It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

AK-47 named as the best weapon of 20th Century.

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 05:34 PM
link   
The Discovery Channel should do better research, especially on the weapon they are calling #1.

Mikhail Kalashnikov has stated publicly that his desing had little to do with the StGW44 (but the SKS rifle did).

Just check out the Wikipedia link quoted earlier in this thread for the AK-47.




posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Retseh
The Discovery Channel should do better research, especially on the weapon they are calling #1.

Mikhail Kalashnikov has stated publicly that his desing had little to do with the StGW44 (but the SKS rifle did).

Just check out the Wikipedia link quoted earlier in this thread for the AK-47.


Yeah, I agree. Really it is pathetic that the discovery channel would be passing on urban myths as fact.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by cavscout

Originally posted by Retseh
The Discovery Channel should do better research, especially on the weapon they are calling #1.

Mikhail Kalashnikov has stated publicly that his desing had little to do with the StGW44 (but the SKS rifle did).

Just check out the Wikipedia link quoted earlier in this thread for the AK-47.


Yeah, I agree. Really it is pathetic that the discovery channel would be passing on urban myths as fact.


Or maybe it is "pathetic" that you two don´t read well? The article says: "Built on the same basic design as the German Sturmgewehr, it chambered an intermediate round and was built from stamped parts."

Does it share a similar basic layout (position of parts etc...)? Yes.
Did it chamber an intermediate round? Yes.
Was it (initially) built from stamped parts? Yes.

They share these features like a Cadillac shares a windshield and 4 wheels with a Mercedes.

BTW, the same wiki article also mentions "circumstantial evidence" of a certain influence of the Stgw.44 on the AK development. Let´s not forget that a lot of german weapon engineers including Hugo Schmeisser, one of the leaders in the MP44 programs, were put to work at Izhevsk after the war. And where was the Ak built? Right, at Izhevsk...

Not to forget, Mr. Kalashnikov has repeatedly shown that he´s quite satisfied with his weapon to the point where he´ll allow no dissenting opinions. Just recently he incorrectly stated that "American soldiers were throwing away their weapons to pick up an AK whenever possible". He´s also known to disregard the contributions of others to "his" design; there´s a reason why Kalashnikov never said it was NOT based on the Stgw.

I´m not saying the AK is a copy, it is far from it. Still, the certain influence the Stgw.44 MUST have had during and after the war on the development of the AK47 is undeniable. That doesnt make the AK worse than it is, but should correctly put it in its place as an evolution, not revolution.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 06:55 PM
link   
Here's a sobering statistic. I'm not sure how accurate it is, but reportedly, the AK-47 is responsible for about 250,000 deaths a year worldwide.

Now THAT'S a Weapon on Mass Destruction!



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 04:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Here's a sobering statistic. I'm not sure how accurate it is, but reportedly, the AK-47 is responsible for about 250,000 deaths a year worldwide.

Now THAT'S a Weapon on Mass Destruction!


Seems kinda high. Where did you find that number?



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
reportedly, the AK-47 is responsible for about 250,000 deaths a year worldwide.

Now THAT'S a Weapon on Mass Destruction!



Actually the people who pulled the trigger of the AK are responsible for the deaths. If they didn't have the AK they would have just used some other rifle, a knife, sword, or some other weapon like a rock or even their hands



posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Isn't it ironic... Communism built the famed gun.. had its inventor been in America he would be a billionaire. He is poor and lives in a communist era apartment house.


This is true. However, the perks in this situation even outnumber the benefits he could have received if he were in a capitalist nation. Fame, power, and prestige. I am no communist, bear this in mind. Just realize, the man has gotten his chair at the table with the big boys.

Sometimes the best jobs in the world have crappy pay. Power and the ability to influence is worth more than money and gold. One IS the destination, one is just a promise of a lengthened journey.

But yet again, this whole philosophy doesn't apply to everyone.

I really want an AKM, i'll probably get one soon- but I also like M4's and the variety as well so it's going to be a tough decision. A lot of my friends in law enforcement and military have them so we can have contests if I got my own which would be fun. I have a HUGE preferance for HK weapons. Namely the G3, MP7, and even the G-36 (save the badmouthing, it's a good weapon). But civilians can't get those so looks like i'm out of luck


Edit: It's going to be interesting to see how much the Tavor or Tar-21 whips practically every rifle in it's class in the next few years. Now THAT is a nice weapon.

[edit on 5-12-2006 by jaguarmike]



posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lonestar24
Or maybe it is "pathetic" that you two don´t read well?


I really don't think there's any need for that kind of rudeness, it really invalidates anything you type after it. If you can't tolerate being disagreed with, you have no place in a discussion forum.

As the AK versus StGw44 issue, Mikhail Kalashnikov himself has stated that he copied more from the M1 Garand than he did from the German weapon, seems clear enough to me that the AK47 is an amalgamation of several weapons, and has little to do with one in particular.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 04:47 PM
link   
THANK YOU! about time someone noticed


..although, like its creator Mikhail Kalashnikov, this gun does not need the recognition. The people who know its true value will continue to know it regardless of what the haters are saying. Personally im content enough with knowing that the rifle and its creator are out there, both doing what theyre supposed to do.



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 08:58 AM
link   
The notion that the M16 and AK-47 are 'period equivalent' weapons is all the condemnation you need for the 'poor ol' Kalishnikovs' inspired idea to produce a weapon which his worthless government could dump a 100 million copies of around the world in a hackneyed attempt to inspire revolution as anarchy.

Given that most of the populations and locales that received a 'a free case of good will for wars of liberation' had heretofore been using 1800s bolt actions in a culture based on force-limited vendetta and tribal psychology, it is thanks to the 'fine work' of Messier K that you have places like AfG and Iraq where once only professional armies had the firepower to instill order. And now no one does and druglords and religious extremists rule by decrees of terror to which young male minds ascribe to because they instinctively align themselves with power as success.

Of course the chaos effect is not helped by the fact that the AK-47, is a _junk_ firearm which ballistically (the slowest of all 'intermediate' calibers, being more akin to the M1 Carbine than anything of the post war era) is unable to penetrate most modern PBA yet whose recoil and sloppy action does not reward disciplined shooting skills in avoiding the ready alternative of firehose automatic engagement. Add to this that it is a BIG, HEAVY, gun in the hands of undernourished, undersized, untrained, 'insurgents' who carry it like an incontinent pig and you end up with engagement scenarios that favor mass round exchanges in tight quarters (i.e. densely civillian populated areas) because none of the shooters /can even reliably hit/ beyond about 50 yards.

Which means that we look 'overbearing' for killing them in their dozens while suffering relatively few direct fire casualties. When we should be killing them in their thousands as a function of policing up these terror weapons from each and every household.

Indeed, it is because the AK-47 is so bad that the M16 is considered 'good enough' but neither weapon was designed to anything like the proper ergonomics, onboard round count or modern sighting standards they could have been or needed to be for urban or mechanized warfare to which condition the AK at least was intentionally 'optimized' as a throwaway weapon fit only for units operating on a nuclear battlefield, under armor.

At the same time, there is a limit to how much you can condemn the effectiveness of any assault weapon which fires automatically to rates of 800spm, simply because the hail of lead created will hit /something/ and in such volumes of fire as will usually produce psychological intimidation as much as direct wounds which the inherently 'cautious' (no PBA, no medical corps) indig forces will use as a self limiting risk factor to finish any fight.

Preferring to kill off their opponents civillian (home and hearth) logistics by night like assassins rather than face serious risks in a standup fire fight where half a million rounds may let fly.

It is this combination of factors inherent to failing to be able to provide a soldier-skills dominant difference in ending the threat directly. Or in protecting the 'women and kids' from the goats among the sheep of distributed attacks using guerilla tactics and local firepower superiorities that has largely stagnated the military small arms industry as a whole and the ACR and like programs specifically, from creating a followon gun which shows just what a piece of crap the AK really is.

Indeed, particularly in the West it is the failure to accept the limits of _user ability_ to 'significantly improve' on the existing generation (the ACR required a 100% improvement in lethality, hit percentages at range, carry weight and reliability over the then-new M16A2 for instance) /because/ of 'randomization' factors in the shooter that real improvement in the technology of the gun they could make is still so incredibly limited.

CONCLUSION:
The AK-47 and assault weapons in general are the nominally the means by which the 'common man' can keep an organized industrial society at such risk as to treat him fairly. Yet the number of AKs in Iraq during Saddam's era was never less than it is today with but a 10th the active population resistance. Indicating that only the measures employed by tyrants to hostage the survival of the many to the rebellion of the few really 'improved' as a function of an even more ruthless will to 'suppress the proletariat'.

For those trying to give a hand up to the murderous wolves raised under such conditions, the AK now represents nothing less than the endless banana peel effect by which the need for overwhelming force to suppress and secure a civil war landscape before you can stand up an operating government inhibits the very trust necessary to ensure success. We are reluctant to be seen as being so authoritarian and so we look like incompetents for half-trying and getting our hands bit by those we seek to feed.

I /hate/ the AK-47. So does any military professional with first hand knowledge of what it has done around the world. Kalashnikov is a worthless SOB with nothing whatsoever to be proud of in his diabolical creation.


KPl.



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 09:28 AM
link   
It really disappoints me to see the m-14 @ #10. At least it is in there but I think it deserved a better rank. Granted it was heavy but special forces still use it on a regular basis. With new synthetics the weight can come down a little. I have had the privilege to shoot a national match m-14 and the accuracy was second to none. Not to mention that when that .308 hits down range it is going do some damage. I would have to agree with the ak rank though. the Fn FAL is another good gun but certainly a bit complicated. I certainly hope in ten years or so the SIG-550 finds its way into the list as it is a excellent gun, just a little green.



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Shizzle5150, you said 'the FN FAL is another good gun but certainly a bit complicated'.

I have to ask Why?

I used the FN FAL and FN SLR for more than 20 years and I never found it to be complicated.

If you refer to it's mechanism, it is actually a lot less complicated than so called modern assault rifles.

AK47 - The best assault rifle in the world

The AK47 assault rifles were, like most Russian weapons designed in the heat of battle, intended to arm peasant soldiers who had little or no education or understanding of things mechanical. [The AK strips in 6 moves from start to finish]

That it entered service far too late for action in WWII it has, nonetheless, seen action all over the world, from legitimate soldiers to terrorists like the IRA.

I have used an original AK47 and found it to be reliable, even after a river crossing where it suffered total immersion in mud and water.

That it should be voted as the World's number 1 rifle is quite beyond me.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 07:36 AM
link   
to ch1466

lotsa pretty words, but no real content. guns dont kill people. PEOPLE kill people.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 01:43 PM
link   
So why do we gives soldiers guns?

- because they make killing people a hell of a lot easier. And the better the gun, the better they are at killing. Which is why the AK has claimed more victims than any other smallarm, for better or for worse.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wembley
So why do we gives soldiers guns?
- because they make killing people a hell of a lot easier. And the better the gun, the better they are at killing. Which is why the AK has claimed more victims than any other smallarm, for better or for worse.


Wembley, you are quite wrong. It is the human being that kills another. The rifle, pistol, wooden club or knife is just the tools of the trade.

Each country manufactures it's own weaponry or purchases weaponry from dealers authorised with 'End User Certificates' by selling countries or perhaps they receive them as 'gifts'.

A country will choose the weapon the government 'thinks' is right for it's servicemen and women. They will be trained to use that particular weapon.

What training they receive and at what level they are considered trained, can make all the difference between life and death.

For example, the British Redcoat was once regarded as the finest Musketeer in the world, because of their accuracy when firing together as a unit [vollyed fire] or as individuals.

Indeed, up to a few years ago before with were issued with the Rifle, 5.56mm L85A1, our shooting skills were second to none.

Now we have an automatic weapon that is capable of spraying up to 800 rpm and individual shopoting skills are fast becoming a thing of the past.

And to the armchair warriors out there, who pontificate and spout rubbish about killing people, unless you have been there and done that in a contact or in the heat of battle, you ain't qualified to talk!



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 01:24 AM
link   
Its such a great weapon, the reason I own three and have two more on the way...

And with with the whole MTK copied of the Sturmgewehr 44 crowd, Though Im sure appearance wise it may have inspired him, The two weapons use entirely different systems of function.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 02:20 AM
link   
isnt the m4 more accurate than all ten of those weapons, seeing how it was made to replace the m16?



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 03:25 AM
link   
Accuracy has nothing to do with the type of weapon used.

When a weapon is manufactured, it is assembled and bench rest fired.

That means a weapon is placed on or in a bench rest, secured and ten rounds are usually fired. This bench test firing is used to check the pressure in the breech and barrel, is used to check the feed mechanism and magazine and is also used to 'factory zero' the wpn.

All the factory zero does, is to ensure the fall of shots hit roughly where the sights are placed, on a tgt at a given range - usually 100 metres.

That is why when an infantryman or rifleman is issued a weapon, he check fires and re-zeros to his own eyesight or boresights then zeros using an optical device.

It is the human being that makes a weapon truely accurate, not the other way round.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by gone_wrong
to ch1466

lotsa pretty words, but no real content. guns dont kill people. PEOPLE kill people.



Drek.

'People' as the species Homo Sapiens have an instinctive distaste for killing each other manually. That is why we remove ourselves from the direct acts responsibility by using a tool. That and the fact we don't want to get killed 'for trying' as equals in the process.

Where that tool is intended to kill, in numbers, indiscriminately, from medium to long range, as a deliberate function of _reliability over accuracy_, it becomes a political statement beyond the intent of the 5ft nothin', 15 year old, frequently drugged up, _societal idiot_ using it.

Often clamped under his arm like tuba because he can't control it any other way.

THAT BARBARIAN FOOL whose ability to command reason in deciding who /not/ to kill as a function of where /not/ to accept an engagement with women and kids inbetween, has a 'responsible use factor' of _zero_.

Which is why the Soviets sent cases of these things to poor, dumb, desperate areas of the world where corrupt capitalism was vulnerable to direct anarchy.

They didn't want to win. They just wanted to make us lose so we would be bogged down fighting microwars while they plotted the big one. And in so-doing _the weapon not the end user_ is indeed the principle vector to achieving the requisite chaos to make a government collapse.

Because _any idiot_ can use an AK-47 with minimal training.

It took our own bemiring in Iraq to realize that centrist power systems, even when themselves vicious and despotic, at least are stable and (relatively) benevolent in the total numbers of dead by direct confrontation that their very brutality (kill one of mine and I will bury your entire village) prevents in the behaviors of the IDIOTS that constitute the majority of our world population.

You put those same kinds of frustrated social adolescents into the non-structured freefall of a so called democratic choice-enabled process and they will instantly see only the opportunity to exercise in a little free form sport killing. Because that is what is easy. That is what they know. That is what gets them instant fame and monetary reward.

With an assault weapon.

There is a reason why Americans by and large don't have autofire weapons in their gun cabinets, even though we legitimately retain the right to bear arms in our society. Everywhere else in the world, the -assumption- is that of 'preexisting beligerent independence' despite totalitarian rule which frequently punishes ownership of _any_ weapon.

And that assumption is based on the vast over production of ONE gun, by the damn Russians, beyond any reasonable need for their own forces use and specifically for 'free export'.

That weapon, which you are all kowtowing before like it was some freakin' golden calf, is the auto-over-accurate, lasts-forever-when-kicked-daily, AK-47.

CONCLUSION:
It never fails to amaze me how those who assume to know what is 'good' in military use and indeed /what militaries are for/, never take a moment to think 'but what about the lasting effects once that weapon/tactic/doctrine migrates into (the majority) civillian world'?

The only way to fight autofire is with autofire or remote area of effect (cluster, artillery, active denial exotics) weapons.

In North Hollywood, the cops fired 650 rounds and took 10 casualties, a third of which were civillian. Phillips and Matasareanu fired 1,100 rounds before being put down like the rabid wolves they proved themselves to be _because they refused to get away_ when the chance was there.

That was a 2 vs. 300 engagement. With AK-47s vs. 9mm and 12 Gauge.

Now imagine it's a 170,000 vs. 15,000 one where everybody is using assault weapons.

Is it any freakin' wonder that there are 650,000 DEAD CIVILLIANS in Iraq where it's cheaper to get a gun than running water?

Gee Thanks Mr. Kalashnikov.


KPl.

[edit on 6-2-2007 by ch1466]



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ch1466In North Hollywood, the cops fired 650 rounds and took 10 casualties, a third of which were civillian. Phillips and Matasareanu fired 1,100 rounds before being put down like the rabid wolves they proved themselves to be _because they refused to get away_ when the chance was there.

That was a 2 vs. 300 engagement. With AK-47s vs. 9mm and 12 Gauge.


I saw that shootout. It exposed the LAPD. After the two gumen shot the police up for a while, they WALKED right out the parking lot. One gunmen knew he was finished so he stayed behined to lay down cover fire for his partners escape. The police failed to bring him down, then his AK jamed. He then commited suicide with a handgun. The other one advanced five city blocks. As he was loading his weapons into a truck he was about to hijack, a car containing 3 swat officers stoped right in front of him by accident. He emptyed a drum of .223 ammo on their car. The SWAT shot the gunmen 29 times, 10 of which after he threw up his hands. Then they starting kicking his legs and stomping on his head. He was asking for medical help, but they let him bleed to death on the pavement like rabid wolves.

It was a beating the LAPD will never forget. The LAPD was use to pummeling suspects like when they beat a handcuffed Rodney King. But it was the LAPD that got pummeled that day.


Im not saying what those guys did was right, but they laid a whoopin on the police. And keep in mind they got their weapons during the assault rifle ban. So baning the rifles will not stop people from getting them.

[edit on 6-2-2007 by Full_Auto77]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join