Type 1 Russian AK: The Actual AK-47

The AK-47 rifle was formally adopted in 1947, as the name implies, and went into production in 1948. In this very first form, it used a stamped receiver with front and rear trunnions riveted in place. Unfortunately, while the hand-fitted preproduction guns were quite excellent, the manufacturing processes and quality control left a lot to be desired. The stamped receiver was relatively thin (especially compared to previous stamped Russian small arms like the PPS-43), and was very susceptible to warping during heat treating and other parts of the manufacturing process. The guns that met QC requirements were every bit as good as expected, but the high number of rejects nullified much of the point of having those stamped parts in the first place.

For this reason, AK-47 production ended in 1951, and a milled receiver was developed to allow rifles to continue being made while the engineering and production team worked to improve the receiver design and the manufacturing processes around it.

Today the first pattern AK47 is an extremely rare weapon, and I am grateful to the private collector who allowed me to video this one for you!

74 Comments

  1. The problem with stamping is having proper infrastructure in place first… do it wrong and no amount of hammers can fix it.

    • Gond lord, even Gun Jesus is repeating this error.
      This is simple though: AK-47 were prototypes, AK are production guns.

      • No, the name didn’t “stuck”, and wasn’t dropped after 1951. So-called AK-49 (which introduced two years worth of fixes compared to AK-47) was adopted as “7.62 Kalashnikov’s automatic (AK)”, and it’s 1952 manual was titled “7.62mm Kalashnikov’s automatic (AK) – service manual”. The 1949 manual you’re referring to is actually titled “7.62mm automatic of Kalashnikov’s design (AK-47) – shortened service manual”. It seems to me that this is an interim document, written for pre-production (prototype) AK-47 rifle, and released in 1949 due to the lack of “true” manual for new rifle (which is identical in operation to the prototype gun). This is substantiated by the fact that all drawings in 1949 manual are of prototype AK variant (with circular charging handle and fixed muzzle device).

        The difference between AK-47 and AK is analogous to difference between XM16E1 and M16A1 (or original ArmaLite AR-15 and adopted M16). In Russian publications (and publications from other Warsaw Pact countries before the fall of Iron Curtain) the AK-47 name is used only to describe that specific prototype weapons, with “Kalashnikov” or “AK” being used also as a generic term for all AK-related guns. In fact several historians introduced additional designations for AK prototypes: AK-48 and AK-49 (not to mention AK-46 variants).

        As for the popularity of “AK-47” designation in the West, it may be a mystery forever. However before that term became famous, American writers introduced their own names for new Soviet gun – “Avtomat 54” and “PPK-54”. These names were used by Wiliam B. Edwards in his articles, including “Russia’s Secret All-Purpose Cartridge” published in September 1956 issue of Guns Magazine, which is probably first article about AK in US press.

        • Thanks for specifying that then.

          On the topic of incorrect nomenclature, “Villar Perosa” should not be hyphenated and is a completely unofficial name regardless, as is “OVP” for the single-barreled version.

  2. 1. AK was adopted in 1949; “AK-47” name was ofifically used only for experimental / test guns and for first batch of 1500 produced in 1948 for field trials before formal adoption.
    officially issued guns were just AK
    2. You mention German engineers in conjunction with development of the stamped receiver AKM
    Key is, work on “lightweight AK” (project that ended in AKM in 1959), as you properly mention, started in 1955. However, the last german smal arms engineer was kicked out of Izhevsk and sent home in 1952

    • Than it is a good question: Who spread the AK 47 name around the world?

      Western military intelligence maybe (spying on the prototype) ?

      • AK-47 designation was mentioned in Yugoslavia as early as 1956 (about example acquired, probably from a Hungarian revolution), so it existed back then.

      • Like I pointed out in another comment, the designation AK-47 did actually appear in early Russian manuals and the name just stuck from there.

      • According to U.S. Army “threat force” manuals I have, the official designation was supposedly “Avtomat Kalashnikov Obrazets 1947g”.

        Some sources got even more anal-retentive, referring to it as the “Avtomat Kalashnikova obrazets 1947g/Avtomat Kalashnikova skladyvayushchimsa prikladom obrazets 1947g”- which makes little sense to me, as to the best of my knowledge the “a” suffix designates feminine in Russian; wouldn’t this imply that Mikhail Timofeyevich was a she, rather than a he?

        I’ve always referred to the first full production model (milled receiver with lightening cuts, smooth stamped bolt dust cover) as the “AK-47”, the second full production model (stamped receiver with ribbed dust cover) as the “AKM” (AK Modernized” was what that was supposed to mean), and the Chinese copy as either the Type 56-1 (fixed stock) or Type 56-2 (MP40-type underfolding steel double-strut stock), the latter possibly the worst and most uncomfortable to use Kalashnikov stock of them all; even the single-strut Romanian stock wasn’t as punishing to the shoulder and cheekbone.

        I used those exact terms because that’s what the manuals called them. Ditto W.H.B. Smith & Co. in various editions of Small Arms of the World, Ian Hogg and John Weeks in various editions of Military Small Arms of the 20th Century, and Edward C. Ezell in The AK-47 Story, which please note Mr. Kalashnikov cooperated in the writing of.

        Those are people I generally prefer not to argue with on such matters. Besides, in my circles, by using those designations at least everybody knew what everybody else was referring to.

        cheers

        eon

        • Youre wrong, here Kalashnikova would mean “automat from kalashnikov” and thats what they mean, feminine would be if you would call it directly by that name, so to give it a female name. They (soviets) in official naming always refered in their armaments “from” (Sudaeva etc), not directly named with surname, but worldwide its called directly, as everybody say Kalashnikov, not “automat” from kalashnikov.

        • “wouldn’t this imply that Mikhail Timofeyevich was a she, rather than a he?”
          No, it is proper because Russian language has thingy named declension, speaking simply it is possesive form of Kalashnikov (avtomat of Kalashnikov).
          For more see (but be WARNED that it might looks complicated for someone using English as 1st language): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_declension
          However, indeed Kalashnikova is also female form of Kalashnikov.

          “obrazets”
          Almost, but not. obrazets is Nominative form while here declension is needed and thus obraztsa

          I will stay with AK designation, however if it again cause so much confusion I have ready final solution – just name it 56-А-212 (that is Main Directorate of Artillery designation)

    • Elaborating a little on what Mr Popenker said, it is worth noting that there are two, visually distinctive, AK-47 designs. First one, sometimes reffered to by historians as AK-47-1, can be distinguished by it’s large handguard. It is the gun with which late Mikhail Kalashnikov was often photographed. Second model, so-called AK-47-2, was the one which was (pre-)produced in 1948 for field trials.

      However, and in my opinion that’s biggest issue of Mr McCollum’s video, gun presented in this short clip is a “regular” production type 1 AK, sometimes called AK-49 by historians. Prime evidence is manufacturing date, but it’s worth noting that there are two visible differences between pre-production AK-47s, and production AKs. These are charging handle (circular on AK-47) and muzzle device (compensator cuts directly on the barrel in AK-47 and threaded barrel with thread protector on AK).

      My suspicion is that Mr McCollum made these mistakes, because his main source for AK development history was a book “The AK47 Story: Evolution of the Kalashnikov Weapons” by Edward Ezell. Mr Ezell states in his book that type 1 AK was adopted in 1947 and manufactured between 1949 and 1951. However order of acceptance of AK (among others) into trials is dated January 1948, and actual order of adoption of AK is dated August 1949. Also in 1948 the 7.62×41 M43 cartridge was modified, resulting in final 7.62×39 M43.

      Going back to the gun presented in the video, it should be noted that this example was refurbished somewhere during it’s life. Crudely stamped markings and finish are a proof of that. The fading Izhmash crest is actually a remnant of original markings which were finely scratched on the weapon. Non-refurbished type 1 AK is a rare sight, but not completely impossible to find.

  3. What is the thickness of the receiver and are they heat treated? (I suppose they are).

    I would really like to see the example of the damaged receiver, due to these quality issues; were they bending or maybe even cracking? These reports surely exist in some god forgotten file cabinets in Russia.

    Also, more important, how does this angled grip feels like compared to other “regular” versions ?

    I suppose this grip mount, reminescent of pps43, is far more unserviceable when bended (due to drop or strike that would also shatter the grips) compared to long screw that can be easily replaced, so they changed it.

    • I suggest to you to look at picture in head of this article (ignore its contents for a moment http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2018/05/21/soldiers-report-issues-with-russian-ammo/.

      It illustrates weapon-user interface of current iteration of AK rifle. It is not bad in areas such as grip angle and stock drop. Where in may have shortcoming is length of pull and the fact it lacks front vertical grip, thus operator is holding his weapon by magazine which is cardinally wrong (may affect feeding). Mentioned grip along with optical rail (and coincidentally) more ergonomical grip is part of upgrade kit delivered recently to combat troops.

        • This is automatic weapon trivia. Magazine must be located in its well with clearance. This factored by magazine length may add up to couple of degrees in deviation when presenting the cartridge. Every magazine is best to leave free hanging. During my training we were told the same, although gun often ended up supported on ground by its magazine. That may not be problem as long as it does not get ‘cocked’.

        • The proper offhand position on the Kalashnikov is palm under the forend, side of heel of hand against the front of the rear “swell” of the underside, fingers vertical or slightly angled back on one side of the lower half of the forend, thumb parallel to bore line on the other side of same.

          This allows full control of the weapon in both semi-automatic and burst fire, while avoiding the problem of getting singed by powder gas efflux from the “open” gas system or getting your digits grilled on the gas tube itself.

          Yes, I’ve used them a time or two.

          😉

          cheers

          eon

        • “Never use the magazine itself as a hand grip.”
          @Cherndog:
          Regarding gripping magazine:
          Russian AK manual available here:
          http://www.ak-info.ru/joomla/index.php/aaka/5-ak/135-akmanual58
          (hit Ссылка на скачивание настоящего Наставления в формате представления данных PDF near end to download .zip file)
          SUPPORT this action in certain circumstances, when you finish download that file open it at page 93 and look at picture on that and following pages, especially drawing 51 (at page 94) and drawing 64 (page 102) and drawing 65 (page 102) and drawing 66 (page 103). ALL THAT DRAWINGS SHOWS PROPER POSITIONS.

  4. The wear marks on the top lip at the right front of the receiver seem inconsistent with the condition of the rest of the gun (13:20. They look like they would be consistent with tool marks from an improvised adjustment to the shape of the lip.

    The equal and opposite reaction to the gas block tilting forward and causing barrel flex in slow motion AK videos is that the piston/carrier pitches up at the front. Is this enough to distort the receiver?

  5. What strikes me about AK rifle is its utter simplicity. I recall seeing a video in which M.T.K. explained his rifle: “eto samoye prostoye” – it is as simple as it can be. Just the fact that action is guided on 1mm bent sheet metal is striking. The is flip side to it – the gun is grossly over-gassed. But so what, it is reliable without any gas adjustment.

    At another occasion a poky western journo inquired with gen.K. if he does not have “heavy consciousness” with his rifle being used in so many acts of violence. “Not a bit” he replied with smile “I made it for defence of my country”. What a Man he was!

    • Simple and reliable, two thumbs up. Heavily gassed seems less negative than over gassed, because it is a feature.

      • Standard gas piston diameter for both AKM (7.62×39) and AK-74M (5.45×39) is 14mm. This is well in excess of what is required even for dirty gun. In my estimation with 12mm it would have plenty of power in most scenarios. This is what you pay for simplicity.

        • “12mm it would have plenty of power in most scenarios.”
          But keep in mind that Soviet 1940s powder do not necessarily exact equal with that under we today think is under word “powder”

      • This is the thing. In this case it did not require to advance by “party lines” to receive top accolades. Another myth was torn down. And, this is how nominally class-less society should work.

      • I don’t buy the story of AK being solely his brainchild, when there were lot of more talented and smarter ones around him, but
        soviet propaganda made him into perfect poster-boy (“tank mechanic with spare hospital time turned genious gun designer”)

        However, it is a great russian design, but not MTK exclusively.
        Not the best rifle ever, but a perfect marriage of various features, durability,reliable, simplicity, ease of manufacture, cheap materials, there is no rifle close in obtaining all of that in one package.

        • “not MTK exclusively.”
          Indeed, but virtually all solutions which might be found in 20th century fire-arms (excluding most exotic one) were invented patent in early 20th century or earlier, says before 1918. As such any gun designer working from 1942 would have very hard time to create something entirely new and having 0 features found in earlier patterns of weapons.

    • “his rifle being used in so many acts of violence”
      Earlier there was similar situation with Hiram Maxim, which is mostly known for machine gun design, but he also created other invention, including Pipe of Peace which was steam inhaler for bronchitis sufferers, after some public criticism of that, he said
      it will be seen that it is a very creditable thing to invent a killing machine, and nothing less than a disgrace to invent an apparatus to prevent human suffering.
      http://qi.com/infocloud/guns

      • I know, this is a speaker’s hyperbole. When comes to destructive capability, compared to other kinds, small arms just a Cinderella.

        • Remember, Alfred Nobel established the Nobel Peace Prize and the other prizes in science, mathematics, etc. after seeing a newspaper article referring to him as a “Merchant of Death”. And that was just due to accidents with dynamite, used in mining and etc. as opposed to warfare, and much of it not even made by Nobel’s firm.

          The genuinely tragic figure there was Antonio Sobrero, the college chemistry teacher who first synthesized nitroglycerin, the active ingredient in the first types of dynamite, in 1856. He carefully kept its explosive properties to himself; for the first decade of its use, it was used only as a heart stimulant, under the name “oil of glonoin”, a role it still fulfills today in certain clinical circumstances.

          Its explosive properties were only reported independently after 1865, which was where Nobel entered the picture, first with “Blasting Oil”, then “Dynamite”.

          The only military casualties from the latter were largely due to overestimating the amount needed to substitute for black powder in engineering earthmoving, or some abortive attempts to use it as a shell filling for heavy ordnance. Generally, dynamite did not react well to being fired from an artillery piece, with bore prematures being the rule rather than the exception.

          I believe both Sobrero and Nobel suffered a lot of guilt they didn’t own. Accidents with explosives, as with just about everything else, are usually the result of Did Not Read The (Bleep)ing Manual, otherwise known as “You Can’t Fix Stupid”.

          I personally consider M.T. Kalashnikov to be about as responsible for the misuse of the rifle he designed as I consider Sobrero or Nobel responsible for the misuse of “nitro” or dynamite, or Enrico Fermi or J. Robert Oppenheimer to be responsible for Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima or Mini-Kim.

          A scientist or engineer’s job is to seek the truth and work with it. No matter where it leads. (Old engineering saying; “If the facts conflict with the theory, keep the facts and come up with a better theory”.)

          What politicians or others may do with the results is not their responsibility. As my mother used to say, everybody takes his own hide to the tanner.

          That’s as true for Harry Truman or Joseph Stalin as it is for Mr. Ronery.

          cheers

          eon

          • “I personally consider M.T. Kalashnikov to be about as responsible for the misuse of the rifle he designed as I consider Sobrero or Nobel responsible for the misuse of “nitro” or dynamite, or Enrico Fermi or J. Robert Oppenheimer to be responsible for Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima or Mini-Kim.”
            M.T.Kalashnikov himself:
            I sleep well. It’s the politicians who are to blame for failing to come to an agreement and resorting to violence.

  6. Just recently we discussed another creation of the man – PK. Well, there is an upgrage, the Pecheneg which is in widespread service. But Russian designers are busy at brand new innovative designs. Here is fresh off the mill: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2018/05/21/russian-prototype-ots-128-machine-gun/

    Frankly, it gives me goose bumps. Why are we repeating over and over MG42 type feed with humungous cover which prevents mounting optic? Because it makes nice profit? That MG42 2-stage feed was intended for very fast rate of fire, not for gun with 500-600 RPM. It does not make sense.

    • “500-600 RPM”
      Wait, where you get tactical-technical data for OTs-128? I was unable to find any such data for OTs-128, but maybe I don’t search carefully enough? Anyway if you have access to them then please write them.
      Now I can only write that I have too little data to evaluate that new machine gun.
      Independently from advantages and disadvantages of machine gun itself, it is unlikely that Russian force change 7,62×54 R for 7,62×51 NATO cartridge.

      • Rate of fire for this MG prototype is not available (classified?). Those 500-600 RPM is my assumption based on what I read from different sources. Even with those 10shots/second mechanism has lots for catching up to do to star fresh for next cycle. In fact, due to human interface, it often does not happen and you end up with stacked-up recoil.

    • “mounting optic”
      There was project of introducing new cartridge near end of Soviet Union – this cartridge is known as 6×49 and sniper rifles and machine guns were created for it, among them АО-64
      https://raigap.livejournal.com/566394.html
      it was derived from PKM, but lighter at 6,5 kg (with bi-pod, without cartridges).
      It was gas-operated, with quick change barrel and it was lock-against-barrel design (not lock-against-receiver), feed was direct [6×49 is rimless], it has optic sights mounted on cover by default, ballistics of new cartridge provided smaller spread and bigger effective range, barrel rifling was polygonal.
      Actual muzzle velocity reached was 1020-1050 m/s that is under requirements (1120-1150 m/s). Required life (4000 shots) was achieved. Known feed devices: belt-75, belt-100, belt-200. Designers: А.С. Куликов, В.И. Суслов. Year: 1989

      • There were couple of machineguns which present other than top cover feed and they are in advantage since they maintain greater receiver stiffness (and potentially lesser weight) in addition to unobstructed ability to mount optic on top. One such sample may be H&K23 or M248 prototype built (by Ford motor company) and tested in small series prior to M249 (Minimi) adoption. They both use feed by sprocket from bottom of receiver. Same appears to be the case with mentioned Russian prototype gun.

    • The main reason for such feed covers isn’t the MG42 or horrendous fire rates, it’s John Moses Browning and simple utility.

      The Maxim machine gun introduced the first practical belt feed, that only went in one way and due to having a solid receiver top was devilishly hard to clear a jam in. Browning introduced the hinged receiver top plate on his early recoil-operated guns to solve this problem, and Vickers Ltd. copied the idea.

      Almost every belt-fed gun since then has had some variant of the Browning type front-hinged receiver cover, simply because it makes loading, unloading, and jam-clearing less of a PITA.

      cheers

      eon

    • Thanks Denny, that ots-128 prototype looks good. The cartridge choice is also interesting, but I don’t think they will drop the 7.62x54R soon. But I might be wrong, of course.

  7. Having seen another variant on this gun, with a fully wrapped front trunnion, I have to wonder if we do know everything there is about the early Avtomats. Of course, it is possible that what I saw was actually built in some cave in Pakistan, but it sure looked authentically Soviet.

  8. What strikes me about the AK-47, is that it is a direct copy of the Sturmgewehr-44 which was made by the Germans. And the Kalashnikov is hailed for copying a German perfectly engineered product.

    • Verpiss dich: That apparently means F’off according to google translate in German, so it probably means good morning. If it does actually mean F’off, isn’t it great! It sounds ruder: Truly Piss Dick, is my transliteration of it.

      I am going to use that more often. “Wasn’t it a lovely Royal wedding?” Nein it was truly piss dick.

      • The Ak vaguely resembles the Sturmgewehr externally, same concept clearly so clearly the Soviets thought it was a valid one.

        • Why there is trend to search for copy-paste links between Sturmgewehr and AK remain outside my comprehension.
          Closest to such link is cartridge or rather its concept – same-bullet-diameter-but-smaller-case, however fact that cartridge of lower “power” than default rifle and more than pistol (sub-machine gun) cartridge would be useful might be also deduced from analysis of actual combat distances as they were far lower than 1000 m, so excessive “power” was most often wasted – smaller cartridge would do job done and would be lighter.
          However, AK is NOT 100% original work (no existing prior art at all) of M.T.Kalashnikov himself – indeed he… borrowed idea/features from other already existing weapons design, but not Sturmgewehr.
          Russian wikipedia has query discussing that issue.
          https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B7%D1%8B_%D0%BE_%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B7%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B8_%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0_%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%88%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0
          More closely you look at StG and AK, more different they look:
          first is gas-operated/tilt, second gas-operated/rotation
          first has big magazine well, second just inversely
          first button to select fire mode, second lever
          first separate full/auto and safe/fire, second integrated
          method of disassembly are vastly different
          first moving parts are guided by riding inside tube, second moving parts are guided by grooves inside receiver (like by rails)

          • I put it simply: smouldering russophobia. There are people in western world, who just cannot stand the fact that Russian (and other Slavic nations) technical proves are above average. Just wonder, why they do not deride Russian submarines, planes and trucks…. is it because it is beyond their mental horizon?

            Of course, inclination toward propaganda can go both ways. I recall seeing a book printed in 1950s with title: “Invented in Russia”. It tried to make case that pretty well everything in technical-engineering sphere has origin in Russian ingenuity. We had great kick out of it and sometimes took similar material to parties to have a good laugh. Oh well, times have changed since.

          • It’s not “Russia’phobia” with the public, nobody is thinking of the Crimean War. But… With the, powers that be… Hypocritical as they are, it’s mass “Russo’what’do’you’ma’call it’ism” Various causes- Bolshevik revolution: You killed Royal Granny. Cold war, we was friends but you killed Royal Granny so wouldn’t have been unless it was required in WW2: Unhelpful after WW2 when we found ourselves allied to every type of Commie world wide, on every level, but… Meh. You posioned Sergei simples, yawn. After the “defeat” of the Soviets, why don’t you know your place (we have the military industrial complex to run to control you, in your decimated form) oh so your not all in poverty drinking petrol anymore like in the 90’s that’s terrible how dare you.

            Essentially Russia has every right to be annoyed with us, but it isn’t “us” none of us wanted you to drink petrol: shit happened, but wars aren’t going to solve it caused by you naturally…

            Incidentally, you know your new dagger missile is it protected by a reactive armour I.e. It can withstand extreme heat by deflection as oppose absorption, i’m sure nobody on either side would object to us having this conversation.

          • You can tell me, like Donald “Ha” because we all know he’s against gay rights “yeah” unlike everyone else, apart from the Kremlin.

            Piss dick.

          • Its Soviet bias not Russian per se, but they’ll never forgive you for not being Serfs.

            (I’m no revolutionary, by the way… We weren’t Serfs, I have my complaints but they aren’t major; I think in 1917 as a Russian, they might have been. So I blame nobody, shit happens)

          • “printed in 1950s with title: “Invented in Russia”. It tried to make case that pretty well everything in technical-engineering sphere has origin in Russian ingenuity. We had great kick out of it and sometimes took similar material to parties to have a good laugh. Oh well, times have changed since.”
            Indeed, just look at that Russian textbook printed in Russia in 1950s:
            https://weirdrussia.com/2017/02/12/where-does-the-capitalist-have-his-breakfast-how-soviet-students-learnt-english-in-1959/
            (it is shown as movie)

          • When I was at school in the 80’s all the playground jokes were you go nowhere in a yugo, etc: Propaganda, meh.

            Russia has done very well, particularly after enduring such a “colossal change in the early 90’s” you should be very proud of youselves and your ingenuity.

            And most people in the west would agree, so forget all our moaning politicians nobody likes them anyway.

          • “I’m no revolutionary”
            Ok, but I hope you are aware that Socialist Revolutionary Party and Russian Social Democratic Labour Party were different entities

          • The revolution before October is it, yes… Sort of.

            I don’t blame the Soviets then personally. No, it wasn’t perfect either. From day one.

      • What, Royal wedding…? Was there another one? Will in end up like the previous… chase, crash and rumours?
        I hope not! 🙂

    • Actually, the AK has almost nothing to do with the Haenel Maschinenkarabiner/Sturmgewehr series, other than general outline and concept.

      The basic bolt/gas system of the AK is essentially identical in principle to that of the American Garand of 1936, except with the gas tube above the bore rather than below it. The StG, by comparison, uses a rising-wedge lock more like some Mannlicher designs.

      The AK receiver layout, especially the safety, and the internal searage is largely copied from the Remington Model 8 sporting semiautomatic rifle, designed by John M. Browning and introduced in 1905. The StG safety and etc. were largely borrowed from Mauser concepts.

      About the only thing the StG and AK really have in common is the similarity of their overall concepts as “intermediate” rifles, and their cartridges.

      And even M.T. Kalashnikov himself admitted that he was literally handed the specs for the 7.62 x 39mm cartridge, plus sample rounds, and told to design his Avtomat around it; he never did find out if the cartridge was a Red Army development, swiped from the Germans (It closely resembles one Polte in Magdeburg proposed for the StG), or even if it had started as a sporting round for medium game (similar rounds in 7mm were used for hunting musk deer in Western Europe before WW2).

      About the most you can say about the similarities between the StG and AK is that similar requirements tend to engender similar results.

      cheers

      eon

    • Actually, the StG-44 was badly engineered and not too well made. QC was slipping in Germany’s arms industry by that time, and the StG-44 lower and upper receivers were made with stamped sheet metal that was thinner than the earlier MP-43 versions. To the point that it could be dented by being stepped on, or bent if it was leaned against something and fell over. Welds were substandard as well, and breakage of the front trunnion “lip” was a frequent complaint.(All according to the British Small Arms Intelligence Committee reports of the time.)

      The MKb/StG design was actually a pretty sophisticated piece of machinery by 1940’s “tech level” standards, and like the later AR-15, required what was for its day cutting-edge, state-of-the-art manufacturing processes.

      An industrial base that by late 1944-early ’45 was strained to produce the EMP-44 or MP 3008 wasn’t going to be able to do much of a job of building “Tomorrow’s Rifle Today”.

      cheers

      eon

  9. A couple of notable discoveries by one person who was born within the imaginary line that demarcated the turf claimed by the Tsars,

    And that have bearing on the present discussion.

    The periodic ordering of chemical elements

    And the separation of a relatively narrow composition of nitrated cellulose in a mixture of ethanol and ether, to make a single base smokeless propellant.

    Both by Mendeleyev

    History has also shown that Bakunin (also born within the line demarcating the turf claimed byou the Tzars) had a lot clearer view of where Karl Marx (born within the imaginary line demarcating the turf that the Kaisers claimed) ideas would lead, than Marx himself ever had.

1 Trackback / Pingback

  1. Actually a Thing: Jackboots – Lean, Solid Dogs

Leave a Reply to AugFC Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.


*