Mikey turns 90!~
- Thread starter -CB-
- Start date
Volitions Advocate
Hero Member
- Messages
- 1,239
I feel sorry for that guy. He had a brilliant design to help his country, and now everybody has one and whatever he intended it to be used for has been blown to smithereens. I'm surprised he hasn't ended up like lady winchester.
Volitions Advocate
Hero Member
- Messages
- 1,239
I don't blame him. I just know that the AK-47 is definately not being used for what he intended.
whitebison66
Hero Member
- Messages
- 777
I think 'invent' is a bit too generous: http://transsylvaniaphoenix.blogspot.com/2009/02/michail-kalashnikov-admits-german-help.html
That article is only half truth.....
Did Browning benefit from Maxim? Did Luger benefit from Borchardt? Did Borchardt benefit from Maxim? Did Schmeisser benefit from the design of the Federov? And did Kalashikov use the Federov, the StG44 and Simonov as a basis for his own design? He also leaned on Peterson, Browning, Garand and Williams... Did Galili take the ideas from Saive and Kalashikov? Answer to all the questions: "You Betchum!~"
And so it goes... Each uses what came before, and improves upon it. Without question, Browning was perhaps the most inspired - and also the most geographically disconnected - of the great arms designers. Today it is no longer about innovation of concept, but rather innovation in materials and the manufacturing process which drives new and improved models.
Did Browning benefit from Maxim? Did Luger benefit from Borchardt? Did Borchardt benefit from Maxim? Did Schmeisser benefit from the design of the Federov? And did Kalashikov use the Federov, the StG44 and Simonov as a basis for his own design? He also leaned on Peterson, Browning, Garand and Williams... Did Galili take the ideas from Saive and Kalashikov? Answer to all the questions: "You Betchum!~"
And so it goes... Each uses what came before, and improves upon it. Without question, Browning was perhaps the most inspired - and also the most geographically disconnected - of the great arms designers. Today it is no longer about innovation of concept, but rather innovation in materials and the manufacturing process which drives new and improved models.
Volitions Advocate said:
Whaaat? Are you serious? you think he invented it to use as a tire iron or something? It's being used for exactly what it was made for, shooting people. If you believe for a second that someone would invent or produce an assault weapon for anything less than killing people, your sadly in a fantasy world, good luck there. Remeber to remove the bullets when using your AK47 to turn the soil in the garden.
BTW, OUR (USA) M-16 is being used for what we built it for, shooting and killing bad guys, God Bless the Marines and their M-16's, They love to shoot people holding or using AK47s
Volitions Advocate
Hero Member
- Messages
- 1,239
You misunderstand me Alfang, The Kalashnikov was supposed to be used by Russians to protect their country. Which obviously means killing people with them. Developing a weapon to defend your country is a noble undertaking. I doubt he intended to develop a weapon that is available worldwide to terrorists, warlords and commonly thrust into the arms of 10 year olds who are taught to kill.
The AK-47 was designed to defend the USSR, and i'm certain russians are the vast minority of Kalashnikov owners / users.
I tend to respect your opinion on this forum alfang, you have a lot of knowledge I don't and that's the whole point of this forum. So I'd kindly ask you not to be a complete dick.
The AK-47 was designed to defend the USSR, and i'm certain russians are the vast minority of Kalashnikov owners / users.
I tend to respect your opinion on this forum alfang, you have a lot of knowledge I don't and that's the whole point of this forum. So I'd kindly ask you not to be a complete dick.
Super Turbo Deluxe Custom
Epic Member
- Messages
- 8,318
Max, you stole my points with the Gatlin Gun and Nobel references. Public school is doing an excellent job in NC.
Volitions, sorry but you are wrong - if you are a professional who designs something and your something sees worldwide use for decades, indeed becoming an icon in its field, recognizable worldwide, you have been succesful. Obviously. The guy designed a very good gun, cheap, simple, reliable, and durable. So he should be happy if people want to use his gun instead of someone elses. You think that the child soldier tragedy in africa has anything to do with the particular brand of gun they use? If they were using Uzis the world would be a better place? Cmon.
whitebison66
Hero Member
- Messages
- 777
Actually, assault rifles were not designed to kill people; the existing rifles, with their more powerful cartridges, did that all too well. Assault rifles were engineered to wound people so that at least one other soldier, preferably more, would have to take the wounded man back to the aid station.
Strange, that intentionally not killing can somehow be made more inhumane than killing.
Strange, that intentionally not killing can somehow be made more inhumane than killing.
Volitions Advocate said:
For the AK-47 to become real, it had to be able to be made in factories that used simple tooling. The reasoning there, was Russia's manufacturing capability had been knocked into the stone age. They wanted to be able to produce rifles at shops over a wide geographic area - and simple shops were the way to do this. The AK-47 receiver was redesigned to accomplish just that. They even toyed with un-rifled barrels as an option in case of dire need. Since it was easy to produce, its widespread use seems, with hindsight, to be inevitable.
Compare that to the Garand M1, its siblings the M14/M15, Winchester/Williams' M1 Carbine and Stoner's M16. No way they could be produced without sophisticated foundries, and very expensive tooling. The Garand, slugger that it is, is like artwork compared to the AK-47. What a difference 11 years makes.
whitebison66 said:
I think what you're saying was a foreseen byproduct of the concept, but the design intent was to be smaller, lighter, more agile, and able to shoot in a manner for the way battles were evolving. Long range rifle work was (and still is) becoming less and less a factor in battles. We have some decent field artillery and things like recoiless rifles to handle the long range fare. Even then, there were armored troop carriers that could get soldiers to where the fighting was. Battles began to be, as they are now, considerably more close quarters affairs. The close in, bust'em-up fighting needs something more refined than the long shoulder rifle. To that end were those designs. Another facter - the lower power, was considered to be a good thing, with more ammo being able to be produced with less raw materials, and more ammo able to be carried by any one given set of boots on the ground.
Volitions Advocate
Hero Member
- Messages
- 1,239
re: Tfarny
This is how internet flame wars start, I didnt' say anything about the world being a better place.
If he was approached with a commision to build a firearm that would last for 100 years and be so user friendly that it would be given to warlords in africa (or the usa)who would give it to children (or terrorists) to be used in ethnic cleansing and all sorts of other terrible things he just might have refused. Unless of course all he cared about was his commision and the money that came with it, in which case I'm wrong anyway and you win the argument. I get what you're saying, but you're putting words in my mouth rather than listening to the point I'm making.
This is how internet flame wars start, I didnt' say anything about the world being a better place.
If he was approached with a commision to build a firearm that would last for 100 years and be so user friendly that it would be given to warlords in africa (or the usa)who would give it to children (or terrorists) to be used in ethnic cleansing and all sorts of other terrible things he just might have refused. Unless of course all he cared about was his commision and the money that came with it, in which case I'm wrong anyway and you win the argument. I get what you're saying, but you're putting words in my mouth rather than listening to the point I'm making.
