Mikhail Kalashnikov: Inventor of AK-47 Dies At 94

Unlike the inventor by Chas · 2013-12-23 06:53 · Score: 5, Funny

You can bury an AK-47 for a long period of time and it'll continue to remain operation after you dig it up.

--

Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!

Re:Unlike the inventor by cold+fjord · 2013-12-23 07:25 · Score: 2

You can bury an AK-47 for a long period of time and it'll continue to remain operation after you dig it up.
Two words: Zombie Kalashnikov.

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Re:Unlike the inventor by gaudior · 2013-12-23 07:40 · Score: 4, Funny

Two words: Zombie Kalashnikov.
That's the name of my new band.
Re:Unlike the inventor by Chas · 2013-12-23 07:58 · Score: 2

Oh my god!
We've tried burial, burning, freezing, drowning, jamming random things into him AND HE WON'T STAY DEAD! He's like a fuckin' Russian Jason Voorhees!

--

Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Re:Unlike the inventor by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-23 08:33 · Score: 3, Informative

Russia beat Vorhees by decades; Grigori Rasputin
Re:Unlike the inventor by mTor · 2013-12-23 09:35 · Score: 4, Informative

You can bury an AK-47 for a long period of time and it'll continue to remain operation after you dig it up.
Absolutely true. Here's an AK that was buried for 18 years and was dug up:
You can't kill an AK-47: Works after 18 years of being buried in ground
Re:Unlike the inventor by Penguinisto · 2013-12-23 11:46 · Score: 2

In the video, it mentions re-oiling it. Odds are extremely good that they took a wire brush to it before the oil as well.
The parts are thick and rather durable, truth be told - unlike many combat rifles which have at least a few delicate parts (e.g. thin springs), the AK-47's parts are pretty damned beefy by comparison.
I think the only other rifle that can out-last it is the Mosin-Nagants (also Russian). I have an M-44 Carbine that is old enough to have shot at Nazis, and it still works w/o a hitch.

--
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Re:Unlike the inventor by SharpFang · 2013-12-23 12:10 · Score: 2

They aren't very rust-proof, but not only you can use pig fat or margarine for oiling them just fine, they have so much tolerances - not only in dimensions but also in surplus power of gas piston, return spring, and a whole lot of other mechanisms, that less-than-excessive amount of rust will simply get torn off and the surface smoothed out by the mechanism operation - essentially the weapon is self-cleaning to a degree, operation grinding the rust off.
There is a soviet russia joke somewhere in there...

--
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2

In celebration by mrmeval · 2013-12-23 06:58 · Score: 4, Interesting

BUILD YOUR OWN!

This is a steampunk variant.
http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/politics-The%20Steampunk%20AK47.html

--
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty

Re:In celebration by Hognoxious · 2013-12-23 11:06 · Score: 2

And a smooth bore rifle is going to have crap accuracy.
Compared to what, a breech-loading musket?

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:In celebration by HornWumpus · 2013-12-23 14:40 · Score: 2

What you describe is a tap. That's not how larger holes are threaded.
An internal thread cutter is a carbide, with a single thread shape ground onto it.
You cut a thread on a lathe, with the cutting head motion geared to the rotation. Inside or out, you advance the cutter into the metal on subsequent passes.
The tricky part on inside cuts is the reach of the cutter. Also gear lathes won't have 1 turn per 16'' advance (YMMV) in their default configuration. You'd need to add a gear set for rifling.
If I had to rifle a barrel, I'd start by grinding a series of 4 pointed carbides (tip shape will be critical, rifling isn't a simple groove), .0002 size step, starting at the ID of the barrel, few degrees relief. Steel rod .020 under the ID of the barrel, with a carbide holder on the end and pull it through the barrel while rotating, barely scratching first pass. I'd engage (matching rotation pass to pass) and turn the custom lathe gears by hand (to feel the cut). All doable with a surface grinder, a rotating grinding fixture, diamond wheel, mill and lathe.
Of course doing all that would likely cost more then buying the right tool in the first place. It would, for sure, take longer.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'

On a less humorous note by Chas · 2013-12-23 07:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

Politics aside, Kalashnikov was something of a genius. Or at least a commonsense visionary.
He only had access to relatively crude manufacturing processes and a basic idea of what he wanted.
And he managed to turn out a product that is, by any stretch of the imagination, RIDICULOUSLY successful.
Things that'd be considered weaknesses or defects in other weapons systems are some of the very things that are considered strengths in the Kalashnikov rifles.

--

Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!

Re:On a less humorous note by FuegoFuerte · 2013-12-23 07:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

One good example is relatively sloppy tolerances - In most rifles, these are rather frowned upon, but it's also one of the reasons the AK can go through mud, snow, sand, etc. and keep firing. The loose tolerances keep it from running through hot, cold, lack of oil and cleaning, and other abuses long after most rifles (most certainly including the AR/M-16) have jammed up.
In a general-issue military weapon, reliability is far more important than accuracy, so this tradeoff works well for the AK. It's not something you'd want in a hunting or sniper rifle, but for the intended purpose it works great.
Re:On a less humorous note by Nidi62 · 2013-12-23 07:19 · Score: 4, Informative

Things that'd be considered weaknesses or defects in other weapons systems are some of the very things that are considered strengths in the Kalashnikov rifles.
Can you explain what you mean by that?
Cheap, stamped metal parts with loose tolerances that create inaccuracy at range, but allow for much rougher handling of the firearm as well as a higher tolerance for a lack of maintenance. Fill it with sand, water, or mud and it will still fire. To quote Lord of War (I love that opening sequence) "A weapon so simple a child could use it, and they often do". Essentially it is the perfect weapon for what it is: a firearm that untrained, uneducated civilians can pick up and fire (think of it in context of World War II, where Red Army training was not exactly the world's best).

--
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Re:On a less humorous note by Savage-Rabbit · 2013-12-23 07:24 · Score: 3, Interesting

Politics aside, Kalashnikov was something of a genius. Or at least a commonsense visionary.
He only had access to relatively crude manufacturing processes and a basic idea of what he wanted.
And he managed to turn out a product that is, by any stretch of the imagination, RIDICULOUSLY successful.
Things that'd be considered weaknesses or defects in other weapons systems are some of the very things that are considered strengths in the Kalashnikov rifles.
My favourite AK-47 related escapade ever, forge an AK-47 receiver out of an old shovel:
http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/179192-DIY-Shovel-AK-photo-tsunami-warning!
Challenge: Do the same with a Colt M4 (and yes, it has to fire)

--
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Re:On a less humorous note by Spy+Handler · 2013-12-23 07:24 · Score: 4, Interesting

Loose tolerances of internal parts, usually only specified if manufacturing is really crappy. However Kalashnikov did this on purpose -- even though Russia had decent manufacturing capabilities -- knowing that this will lead to much greater reliability in the presence of dirt. American guns such as AR-15s are built to much more precise tolerances, and while they are more accurate than the AK, they are much less tolerant of sand/dirt/grime/powder residue. The AK's reliability is legendary.
Re:On a less humorous note by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2013-12-23 07:31 · Score: 2

He only had access to relatively crude manufacturing processes and a basic idea of what he wanted.

Oh, he knew exactly what he wanted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StG_44
The Germans didn't file an Intellectual Property lawsuit, for obvious reasons.

--
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Re:On a less humorous note by Deadstick · 2013-12-23 07:35 · Score: 2

The Kalashnikov is designed to loose manufacturing tolerances, instead of precision fits. That results in some loss of accuracy, which isn't a big problem because military small arms are seldom used for precision fire anyway...in return, it's easy to clean; it continues to work with an impressive amount of dirt and corrosion; and it's easy for a very lightly trained soldier to operate. It's also very cheap to manufacture.
In other words, the ideal product for cashing in on Third World conflicts.
Re:On a less humorous note by sl4shd0rk · 2013-12-23 07:45 · Score: 3, Informative

tolerances that create inaccuracy at range
Frankly, I was impressed with the AK's accuracy at ~50yds for such a short barrel (I was probably shooting a milled version). A 4" group at 100 yds is still plenty deadly. AK-47's are capable of shooting 3-5 inch groups at 100 yards, whereas the stamped AKMs are capable of shooting 4-6 inch groups at 100 yards

--
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Re:On a less humorous note by jamstar7 · 2013-12-23 07:55 · Score: 4, Informative

Loose tolerances of internal parts, usually only specified if manufacturing is really crappy. However Kalashnikov did this on purpose -- even though Russia had decent manufacturing capabilities -- knowing that this will lead to much greater reliability in the presence of dirt. American guns such as AR-15s are built to much more precise tolerances, and while they are more accurate than the AK, they are much less tolerant of sand/dirt/grime/powder residue. The AK's reliability is legendary.
You can usually get a 2 to 3 inch group at 150 meters with an AK and some training in its use. You'll get a 2 inch or less group with an M16/AR15 with the same amount of training. The big selling point of the AK is, only 8 moving parts. And yeah, the tolerances are sloppy as hell compared to the highly machined AR15, which has more moving parts. Less moving parts means less things can go wrong. Looser tolerances means it won't jam up when it gets dirty, and while regular cleaning is a Good Thing to keep it from wearing out, lack of cleaning WON'T stop it dead in its tracks like an AR15. They're ridiculously easy to make, easy to repair in the field, and they keep on shooting. Kalashnikov was a genius.

--
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Re:On a less humorous note by gman003 · 2013-12-23 08:20 · Score: 5, Informative

Precisely! Kalashnikov realized (or at least correctly guessed) that accuracy is less important than reliability. US Army studies have shown that most engagements are within 50m, and that the primary determinant in victory is "number of bullets fired". This was part of their justification for moving from the M14 (essentially a magazine-fed M1 Garand with a useless full-auto hacked on) to the M16 - less power at range, less ability to kill in one shot, but capable of firing 30 rounds at automatic in a somewhat-controlled manner, rather than the "two round burst before it turns into an anti-aircraft gun" of the M14.
The AK47 did it earlier, and arguably better, because it made more tradeoffs. The M16 was a good weapon in the lab, but early models in particular failed in the field (even today jams are extremely common after decades of improvement). Too bad for them, almost zero battles have taken place in military laboratories.
The AK47 scored worse on any "benchmark" (for lack of a better term). Less accurate, slower firing, heavier, and so on. But because it's basically the most reliable (and cheap) assault rifle ever made, it's the weapon (or at least weapon design) of choice for almost everyone not wed to the NATO military-industrial complex. Even then, there's a reason there's AK-style weapons chambered in 5.56mm NATO. It's almost become the Linux of the assault-rifle world - you've got variants from the simple (the AK-74, the RPK, the Galil or the dozens of bullpup variants) to the crazy (the Saiga-12 shotgun, various Russian suppressed rifles, even a sniper rifle).
Was Mikhail Kalashnikov a genius? I don't think so, because nothing about it was itself revolutionary, but he was a damn good engineer because he knew what the users actually needed and gave it to them, rather than letting marketing decide on which features to produce.
Re: On a less humorous note by shutdown+-p+now · 2013-12-23 08:59 · Score: 4, Informative

StG-44 was the first rifle produced en masse, but it was certainly not the first assault rifle produced or even used in battle. Avtomat Fedorova is generally considered the first such thing - it was a fully automatic rifle, with detachable magazines, that used an intermediate round (6.5 Arisaka - which is only about 25% more powerful than 7.62x39).
Also, if you read about the history of AK, it was never designed to "copy what StG did". In fact, the Soviets didn't truly understood the benefit of having a single universal infantry rifle even after the end of WW2, which is why they had two separate competitions, one for carbine (which SKS had won), and one for a "submachine gun" (which AK had won). That is also why the Russian word for assault rifle is "avtomat" - before AK, it was actually a word for submachine guns, e.g. PPSh was an avtomat; and so the competition in question was for a "new avtomat" - and so the winning Kalashnikov's design became "avtomat Kalashnikova".
The only new thing there was that both carbine and SMG were supposed to be using the same round, the newly designed intermediate M43 (which, by the way, was designed before Soviets even saw StG 44), but that was largely for the sake of simplifying logistics. It took them almost another decade, both SKS and AK in service, to finally realize that AK can actually fill both niches just fine - which is what the "assault rifle" concept is really all about.
Re:On a less humorous note by rahvin112 · 2013-12-23 10:59 · Score: 2

Let me start of saying I like the AK, but frankly you are talking it up way beyond it's capabilities.
It's a popular and widely used weapon worldwide for one reason and one reason alone. It's cheap. I can be had in black markets in Africa for less than $200 used, and when Ukraine offloaded it's stockpiles of old AK's to Russian arms merchants in the 90's there was a time period where you could buy them for $50. That puts them in the price range that even rural subsistence farmers can buy them. Because of the shear number of weapons the Soviets produced Ukraine alone was able to put double digit millions of surplus AK's on the market.
If you are counting on number of bullets fired and think "full auto" is how you get there you don't know what the hell you are talking about. If you hold the trigger down on an AK and empty a clip in seconds you are going to be either shooting straight up or shooting everyone to one side of you within 4 shots. In addition with the grain and weight of bullet fired you are far less likely to kill someone. Most AK rounds will fire through meaning unless you get lucky and hit a major artery or vein or a critical organ chances are you aren't going to kill them because the bullet passes cleanly through the victim. These wounds are very clean and often the victim isn't even incapacitated. In the event you actually hit something vital with an AK you will kill them very quickly if not instantly which again reduces the maximum effect (the goal in any combat is to incapacitate, not kill because it takes 3 people out of the battle rather than 1, that is one wounded and two people to get the wounded medical assistance).
I like the AK, but it's not the best weapon ever made. It's the most prolific weapon ever made because of cost and nothing else. You might be surprised to find that many actual fighters ditch the AK and it's variants fairly quickly after they learn how to shoot. For example in the current Syrian conflict though the AK variant is the most prolific weapon other weapons of greater quality and accuracy are favored by the experienced fighting groups. It is my understanding that the Steg and other NATO variants are highly favored.
Re:On a less humorous note by kaatochacha · 2013-12-23 12:00 · Score: 2

There would be a different gun on a few flags.

98-million gun salute... by swschrad · 2013-12-23 07:12 · Score: 4, Funny

bringing down 72 helicopters, ten planes, and falling lead took out 200 weddings.

--
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?

Re:PRAISE?!? by FuegoFuerte · 2013-12-23 07:21 · Score: 2

By your logic, perhaps the inventors of black powder and smokeless powder should be castigated as well? After all, without bullets the AK would simply be another bludgeoning tool. Or how about whoever created the humble machete, which has been used in countless massacres across Africa?

Re:PRAISE?!? by oodaloop · 2013-12-23 07:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

So should the number of despotic regimes overthrown with it. And the number of people died in car crashes should be on Henry Ford's tombstone.

Things can be used for good and bad. Don't just focus on what you perceive as bad.

--
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.

Yes, praise ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-23 07:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

For inventing the most used murdering tool?!?

It was developed during and immediately after WW2. He created a tool for his fellow soldiers to defend their country, lands and friends and families.

How politicians and criminals MISUSE a tool is not the responsibility of a soldier/designer who does not want to go into battle again with inferior weapons.

Kalashnikov's Legacy by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-23 07:28 · Score: 5, Interesting

"Blame the Nazi Germans for making me become a gun designer ... I always wanted to construct agriculture machinery."
--Mikhail Kalashnikov

If not for the Nazis, he might have invented an inexpensive, reliable machine that helps feed people around the world. Russia in particular seems to frequently have issues with wheat due to drought and/or wildfires, and this has an impact on global food prices. But coming from a rural area he might never have been exposed to the resources needed to achieve his inventions. He might not have been in a position where anyone with those resources would take him seriously. Sometimes bad things happen and deflect our lives in directions other than those we intended, but sometimes that results in putting us right where we need to be. His conscription exposed him to complex machines he might never have worked with otherwise. His war wounds landed him in the hospital where he overheard others talking about what was wrong with the existing Russian rifles. His hospital stay gave him time away from his job as a tank commander to work on his designs. His first attempts at small arms design were rejected, but they got him noticed, and got him transferred out of the tank division to work on rifle design.

I saw a bumper sticker on the freeway the other day that read: "Remember who you wanted to be." Kalashnikov was haunted by the fact that his design had become a symbol of war and terrorism, but the real tragedy of Kalashnikov's life is that AFAIK he never used his success in his unintended profession to go back and do what he really wanted.

Re:Kalashnikov's Legacy by jedidiah · 2013-12-23 08:09 · Score: 2

He lived in the Soviet Union. He either did what he was told or he would be sent to a Gulag. He could have been sent to a Gulag anyways.
Short of defecting, he really didn't have much say in his own destiny.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:Kalashnikov's Legacy by dale.furno · 2013-12-23 08:33 · Score: 4, Funny

Implying the AK-47 is not an inexpensive, reliable machine that helps feed people?
Re:Kalashnikov's Legacy by happyhamster · 2013-12-23 14:28 · Score: 2, Interesting

You are a typical brainwashed Western idiot. There was much more to life in the Soviet Union than dictatorship. As a matter of fact, you had more freedom there as you did not need the money to get decent education, unlike the U.S. Poor but talented kids from the countryside would routinely come to big cities and enroll in major universities to have great careers.
Before someone jumps up with "counterexample," I am sure you could dig up a few such cases in the U.S. These cases are few and far between, and require a great amount of planning ahead or dumb luck. In the Soviet Union, it happened much more often; they actually had large quotes for children of workers as opposed to privileged classes.
Source: Grew up there.

Re:PRAISE?!? by Patch86 · 2013-12-23 07:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

You can kill people with a Ford, but it wasn't designed for it- intentionally running people down in a car is something the designer would be horrified at. The AK-47 was designed exclusively for killing people- it has no other serious use; the designer intended to make the best killing implement possible, with the intention of killing as many "people my nation doesn't like" as possible, as efficiently as possible. There's a big ethical difference.

I'm only saying this in fairness to the OP- I'm not really naive enough to make an argument against weapon designers in that way. But I am serious that it is a legitimate ethical choice. I can't see myself working in weapons design, because the ethical consequences of my actions would bother me.

In a way, it's an argument related to the old debunked Nazi death camp soldier "just following orders" defence (albeit it much less extreme). If every talented engineer refused to be involved with weapon design, weapons would be considerably less effective that they are today. Therefore, every talented engineer who gets involved in weapon design has to take personal responsibility for what they're enabling.

Re:PRAISE?!? by Nerdfest · 2013-12-23 07:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

It was designed to kill soldiers of a technologically superior and well trained army who were invading the designer's country. Personally, I think he should get at least a little slack because of that.

Re:rant from a gun nut by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-23 08:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

The only TRUE reason for a civilian to own those things is because you want to own them for the sake of owning them.

I am not a fan of guns at all, but I am a believer in the constitution. I would suggest that the only constitutionally protected reason for a civilian to own a gun should be to be capable of mounting a militia that could defend against a corrupt government. That would clearly include guns like an AK.

The right to bear arms in my opinion has nothing to do with hunting and target shooting...

Re:Karma Denied by east+coast · 2013-12-23 08:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

Wow. Just wow. So the fact that he wanted to have the means to arm his own countryfolk with a cheap and reliable weapon after watching the sieges and slaughters that happened to the Soviets during WWII makes him a monster?

I wonder what you would do if you lived through that... throw your hands up and wait to be cut down with a Nazi machine gun?

I wonder if you blame people like Tim Berners-Lee for child pornography?

--
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.

Re:An Eternity of Torment, I ope by icebike · 2013-12-23 08:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

I am either religious not terribly spiritual, but one can only hope that a man whose invention was responsible for the deaths of so many millions does not go into a peaceful afterlife.

Hold on here. He was a patriot for his country. He developed an arm that could be produced in mass quantities because that is what his government needed at that time. He didn't set out to arm terrorists, just to make an arm for the foot soldier in the USSR, to be used in horrible field conditions by mostly uneducated soldiers.

That his country decided to cover the earth with the weapon and license it's manufacture world wide was none of his doing. You might as well blame the Wright Brothers for the fire bombing of Berlin.

As he said himself:

"I'm proud of my invention, but I'm sad that it is used by terrorists."

"I would prefer to have invented a machine that people could use and that would help farmers with their work – for example a lawnmower."

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.

Re:You'd do the same by shutdown+-p+now · 2013-12-23 08:42 · Score: 3, Informative

Kalashnikov started working on what would become AK in 1944, while in a hospital, where he got after being wounded on the front. The design was complete in 1947 (hence the common but incorrect AK-47 designation), production started in 1948, and it was officially adopted as the new army rifle in 1949.

And it was not like Nazis were the only enemy the Soviet Union had, especially five years after WW2.

Re:rant from a gun nut by shutdown+-p+now · 2013-12-23 08:45 · Score: 2

They are over priced crap that uses crap rounds: .223 and that funky 7.62 that the AK uses. SHIT unless you need to kill people.

I would strongly disagree about 7.62x39. It is actually a very fine round for medium-sized game such as deer: in terms of terminal ballistics, it is very similar to .30-30, which is an extremely popular hunting cartridge, but 7.62x39 has superior ballistics and a flatter shooting trajectory. And SKS, chambered in it, is still one of the cheapest rifles on the market, cheaper than most American made bolt actions.

Re:Karma Denied by ihtoit · 2013-12-23 08:48 · Score: 2

ironic that the Nobel Peace Prize is named for the inventor of dynamite. Another thing that is used to great effect in killing people.

But hey, don't let that stop your rant. Carry on.

--
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel

there was no AK47! by SimonGrushka · 2013-12-23 08:52 · Score: 2

There was never an assault riffle called "AK 47". There was only "AK" ( ). The suffix "47" (having nothing to do with either invention, or introduction to the red army) was given to it later on, when AK-74 (and that's their proper name) were introduced- they were, most significantly, using the smaller caliber ammo (5.45 mm vs 7.62 used by the older generation). And no, so callled "AK47" wasn't really good riffle- heavy, with a crap accuracy. It was (relatively) quickly replaced by AKM and AKMS.

Re:rant from a gun nut by felrom · 2013-12-23 08:53 · Score: 5, Informative

Try as you might, your attempt to come across as a "gun person" fails miserably.

AR15s make wonderful hunting weapons. Many companies make AR15s with specific features chosen for hunting. Here are a couple:
http://rockriverarms.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=category.display&category_id=552
http://www.dpmsinc.com/KINGS-DEAERT-SHADOW_ep_146-1.html
Typically they include a flattop upper receiver, a low profile gas block, skeletonized stocks, and a free-float hand guard.

The standard .223 round is more than sufficient for North American animals up to moose-size when using the proper loading: a 75grain BTHP. And many ammunition manufacturers offer .223 loadings specifically for hunting with an AR15. This is one of many fine examples:
http://www.hornady.com/store/223-Rem-75-gr-BTHP-Match/

Additionally, anyone with more than a passing knowledge of guns and AR15s would know that the platform does not only come in .223. In the last 5 years there has been a surge in popularity of upper receivers chambered in calibers such as 6.5 Grendal, 6.8 SPC and 300 Blackout. Additionally, the venerable .308 has been an option for AR-style guns for almost 50 years. While not being a necessity for using an AR15 to hunt with, these other optional calibers provide longer range hunting options.

But if you still believe that it's impossible to hunt with an AR15, please, whatever you do, don't tell the hundreds of people who posted pictures of their hunting ARs along with trophies in these two threads:
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_10_23/605991_Show_us_your_AR15__and_other__deer_kills___and_60___retitled.html&page=1
http://www.ar15.com/mobile/topic.html?b=10&f=3&t=618206
They would be devastated to find out that what they were doing was impossible.

As far as target shooting goes, the annual National Matches, held at Camp Perry, Ohio every summer since 1907, and widely seen as the Olympics of the shooting sports world, uses.... you guessed it: AR15s. And it's not hard to understand why: they're light weight, ergonomic, light recoiling, and cheap to train with (compared to other competition rifles).

And your claim that an AR15 is worse at self defense than all other things you think it's bad at.... get real! Nearly every SWAT team in the US, and NATO-allied special forces group in the world has moved to the AR platform, and those guys have the money and latitude to choose anything they want. After a brief love affair with various pistol-caliber carbines and bullpups in the late 90's and early 00's, they have almost all gone to the AR15.

There are plenty of semi automatic rifles that are much better suited for civilians - and even military use too but they're too expensive for outfitting an army.

The US Army could replace all of its rifles for the cost of about a dozen F-35s. Cost is not an issue that would hold the army back if there were a better rifle available.

The only reason they are so expensive now is because of the demand from stupid people who think Obama is going to ban them.

AR15s are cheaper today than they have ever been. There are over 100 companies in the US producing them, and a nice mid-grade AR can be had for under $600 today.

The next time you want to appear to be an expert on guns, and then denounce the most popular, most capable, most flexible gun ever made, for reasons that don't stand up to even casual examination, stick to the comment sections at Moth

Re:Really? by icebike · 2013-12-23 08:56 · Score: 2

The AK-46 (fourty six) was presented for official military trials in 1946, it had been in design since 1945. It was never officially adopted nor manufactured in quantity.

Work on the AK-47 didn't begin till the next year, and it was NOT an instant success, contrary to popular belief.
It wasn't till 1949 that the AK-47 was officially accepted by the Soviet Armed Forces, after many years of refinement and field trials.

Your knowledge of weapons is pathetic. Educate yourself.

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.

Re:PRAISE?!? by FuegoFuerte · 2013-12-23 09:02 · Score: 2

AK-47s can be used both defensively and offensively, and indeed one could say that at the time it was designed its role was more defensive than offensive, whereas neither Little Boy nor Sarin are a defensive weapon - Only a lunatic would use one in their homeland, whereas an AK is useful for police forces, militaries driving out invaders, etc.

So, their purposes are not at all identical. Also, their scope is not even in the same ballpark - Sarin and Little Boy are indiscriminate killers (WMDs), while an AK can be used to take out individual combatants. Your simile is no more valid than saying the space shuttle and a 747 serve an identical purpose to my Honda Civic, that being the transport of persons and goods.

Re:An Eternity of Torment, I ope by ColdWetDog · 2013-12-23 09:13 · Score: 2

"Hold on here. He was a patriot for his country. He developed an arm that could be produced in mass quantities because that is what his government needed at that time. He didn't set out to arm terrorists, just to make an arm for the foot soldier in the USSR, to be used in horrible field conditions by mostly uneducated soldiers."

That might very well be the case, but nonetheless, why the fuck is this 'news for nerds'?

Your next kickstarter project.

Come on, use some imagination.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!

Re:You'd do the same by shutdown+-p+now · 2013-12-23 09:20 · Score: 3, Informative

Even so, the design with all the key features of the final AK was already available by the end of 1946 - that's less than two years after the war was over. And, of course, the very experience of that war did not suddenly evaporate as soon as the victory flag was hoisted above Reichstag. For four years, Soviet military industry was focusing on mass production of outdated but cheap infantry weapons to provide supply - Mosins, PPSh/PPS etc. They knew full well that they needed to upgrade if the arsenal was to have any relevance in any future war. And in the final year of the war and in early postwar years, another large conflict was considered quite likely by the Soviets - the prevailing fear being that US would decide to "keep pushing" in Europe, in hopes of steamrolling over the battle-weary Red Army.

It works by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-23 09:25 · Score: 3, Interesting

I don't know where I heard it but I think there is a saying in regards to the AK. "Its like a hammer, you pick it up, it works"

Re:An Eternity of Torment, I ope by evilRhino · 2013-12-23 09:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

It might be distasteful to think so, but most technological developments are created by and for the war machine.

Re:rant from a gun nut by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-23 09:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

You were never actually in the military were you? Where did you get your information? The internet? A firing range? TV? Because it's obviously not from actual combat or military training.

The effective combat range (against point targets = individuals) of the m16 is 550m, The AK's range is only slightly less at 400m. Those ranges aren't "how far will the round go," numbers, but "how far can the AVERAGE trained soldier hit human sized targets with this rifle." The AK's 7.62 round is more than enough to kill a human at those distances.

In my military carreer, I had more than enough chances to test both rifles at those distances, and both worked reliably out to those ranges with ease.

As far as your "any rifle" comment goes, what about the light .50's? They regularly reach out a mile or more in combat.

Unplug your xbox, it hasn't taught you shit. If you want to learn about firearms, raise your right hand and let Uncle Sam teach you about them. (Don't worry, you can still be a janitor in the military. You just can't live in your mom's house unless you go Nasty Gash and join the guard.

I wish Mr Kalashnikov had built cars by sandbagger · 2013-12-23 10:06 · Score: 2

Of course, one would then be presented with the image of men in ski masks with flags depicting cars behind them as they read their demands.

--
---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.

Re:An Eternity of Torment, I ope by jolyonr · 2013-12-23 10:51 · Score: 2

"I would prefer to have invented a machine that people could use and that would help farmers with their work – for example a lawnmower."

The Kalashnikov Lawnmower. The very best there is. When you absolutely, positively got to cut every motherf***ing blade of grass in the garden, accept no substitutes.

--

Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com

Re:PRAISE?!? by Urkki · 2013-12-23 10:56 · Score: 3, Interesting

The AK-47's only purpose is to assist in killing people

Primary purpose is killing, that's what an assault rifle is designed for, but it is not the only purpose.

One purpose is: to be able to kill people, often in the hope that it will not be necessary, indeed with the hope that having a credible ability will avoid needing to actually do it.

Yet another purpose is to just have fun with target practice, without killing anyone.

And technically speaking, suppressive fire is not really intended for killing the enemy, it is intended for making it harder for the enemy to shoot and kill you.

Re:rant from a gun nut by HornWumpus · 2013-12-23 11:40 · Score: 2

In other words: You don't know what you are talking about, but will post anyhow.

A deers heart is in line with the fold of skin at the back of their front legs. Centered in their body.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'

Re:rant from a gun nut by cusco · 2013-12-23 11:49 · Score: 2

Actually the 2nd Amendment was written in a deliberately vague manner because "the town hall cannon" was not an ornament at the time. Ports cities had cannon and rocket batteries to protect against pirates and Spaniards. Many merchantmen were better armed than many naval vessels. Frontier settlements had cannon, mortars and multi-barrel guns because of the threat of brigands and Indian uprisings. Larger cities have wide boulevards so that cannons could fire down them at looters and rioters. Even in the late 19th century my great great grandparents and their neighbors had to band together against the threat of Mormon raiders from Beaver Island.

So, don't think of it as the "right to bear arms for food-gathering purposes," because that wasn't the point. Nor was it "to maintain a free state," as that wasn't ever going to be the primary function of militias. In the case of an actual war the states would organize their own troops (as they did in 1812). It was the sort of "common sense" stipulation that made sense to the Founders in the cultural milleau they lived in.

--
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin

Re:Really? by SharpFang · 2013-12-23 12:36 · Score: 4, Informative

AK-46 was significantly different from AK-47, and - bluntly speaking - utter crap.
AK-47 was a fine weapon but the machining process was rather expensive, complex and slow, making it unsuitable for mass production and deployment in army.
AKM - an AK-47 variant that used stamped sheet metal instead of machined parts, became the instant hit, possessing all the advantages of the original, slightly lower mass, and being very cheap and simple to manufacture in bulk.

--
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2

Re:You'd do the same by shutdown+-p+now · 2013-12-23 13:24 · Score: 3, Interesting

Fighting a very costly defensive war on your own soil for over 3 years kinda does that to people. I don't think Western politicians ever truly understood just how strongly was that "never again" mentality ingrained into the minds of both the party elite and the people at large. Not so much Stalin and his court, but the generation of politicians that came to power after him, who were mostly veterans of that war and saw the devastation first hand.

It's actually very visible if you look at Soviet internal propaganda. Virtually everything that is related to war is presented in a context of a defensive war against a conventional invasion, with numerous WW2 allusions, and the overall message of "we must defend our soil against occupation". In contrast, Western propaganda tended to be more obsessed with the possibility of nuclear annihilation.

Re:rant from a gun nut by Jarik+C-Bol · 2013-12-23 14:04 · Score: 2

Yes, I, (and anyone who has passed their 'hunter safety training' class as a kid) can locate the heart on those animals with a reasonable degree of accuracy.

When I was in hunters safety, one of the last things we did was to shoot at paper targets with pellet guns. These targets where a sheet of 8.5x11 paper, with an animal one one side (we did deer, elk, moose, and bear) and on the reverse, lined up with the target on the front, was a anatomy drawing of the target animal, with all the vital organs depicted. Our task was to shoot these targets at a 100 yard equivalent distance (the animal on the paper looked the size it does at 100 yards) and have our shots in the 'kill areas'

Now, I know 'hunters safety' courses vary from state to state, and are not mandatory for adults in many states, which saddens me, but my point is, that many many hunters have attended these courses as children, and are aware of the information in them. Personally, I think the sort of course I took (which was in Montana) should be required in all states, of all hunters.

Now back to the point. As for the heart, that organ is surrounded by another vital organ, the lungs, which, when penetrated by the appropriate caliber round for the size of the animal, will kill them nearly as fast as a perfect heart shot. We also where taught that, unless extreme circumstances dictate it, to avoid aiming for the head. The brain of a deer (or any decent game animal in north america) is a target no larger than the end of a soup can, and surrounded by the some of the hardest bone in the body, it is NOT a prime target. As for the neck shot, there is a fair amount of debate as to wether or not it is an 'ideal' shot. It is possible to hit an animal in the neck in such a way as to cause it to bleed into its throat/esophagus, making tracking much more difficult, while the animal drowns in its own blood, and it is also entirely possible to penetrate the muscles in the neck, miss the spine and vital arteries entirely, and simply give the animal a terrible flesh wound. Of course, all your stated results are also possible. The heart/lungs target is in the end, a larger target, and less prone to non fatal wounding.

In reality, in terms of sustenance hunting, (where you need the animal for food, not trophies) the selection of target area on the animal comes down to "which vital area am I able to see and hit and kill this animal." Sure, occasionally you may hit part of a front quarter due to slightly off shot placement, but at least you have 3 quarters and the back straps of meat, instead of going hungry. Besides, the shot quarter goes to feed the dogs, so its not really wasted anyways.

--
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.

Slashdot Mirror

Mikhail Kalashnikov: Inventor of AK-47 Dies At 94

57 of 283 comments (clear)