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/

[cassette]

Publicado originalmente por Ulfrinn:

Publicado originalmente por bloge:

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

You don't know the AR-15s stress points. Think the AR-15 is a monolithic upper (the SCAR is, AR-15 isn't outside of some aftermarket options) speak of carrier tilt which isn't an issue on most piston driven rifles besides AR-15 conversions, and seem to have no idea side rails have existed on AKs since the 90s and completely lock the optic in line with the barrel... but you want people to believe you're a gunsmith/armorer? Unlikely.

the upper receiver is a monolithic component for bridging the barrel to the sighting system
nobody mounts sights to the handguard

the side rails' unsupported overhanging material makes it weak or heavy because of leverage - choose one

[Stranger]

i mean the entire point of this topic is just to get people to warthunder eachother, and being told to let them isn't helpful.

you're allowing them to terrorize us citizens in order to breed contempt for russians, making you a domestic terrorist.

give me one good reason not to move you into my department right now.

[cassette]

Publicado originalmente por Stranger:

Publicado originalmente por bloge:

of what organization?
I guarantee you it's not taught across all the forces.

air force doesn't have personal weapons armorers, but the aircraft maintenance armorers do go through the basic course in case they are tasked for cross-branch actions.

some of them become master armorer's beecause it interests them and the military is always on the look out for people who know how ♥♥♥♥ actually works.

what the air force does is their business, I wasn't an airman
you should be more than familiar with the fact that training beyond AIT is unit dependent and completely dependent on if the commander allocates the funds for you and sends you there

I don't know why you're trying to pretend that niche training is standard or relevant

[Stranger]

Publicado originalmente por bloge:

Publicado originalmente por Stranger:

air force doesn't have personal weapons armorers, but the aircraft maintenance armorers do go through the basic course in case they are tasked for cross-branch actions.

some of them become master armorer's beecause it interests them and the military is always on the look out for people who know how ♥♥♥♥ actually works.

what the air force does is their business, I wasn't an airman
you should be more than familiar with the fact that training beyond AIT is unit dependent and completely dependent on if the commander allocates the funds for you and sends you there

I don't know why you're trying to pretend that niche training is standard or relevant

commanders allocate based on political 'goods' and it was a matter of fact that the armorer shortage was bad and was hurting their weapons maintenance and implementation during Iraq.

so it was very recently that everyone was being sent, at least one from every unit (you don't want to fix your own weapons?? you want ME to do it for YOUR unit YOU aren't running right?) and it would be reasonable to expect someone, who claimed to have this training, to know about a fairly niche but nonetheless standard and eminently practical maintenance concern.

1911s being rather famous for their reliability in a variety of harsh conditions.

[cassette]

Publicado originalmente por Stranger:

Publicado originalmente por bloge:

what the air force does is their business, I wasn't an airman
you should be more than familiar with the fact that training beyond AIT is unit dependent and completely dependent on if the commander allocates the funds for you and sends you there

I don't know why you're trying to pretend that niche training is standard or relevant

commanders allocate based on political 'goods' and it was a matter of fact that the armorer shortage was bad and was hurting their weapons maintenance and implementation during Iraq.

so it was very recently that everyone was being sent, at least one from every unit (you don't want to fix your own weapons?? you want ME to do it for YOUR unit YOU aren't running right?) and it would be reasonable to expect someone, who claimed to have this training, to know about a fairly niche but nonetheless standard and eminently practical maintenance concern.

1911s being rather famous for their reliability in a variety of harsh conditions.

there's a lot of training programs with the keyword armorer in it...
they only taught me the US-pattern 1911s in our US/NATO weapons course
also remember that skills are perishable
I was taught on the M777 at some point but never worked artillery so I forgot almost all of it

[Incarnate]

Publicado originalmente por steven1mac:

https://youtu.be/gMK5OGEIbwk

Trigger warning for Russians: The AK is basically just a Stg 44. It was just made easier to manufacture, use, and maintain.

[Stranger]

it's pretty obscure from a russian perspective, and most have relations with Germany or France to get some of their guns illegally or otherwise.

so us arms aren't exactly very well understood in europe.

more popular in Japan, given that most of their current weapons platforms are modifications of US designs (for economic reasons.)

[Stranger]

Publicado originalmente por Incarnate:

Publicado originalmente por steven1mac:

https://youtu.be/gMK5OGEIbwk

Trigger warning for Russians: The AK is basically just a Stg 44. It was just made easier to manufacture, use, and maintain.

no proper gas blowback. can't poof the mud out of the line, not a real gas blowback.

there was an entire line of post-war 44's that had good blowback, but bad everything else, which were presented as the authentic real deal.

infact there were so many damn versions that there is no such 'real one' ultimately.

it's where the idea for modular weapons systems came form.

[cassette]

@stranger
you only know and remember what you work with
I know things you don't know, and you know things I don't know
I wouldn't expect you to adjust headspace on a M2A1 or calibrate the computer sight on a MK47 striker, unless that's what you focused on as part of your job
invoking tangential knowledge isn't relevant to the discourse of the specific platforms being discussed

the only reason I mentioned credentials is because it's a large anecdotal sample size
I have NEVER seen a structural receiver failure outside of 300blk explosions

[Stranger]

Publicado originalmente por bloge:

@stranger
you only know and remember what you work with
I know things you don't know, and you know things I don't know
I wouldn't expect you to adjust headspace on a M2A1 or calibrate the computer sight on a MK47 striker, unless that's what you focused on as part of your job
invoking tangential knowledge isn't relevant to the discourse of the specific platforms being discussed

the only reason I mentioned credentials is because it's a large anecdotal sample size
I have NEVER seen a structural receiver failure outside of 300blk explosions

I know how to do both of those things unless they changed the protocols or the menu buttons. Lotta small redesigns like that happen specifically to outmode old knowledge lost to spying.

the issue is that it creates an overpressure situation which blows partial fragments into the feed mechanism, the camming for the receiver cover, and/or the shooter's face (very rare, they added special shields for it,) this prevents proper operation of the firearm, and necessitates maintenance to fix, regardless of which issue happens. and the only real root cause appears to be the use of 5.56 ammunition.

Which I drafted the NATO proposal for, as my alternative ideas were all shot down by my superiors at the time.

[Ulfrinn]

Publicado originalmente por Incarnate:

Publicado originalmente por steven1mac:

https://youtu.be/gMK5OGEIbwk

Trigger warning for Russians: The AK is basically just a Stg 44. It was just made easier to manufacture, use, and maintain.

There's nothing similar about either of them besides the cartridge they fire. AK has more in common with the US M1 family of rifles.

[Incarnate]

Publicado originalmente por Stranger:

Publicado originalmente por Incarnate:

Trigger warning for Russians: The AK is basically just a Stg 44. It was just made easier to manufacture, use, and maintain.

no proper gas blowback. can't poof the mud out of the line, not a real gas blowback.

there was an entire line of post-war 44's that had good blowback, but bad everything else, which were presented as the authentic real deal.

infact there were so many damn versions that there is no such 'real one' ultimately.

it's where the idea for modular weapons systems came form.

Hell of a coincidence that the guy who invented the Stg and his engineers were literally forced to work for the USSR after the war, huh? : https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41367394

[Pierce Dalton]

Given its durability and reliability, I'm pretty sure it's a German invention, indeed.

[Stranger]

Publicado originalmente por Ulfrinn:

Publicado originalmente por Incarnate:

Trigger warning for Russians: The AK is basically just a Stg 44. It was just made easier to manufacture, use, and maintain.

There's nothing similar about either of them besides the cartridge they fire. AK has more in common with the US M1 family of rifles.

IIRC someone literally saw a BAR a German was using and said "build that!" and SOMEBODY did. Lots of someones.

We had a big argument about whether we should hide that it was a bar or not, to discourage the US from following the rather problematic design decisions they made with the bar (and which we fixed.) But facts are facts, I think.

[Stranger]

Publicado originalmente por Pierce Dalton:

Given its durability and reliability, I'm pretty sure it's a German invention, indeed.

Trying to figure out how to tap this Porsche joke into place without breaking something.

It's almost exactly like trying to load an STG mag without permanently stamping it into the gun. Hmm, how odd. I wonder why that is.