Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies At 94

Henning said:
You carry around a Kalashnikov? How many lives has it saved? It's a horrible rifle as far as accuracy goes.
Click to expand...

I own a Norinco AK-47 (stamped receiver, 7.62) with a fiber force stock and several 30 round clips.

For short range it's acceptable in accuracy (20 to 200 yards). It's also extremely reliable.

If I need long range accuracy I also have an Armalite AR-30. :D
 
According to DuffelBlog, Gen Kalashnikov will be buried in a mud pit for week, then pulled out, hosed off, and put back to work.
 
Alexb2000 said:
We should never forget the manufacturing lessons that the success of the AK can teach. I believe this is as much of his legacy as anything else.
Click to expand...

Absolutely! This is the genius of the gun for sure. It can be made in the most primitive environments and still fully function. Not only function, but function well. I own an AK variant and I really like it. It's not my favorite to shoot, I much prefer my AR-15, but like so many others, if I was going to try to survive the zombie apocalypse it's the AK I would grab.
 
Henning said:
You carry around a Kalashnikov? How many lives has it saved? It's a horrible rifle as far as accuracy goes.
Click to expand...

No, it really isn't that bad as long as you get a newer one made by a good maker. Left over one that you might get in Africa after a Rawandan massacre, not so good. Chinese Norinco, not so good. Hungarian, Egyptian, Polish, etc. pretty darn good. Can't speak to an actual Russian one, I've never handled one. The AK does exactly what it was supposed to do. You don't snipe with an AK.
 
Dav8or said:
No, it really isn't that bad as long as you get a newer one made by a good maker. Left over one that you might get in Africa after a Rawandan massacre, not so good. Chinese Norinco, not so good. Hungarian, Egyptian, Polish, etc. pretty darn good. Can't speak to an actual Russian one, I've never handled one. The AK does exactly what it was supposed to do. You don't snipe with an AK.
Click to expand...

I have a chinese Norinco model (stamped receiver) and its not a bad weapon. Supposedly the Bulgarian milled receiver or Russian models are superior (heavier made).

I agree with your last comment, it's not a sniper rifle but it is a very dependable weapon.
 
RotorAndWing said:
I have a chinese Norinco model (stamped receiver) and its not a bad weapon. Supposedly the Bulgarian milled receiver or Russian models are superior (heavier made).

I agree with your last comment, it's not a sniper rifle but it is a very dependable weapon.
Click to expand...

Actually most of the Eastern Block models were quite good quality. I've fired a bunch.
 
Even my cheap Romainian shoots more accurately than most shooters and my Bulgarian shoots as well as some of the lesser ARs. My only Russians are shotguns so I can't really speak to their accuracy.
 
Sac Arrow said:
Actually most of the Eastern Block models were quite good quality. I've fired a bunch.
Click to expand...

I have a Hungarian version. It has a stamped receiver, but it's fit and finish is very tight. I've been very happy with it's performance. The AK really is a very clever design when you consider the design parameters of cheap, easy to make in any country, reliable to the end and still have useful accuracy.
 
The "Smarter Every Day" YouTube dude has done some neat experiments and slo-mo filming with an AK.

It is amazing to see how little of a "kick" to the gas operated piston is needed to get it to cycle. I would love to have asked Mr K about the development process of that mechanism.
 
jhausch said:
The "Smarter Every Day" YouTube dude has done some neat experiments and slo-mo filming with an AK.

It is amazing to see how little of a "kick" to the gas operated piston is needed to get it to cycle. I would love to have asked Mr K about the development process of that mechanism.
Click to expand...

It's largely copied from the German Stg 44. Basically, the Russians were so impressed with the world's first assault rifle that after WWII, they set about making their own version with an emphasis on simplicity of manufacture, assembly and reliability. The German weapon required too many sophisticated machine tools and was too finicky in the rough.
 
Henning said:
You carry around a Kalashnikov? How many lives has it saved? It's a horrible rifle as far as accuracy goes.
Click to expand...

You weren't specific, so I didn't know you meant that only AKs were designed to kill.

I'm singularly unimpressed with the AK. If I were forced to carry something in 7.62 x 39, I would want an SKS.

However, since I'm not restricted to carbines, my primary rifle is an FN-FAL.
 
SoloEqs said:
You weren't specific, so I didn't know you meant that only AKs were designed to kill.

I'm singularly unimpressed with the AK. If I were forced to carry something in 7.62 x 39, I would want an SKS.

However, since I'm not restricted to carbines, my primary rifle is an FN-FAL.
Click to expand...

All firearms were meant to kill, whether to kill in offense or defense plays no roll in that determination.
 
Henning said:
All firearms were meant to kill, whether to kill in offense or defense plays no roll in that determination.
Click to expand...
So are you equating offense with defense? Seems to me that makes all the difference in the world.
 
PilotAlan said:
So are you equating offense with defense? Seems to me that makes all the difference in the world.
Click to expand...

No, I am saying that the purpose of all fire arms is to kill. Firearms don't know whether they are being used in offense or defense, they are inanimate and can make no such determination before firing. There is no firearm that was designed for offensive or defensive purposes, they were all designed just to kill. Humans can justify their use of the firearm, this means nothing to the design of the firearm.
 
Henning said:
All firearms were meant to kill, whether to kill in offense or defense plays no roll in that determination.
Click to expand...

I believe many of us see your point, but the reality is guns exist and will until the end. The beauty of guns is that they are the great equalizer. IMO the utter nonsense that a 100lb. woman who attends 3 tae-bo classes a week could be well matched against a 250lb., prison pumped, drug crazed rapist, is nothing more than wishful thinking and anti-gun marketing fantasy. Guns having the power to kill is the whole point.

Rule #1. Get yourself a gun.

If someone chooses not to, fine, but they should do so with their eyes open.
 
Alexb2000 said:
I believe many of us see your point, but the reality is guns exist and will until the end. The beauty of guns is that they are the great equalizer. IMO the utter nonsense that a 100lb. woman who attends 3 tae-bo classes a week could be well matched against a 250lb., prison pumped, drug crazed rapist, is nothing more than wishful thinking and anti-gun marketing fantasy. Guns having the power to kill is the whole point.

Rule #1. Get yourself a gun.

If someone chooses not to, fine, but they should do so with their eyes open.
Click to expand...

They may be the great equalizer physically, but not mentally. I agree they will always be around, time only goes one direction. The person predisposed to violence will have the advantage no matter what.
 
Henning said:
The person predisposed to violence will have the advantage no matter what.
Click to expand...
True, but there is a second part to that.
In the absence of weapons, the large and predatory will have the ability to enforce their will against the smaller or weaker, and take what they wish.

You only are able to maintain your body, property, home, and family against the predator if you are able to meet the threat of force with the threat of force.
The police can investigate and prosecute the offender, but they cannot prevent the offense. Only a citizen able to meet violence with force can prevent the victimization.

Again, as in the thread with TSA issues, the issue is not dangerous things, it's dangerous people. Dangerous people are dangerous, with or without weapons. Non-dangerous people are not dangerous, with or without weapons.
 
PilotAlan said:
True, but there is a second part to that.
In the absence of weapons, the large and predatory will have the ability to enforce their will against the smaller or weaker, and take what they wish.

You only are able to maintain your body, property, home, and family against the predator if you are able to meet the threat of force with the threat of force.
The police can investigate and prosecute the offender, but they cannot prevent the offense. Only a citizen able to meet violence with force can prevent the victimization.

Again, as in the thread with TSA issues, the issue is not dangerous things, it's dangerous people. Dangerous people are dangerous, with or without weapons. Non-dangerous people are not dangerous, with or without weapons.
Click to expand...


Well, since the the odds are that the large predator will also be armed, the difference is one of ability to pull the trigger and kill someone. For the non predator, this is a maybe at best, for the predator it is just another. While the gun may equalize force, it does not equalize ability to apply force.
 
Henning said:
Well, since the the odds are that the large predator will also be armed, the difference is one of ability to pull the trigger and kill someone. For the non predator, this is a maybe at best, for the predator it is just another. While the gun may equalize force, it does not equalize ability to apply force.
Click to expand...

What ever. :lol:

Just don't come walking up to my house looking like a zombie. You'll be toast. :lol:
 
Henning said:
Well, since the the odds are that the large predator will also be armed, the difference is one of ability to pull the trigger and kill someone. For the non predator, this is a maybe at best, for the predator it is just another. While the gun may equalize force, it does not equalize ability to apply force.
Click to expand...

Judged by twelve or carried by six.

You may pick only one. :yes:
 
Norman said:
Judged by twelve or carried by six.

You may pick only one. :yes:
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with it. Where it falls with most people is 'judged by one', we are programmed not to be violent, to not kill or do harm, that's hard to overcome in the heat of a moment. The Marine Corps goes through several months of effort to overcome this with every recruit.

More people end up shooting a loved one by accident than a predator.
 
John Baker said:
I know they are supposed to be cheap, I would love to have one but could not afford it even if they were legal in California. You can actually own one in California if it has a ten round magazine that can only be installed or removed with a tool and can not be switched to automatic fire. It also can not be equipped with a pistol type grip.

You can not carry it anywhere in public without it being in a locked case, the magazine removed, and a chamber lock installed as well.

If a neighbor sees you carrying it or say cleaning it on your patio, and calls the cops saying that she might have felt threatened, you will be arrested and your weapon will be confiscated.

California insists that these laws in no way infringe on our right to keep and bear arms.

-John
Click to expand...

My dad bought a PSL and it took a year and a half to get through customs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSL_(rifle)

First there was the magazine capacity, then there was the quick release he had to have installed, and on and on.
 
Henning said:
More people end up shooting a loved one by accident than a predator.
Click to expand...
Source, please? I don't believe that is correct.

Firearms are used defensively at least a 250,000 times a year, maybe as high as a million times a year.
http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/smitht1.htm

In 2010 there were a total of 8000 firearm homicides in the US, and the vast majority of those were criminal-on-criminal homicides (gang shootings, etc).
EDIT: That 8000 also includes lawful uses of force, e.g. cops shooting suspects, citizens shooting attackers, etc. The term 'homicide' does not infer criminality, it is all intentional uses of force resulting in death regardless if it is justified.
 
Last edited:
Sac Arrow said:
Just a small clarification, it's the AK series assault rifle that has been most successful, not the 47 itself. The most single common rifle is the AKM, which uses a rimless case, which was a major improvement over the AK47.
Click to expand...


The AK47 had a milled receiver made from a block of steel, the AKM has a stamped receiver made from a sheet of steel. What does a rimless case have to do with any of that? They both shoot a rimless case, the 7.62X39 M43. The AK74 shoots a rimless case as well...the 5.45X39.
In reality the AK47 and AKM are both select fire rifles. All the semi's in the US are AKS or something else...they are not AK47's. If its sheet metal its not an AK47 even if its full auto....

Converting the Semi autos to full auto is not a simple 2 minute procedure and its not as easy as the press would have you believe. It takes a considerable amount of time, requires good skill at measuring and operating hand or machine tools and is beyond a lot of garage mechanics ability.

Military firearms are not made to kill, they are made to wound or otherwise take an enemy combatant out of action. By wounding a soldier they take 2 or more out as others are required to take the wounded out of harms way.
Not sure that is a whole lot better than killing but its the way the world is and probably will be for some time to come. Guns are indeed tools and in reality they kill a lot less than automobiles. Look at the stats yourselves and see what the difference is....



Frank
 
Skylane81E said:
I love my free state,

I just took my PSL home the day I bought it
Click to expand...

I'm sure my dad is envious. He'd love a real Tigr Dragunov if he could get his hands on one, but given how California is, that's pretty unlikely.

The cops that came to "visit" as he was putting rounds through it to zero it on his property frowned upon his sign in the front window of the house saying that "trespassers will be shot, survivors will be shot again" was some sort of premeditation. Verbal warning, warning shot, no back shots, have to fear for you r life, then bend over is how the rules of engagement go in CA from what he was explaining to me.
 
BiffJ said:
Military firearms are not made to kill, they are made to wound or otherwise take an enemy combatant out of action.
Click to expand...

I have a feeling I know where you might have heard this, but it's not true.
 
darrell said:
I have a feeling I know where you might have heard this, but it's not true.
Click to expand...

He's somewhat right. "Military Ball" ammunition is designed to make cleaner wounds than, say, hollow points. If memory serves, it was adopted by international agreement. Snipers, OTOH, probably use something much more lethal.
 
Henning said:
More people end up shooting a loved one by accident than a predator.
Click to expand...

BS.

This claim is made by the hoplophobes, based on a discredited study done many years ago in two counties in Washington State.

They counted any shooting in which either party could identify the other (in any way) as a "family or acquaintance" shooting. Thus, a shooting between rival gang members was counted as if it had been a wife shooting a husband.
 
Norman said:
He's somewhat right. "Military Ball" ammunition is designed to make cleaner wounds than, say, hollow points. If memory serves, it was adopted by international agreement. Snipers, OTOH, probably use something much more lethal.
Click to expand...

Nope.

The Laws of Land Warfare prohibit the use of anything other than hardball against human beings.

Placement counts.
 
5.56 is devistating so long as it still has good velocity behind it as I'm sure many Vietnamese, Iraqis and Afghans would tell you, if they could.
 
SoloEqs said:
Care to explain SPIW and McNamara's actions, in light of your belief that it's not true?
Click to expand...

There must be a misunderstanding. It was claimed that guns are not designed to kill, which they are. You said it was DoD doctrine, which I assumed meant that DoD doctrine was that guns are designed to wound. Which they aren't.
 
darrell said:
There must be a misunderstanding. It was claimed that guns are not designed to kill, which they are. You said it was DoD doctrine, which I assumed meant that DoD doctrine was that guns are designed to wound. Which they aren't.
Click to expand...

The US adheres to the Hague convention of 1899 that outlaws the use of hollow-point and other expanding bullets in international warfare. I don't think McNamaras parents had met yet when the US became a signatory to the convention.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top