Kalashnikov AK-47 and its derivatives

can any of you guys tell me what the second type of russian ak47 was? Was it milled or Stamped?
On the 7.62x39 is it rimmed or non rimmed? Does the AK prefer laquer cased over normal brass?

The second type of AK was 74.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-74

Vladislav wrote:The second type of AK was 74.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-74

I don't think that was what he meant. The first AK-47 was stamped. The second type of the AK-47 was milled and is known to the west as the, "Type 2". The Type 2 is notable in appearence by having a metal bar connecting the buttstock to the reciever which is not found in the later models. Very few Type 2's were actually made and stopped being produced around 1953 or 1954 to be replaced by the most famous version of the AK-47 known as the, "Type 3" to the west. The 7.62x39 is a rimless cartridge. I've shot both laquer steel cases and brass cased ammo and it shoots both fine.

Type 2 AK47

Thanks! This saved my life lmao
Oh and

I don't think that was what he meant.

Im a girl

milky_candy_sugar wrote:
Im a girl

How can we be sure with a name like that?

Vladislav wrote:

milky_candy_sugar wrote:
Im a girl

How can we be sure with a name like that?

profile* Vladislav

milky_candy_sugar wrote:Thanks! This saved my life lmao
Oh and

I don't think that was what he meant.

Im a girl

Lol. I apologize. I don't find many girls into such things.

Ermac wrote:

milky_candy_sugar wrote:Thanks! This saved my life lmao
Oh and

I don't think that was what he meant.

Im a girl

Lol. I apologize. I don't find many girls into such things.

Weapons are somewhat...sexy

AK-47 functions and operates EXACTLY like the real thing dissembled & re-assembled field stripped exactly as per original AK-47. Selective fire, automatic and semi automatic, adjustable sights. AK47 features open iron sights, with front sight adjustable for windage and rear sight adjustable for elevation and marked in 100s of meters, from 100 to 800 meters detachable magazine, same weight, size, feel, markings as per original. Loading, cambering and firing a round is exactly the same as a real AK-47. A `spent` round be ejected out the ejection port.

Regarding steel case vs brass case ammo, the Ak doesn't seem to mind in my experience.

Brass is used widely because it has some stretch in it so as the powder charge goes off the brass case expands under pressure and then shrinks back when the pressure is released so it doesn't stick to the chamber as it is extracted.
Brass is however more expensive than mild steel and will not biodegrade like mild steel which rusts away quite rapidly in most places.
The Germans and the Soviets used mild steel cases to save money and produce large amounts of ammo since WWII or earlier.
Not so popular in the west.

Problems with steel cases include case failure where the neck cracks, and it is not very easily reloadable. There are claims it effects accuracy, which I personally doubt.

Steel case rounds have a sealant added to the neck and around the primer to prevent water entering the round to make them more weather proof.

I have seen some sealant left on the bolt face, but it comes off easily and never seems to cause any problems.

In my Soviet AK-74 manual, it said that fully automatic in short bursts of fire was the primary mode of fire of Soviet Infantryman, I wonder is that still the case for the Russian infantry of today?

With their demands for accuracy I rather suspect they will likely change tactics to use single shot aimed fire against point targets especially at medium ranges, but against moving targets a burst offers more chance of a hit, and of course for suppressing fire you can't beat a burst of 3-4 rounds.

It is interesting to read reports from Afghanistan that say the rebels don't seem to be afraid of the 5.56mm. I have never read a report of them not being afraid of the 5.45mm.

Well the AK platform is not designed for pin point accurate shots. However rifles, even in the US are used mainly for suppression, most of the heavy lifted is done by LMGs, and with DMRs, which are becoming far more commonplace in Afghanistan. Even the full length M-16's are rapidly being replaced with carbines which are no more accurate than the AK-74. Funny how the US is using the same squad structure pioneered by the soviets with their AKs RPKs and SVDs.

Personally, I don't think anything is going to change, if it isn't broke don't fix it. Although more DMRs at squad level can't hurt.

By the way, don't give me that one shot one kill BS, there's enough footage that has come out of Iraq and Afghanistan to show NATO troops don't operate that way on the battlefield

By the way, don't give me that one shot one kill BS, there's enough footage that has come out of Iraq and Afghanistan to show NATO troops don't operate that way on the battlefield

Exactly.

I have seen several TV documentaries showing British troops in Afghanistan and not only did they not operate at night (despite claims they have lots of night vision kit, which should give them an enormous advantage in night combat against the Taleban who obviously wont have lots of night vision equipment) they also tended to fire in bursts, they relied a lot on GPMG fire and a few snipers, in the end they often just called in air support to level the village they were attacking anyway.

In addition to adding DMR rifles (SVD) they also have changed the way they use their helos... in the past "western" experts have claimed that the Hinds used to fire on targets in forward flight in a slight dive because they are underpowered and could not hover. Western helos have found that a hovering helo is an easy target even for unguided RPG rockets let alone small arms fire which can be very effective which makes hovering and landing something you only do if you have to.

Well the AK platform is not designed for pin point accurate shots.

By definition an assault rifle is a weapon that combines the close range firepower of a SMG with the accuracy and power of a battle rifle out to battlefield ranges... the latter refers to the 200-300m range of normal combat where SMGs are of course useless but an assault rifle can hit man sized targets effectively and reliably.

The problem is created when expectations for accuracy exceed that of sniper rifles which is unrealistic and adds costs to the weapons and ammo for very little practical return because few frontline soldiers have the training or equipment to hit point targets to 5-600m.

It would be like giving a $20,000 dollar sniper rifle to an average soldier with 12.7 x 108mm ammo straight off the ammo belt of a KORD HMG and telling them the rifle will be effective to 2,000m but not issue him with a scope.

With the right training and the right ammo and the right scope it probably could get hits to 2,000m, but unless you spend rather more on ammo and training and support equipment needed to get hits at that range it is just a waste of time and money.

The original AK wasn't considered accurate enough by Soviet standards, the reason they went to a not so accurate rifle, but very reliable one was because of urgency. They adopted the AKM next, which reduced shot dispersion primarily in fully automatic fire with the hammer retarder. The slant brake and more in line stock also aided in fully automatic controllability. Still, the AKM wasn't considered accurate enough. When they developed the 5.45x39 and the AK-74, they got acceptable semi automatic accuracy, very much on par with a M4. Fully automatic fire accuracy was very much increased with the new muzzle brake and lighter recoiling round, but the Soviets still did not consider the AK-74 to have acceptable accuracy in fully automatic. Mind you that most conventional assault rifles are not accurate in fully automatic/bursts of fire. Further developments of the AK rifle have mainly been to increase accuracy on fully automatic/bursts of fire.

The original AK wasn't considered accurate enough by Soviet standards, the reason they went to a not so accurate rifle, but very reliable one was because of urgency.

Not sure where this comes from?

The Soviet soldier started WWII with either a rifle or carbine that had a fixed 5 shot magazine and was bolt operated.

By the middle of that conflict it was found that such weapons were not suitable in built up areas and that most actual combat took place at 200-300m so carbines started getting issued more along with pistol calibre sub machine guns. This gave a combination of short range fire power and medium range accuracy and power.

In 1943 a new round was developed that combined the full auto firepower of a SMG but with power and accuracy to the combat ranges they were shooting at targets at (ie 2-300m).

The Russians already had the Federov Avtomat from 1916 that used a 6.5 x 50.5SR round which was fairly good... a 120 grain bullet at about 650m/s with a 25 round curved magazine. This compares with the 122 grain bullet at about 715m/s from an AK.

The plan was to have a rifle, a SMG, and a LMG in 7.62 x 39mm calibre. The rifle was the SKS, which was tested in combat in 1944, while the SMG which was the AK came rather later, and of course the RPD LMG.

In practise the AK was found to be as accurate as the SKS but more useful with its full auto capability and large capacity removable magazines and so the AK took over the SMG and the Rifle role.

The AK is not inaccurate, it is accurate enough to the ranges it was intended for.

They adopted the AKM next, which reduced shot dispersion primarily in fully automatic fire with the hammer retarder.

The hammer retarder was not to reduce rate of fire, it was to prevent the hammer from hitting the firing pin before the bolt carrier was fully forward and the bolt was locked. It was to prevent the round firing out of battery.

The main feature of the AKM was the improved stamped design that made it cheaper to make and also lighter and reduced the amount of metal wasted in production of the weapon.

The AKM has perfectly adequate accuracy... US and Israeli special forces would not use inaccurate weapons.

As I have mentioned on another thread with a battle setting of 300m with an AKM you can aim centre of chest on an adult standing target and get a potentially lethal hit from the muzzle out to about 400m.

The AK-74 introduced lighter ammo that could be carried in larger amounts, with reduced recoil and a flatter trajectory that meant a hit was more likely even if you got the range wrong.

The main problem with most AKs has been ammo production, which is not geared for consistency, but for low cost.

Improvements in ammo quality and consistency have led to improvements in performance in terms of accuracy and effect on target.

A 7.62 x 39mm round will tend to punch a hole right through a human target, whereas a 5.45mm round will tumble and dump more energy into the victim.

"After extensive tests, conducted in December 1947 - January 1948, which included slightly improved Dementiev KB-P-410, Bulkin TKB-415 and all-new Kalashnikov AK-47 rifles, results were somewhat inconclusive. The AK-47 was found to be most durable and reliable out of three contestants, but it also dragged behind the other two in the accuracy department, especially in full automatic (which was, and still is considered the primary mode of fire for assault rifle in Russia). In fact, the only weapon that fulfilled accuracy requirements was the Bulkin AB-47 / TKB-415, but it had certain problems with parts durability. After lengthy discussion, trials commission finally decided that the better is the enemy of the good, and it is advisable to have not-so accurate but reliable weapon now, rather than to wait indefinitely for accurate-and -reliable weapon in the future. This decision ultimately lead commission to recommend AK-47 for troops trials in November, 1947."
http://world.guns.ru/assault/rus/ak-akm-e.html

I didn't say the hammer retarder was made to reduce the rate of fire, I said it was to reduce shot dispersion in fully automatic. Read the official Soviet AK-74 manual and it says this. It's a very popular myth that the hammer retarder was made to prevent out of battery firing, the autosear is what prevents out of battery firing according to the Soviet manual. If out of battery firing was such a serious concern, then the AKS-74U would have a hammer retarder, but it doesn't. It just has a spacer. Just because the original AK was not as accurate as it needed to be doesn't mean it was useless, or wasn't a good rifle, or was inferior to other rifles. In fact, the Israel's prefered the AK over their FAL so much that they decided that their next rifle be based on the AK, hence the Galil. You're right that improvements in ammo did help increase accuracy.

...This decision ultimately lead commission to recommend AK-47 for troops trials in November, 1947."

Just because the AK was less accurate than the other two rifles it was tested against doesn't make it inaccurate.

If it was inaccurate it never would have made it into service.

Also accuracy on a range does not translate into accuracy in the field, which relies on the user knowing what they are doing and the right ammo. Not that many people can estimate range accurately, and even fewer can do so when tired in different lighting conditions while being shot at.

Range accuracy is not the same as combat accuracy.

Out of battery firing IS a serious concern, and by the late 1970s the solution was found to simply extend the bolt carrier above the bolt so that the hammer can't hit the firing pin till the bolt is locked.

It's a very popular myth that the hammer retarder was made to prevent out of battery firing, the autosear is what prevents out of battery firing according to the Soviet manual.

The primary sear is a hook that holds back the hammer, the autosear is another hook above the primary sear... both are attached to the trigger.

When you pull the trigger the main or primary sear releases the hammer which moves up and hits the firing pin... lots of stuff happens and the bolt and bolt carrier move back through the receiver riding over the hammer, ejecting the empty shell case and then being pushed forward again by the main recoil spring to collect a live round from the mag and locking the bolt. If the rifle is set to full auto the auto sear does nothing and the main sear is still down because everything happened so quickly your finger is still on the trigger so the hammer is free to move up as the bolt carrier moves over it on its way forward... if it hits the firing pin before the bolt closes the shell case could rupture and you will have a nasty stoppage that will likely require a tin opener to fix.

On the old AKs there was a hammer delay that prevented the hammer from being released, on the newer ones there is an extension of the bolt carrier above the bolt so the hammer will hit the bolt carrier till the bolt is locked onto the chamber.

The original AK was accurate enough to be selected as the standard Soviet rifle. The fact that it was selected merely showed the officials preferred a rifle that would work more often than not, to a rifle with better accuracy that was not reliable.

There were hundreds of different prototypes of small arms in the last 50 years in Russia that have included all sorts of innovations including balanced recoil mechanisms and bullpups, that are very accurate weapons but just clearly were not economic to make, or not reliable enough.

You do bring up a good point about accuracy. Accuracy is largely subjective. We could agree that a rifle that is less accurate on the range is even less accurate in combat. The autosear DOES also serve as a device that prevents out of battery firing. Full sized AK's made today still have the hammer retarder I believe.

"We’re taking apart a select-fire AK-47 since this is a military firearms class, so we see how the auto sear also serves as an out-of-battery safety to prevent the rifle from firing if the bolt isn’t fully closed. "
http://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/Modern-Machine-Guns/

May be it's not a very strange or up-tod-dated news, but this is a testament to the quality of Russian designs:

http://soha.vn/quan-su/ak-47-bat-ngo-chay-hang-tai-my-nho-obama-20140902202942677.htm (in Vietnamese)

English translation:

AK-47 became best-selling in the United States thanks to... Obama

2nd September 2014

AK-47 supply in the US Market is nearly exhausted, according to The Washington Post.

President Barrack Obama has enforced the embargo against the import of AK-47. Within 3 days after the embargo, most of the Russian rifles was sold out.

According to "Russia 24" channel the U.S. customers prefer to buy the weapon created by Kalashnikov factory. In the U.S., AK is considered the best. The article claimed that there are people who buy 8-10 AK rifles although the price of each rifle is over 1000 USD.

People joked that Barack Obama is the best weapon seller in this century.

The embargo against AK-47 in fact testify the high demands of this weapon in the U.S.

Robert Keller, director of the weapon seller K-Var Corp, told the CNN that there is no more AK-47 in the company's inventory. "We sell some products of the Kalashikov factory and these products are consumed very fast", he said. According to Mr. Keller, the sales increased right after the goverment's embargo.

Haha, how ironic! 

The reasons Americans buy a "Russian made AK" is because the foreign made models are all junk. Nevermind the reliability etc.

Nonsense Mike or weak attempt to troll around. There is whole world of quality ak's which is the testimony to it's design. The thing with ak's made in Federation is genuinity, plain and simple. Just as swiss watches out of Switzerland.
Forgive me my english and have a nice day ! ;-)

Like that guy said, when buying Swiss watch You want it to be made in Switzerland. Altho Bulgarian Arsenal makes quite decent AK's.

Well, yes and no.

The quality of AK's is really different when looking at some countries.

For example there is common procedure during Soviet Union and till this date of selling AK's. Quite often for lot of costumers russian AK's that were gonna be sold to ME for example were not new produced but they just shot 100 AK's of Soviet Arsenal and packed the worst 10 and sold them.

AK's build in US are also quite different, they buy russian made recievers which often use lower quality steel and the quality is further lowered by US tactiscrap nonsense.
We had a romanian AK clone in bundeswehr for showing and teaching people of the most common weapon they would most probably face when going Afghanistan or Kosovo or whereever. It was a wierd thing it was actually russian (Soviet) but the soviet stamp was over graved with romanian marks, which was just ridiculous.

Type-56 AKs of chinese norinco have a thicker reciever but not really same quality of barrel like what i've seen on some other AKs.

The best type of AK-47 were and still are milled AK-47, sturdy and higher accuracy then the AKM's.

But yes it is with weapons really common, you entrust the origin country far more then any other country. Same for sword replicas i would not buy a Katana made somewhere in europe, like i don't want a Japanese swords smith to make an european Zweihänder. But most of those AK's around are made either by China or Poland/Romania and Yugoslavian, far lower numbers are made by actualy Russia.

im42 wrote:Nonsense Mike or weak attempt to troll around. There is whole world of quality ak's which is the testimony to it's design. The thing with ak's made in Federation is genuinity, plain and simple. Just as swiss watches out of Switzerland.
Forgive me my english and have a nice day ! ;-)

Huh? I basically just said what you said... People want it to be made where it was designed, in Russia. Not only that, but the popular Chinese models tend to be sub-par.