# AK 47, What is the true story?.



## time expired (26 Sep 2007)

Recently I watched a docu. about the Russian invent er of the AK47,
for which he was made a Hero of the Soviet Union,.The AK seems,
however, to be a direct copy of the German Sturmgewehr 44,is this
the case or am I way off in this?.
                                         Regards


----------



## TN2IC (26 Sep 2007)

It sure does look like a copy of it. May be something to look into.  ;D


----------



## 1feral1 (26 Sep 2007)

There is no doubt that numerous captured German engineers, along with MP44 assault rifles had much influence in the Kalashnikov design, but in my view, more so in practicality, not in copying of a direct design. 

Ole MTK himself, has taken too much credit as far as I am concerned. I am sure his captured German engineer friends were pleased in the outcome


Wes


----------



## Kyu (26 Sep 2007)

From what I've heard in a Discovery Channel documentary about weapons, it is true that the AK-47 is inspired from the MP-44. However, like many German design of WW2, the MP-44 was too sophisticated for mass production. So the Kalakschikov (Spelling?) design bureau simplified the weapon for mass production.


----------



## KevinB (27 Sep 2007)

Look at the intial dates of the Ak desig when young Mikhail was still in the tanks...


  While similar in outward appearance the internal design is different.


----------



## FullMetalParka (27 Sep 2007)

The AK was designed after the German Sturmgewehr-44. The MP-44 was considered the first "assault rifle" ever designed and produced (automatic rifle made for medium range engagements.) Mikhail Kalashnikov was in the tanks during WWII, and was wounded (not sure of the specifics.) While in the hospital, all the spare time he had was used thinking of a weapon design to help the Soviet Union in the war. He came up with a few designs, but the war ended, and a few years later (1947, hence the -47 of AK-47) the design was finalized, and the weapon was mass-produced. 

That is what I remember of it, anyways.


----------



## 1feral1 (27 Sep 2007)

Kyu said:
			
		

> From what I've heard in a Discovery Channel documentary about weapons, it is true that the AK-47 is inspired from the MP-44. However, like many German design of WW2, the MP-44 was too sophisticated for mass production. So the Kalakschikov (Spelling?) design bureau simplified the weapon for mass production.



The MP44 was not sofisticated, and consisted of many stampings, including the reciever of the weapon. The AK-47's reciever was milled from solid stock.

The weapon was mass produced, at times 5,000 per month, and the constant Allied day and night bombing smashed the German machine. It was not the design or manufacture that killed it, it was the overwhelming Allied force which constantly shrank German productivity. 

Ever seen a MP44? Handled one? Disassembled one? Fired one?

I have.

Stick to your lane mate. You can't even spell Kalashnikov!

Lastly, don't believe everything you hear on TV.

Another silly rumour comes to an abrupt halt.
---------------------------------------------------------

Now without going too techo crazy, and keeping things in lay terms for all.....


Disassembly of the MP44 is similar to the HK FOW. The butt stock is removed (pretty much exactly as the HK FOW) to get the guts of the weapon out.

MTK used the idea of a 7.62 x 39mm intermediate cartridge used in the SKS carbine (an obvious cartridge idea from the German 7.92x33mm), along with the recoil spring/op-rod style of design, incorperating the bolt carrier/piston into one assembly.

As early as 1934, the Germans were developing an intermediate cartridge. By 1941 the 33mm case was on the scene. A couple of prototype weapons were being toyed with in 1942 by Schmeisser and Walther..

We all know about the HK FOW delayed blowback, where the AK FOW is gas operated, like the MP44. The HK upper reciever has pretty much been copied from the MP44, as the lower trigger mech design of folding down in disassembly.

HK uses many ideas from the German MP44, more so than the AK FOW.

MTK and his engineering staff had their own ideas also.  HK 'stole' much more from the MP44 than MTK did! IMHO anyways 



Wes


----------



## 3rd Herd (27 Sep 2007)

Kalashnikov's legacy clouded by AK-47's deadly toll
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-06-11-kalashnikov_x.htm

"Its genesis dates to 1941, when Kalashnikov was in a hospital with severe wounds from a German shell that hit his tank in the battle of Bryansk in western Russia."

"Kalashnikov, despite his advanced age, is still chief designer of the state-controlled company. 

He says he never made a kopeck in royalties because his invention was never patented. 

"At that time, patenting inventions wasn't an issue in our country. We worked for socialist society, for the good of the people, which I never regret," he said. "

The Biography of the Main Gun Designer Mikhail Timofeevich Kalashnikov
http://kalashnikov.guns.ru/mk.html

"Mikhail Timofeevitch concieved the idea of a submachine gun. Later while on a six-month sick leave he arrived at the station Matai. He carried out his idea in depot's workshops with the help of the leadership and comrades. When the submachine gun was ready M T. Kalashnikov was directed to Moscow Aviation Institute, which had been evacuated to Alma-Ata."

"In June, 1942 the second model of a Kalashnikov submachine gun was developed in workshops of the institute. This very model was sent for a reference to Dzerzhinsky Ordnance Academy. The outstanding soviet scientist in the field of shooting arms A. A. Blagonravov took an interest in the Kalashnikov submachine gun. Though he didn't recommend the submachine gun for service, the talent of the inventor, originality in the decision of a lot of technical questions were highly estimated by him and as a result Blagonravov made everything to direct the self-taught-designer to study. Since 1942 M. T. Kalashnikov served in Central Research Small Arms Range of the Main Ordnance Directorate of the Red Army."

"In 1944 Kalashnikov developed an experimental model of the self-loading carbine, it's main units became the base for a creation of a new submachin gun in 1946 which gained a brilliant victory in difficult competitive tests. In 1949 after completion the automatic device was adopted by the Soviet Army, and senior sergeant M.T. Kalashnikov was awarded by the Stalin Price First Class."

See also:
Biography of M.Kalashnikov.
http://www.kalashnikov-museum.udmnet.ru/kalash5e.htm

For Patriotism and Profit An interview with Mikhail Kalashnikov
http://www.worldpress.org/cover5.htm

Edit to add:

From Wesley

"Ever seen a MP44? Handled one? Disassembled one? Fired one?"

Yes, Yes, Yes, No- I maybe able to post some photos of the one here in Calgary but it will never be fired as it has apparently a very high value as there are not many around. There are most likley a few of the old 1st Bn types who may be able to answer if this one was ever fired as I understand as part of garrison duties they were responsible for cleaning the Museum of the Regiments artifacts.


----------



## MG34 (27 Sep 2007)

The simularities  are cosmetic only as they use a different mechanism,although the designer (Hugo Schmeisser) of the MKb.42(H) which became the MP44,  did work at the same factory as Kalashnikov for a period of time and no doubt had input in the refinement of the weapons ergonomics and final form.


----------



## KevinB (27 Sep 2007)

There was a Stg44 brought out for a Foreign weapon shoot in Connaught circa 1990 -- not sure if it was a DND owned gun or a personal one.  I got to shoot 10rds as ammo was limited.  

 * I met Gen. Kalashnikov at the opening of the Eugene Stoner Museum inside KAC's Titusville facilty (circa 2002?)


----------



## TCBF (27 Sep 2007)

MG34 said:
			
		

> The simularities  are cosmetic only as they use a different mechanism,although the designer (Hugo Schmeisser) of the MKb.42(H) which became the MP44,  did work at the same factory as Kalashnikov for a period of time and no doubt had input in the refinement of the weapons ergonomics and final form.



- Interesting.  Did Hugo end up in East Germany post 45 or did MTK visit CETME in Spain? (CETME being the 'Spanish' pre-G3/HK-91).


----------



## vonGarvin (27 Sep 2007)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the _Stürmgewehr_ 43 (Stg 43)was the official designation, or rather, the original designation of the "forefather" of the AK-47 (I haven't the foggiest if they were invented simultaneously, one was stolen, or whatever), but the "gun makers" were for some reason forbidden to go forward with this weapon due to Hitlerpolitik, and was redesignated MP 44.  (MP for _Maschinenpistole_)


----------



## TCBF (27 Sep 2007)

- I had thought that it was A.H. himself who coined the term "Stürmgewehr" (Assault Rifle) after he had seen it demonstrated.  He was originally enraged by the design as he had previously stated (due to his cbt experience) that the infantry needed a full powered cartridge.


----------



## KevinB (27 Sep 2007)

What was explained to me jives with TCBF's recollection.

  Hilter felt that the system was wasting resources and was goign to kill the program- but upon demonstration bid them name it Stürmgewehr for morale etc issues. 

MP-44 was the logical progression for non "rifle" round weapon systems.

A side note Marstar imports a new semi-auto only version.  I'm going to get one next month I think.


----------



## vonGarvin (27 Sep 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> What was explained to me jives with TCBF's recollection.
> 
> Hilter felt that the system was wasting resources and was goign to kill the program- but upon demonstration bid them name it Stürmgewehr for morale etc issues.
> 
> MP-44 was the logical progression for non "rifle" round weapon systems.


Makes sense to me.  I knew that somehow Hilter had his hands in it somehow

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGRpPGRZ1pE


----------



## 1feral1 (27 Sep 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> What was explained to me jives with TCBF's recollection.
> 
> A side note Marstar imports a new semi-auto only version.  I'm going to get one next month I think.


The one I fired was owned by an American in the US. Shot about 10 or 15 rds, (reloads) into a old washing machine, ya bout 1980. Back in the late 80s, early 90s some genuine MP44 CAs appeared in Canada, came from the former East Germany via a clearing house in the UK, and even the ball ammo that appeared in Canada was 1970s vintage, yes East German made 7.92 x33mm!

I had a look at the MARSTAR ones on the net, would be nice to see them. Kevin with all that $$ you are making, you could buy them as Xmas gifts for us, however, I'd have to store mine at your place, such things are 'bad guns' here.


Cheers

Wes


----------



## a_majoor (28 Sep 2007)

Like so many other things, proto assault rifles were developed long before the MP-44 or AK-47. Some early examples:

http://www.65grendel.com/art002arammo.htm



> Development Before World War 2
> 
> The elements of an assault rifle were in place surprisingly early in the history of automatic weapons. Self-loading rifles were developed before the end of the 19th Century and the first selective fire (semi or full auto) rifle using a medium-power cartridge was probably the Italian 6.5mm Cei-Rigotti, developed between 1900 and 1905, but this was not adopted.
> 
> ...



But then again, just because something is possible does not mean it will be adopted (look at the British EM-2 bullpup assault rifle of the late 1940's early 1950's)


----------



## MedTechStudent (29 Oct 2007)

the real thing to remember here is that the AK-47 was a success because of its simplicity, I mean even if it was a copy of another design, it downgraded it and it was a surprising success.  That gun is used in almost EVERY war faught in third world countries, africa, south america....whats that quote from Lord Of War? "its so easy a child could use it, and they DO"..it never jams, it fires whether its full of sand or water logged, you can run it over, blow it up, call it bad names and it just smiles and keeps fireing, its the bloody Second Coming....oh my god, we've gotta stop it!!!, lol...sorry, got a little carried away

the point is, its just the standard for high power rifles, US forces in Vientam used to THROW AWAY their M16s and pick up the AKs lol, that MIGHT have been becasue the M16 jammed and was made of plastic that shatterd if you hit Charlie with it?


----------



## 1feral1 (29 Oct 2007)

Dorricott-MedTech said:
			
		

> the real thing to remember here is that the AK-47 was a success because of its simplicity, I mean even if it was a copy of another design, it downgraded it and it was a surprising success.  That gun is used in almost EVERY war faught in third world countries, africa, south america....whats that quote from Lord Of War? "its so easy a child could use it, and they DO"..it never jams, it fires whether its full of sand or water logged, you can run it over, blow it up, call it bad names and it just smiles and keeps fireing, its the bloody Second Coming....oh my god, we've gotta stop it!!!, lol...sorry, got a little carried away
> 
> the point is, its just the standard for high power rifles, US forces in Vientam used to THROW AWAY their M16s and pick up the AKs lol, that MIGHT have been becasue the M16 jammed and was made of plastic that shatterd if you hit Charlie with it?



Kyle, stick to your lane before you get spanked on here. The M16 faimly of weapons is great, and US soldiers did not throw away their rfiles like toys, and it was not made of plastic. The AK is not all cracked up to be what it is, and I would suggest doing searches on stuff.


Regards,

Wes


----------



## MedTechStudent (29 Oct 2007)

I'm not saying that they all threw them away, and you're right the M16 is a great gun I'm not saying its not... I'm saying that in Vietnam conditions, they were very hard to keep clean, and they jammed.  They are made of high strength plastic instead of iron and wood like the AK.  And there ARE reports of US soldiers laying their M16s down and picking up AKs in the feild.  That WAS researched, its documented.  And in terms of this thread, if I thought that any of us actually were IN Vietnam I would not have said anything but since none of us were am I not allowed to voice my opinion?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Oct 2007)

Back it up there bub. Things have already been explained to you. Accept it or not, that's your choice. There are consequences to new members professing expert opinion, where none exists. Better leave it go. BTW, there are some here that were there, so your opinion has already been trumped.


----------



## vonGarvin (29 Oct 2007)

Dorricott-MedTech said:
			
		

> I'm not saying that they all threw them away, and you're right the M16 is a great gun I'm not saying its not... I'm saying that in Vietnam conditions, they were very hard to keep clean, and they jammed.  They are made of high strength plastic instead of iron and wood like the AK.  And there ARE reports of US soldiers laying their M16s down and picking up AKs in the feild.  That WAS researched, its documented.  And in terms of this thread, if I thought that any of us actually were IN Vietnam I would not have said anything but since none of us were am I not allowed to voice my opinion?


OK, back in the lane here, the jamming problems were found to be caused by poor user maintenance (eg: they weren't cleaning their rifles properly, or whatever).  That was rectified by the chain of command.  Period.  As for Vietnam vets being on "army dot ca", well, there are some.  I for one, am not, though my father in law served there (volunteer, not draftee) in 1966-1967, artillery signaller.  (that point is moot, though,)


----------



## MedTechStudent (29 Oct 2007)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Back it up there bub. Things have already been explained to you. Accept it or not, that's your choice. There are consequences to new members professing expert opinion, where none exists. Better leave it go. BTW, there are some here that were there, so your opinion has already been trumped.



.... i would love for one of the people who were there to tell me I'm wrong then....and my opinion is NOT expect, and I'm not trying to portray it as such.  I'm just posting what I have learned.

also ya that is why they jammed, also because the 5.56 ammo they gave to the troops was low quality power that stuck to is caused a build up of dirk in the weapon, they switched out the ammo and most of the problem stopped....now just becasue I wasn't THERE does not mean that i dont know it too be true, so why is that such a problem to everyone here?...are we not here to learn?


----------



## 1feral1 (29 Oct 2007)

Kyle, in the real world, any rifle is hard to keep clean, including the AK, especially in combat conditions. Dust and sand can be as damaging as moisture.

We also had AKs as back-ups when I was in Iraq. In WW2, Canadians also laid down their .303s, and used captured weapons too when in a pinch. Soldiers will use anything when there is a crisis with their issued rifles, and when their lives are at stake.

You have nil experience, so don't rely on urban myths and rumours which you think are gospel. Like I said stick to your lane, its for your own good, and your own credibility.

For the record, the only thing plastic on an M16 is the pistol grip, butt, and forestock. There is NO IRON on AKs, the reciever is made of light cheap STAMPED steel.

Quit while you are ahead.

I think I have said enough here.


Cheers,

Wes


----------



## MedTechStudent (29 Oct 2007)

ok fair enough i won't say anymore

cheers, Kyle

like I'm not trying to cause trouble, better I get told what I'm allowed to do now than later lol


----------



## DirtyDog (29 Oct 2007)

Also.....  try and work on your spelling, grammar, and punctuation.


----------



## MedTechStudent (29 Oct 2007)

Ya I notised that as well.  You have to give me a little bit of a break though.  Laptops are hard to type on when you first get them.


----------



## Roy Harding (29 Oct 2007)

Dorricott-MedTech said:
			
		

> _*ok fair enough i won't say anymore*_
> 
> cheers, Kyle
> 
> like I'm not trying to cause trouble, better I get told what I'm allowed to do now than later lol



And yet, you post this:



			
				Dorricott-MedTech said:
			
		

> Ya I notised that as well.  You have to give me a little bit of a break though.  Laptops are hard to type on when you first get them.



Please control your compulsion to push the Reply button.  Sit back, read (there's a LOT of stuff to read, here).  In fact - here are some suggestions for you:


Welcome to Army.ca. Here are some reading references that are core to how Army.ca operates. I strongly recommend you take a moment to read through these to give you a better sense for the environment here. It will help you avoid the common pitfalls which can result in miscommunication and confusion. For those that choose not to read, their actions often lead to warnings being issued or even permanent bans.

Army.ca Conduct Guidelines: MUST READ - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24937.0.html

MSN and ICQ "short hand" -  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/33247.0.html

Regarding the use of "MSN speak" versus the employment of prose which is correct in grammar, spelling and punctuation, please see: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/34015/post-260446.html#msg260446

Tone and Content on Army.ca: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/51970.0.html

FRIENDLY ADVICE TO NEW MEMBERS - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24937/post-259412.html#msg259412

Frequently Asked Questions - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/41136.0.html

    * Recruiting FAQ - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/21101.0.html
    * Army.ca Wiki Recruiting FAQ - http://army.ca/wiki/index.php/Frequently_Asked_Questions
          o Canadian Forces Aptitude Test - http://army.ca/forums/threads/21101/post-103977.html#msg103977
          o Fitness requirements at enrolment, see page 12 of this brochure: http://64.254.158.112/pdf/physical_fitness_en.pdf

    * Infantry Specific FAQ - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/21131.0.html


Search page - http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?action=search;advanced

Google search of Army.ca - http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=+site%3Aarmy.ca+%22search+term%22&btnG=Search&meta= (follow the link then replace "search term" with what you are looking for)

Army.ca wiki pages - http://army.ca/wiki/index.php/Main_Page


To summarize. Welcome to Army.ca, start reading.


Roy Harding
Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## MedTechStudent (29 Oct 2007)

Allright, thanks Roy


----------



## Loachman (29 Oct 2007)

I think that most of us appreciate where you're coming from, Kyle, and while some of the comments going your way may seem harsh others have got far worse. From what's being said, it seems that some people like you and are willing to be patient. There are limits to that, however.

You would be better off to absorb what's being said, and search through some of the older threads. If you want to know about something in particular, use the "search" function to see what's been said before. Chances are that there's already a ton of stuff on that subject already and looking at those threads can save you and us a lot of extra work. Few of us appreciate typing out a long answer over and over again everytime somebody new joins and expects to be spoon-fed everything. If you genuinely cannot find an answer to a question, say so and ask it. People are extremely willing to help out somebody that's done his/her homework.

This forum is remarkably like the Armed Forces. The same attitudes and expectations exist here and there - which should come as no surprise.

When you are on a course - any course - you are expected to show up on time, properly kitted out, and prepared for any particular activity. You will rapidly discover that inattention, disorganization, and laziness will be dealt with quite unmercifully.

As for the opinion part, can you imagine the reactions of your instructors if you voice an opinion about something that they've been doing for years or decades? You would simply have no credibility and would be laughed at. If, however, you said something along the lines of "I heard/read such-and-such, is that correct?" rather than stating something as a fact when you've never experienced it, you will be perceived to have an inquiring mind and an interest in your chosen field.

As time progresses and you gain experience, you too will be able to contribute solid information and advice to  even newer people - and you will also begin to see things from our point of view.

Regardless, stick with the Armed Forces and Army.ca. Both can be absolutely brilliant, and you can derive great personal benefit while making a worthy contribution, but it all depends upon you.


----------



## MedTechStudent (29 Oct 2007)

Thanks for the advice.  It IS appreciated

Kyle


----------

