Mikhail Kalashnikov had died

[Eternal_Freedom]

Source: BBC Obituary.

Mikhail Kalashnikov's automatic rifle became one of the most familiar weapons on the planet.

It was employed by the armies of dozens of countries, and incorporated in several national flags.

But the AK47 also became a symbol of revolution around the world. It saw action on battlefields as diverse as Angola, Vietnam, Algeria and Afghanistan.

It was also heavily utilised by Palestinian groups and famously appeared in the hands of Osama bin Laden.

It's comparative simplicity made it cheap to manufacture as well as reliable and easy to maintain in the field. It became the most widely used assault rifle in the world.

Yet Kalashnikov, although honoured in Russia, made very little money from his gun and once complained he would have been financially better off designing a lawnmower.

Mikhail Kalashnikov was born on 10 November 1919 into a Russian peasant family in the village of Kurya, Altai Territory. He was one of 18 children, of whom only six survived.

He was called up by the Red Army in 1938, and his design skills were used to improve the effectiveness of arms and equipment used in Soviet tank regiments.

It was after he was wounded in October 1941, when the tank he commanded was struck by a German shell, that Kalashnikov began to design the firearm that was to make his name famous.

The German army had pioneered the concept of an assault rifle, a weapon that combined the accuracy of a conventional rifle with the firepower of a sub-machine gun.

Russian troops frequently found themselves outgunned by German weapons which were far superior to those available to the Soviet army.

Mikhail Kalashnikov with his AK47 rifle
An estimated 100 million Kalashnikov rifles have been produced
While he was in hospital he was approached by a fellow soldier who asked why the Russian army could not come up with a gun that would match that of the Germans.

"So I designed a machine gun for a soldier," he said. "It was called an Avtomat Kalashnikova, the automatic weapon of Kalashnikov."

There were teething problems with early prototypes but in 1947 he completed the Avtomat Kalashnikova model 1947, the name quickly shortened to AK47.

The new rifle was adopted by the Soviet army in 1949 and Senior Sergeant Mikhail Timofeevitch Kalashnikov was awarded the Stalin Prize First Class.

It was just one of many awards he was to be given, among them three Orders of Lenin and the Hero of Socialist Labour.

Lebanese boy holding an AK47
A Lebanese boy holds an AK47
In 1987 he was made an honourable citizen of Izhevsk, where he had lived and worked from 1949. On his 75th birthday, he was promoted to Major-General by President Boris Yeltsin.

However the simplicity of his weapon meant that he failed to gain much financial benefit from his invention.

Dozens of arms manufacturers in other countries found the AK47 very easy to copy and few paid any royalties because of a dispute over patents.

But late in life - when he was 83 - Kalashnikov was reported to have acquired a 30% share of a German company in exchange for the use of his name for products including Kalashnikov umbrellas and mineral water.

But it is the AK47 which guarantees that his name will be remembered.

Mikhail Kalashnikov refused to accept any responsibility for the many people killed with the weapon.

"My aim was to create armaments to protect the borders of my motherland," he said.

"It is not my fault that the Kalashnikov was used in many troubled places. I think the policies of these countries are to blame, not the designers."

[Sea Skimmer]

Rest in peace, another veteran of the war gone forevermore.

More kills then the atomic bomb has ever gotten, more production then any other firearm, it won't be surprising if its still being produced in another sixty six years, if not a hundred. Certainly a variant still will be.

Kinda silly how the factory didn't patent the design until the later 1990s when they realized they could actually make money exporting them to the US though, which then saved them from bankruptcy later. Kalashnikov never had any rights to the thing, the only money he made past his salary were a few socialist labour prize award sorts of grants over the years.

[Borgholio]

"It is not my fault that the Kalashnikov was used in many troubled places. I think the policies of these countries are to blame, not the designers."

Raises an interesting question that can be applied to others such as Samuel Colt or Richard Gatling. "What level of responsibility does a weapon designer have for people killed by his his weapon?"

On one hand, he's right. He only designed the weapon, he didn't force people around the use it. And if he didn't design it, people would just use other means to kill each other. On the other hand, did more people die due to the invention of the AK-47 than otherwise would hve? What would the historical impact have been if the AK-47 had never been invented?

[Mr Bean]

"It is not my fault that the Kalashnikov was used in many troubled places. I think the policies of these countries are to blame, not the designers."

Raises an interesting question that can be applied to others such as Samuel Colt or Richard Gatling. "What level of responsibility does a weapon designer have for people killed by his his weapon?"

On one hand, he's right. He only designed the weapon, he didn't force people around the use it. And if he didn't design it, people would just use other means to kill each other. On the other hand, did more people die due to the invention of the AK-47 than otherwise would hve? What would the historical impact have been if the AK-47 had never been invented?

What Kalashnikov did was not ground breaking per say. There were many other proto-assault rifles at the time with the STG-43/44 as the most famous example.

What Kalashnikov did was put together a weapon that worked. Not the best, but at the time the most reliable, easy to make hard to break weapon that anyone could learn how to use in minutes and did not mind being mistreated or even maintained. If he had not created the AK-47 we would be using different weapons but just as deadly today.

[K. A. Pital]

The reliability and ease of manufacture certainly made Kalashnikov a weapon of choice for any -stan out there looking to arm an army or some rebels or whoever else wants it. However, Kalashnikov was also the weapon of choice for many anti-colonialist rebels. It may be called a weapon of the last resort. When there's very few options to arm yourself, a Kalashnikov is something you can manufacture locally. Evens the odds, so to say.

Is that a bad thing? I'm not so sure.

[Zixinus]

What I wonder is how powerful is the effect that the Soviet union made the weapon standard. I think that's a big influence on the weapon's popularity: all the soviet union countries made the same weapon with only slight modifications, and in large quantities (for what was a conscript army). So maybe part of the weapon's popularity lies in just how large amounts of the same weapon was produced.
Which then were sold/supplied to poorer nations' people in large numbers.

Meanwhile, the NATO countries couldn't agree similarly on a NATO-wide standard assault rifle (I read something about the US vetoing anything not made in the US).

[Lonestar]

Meanwhile, the NATO countries couldn't agree similarly on a NATO-wide standard assault rifle (I read something about the US vetoing anything not made in the US).

Neither could the WARPAC countries. For instance, Czechoslovakia didn't use a AKM variant at all, and most of the Eastern Block countries made their own versions of AKMs, some better than others.

In this NATO is in practice close ot a standard by having everyone use a a rifle that accepts STANAG magazines.

[Lonestar]

Also, in a year they can just dig him up, clean the cosmoline off, work his action a few times, and he'll be good to go.

[Thanas]

In this NATO is in practice close ot a standard by having everyone use a a rifle that accepts STANAG magazines.

Unless you are Heckler&Koch and manage to screw that up by having the G36 jam at will. But I digress.

I don't really feel one way or the other regarding Kalashnikovs death. Sure, his rifles caused a lot of death but there is no reason to assume another rifle would not have taken its place. There are a number of rugged rifles out there already - so who knows.

[Siege]

So maybe part of the weapon's popularity lies in just how large amounts of the same weapon was produced.

Dude that's no maybe, that's like the definition of popularity.

As an aside, it's hysterically funny how badly the BBC apparently wants to paint Mr. Kalashnikov as some ambiguous force in world history. In fact it's like the editor took a pretty decent obituary and tried to spice it up by injecting one or two additional narratives that go nowhere. His weapons were "heavily utilised by Palestinian groups and famously appeared in the hands of Osama bin Laden"! And yet "he failed to gain much financial benefit from his invention"!

Uh, yes? And? So? Therefore? But no, in typical Britso-American what-passes-for-journalism-these-days fashion the audience is left to infer the obviously implied 'he was a baddy' because the author chickens out just short of spelling out what he intends. That's the sort of thing I expect from the Sun or the Mirror, not the BBC. I guess all the actually decent editors were busy on other stories or something.

[Sea Skimmer]

France managed to make the FAMAS accept NATO standard ammunition and magazines, but only work well with French made ammo anyway. Probably on purpose.

If not for the AK we'd have a lot more spray and pray with the FAL and magazine fed variants of the SKS. It would have been very hard for any other single weapon to take the place of the AK-47, as shown by how poorly accepted the AK-74 has been outside of the former USSR. Indeed the Soviets tried multiple times themselves to replace the AK-47 prior to the change in calibers, generally aiming to improve the ergonomics and accuracy, but each fell short for one reason or another. Bullpups with wooden stocks look weird.

Sometimes a weapon really does just get all its measurements right, and people just stick with it.

In any event, as much as one might celebrate the AK as a tool of liberation, it was used just as much for oppression, see say, R4 rifle of South Africa which is an AK modified several times over. Guns are neutral in war.

Dude that's no maybe, that's like the definition of popularity.

Less so though when the weapons, plans and in some cases even the machinery to make them are given away free or at no cost. Or people are actively embargoing any other option, or in the case of the entire Warsaw Pact, the selection was made at a time when Soviet officers were still commanding the local armies directly. When nations had a free and even choice, the adaption rate is pretty damn bad and the FAL and G3 dominated. The FAL remains the most widely adapted military rifle ever, and generally with very very few modifications. Even the Mauser bolt action did not spread so far; though in fairness fewer countries existed at the time to adapt it! Even the US would have had the FAL if not for politicking over the cost of the machinery to make it.

[Lonestar]

France managed to make the FAMAS accept NATO standard ammunition and magazines, but only work well with French made ammo anyway. Probably on purpose.

There's a (French) vet on /r/guns who claims that they use steel cased ammo in the FAMAS because the extractor rips brass/has too many FTEs with brass.

[Sidewinder]

France managed to make the FAMAS accept NATO standard ammunition and magazines, but only work well with French made ammo anyway. Probably on purpose.

There's a (French) vet on /r/guns who claims that they use steel cased ammo in the FAMAS because the extractor rips brass/has too many FTEs with brass.

FTE= failure to eject? Or does the acronym stand for something else?

[Lonestar]

Failure to eject

[Zixinus]

Dude that's no maybe, that's like the definition of popularity.

Yes, but it's not popularity when you're ordered to do it, rather than choose to take it. My question is: is it popularity when the people first actively chosen it there was already readily millions of it?

Neither could the WARPAC countries. For instance, Czechoslovakia didn't use a AKM variant at all, and most of the Eastern Block countries made their own versions of AKMs, some better than others.

Erm, my point was that they still adopted the AKM, even if with their own modifications.

[Irbis]

Yes, but it's not popularity when you're ordered to do it, rather than choose to take it. My question is: is it popularity when the people first actively chosen it there was already readily millions of it?

Israel and Finland, two countries with very high level of professionalism in armed forces, picked AK-47 (albeit modified) produced locally as their army rifles without any outside pressure.

If not for the AK we'd have a lot more spray and pray with the FAL and magazine fed variants of the SKS.

Why? The 1946 army rifle contest AK-47 won in the end saw 3 rifles in the final exam. Other 2 were worse, but with army requested modifications could have been Soviet rifle of choice.

When nations had a free and even choice, the adaption rate is pretty damn bad and the FAL and G3 dominated.

Israel replaced their FALs with AKs after real war lessons. I wouldn't say the choice was in any way "free", if you were part of the Western sphere, you adopted rifle firing standard NATO bullet, and the FAL just happened to be the best one of these. When it turned out Soviet bullet idea was far better and NATO rushed to adopt 5.56 instead, how many of these countries kept FALs, exactly?

[Lonestar]

Israel and Finland, two countries with very high level of professionalism in armed forces, picked AK-47 (albeit modified) produced locally as their army rifles without any outside pressure.

Both of those countries rely(or used to) mass conscription in order to a be a deterrent. None of them, at the time of the initially adoption, were especially wealthy.


I'd add that the IDF has dumped the Galil for the Tavor.

[Sea Skimmer]

Why? The 1946 army rifle contest AK-47 won in the end saw 3 rifles in the final exam. Other 2 were worse, but with army requested modifications could have been Soviet rifle of choice.

Ah well that might be the case, I thought though one of the final choices was more or less the redesigned magazine SKS. Certainly that was an original option and would have by far been the cheapest, which matter a rather great deal to the Soviets in rifle design. Thus the death of the SVT-40 and the later difficulty replacing the AK-47 itself.

Israel replaced their FALs with AKs after real war lessons. I wouldn't say the choice was in any way "free", if you were part of the Western sphere, you adopted rifle firing standard NATO bullet, and the FAL just happened to be the best one of these.

The Israelis also phased out most of their artillery, not once, but twice now, because they thought war lessons proved it was unnecessary. Great record to follow! Both times it of course led to bloody disasters. Do I need to list all the countries that dumped the AK for other designs meanwhile? Israel had a mass conscript army it needed to cram into its new fleet of M113s better, instead of the halftracks they managed to keep using into the 1980s somehow, and decided they needed a smaller weapon. But the Galil never fully reequipped the IDF, and is now being phased out completely for the Tavor and modern sniper rifles as mentioned. I am underwhelmed. Israel has bought hoards of M16s and M4s since the 1980s, and was buying them right up until the Tavor was adapted.

Finland did not actually have a free choice militarily. Finland was under massive political pressure to show if not open allegiance, then very friendly relations to the USSR at the time it made its decisions and adapted a number of other Soviet vehicle, artillery and missile weapons for political reasons in the same era. It did help that the AK was already tested for extreme arctic conditions, while some other choices were not, but then it also says something that so many modifications were made anyway.

When it turned out Soviet bullet idea was far better and NATO rushed to adopt 5.56 instead, how many of these countries kept FALs, exactly?

NATO's move to 5.56mm was fairly independent of 7.62x39 actually, which is why it happened before significant known battle experience existed with the AK-47, and why the AK's itself was later redesigned to be more like 5.56 rifles. Also why the M16 was adapted with a 20 and not a 30 round magazine from the get go. Shifts away from the FAL, which sometimes actually involved a shift to the G3, depended on location conditions. Some people use the full size guns to this day even though they are plainly outdated, because if you have wide open spaces or mountains, its just plainly superior to any intermediate rifle, and any new full caliber rifle cannot be significantly superior. I'm not sure myself just why a 5.56mm redesign of the FAL never happened, the FNC and spinoffs is an all new design. I suppose they just felt they'd save more weight with a clean sheet and FN had the design staff around to do it.

[Zaune]

There was a 5.56mm redesign of the FAL, of sorts. It just didn't really catch on, partly because nobody outside the US really wanted a new service rifle at the time but mostly because it ended up being too expensive and not very reliable.

[Sea Skimmer]

If you read your own link... it correctly explains that the CAL is an entirely different clean sheet weapon with a different operating mechanism, which is kinda the key thing here, and a different method of construction. Nothing is common except sort of they kinda look similar, at which point well, the G3 looks about as much like the FAL as the CAL does too. Actually if anything one might claim the CAL kinda looks more like a G3 then a FAL thanks to the angled magazines.

I've heard of civilian gunsmith conversion 5.56mm FALs, but never an FN or licensed builder factory one. A funky prototype gun for Project Salvo existed, but this was only partially FAL parts, and still used the full sized cartridge, just necked down to hold a pair of stacked 5.56mm bullets not directly related to 5.56x45mm

[Scottish Ninja]

Brazil actually took a stab at a 5.56 FAL - but directly adapting the design doesn't seem to have worked out:

Early MD-1 prototypes retained the FAL-type tilting bolt with a locking shoulder immediately behind the magazine well. This was not found to work well with the 5.56mm round, so subsequent prototypes and the final design incorporated an M16-type 7-lug rotating bolt into the design.

I thought I'd read somewhere that this was the case as well - FN tried the tilting bolt, found it wanting, and redesigned the CAL. I couldn't tell you any more about what went wrong, though.

[CaptHawkeye]

The Israelis also phased out most of their artillery, not once, but twice now, because they thought war lessons proved it was unnecessary. Great record to follow! Both times it of course led to bloody disasters.

...what?

Not to move too far off topic here but what would convince the Israelis artillery had no future?

[Irbis]

Both of those countries rely(or used to) mass conscription in order to a be a deterrent. None of them, at the time of the initially adoption, were especially wealthy.

And? They produced the rifles locally, they could have picked any design, but both ultimately picked AK after tests. What is worth noting AK won both tests in extreme cold (Finland) and heat (Israel).

I'd add that the IDF has dumped the Galil for the Tavor.

One point of order, Tavor is 40 years younger, and the Galil was by then long drowned financially by flood of free US ammunition (wrong caliber for early Galils) and later piles of free rifles delivered as military bribe aid. If anything, Tavor started replacing US made guns. Also, despite the above, Israeli forces still use Galils.

Ah well that might be the case, I thought though one of the final choices was more or less the redesigned magazine SKS. Certainly that was an original option and would have by far been the cheapest, which matter a rather great deal to the Soviets in rifle design. Thus the death of the SVT-40 and the later difficulty replacing the AK-47 itself.

I'd need to check my firearms history book, but IIRC one rifle was actually a bull-pup, near adoption of which almost changed the shape of world arms development, even.

The Israelis also phased out most of their artillery, not once, but twice now, because they thought war lessons proved it was unnecessary. Great record to follow! Both times it of course led to bloody disasters. Do I need to list all the countries that dumped the AK for other designs meanwhile?

A) seeing they actually won all their cold war era wars, yes, that is a great record

B) You claimed FAL won when there was a free choice, but actually, there are several examples of FALs being replaced by AKs (Israel above, plus India replacing FAL with INSAS in 90s, so we can safely discount Soviet pressure). How many examples did it other way, AK to FAL? I can't recall any.

And yes, AKs were replaced, but usually when they were already over 40-50 years old by then, or the country changed allegiance to West and got a dump of surplus rifles as a reward. Still, some countries keep AK despite both of the above - see for example Polish modernized variant, Beryl, currently being purchased alongside western rifles.

Israel had a mass conscript army it needed to cram into its new fleet of M113s better, instead of the halftracks they managed to keep using into the 1980s somehow, and decided they needed a smaller weapon.

Not because FALs keep breaking in combat to the point desperate Israeli soldiers kept looting Arab AKs on the battlefield?

But the Galil never fully reequipped the IDF, and is now being phased out completely for the Tavor and modern sniper rifles as mentioned. I am underwhelmed. Israel has bought hoards of M16s and M4s since the 1980s, and was buying them right up until the Tavor was adapted.

They didn't "bought" them, they got them free. Yes, rifle that actually cost Israel money 'lost' to US aid dump - and somehow is still both in service and production despite Walmart 0$ specials.

Finland did not actually have a free choice militarily. Finland was under massive political pressure to show if not open allegiance, then very friendly relations to the USSR at the time it made its decisions and adapted a number of other Soviet vehicle, artillery and missile weapons for political reasons in the same era.

These were bought from USSR. Rk 62 was as I recall basically royalty-free, pirated gun, that is still the only rifle in FDF service. USSR still pressures Fins?

Shifts away from the FAL, which sometimes actually involved a shift to the G3, depended on location conditions. Some people use the full size guns to this day even though they are plainly outdated, because if you have wide open spaces or mountains, its just plainly superior to any intermediate rifle, and any new full caliber rifle cannot be significantly superior.

Well, it says something about AK that despite being older it's still not outdated. Also, wide open spaces, you say? Like mountains of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Tibet, India, China? The whole of Hindu Kush is armed with AKs, not full powered rifles. Most of them had FALs, too, but unlike AK they didn't stood the test of time.

[Lonestar]

And? They produced the rifles locally, they could have picked any design, but both ultimately picked AK after tests. What is worth noting AK won both tests in extreme cold (Finland) and heat (Israel)

If you're relying on mass conscription, it behooves you to pick something that is cheap to make...which of course the AK platform is.

So is the AR platform, but CNC tooling wasn't as mature in the 50s/60s/70s as it is now, which means until relatively recently it was much cheaper to go with stamped metal and spot welding.

One point of order, Tavor is 40 years younger, and the Galil was by then long drowned financially by flood of free US ammunition (wrong caliber for early Galils) and later piles of free rifles delivered as military bribe aid. If anything, Tavor started replacing US made guns. Also, despite the above, Israeli forces still use Galils.

Switching to a Tavor is probably more a reflection of Israel's economic growth and being able to afford/design better quality rifles than anything else. Rverse engineering a AK was the best the Israeli armaments industry could manage in the late 60s.

[Irbis]

If you're relying on mass conscription, it behooves you to pick something that is cheap to make...which of course the AK platform is.

One note, both of your posts are ahistorical. You seem to contrast west with east, saying AK made sense because it was adapted to conscript armies. What, pray tell, system west armies used? Don't remember US home protests over Korea and Vietnam? All armies of Cold War were using conscription! If AK made sense for conscript army, everyone should adopt it. Switch to professional army is very late Cold War development that in most cases was finished post Cold War.

Switching to a Tavor is probably more a reflection of Israel's economic growth and being able to afford/design better quality rifles than anything else. Rverse engineering a AK was the best the Israeli armaments industry could manage in the late 60s.

Really? Israel produced wide range of guns, including Uzi, one of the most popular submachine guns in history, before they did Galil. Why they wouldn't be able to produce any of 7 rifles that went through their tests before they picked AK as a base?

Sea Skimmer ridicules Israel for saying artillery was obsolete, but criticism of the exact same kind can be applied to full power rifle. It was a product of archaic, XIX century mindset envisioning professional soldiers conducting long range duels with big rifles. It was proven absurd in First World War - new, massed armies relied on low quality conscripts with basic training that simply couldn't use the rifle's full capability. They had no skills for it. Soldiers shooted at targets up to 300 metres, further than that, killing was the role of the artillery. This was proven again in Second World War - rifles were far too unwieldy, slow firing, and demanded too big skills. Germans and Russians responded to it by first mass equipping smg's, then by experimenting with low powered rounds. British and French learned this too, hence their own experiments with small ammunition. Everyone did...

Except Americans, of course. Enter the US army pushing everyone to adopt ammunition just proved wrong in two major wars, or else. After many gnashing of teeth and adaptation of modern designs to obsolete round... Americans went and instead of adopting FAL, which at least was modern gun, adopted M14 rifle. Which lost to FAL, badly, in every single test, as it was construction obsolete 10 years before production even started. But it was MURICAN gun, and USA simply cannot be wrong, am I right?

To make the story even funnier, when USA saw the light and (again, completely unilaterally) adopted 5.56, resulting in many curses from EU Nato countries that had better ammunition on drawing boards 20 years prior, they managed to screw up even that. By putting obsolete powder into US made 5.56, which quickly started fouling up their brand new assault rifles, despite quite a lot of wishful thinking and trying to hand-wave reality by bigwigs and execs saying both rifle and bullets were completely fine. It's just the soldiers were inadequate at fitting into wishful 8-shaped hole.

If AK had one big advantage, it was because it was designed to fit reality, unlike two above examples. Soviets recognized that 9/10 of soldiers can't fire accurately past 300 metres, nor in vast majority of cases needs to - so they equipped them with light, small gun that could carry a lot more ammo in less weight and gave Soviet soldier much larger punch than NATO one. That one soldier that could use full rifle accuracy? He was designated squad marksman and got weapon like SVD, better than run of the mill battle rifle, designed to capitalize on his accuracy. USA preferred wishful thinking about soldiers that won't be affected by extra weight, soldiers with perfect morale and eyesight, calmly firing to 700 metres while under artillery fire.

In a way, it reminds me of "cold steel" obsession, another mindset that expected robotic precision and lack of panic from soldiers.