AK-47 inventor Mikhail Kalashnikov has died at 94: Russian official
- Thread starter BigD_in_FL
- Start date
SocialAnarchist
Moderator
I would say that Mikhail Kalashnikov more than deserves his place alongside John Moses Browning when it comes to firearms designers and history.
We really can't nor should we define the greatness of a firearm because of the political ideology of the country of origin of the inventor. While I would never attempt to say Browning wasn't a genius, infact my favorite pistol is a 1911A1 and a dream pistol on my wants list is the Hi-Power, I wouldn't besmirch Kalshnikov by not allowing him the same label as a genius.
Browning designed some of the most beautiful and technologically sound weapons ever made. The M2 is still a military masterpiece almost a hundred years later. The 1911 is so revered that almost every pistol manufacturer in the world makes a copy, again, over a hundred years after it was introduced. His designs are masterpieces of quality and dare I say it, beauty.
Kalashnikov's AK-47 was designed to be mass produced quickly, cheaply, and to be easily operated and maintained by a peasant army to defend the Motherland. It wasn't designed to be a beautiful piece of machinery, it was designed to work and it does. Abuse it, don't clean it, bury it in mud and sand and dig it up ten years later and it still works. THAT, my friends, is the true beauty of the AK-47. It simply works and works and works.
The US military has been the victim of the peasant armies of the world armed with AK-47's. Look at Somalia for example. The common people armed with AK-47s in mass have overpowered our massive technological advantage.
The AK-47 has been a force in international politics on a scale never seen before regarding a military weapon. In fact it will continue to be so for probably another 50 or more years. Reports put the number of AK-47s produced at over 100 million and they are out there and as long as they continue to work they continue to have the power to influence the world.
The evil of governments and how they chose to disperse the weapons at there disposal really have nothing at all to do with the genius of the design of that weapon.
Sorry for the long rant.
We really can't nor should we define the greatness of a firearm because of the political ideology of the country of origin of the inventor. While I would never attempt to say Browning wasn't a genius, infact my favorite pistol is a 1911A1 and a dream pistol on my wants list is the Hi-Power, I wouldn't besmirch Kalshnikov by not allowing him the same label as a genius.
Browning designed some of the most beautiful and technologically sound weapons ever made. The M2 is still a military masterpiece almost a hundred years later. The 1911 is so revered that almost every pistol manufacturer in the world makes a copy, again, over a hundred years after it was introduced. His designs are masterpieces of quality and dare I say it, beauty.
Kalashnikov's AK-47 was designed to be mass produced quickly, cheaply, and to be easily operated and maintained by a peasant army to defend the Motherland. It wasn't designed to be a beautiful piece of machinery, it was designed to work and it does. Abuse it, don't clean it, bury it in mud and sand and dig it up ten years later and it still works. THAT, my friends, is the true beauty of the AK-47. It simply works and works and works.
The US military has been the victim of the peasant armies of the world armed with AK-47's. Look at Somalia for example. The common people armed with AK-47s in mass have overpowered our massive technological advantage.
The AK-47 has been a force in international politics on a scale never seen before regarding a military weapon. In fact it will continue to be so for probably another 50 or more years. Reports put the number of AK-47s produced at over 100 million and they are out there and as long as they continue to work they continue to have the power to influence the world.
The evil of governments and how they chose to disperse the weapons at there disposal really have nothing at all to do with the genius of the design of that weapon.
Sorry for the long rant.
Microgunner
New member
Hey Microgunner, believe me, I think $20 million DOES make you rich but I think that’s the common guy’s concept of rich. When you get amongst the real rich folk I suspect $20 million only entitles you to a straight back chair in the corner of the room and you only get to speak when spoken too.
Gaston Glock would probably make sure to pick up the check at lunch so as not to embarrass Kalashnikov.
SocialAnarchist
Moderator
kraigwy,
And yet there is the true story of an Apache helicopter attack on Baghdad on March 23, 2003. It involved 32 helicopters going in in advance of coalition forces. As the choppers approached the lights over the city went out and 2 minutes later came back on. When the lights came back on the choppers were attacked by thousands of Iraqi ground troops armed with AK-47s. 31 of the choppers received damage, 1 was shot down with the pilots captured, all of them aborted the mission.
I suggest reading the book AK-47-The Weapon That Changed The Face Of War. By Larry Kahaner. It is quite an eye opener.
I am not at all saying that superior trained troops may not be able to overcome overwhelming odds of those peasants armed with AK-47s. But there is enough evidence to show that it can and does happen often enough to be a possible and even probable occurence in some circumstances.
And yet there is the true story of an Apache helicopter attack on Baghdad on March 23, 2003. It involved 32 helicopters going in in advance of coalition forces. As the choppers approached the lights over the city went out and 2 minutes later came back on. When the lights came back on the choppers were attacked by thousands of Iraqi ground troops armed with AK-47s. 31 of the choppers received damage, 1 was shot down with the pilots captured, all of them aborted the mission.
I suggest reading the book AK-47-The Weapon That Changed The Face Of War. By Larry Kahaner. It is quite an eye opener.
I am not at all saying that superior trained troops may not be able to overcome overwhelming odds of those peasants armed with AK-47s. But there is enough evidence to show that it can and does happen often enough to be a possible and even probable occurence in some circumstances.
The deal with the AK is it was given away by the hundreds of thousands.
You get that kind of numbers with any sort of weapons its going to make a difference. Its not the gun, but the shear number of combatants.
As to the 7.62X39, well the Russians themselves thought it to be an inferior round, they went to the 5.45 round for the AK-74.
Still even with the 5.54 the AK is no match for M16.
You get that kind of numbers with any sort of weapons its going to make a difference. Its not the gun, but the shear number of combatants.
As to the 7.62X39, well the Russians themselves thought it to be an inferior round, they went to the 5.45 round for the AK-74.
Still even with the 5.54 the AK is no match for M16.
SocialAnarchist
Moderator
The deal with the AK is it was given away by the hundreds of thousands.
Funny, so were M-1 Garands, M-1 Carbines, Thompson amd M-3 submachine guns, AND M-16s. Maybe not as many singularly as the AK-47. But the US is far from clean in the international weapons trade, whether giving away, or selling those weapons.
You get that kind of numbers with any sort of weapons its going to make a difference. Its not the gun, but the shear number of combatants.
Funny that was exactly the point I made above that you attempted to counter by saying those masses can be defeated by lesser well trained better equipped forces.
As to the 7.62X39, well the Russians themselves thought it to be an inferior round, they went to the 5.45 round for the AK-74.
And Kalashnikov was quoted numerous times in disagreement with the change. So who is right? Frankly, I don't want to be shot with either round and the numerous US soldiers killed or wounded in Viet Nam and elsewhere since then may question it being inferior. It's funny because so many times on these very same forums we here this caliber or that caliber is inferior. The 9mm is often mentioned as such, yet virtually every army on the planet used 9mm for handguns and sub machine guns.
Still even with the 5.54 the AK is no match for M16.
And inveresly the M16 is no match for the AK in the role it was designed for. The AK-47 is a simple design, easy to manufacture, easy to maintain, and able to take massive use and abuse and still work. For the mass attacks and mass firepower it is perfect. It was never designed nor intended to be the rifle of a marksman. It was designed for peasants to operate. maintain, and put down a ton of firepower.
I would not feel inadequately armed if I was equipped with either weapon. The only thing that might change would be my tactics.
Funny, so were M-1 Garands, M-1 Carbines, Thompson amd M-3 submachine guns, AND M-16s. Maybe not as many singularly as the AK-47. But the US is far from clean in the international weapons trade, whether giving away, or selling those weapons.
You get that kind of numbers with any sort of weapons its going to make a difference. Its not the gun, but the shear number of combatants.
Funny that was exactly the point I made above that you attempted to counter by saying those masses can be defeated by lesser well trained better equipped forces.
As to the 7.62X39, well the Russians themselves thought it to be an inferior round, they went to the 5.45 round for the AK-74.
And Kalashnikov was quoted numerous times in disagreement with the change. So who is right? Frankly, I don't want to be shot with either round and the numerous US soldiers killed or wounded in Viet Nam and elsewhere since then may question it being inferior. It's funny because so many times on these very same forums we here this caliber or that caliber is inferior. The 9mm is often mentioned as such, yet virtually every army on the planet used 9mm for handguns and sub machine guns.
Still even with the 5.54 the AK is no match for M16.
And inveresly the M16 is no match for the AK in the role it was designed for. The AK-47 is a simple design, easy to manufacture, easy to maintain, and able to take massive use and abuse and still work. For the mass attacks and mass firepower it is perfect. It was never designed nor intended to be the rifle of a marksman. It was designed for peasants to operate. maintain, and put down a ton of firepower.
I would not feel inadequately armed if I was equipped with either weapon. The only thing that might change would be my tactics.
Baba Louie
New member
Try scores of millions. Chiver estimates, since no one really knows, 70 million AKs (wid da switch) were made by the gov'ts associated with the old Soviet empire. Quantity being admired over quality or some such.
Kalashnikov was in the right place at the right time doing the right job and eventually came up with a quality rifle. As it were.
He did quite well with what he was given, as failure was not a good option back in the day.
RIP Sgt. nay, General.
Microgunner
New member
I read once he aided Ruger in reconfiguring the Mini-14 to fire the 7, 62x39, the Mini-30.
All variations on a theme.
While I like the AK design, and have owned several, I am getting very tired of the comparisons to John Browning.
Anyone who does doesn't know much about Browning. Personally, I don't think the world ever saw a firearms designer like Browning before or since.
If Kalashnikov did actually bear sole responsibility for the rifle that bears his name (which is unclear, and will probably remain so), the fact that John Browning is the more prolific and innovative designer takes nothing away from that.
While I like the AK design, and have owned several, I am getting very tired of the comparisons to John Browning.
Anyone who does doesn't know much about Browning. Personally, I don't think the world ever saw a firearms designer like Browning before or since.
If Kalashnikov did actually bear sole responsibility for the rifle that bears his name (which is unclear, and will probably remain so), the fact that John Browning is the more prolific and innovative designer takes nothing away from that.
I like the AK and give Kalishnikov his due respect for designing it - it's a fantastic piece of machinery. However, it does disappoint me a little that he never crafted anything more refined than the AK. John Browning is unique - no one compares to John Browning. Kalishnikov seems to be more of a one-hit-wonder more like John Garand.
Baba Louie
New member
Good company to keep, methinks.
The comparison between Browning and Kalashnikov isn't really a fair one because the two men lived in very different times and places. Contrary to what many like to think, Browning wasn't some sort of divine figure bestowing his designs as gifts to shooters, but simply an inventor who made very good guns that were marketable to a wide array of customers. Most of Browning's most successful designs were not the product of "eureka!" moments but rather evolutions of previous inferior or less marketable designs. Take the 1911 for example, it went through several design changes before finally becoming the gun that the U.S. military was satisfied with. It seems to me that the reason that Browning came up with so many successful designs was because he had a large and varied customer base.
Kalashnikov, on the other hand, had only one customer thanks to the time and place in which he lived: the Soviet Government. Kalashnikov never really had the opportunity to explore his creative potential in the same manner that Browning did because his one and only customer was either able to adapt his original product to a wide variety of roles or simply had no need for different designs (the market for sporting guns was basically non-existent in the USSR). Also, you have to take the Russian mentality of "better is the enemy of good enough" into account. The AK-47 did exactly what the Soviet military wanted and needed it to do and it did it so well that they simply saw no reason to significantly change it.
Also, the notion that Kalashnikov stole the idea for an assault rifle from the Stg-44 isn't accurate as far as I can tell. The 7.62x39 cartridge dates back to at least 1943 making it very unlikely that the Russians would've had much, if any, exposure to the 7.92x33 Kurz while developing their own intermediate round. Also, the basic concept of an assault rifle predates the Stg-44 by nearly 30 years with the Federov Avtomat of 1915.
Now, it is certainly true that Kalashnikov borrowed features from other designs, but he didn't outright copy and single one. The rotating bolt and long-stroke gas system are quite similar to that of the M1 Garand and the lever-type safety/selector is strikingly similar to that of the Remington Model 8. If Kalashnikov could be compared to any other well-known gun designer, the closest in my estimation would be Gaston Glock. Both the AK-47 and Glock 17 are similar in that no one feature on either gun is really all that new or innovative, rather the manner in which individual features from other designs were combined in such a way as to make a better overall product is the true stroke of genius.
Kalashnikov, on the other hand, had only one customer thanks to the time and place in which he lived: the Soviet Government. Kalashnikov never really had the opportunity to explore his creative potential in the same manner that Browning did because his one and only customer was either able to adapt his original product to a wide variety of roles or simply had no need for different designs (the market for sporting guns was basically non-existent in the USSR). Also, you have to take the Russian mentality of "better is the enemy of good enough" into account. The AK-47 did exactly what the Soviet military wanted and needed it to do and it did it so well that they simply saw no reason to significantly change it.
Also, the notion that Kalashnikov stole the idea for an assault rifle from the Stg-44 isn't accurate as far as I can tell. The 7.62x39 cartridge dates back to at least 1943 making it very unlikely that the Russians would've had much, if any, exposure to the 7.92x33 Kurz while developing their own intermediate round. Also, the basic concept of an assault rifle predates the Stg-44 by nearly 30 years with the Federov Avtomat of 1915.
Now, it is certainly true that Kalashnikov borrowed features from other designs, but he didn't outright copy and single one. The rotating bolt and long-stroke gas system are quite similar to that of the M1 Garand and the lever-type safety/selector is strikingly similar to that of the Remington Model 8. If Kalashnikov could be compared to any other well-known gun designer, the closest in my estimation would be Gaston Glock. Both the AK-47 and Glock 17 are similar in that no one feature on either gun is really all that new or innovative, rather the manner in which individual features from other designs were combined in such a way as to make a better overall product is the true stroke of genius.