AK-47: Russian Pride or German Masterpiece?

[WarHeRo]

Here's a quick breakdown: Mikhail Kalashnikov, the so-called 'father' of the AK-47, wasn't the sole brain behind this firearm. Enter Hugo Schmeisser, the German legend behind the world's first assault rifle. There's a twisty tale of Kalashnikov and Schmeisser working together, with Schmeisser's contribution being suspiciously hush-hush (all thanks to classified Soviet documents 🤫).

Adding to the mystery, Kalashnikov's stories about the AK-47's design origins have flip-flopped over the years. From outright denial of any similarities with Schmeisser's designs to later admitting "a little bit of inspiration" and even collaboration!

And here's the kicker - while Kalashnikov was developing the AK-47 in one place, Schmeisser was in another, yet still under Soviet direction. Coincidence? I think not!

The early AK designs even had issues similar to Schmeisser's designs, further fueling the speculation. Plus, the USSR 'borrowed' a lot of Schmeisser's technical designs after WWII. 🕵️‍♂️

So, what's your take? Is the AK-47 a product of German engineering prowess, cleverly repackaged as a Soviet masterpiece? Or is it purely Russian innovation? Let's hear your thoughts on this intriguing piece of history!

sauce: https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/03/14/designed-ak-47/

[Stranger]

it takes knowledge and time, you have to move and prepare the bench vise, and if mud gets in the barrel and causes a jam you have to take the whole thing apart. at an armorer's bench. people wouldn't play fallout very much if guns jammed when it was dusty and needed a bench to unjam. chroming the barrels and chamber to prevent this is a $1000 job, and also needs maintenance.

you're describing an incorrectly manufactured ak. the kind that's $50 instead of $500.

[Ulfrinn]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von karbon shiba:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Ulfrinn:

People in military aren't changing their own barrels. They aren't swapping out uppers. Usually, they don't even change their own options. It's something the civilian market has put a greater focus on. In the military, you're going to be assigned a weapon with a predetermined configuration, and you're going to use it, in that configuration. That's true for the US military, and any other. So, you're trying to apply things that don't actually apply to people who use these weapons to make a case.

Secondly, AKs have had interchangeable optics for decades. None of them use a "hinging dust cover." I don't think any military has ever actually produced an AK with a hinging dust cover, so nobody is using this for mounting optics to AKs. AKS-74Us have a rearward extended rear sight that extends over the dust cover, but optics don't mount to this, and this works independent of the rails AK's use for optics.

If stamped receivers "beat themselves apart" after tens of thousands of rounds there wouldn't be AKs several decades old still working, and still in service in places around the world.

And dust cover having those "large openings" is meaningless. If the "ingress" of debris was a problem for reliability, the AK wouldn't be known as being one of the most reliable rifles ever made, yet, it is.

Lastly, no last round bolt hold open wasn't because it lacks this so-called modern feature, it was a choice to leave it off. Most debris that jams up an AR-15 id debris that gets in front of the bolt, and it gets in front of the bolt when the bolt locks open on the last round leaving the chamber exposed to the elements. As the AK doesn't do that, the chamber remains free of the debris, and that's a big reason why it has it's reputation for reliability.

Most of what you just said was utter nonsense which sounds like something copied and pasted from an AR-15 ad.

military organizations do allocate personnel to conduct barrel changes - they're small arms repairers/technicians (MOS 91F, 2111, etc) and civilian gunsmith contractors
it wouldnt make sense to send a weapon back to the manufacturer for something that could be fixed at field-level maintenance

it takes around half an hour to conduct a complete upper receiver rebuild on a clamshell/milspec barrel nut and handguard upper because the headspace is already set and pinned from the factory
even less on handguards with barrel nuts that do not require timing, like most modern designs circa 2023

the US military does also place a large emphasis on being able to configure weapons towards changing mission parameters, e.g.
SOPMOD
MK12 SPR
MK18
URGI

to the extent that the MK18 and URGI is paired with a two upper receivers per lower receiver, with the MK18 being 14.5in/10.3in and the URGI being 14.5in/11.5in

"I don't think any military has ever actually produced an AK with a hinging dust cover, so nobody is using this for mounting optics to AKs."
look no further than the AK12.
it's the dumbest design imaginable to have to introduce moving parts between your sighting system and the barrel it's calibrated to every single time you field strip to clean

"If stamped receivers "beat themselves apart" after tens of thousands of rounds there wouldn't be AKs several decades old still working, and still in service in places around the world."
third worlders dont have the industrial capability to conduct extreme round count tests
but you dont have to look any further than ranges like battlefield vegas with hundreds of thousands of rounds through their guns to see testimonies on which parts fail in each design

"And dust cover having those "large openings" is meaningless."
the AK consistently fails mud tests because debris sticks to the right side of the bolt and causes a failure to eject
the AR's direct impingement system blows away any mud on the ejection port
this is important because you will expose your weapon to the ground while low-crawling

You may want to actually look at the AKs that have been standard in several countries for decades like the AK-74M. They've had rail systems on them for a very long time.

AKs that are 30 years old, passed around between one military conflict to the next have had tens of thousands of rounds through them, it doesn't need to be a lab test, tens of thousands of rounds is tens of thousands of rounds.

Have you actually seen military durability and reliability tests? I doubt you have because military testing doesn't pack mud into a receiver like that. Youtube videos do, You've literally gotten your information from Youtube videos. And tell me, if DI ejects mud off of the receiver, how's that work when the bolt locks open on the last round? And if DI is the advanced, more modern option here, why has nobody used it since, and no modern designs that have come out since, use it?

You're not trying to make a case for modernization. You're just trying to fanboy the AR-15. Oh, and the AR-15s liberal use of aluminum parts tends to result in cracked parts in as little, if not less round counts than sheet metal components. It isn't uncommon for AR-15 receivers to crack along the magazine well or buffer tube tower.

[Stranger]

it's apparent that you're both just trying to suck some kalash here.

[cassette]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Stranger:

it takes knowledge and time, you have to move and prepare the bench vise, and if mud gets in the barrel and causes a jam you have to take the whole thing apart. at an armorer's bench. people wouldn't play fallout very much if guns jammed when it was dusty and needed a bench to unjam. chroming the barrels and chamber to prevent this is a $1000 job, and also needs maintenance.

you're describing an incorrectly manufactured ak. the kind that's $50 instead of $500.

you can just stick the bench vise on one of the vehicles
cant do that with a hydraulic press

the concern that mandates barrel replacement is not mud causing jams, but squibs that clog up the barrel from chamber to muzzle with bullets
this is often caused by old or damaged ammunition, and I've seen it happen on a m240 and m4a1
there's nothing you can do but replace the barrel

barrels are chromed from the factory and cost less than $100 to produce each
just bring them along with the rest of the parts inventory and you can do a barrel swap on a m4/m16/AR in half an hour

[Pieshaman]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von WarHeRo:

i heard that the jets could take off... were they effective? I guess yes, I heard from British pilots that they soiled their pants when they saw a jet for the first time passing by while they were flying.

on 18 march 1945, 37 ME-262 intercepted a fleet of 1221 USA bombers and 632 escort fighters.
they downed 12 bombers and 1 fighter. lost 3 which is very acceptable being 1.11% loss only of total
most of the ME-262 in the 2nd world war where actually destroyed being bombed on the runway and not in combat.

[cassette]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Ulfrinn:

You may want to actually look at the AKs that have been standard in several countries for decades like the AK-74M. They've had rail systems on them for a very long time.

AKs that are 30 years old, passed around between one military conflict to the next have had tens of thousands of rounds through them, it doesn't need to be a lab test, tens of thousands of rounds is tens of thousands of rounds.

Have you actually seen military durability and reliability tests? I doubt you have because military testing doesn't pack mud into a receiver like that. Youtube videos do, You've literally gotten your information from Youtube videos. And tell me, if DI ejects mud off of the receiver, how's that work when the bolt locks open on the last round? And if DI is the advanced, more modern option here, why has nobody used it since, and no modern designs that have come out since, use it?

You're not trying to make a case for modernization. You're just trying to fanboy the AR-15. Oh, and the AR-15s liberal use of aluminum parts tends to result in cracked parts in as little, if not less round counts than sheet metal components. It isn't uncommon for AR-15 receivers to crack along the magazine well or buffer tube tower.

and every single one of those rail systems suck because of the inherent nature of the AK's design

dust cover rails do not hold zero to harsh impacts because it's a hinging component that needs loose tolerances for you to even be able to take it apart for field strip
side-mount rails are unnecessarily heavy because the overhanging material needs to be reinforced for durability
rear sight replacement mounts limit you to low-magnification optics like 1x prisms and red dots because of optical physics - any optic with high magnification and/or field of view is going to have a constrained eye relief and eye box

"Have you actually seen military durability and reliability tests? I doubt you have because military testing doesn't pack mud into a receiver like that."
there's plenty of literature on mean rounds between failure on different weapon systems from organizations like the naval surface warfare center, but it primarily focuses on US standard and SOF weapons

"And tell me, if DI ejects mud off of the receiver, how's that work when the bolt locks open on the last round?"
if you were any familiar with the cycles of operation, you'd know that the unlocking cycle happens before the ejection cycle
gas vents out the side of the BCG and blows away any mud before the bolt even starts to cycle rearward

And if DI is the advanced, more modern option here, why has nobody used it since, and no modern designs that have come out since, use it?
the entire US armed forces uses it.
half of all civilian semiauto rifles in circulation uses it.
every single western special operations unit uses it.
the british just adopted it with the L403A1 courtesy of knights armament company

Oh, and the AR-15s liberal use of aluminum parts tends to result in cracked parts in as little, if not less round counts than sheet metal components. It isn't uncommon for AR-15 receivers to crack along the magazine well or buffer tube tower.
AR receivers are not pressure-bearing, and direct impingement aligns the axis of cycling to be collinear with the bore, eliminating carrier tilt
I have never seen a broken upper or lower receiver in the thousands of M4A1s I have worked on, and these are weapons routinely dropped off of helicopters

if your personal AR broke along the receiver, that's your fault for selecting a receiver made of billet 6061 aluminum.
milspec receivers use forged 7075 with double the tensile strength for the same volume and with metal grain structures aligned with the surface
you can get these forged 7075 receivers on the civ market for $40 each so there's literally no excuse

[Stranger]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von karbon shiba:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Stranger:

it takes knowledge and time, you have to move and prepare the bench vise, and if mud gets in the barrel and causes a jam you have to take the whole thing apart. at an armorer's bench. people wouldn't play fallout very much if guns jammed when it was dusty and needed a bench to unjam. chroming the barrels and chamber to prevent this is a $1000 job, and also needs maintenance.

you're describing an incorrectly manufactured ak. the kind that's $50 instead of $500.

you can just stick the bench vise on one of the vehicles
cant do that with a hydraulic press

the concern that mandates barrel replacement is not mud causing jams, but squibs that clog up the barrel from chamber to muzzle with bullets
this is often caused by old or damaged ammunition, and I've seen it happen on a m240 and m4a1
there's nothing you can do but replace the barrel

barrels are chromed from the factory and cost less than $100 to produce each
just bring them along with the rest of the parts inventory and you can do a barrel swap on a m4/m16/AR in half an hour

that's even worse, and not a problem the AK has.

you can't swap the barrel in the field, without a bench. they stopped putting benches on anything but dedicated supply vehicles due to Afghanistan, and they don't always get deployed. particularly in force recon situations, where your barrel is likely to break or run into an issue.

There's a 1000% markup in the relationship between industry and the military in the US.

[Ulfrinn]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von bloge:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Ulfrinn:

You may want to actually look at the AKs that have been standard in several countries for decades like the AK-74M. They've had rail systems on them for a very long time.

AKs that are 30 years old, passed around between one military conflict to the next have had tens of thousands of rounds through them, it doesn't need to be a lab test, tens of thousands of rounds is tens of thousands of rounds.

Have you actually seen military durability and reliability tests? I doubt you have because military testing doesn't pack mud into a receiver like that. Youtube videos do, You've literally gotten your information from Youtube videos. And tell me, if DI ejects mud off of the receiver, how's that work when the bolt locks open on the last round? And if DI is the advanced, more modern option here, why has nobody used it since, and no modern designs that have come out since, use it?

You're not trying to make a case for modernization. You're just trying to fanboy the AR-15. Oh, and the AR-15s liberal use of aluminum parts tends to result in cracked parts in as little, if not less round counts than sheet metal components. It isn't uncommon for AR-15 receivers to crack along the magazine well or buffer tube tower.

and every single one of those rail systems suck because of the inherent nature of the AK's design

dust cover rails do not hold zero to harsh impacts because it's a hinging component that needs loose tolerances for you to even be able to take it apart for field strip
side-mount rails are unnecessarily heavy because the overhanging material needs to be reinforced for durability
rear sight replacement mounts limit you to low-magnification optics like 1x prisms and red dots because of optical physics - any optic with high magnification and/or field of view is going to have a constrained eye relief and eye box

"Have you actually seen military durability and reliability tests? I doubt you have because military testing doesn't pack mud into a receiver like that."
there's plenty of literature on mean rounds between failure on different weapon systems from organizations like the naval surface warfare center, but it primarily focuses on US standard and SOF weapons

"And tell me, if DI ejects mud off of the receiver, how's that work when the bolt locks open on the last round?"
if you were any familiar with the cycles of operation, you'd know that the unlocking cycle happens before the ejection cycle
gas vents out the side of the BCG and blows away any mud before the bolt even starts to cycle rearward

And if DI is the advanced, more modern option here, why has nobody used it since, and no modern designs that have come out since, use it?
the entire US armed forces uses it.
half of all civilian semiauto rifles in circulation uses it.
every single western special operations unit uses it.
the british just adopted it with the L403A1 courtesy of knights armament company

Oh, and the AR-15s liberal use of aluminum parts tends to result in cracked parts in as little, if not less round counts than sheet metal components. It isn't uncommon for AR-15 receivers to crack along the magazine well or buffer tube tower.
AR receivers are not pressure-bearing, and direct impingement aligns the axis of cycling to be collinear with the bore, eliminating carrier tilt
I have never seen a broken upper or lower receiver in the thousands of M4A1s I have worked on, and these are weapons routinely dropped off of helicopters

if your personal AR broke along the receiver, that's your fault for selecting a receiver made of billet 6061 aluminum.
milspec receivers use forged 7075 with double the tensile strength for the same volume and with metal grain structures aligned with the surface
you can get these forged 7075 receivers on the civ market for $40 each so there's literally no excuse

Again, militaries who use AKs aren't using dust cover rails. They use side rails and they've used them since the 90's. Claiming DI is more advanced is pointless. It's different, it's not more advanced. Trying to claim an AR-15 is more advanced because it uses it, is silly. And lastly, The aluminum parts in an AR-15 do take impact. This is why they crack. This is why the majority of cracks happen where they do, because these area the areas where impacts are made. You don't think the spring compressing in the back of the buffer tube isn't putting press on that tower? It is.

So trying to claim the AR-15 is more advanced, for no other reason than because the US military uses it, or because you see more aftermarket products for it is nonsensical. It simply means more products, more aftermarket is made for it. That's it. Both rifles do virtually the same thing in nearly the same exact way. Stop getting your information from Youtube channels.

[Triple G]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von WarHeRo:

i heard that the jets could take off... were they effective? I guess yes, I heard from British pilots that they soiled their pants when they saw a jet for the first time passing by while they were flying.

If it´s about speed there´s also this rocket propelled plane. Even if it´s a ♥♥♥♥ plane, one has to admit, that it´s probably also the cutest plane, which was ever created. Effectiveness: not so great, mainly because of the slow gun, as the pilot says. But it was probably different for the Me 262, as that had four of these guns instead of two, while a solution would be to not fire them simultaneously, but i don´t know how they solved it.

Apparently they developed another gun - or rather weapon system, later, using an optical photocell, which automatically triggers the gun to fire, while also using kind of additional explosive shells. It fired upwards - so i assume the idea was to fly below the bomber with the speed advantage, to then hit it at the bottom side, with that automated trigger. Also had no recoil. But like only two planes were outfitted with it, and only one bomber was destroyed with it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnwQcr8tnAw

[cassette]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Ulfrinn:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von bloge:

and every single one of those rail systems suck because of the inherent nature of the AK's design

dust cover rails do not hold zero to harsh impacts because it's a hinging component that needs loose tolerances for you to even be able to take it apart for field strip
side-mount rails are unnecessarily heavy because the overhanging material needs to be reinforced for durability
rear sight replacement mounts limit you to low-magnification optics like 1x prisms and red dots because of optical physics - any optic with high magnification and/or field of view is going to have a constrained eye relief and eye box

"Have you actually seen military durability and reliability tests? I doubt you have because military testing doesn't pack mud into a receiver like that."
there's plenty of literature on mean rounds between failure on different weapon systems from organizations like the naval surface warfare center, but it primarily focuses on US standard and SOF weapons

"And tell me, if DI ejects mud off of the receiver, how's that work when the bolt locks open on the last round?"
if you were any familiar with the cycles of operation, you'd know that the unlocking cycle happens before the ejection cycle
gas vents out the side of the BCG and blows away any mud before the bolt even starts to cycle rearward

And if DI is the advanced, more modern option here, why has nobody used it since, and no modern designs that have come out since, use it?
the entire US armed forces uses it.
half of all civilian semiauto rifles in circulation uses it.
every single western special operations unit uses it.
the british just adopted it with the L403A1 courtesy of knights armament company

Oh, and the AR-15s liberal use of aluminum parts tends to result in cracked parts in as little, if not less round counts than sheet metal components. It isn't uncommon for AR-15 receivers to crack along the magazine well or buffer tube tower.
AR receivers are not pressure-bearing, and direct impingement aligns the axis of cycling to be collinear with the bore, eliminating carrier tilt
I have never seen a broken upper or lower receiver in the thousands of M4A1s I have worked on, and these are weapons routinely dropped off of helicopters

if your personal AR broke along the receiver, that's your fault for selecting a receiver made of billet 6061 aluminum.
milspec receivers use forged 7075 with double the tensile strength for the same volume and with metal grain structures aligned with the surface
you can get these forged 7075 receivers on the civ market for $40 each so there's literally no excuse

Again, militaries who use AKs aren't using dust cover rails. They use side rails and they've used them since the 90's. Claiming DI is more advanced is pointless. It's different, it's not more advanced. Trying to claim an AR-15 is more advanced because it uses it, is silly. And lastly, The aluminum parts in an AR-15 do take impact. This is why they crack. This is why the majority of cracks happen where they do, because these area the areas where impacts are made. You don't think the spring compressing in the back of the buffer tube isn't putting press on that tower? It is.

So trying to claim the AR-15 is more advanced, for no other reason than because the US military uses it, or because you see more aftermarket products for it is nonsensical. It simply means more products, more aftermarket is made for it. That's it. Both rifles do virtually the same thing in nearly the same exact way. Stop getting your information from Youtube channels.

Again, militaries who use AKs aren't using dust cover rails.
every military that uses AKs is too poor to be able to field optics lol
all of the russian kit was sold off to american airsofters on the gray market over the last few decades
and third world juntas are completely irrelevant

side rails also suck
throw your rifle on a steel plate from shoulder height a couple times and see how that overhanging material holds up

Claiming DI is more advanced is pointless. It's different, it's not more advanced. Trying to claim an AR-15 is more advanced because it uses it, is silly.
DI does have less moving parts than any piston system and almost completely eliminates carrier tilt, but that's not the primary advancement of the platform

the barrel mounting system and sight mounting system are the things that make the AR better for modernization than the AK, because the upper receiver is a monolithic component that is supported on both sides with material and does not move when field stripped, maintaining the calibration of the sights to the barrel and allowing the mounting of sights farther to the rear to accomodate optics with limited eye box

And lastly, The aluminum parts in an AR-15 do take impact. This is why they crack. This is why the majority of cracks happen where they do, because these area the areas where impacts are made. You don't think the spring compressing in the back of the buffer tube isn't putting press on that tower? It is.
again, I've worked on thousands of M4A1s that are continuously thrown around by grunts, and ran through with tens of thousands of rounds at the end of every fiscal year
never seen that happen.
the only receiver failures I have ever seen were from being left in salt water for months, causing galvanic corrosion between steel and aluminum
I don't know where you get your examples from.

So trying to claim the AR-15 is more advanced, for no other reason than because the US military uses it, or because you see more aftermarket products for it is nonsensical. It simply means more products, more aftermarket is made for it. That's it. Both rifles do virtually the same thing in nearly the same exact way.
the US and every single western special operations uses it because it requires minimal tooling to maintenance and upper receivers can be hotswapped for changing mission parameters
the civilian market loves it for the exact same two reasons

Stop getting your information from Youtube channels.
where do you get your information from?
I have certifications in gunsmithing and armorers' courses in most common weapon systems and years of experience working them

[Stranger]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von bloge:

I have certifications in gunsmithing and armorers' courses in most common weapon systems and years of experience working them

okay what are the first three steps of stripping an argentenian 1911, and what are the common pitfalls in reassembling one?

[Triple G]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Stranger:

okay what are the first three steps of stripping an argentenian 1911, and what are the common pitfalls in reassembling one?

First steps:
1. Take it.
2. Put it on the table.
3. Wait for the start signal.

Common pitfalls:
1. Doing it blindfolded to show off skills
2. Not having put the parts separately, but on one heap while dissembling it.
3. Being elsewhere with one´s thought, just because the own baby died 5 minutes ago.

[cassette]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Stranger:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von bloge:

I have certifications in gunsmithing and armorers' courses in most common weapon systems and years of experience working them

okay what are the first three steps of stripping an argentenian 1911, and what are the common pitfalls in reassembling one?

there's uncountable variants of 1911s but why specifically an argentinian one?
I can't imagine it being any different from a US-pattern one where you either yoink out the recoil spring from the front and take out the slide stop lever, or use your finger strength to hold the slide to the rear while you take out the slide stop

[Stranger]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Triple G:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Stranger:

okay what are the first three steps of stripping an argentenian 1911, and what are the common pitfalls in reassembling one?

First steps:
1. Take it.
2. Put it on the table.
3. Wait for the start signal.

Common pitfalls:
1. Doing it blindfolded to show off skills
2. Not having put the parts separately, but on one heap while dissembling it.
3. Being elsewhere with one´s thought, just because the own baby died 5 minutes ago.

Wrong, wrong wrong. Competition practice is not a disassembly step.

Have you even seen an argentenian 1911 before, or are you just defending this weirdo's fake persona so they can argue about guns for 20 pages?

[Stranger]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von bloge:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Stranger:

okay what are the first three steps of stripping an argentenian 1911, and what are the common pitfalls in reassembling one?

there's uncountable variants of 1911s but why specifically an argentinian one?
I can't imagine it being any different from a US-pattern one where you either yoink out the recoil spring from the front and take out the slide stop lever

wow you just reach in there and yoink it out huh? nice, very talented. wish I could bend metal like that.

sister pistols are a necessary component of US armoroer's training, and something anyone who somehow managed to get grandfathered out would know about.