walls, buildings etc and the 5.56 just can't penetrate that stuff. Sure a .50 will penetrate but not every

one carries that do they...a 7.62 can wreck a wall in short order FYI.

No one will argue that the 7.62 Nato (.308) is an awesome round. I have it in an AR-10 and a Weatherby bolt. But an AK 47 can't carry water for it.

Accurate or not...the old Vietnam era AK's fired a nasty round that killed a lotta good men & women and

wounded countless others. You armchair weapons experts can argue your logic all the time but I highly doubt

any of you have been an active participant in a two way shooting gallery. I have & was hit twice...I know what

that "underpowered" 7.62x39 round can do. You don't.

You were hit twice with an AK 47 and are here to post on an internet forum. 'nuff said.

BTW, Thanks for your service.

[maxence]

For the one interested, mr kalashnikov created the ak 47 with the help of an german engineer and prisoner, hugo schmeisser, who developped the stg 44, sturmgewehr...ironic or how facts and propaganda don't mix?

...

[breaker]

He has lived in usual, very modest two-bedroom flat in the old building without elevator and rubbish chute.

He had very little money. Because he not had any percentage of revenue from production of his guns. Sad.