The AK-47(coolmilitarystuff.com)
coolmilitarystuff.com
The AK-47
https://coolmilitarystuff.com/the-ak-47/
203 comments
He meant assault rifle not machine gun right?
The meanings of all the various words describing firearms has been, particularly in the last 100 years or so, fairly loose. There aren't really hard definitions for "assault rifle", "machine gun", "sub machine gun", "pistol", etc, and they're even frequently used interchangeably for some platforms. They mean different things to different people in various legal and social contexts as well, to spite what internet keyboard commandos will say.
In particular, even if you use the "internet keyboard commando" definitions, a real AK-47 is both an assault rifle and a machine gun.
In particular, even if you use the "internet keyboard commando" definitions, a real AK-47 is both an assault rifle and a machine gun.
There’s also the fact that Soviet military doctrine actually treated the AK as a sub machine gun. The Red Army in WW2 made heavy use of SMGs, much more than the western armies, perhaps to compensate for their relatively low level of marksmanship and tactical training. Their assaults relied on getting large numbers of soldiers up as close as possible and belting out as many bullets as they could.
I'm not a firearm expert by any means but still have a vague understanding of the those groupings - "assault rifle", "machine gun", "sub machine gun", "pistol" with one excpetion.
Carbine.
The best line I've read on it was something like - it's a relatively low powered shoulder fired weapon but can only be called a carbine if it's manufactured in the Carbine region of France. I thought that was funny but honestly I've got nothing better.
Carbine.
The best line I've read on it was something like - it's a relatively low powered shoulder fired weapon but can only be called a carbine if it's manufactured in the Carbine region of France. I thought that was funny but honestly I've got nothing better.
Yeah it's a heavily overused term. Best I can tell, it's come to mean a particular barrel length, somewhere between 14 and 16 inches but it can be any caliber or cartridge type really. It's supposed to be a short handy rifle, where a full size rifle is somewhere at 20+ inches.
I am pretty sure the Russian the word used here was “автомат” which means “automatic gun”. But even if it’s the other word “пулемёт” (what machine guns are called) it would also apply to the ak47 well enough.
Seems likely to be a translation error, or in reference to how he also worked on designing machine guns and light machine guns. The round the AK-47 uses is used by some machine guns, so that might be how it got mixed up.
And the Lord blesseth the man for his wonderful work with 93 years of full life. /s
Seems he was also battling with guilt most of his life. One year before his death, Mikhail Kalashnikov wrote a letter to the head of the Russian Orthodox Church.
Excerpts:
Excerpts:
“I keep having the same unsolved question: if my rifle claimed people’s lives, then can it be that I… a Christian and an Orthodox believer, was to blame for their deaths?”
“The longer I live, the more this question drills itself into my brain and the more I wonder why the Lord allowed man to have the devilish desires of envy, greed and aggression.”If this article was interesting to you, I strongly recommend "The Gun", by C.J. Chivers.
It's a history of the "AK family of rifles", and the AK-47 in particular. It starts well before that, with the impact of automatic weapons on warfare in general, but quickly comes back to the development of the AK. It covers a lot of interesting details around the social, political, and technical environment that led to the creation of the AK and its development since.
From a US-centric political perspective, the author seems pretty obviously "anti-gun". That said, it's one of those rare books where the author's political perspective is pretty much irrelevant. It's extremely well-researched and well-written. It's honestly an enjoyable read if you're at all interested in history, politics, warfare, or industrial design.
It's a history of the "AK family of rifles", and the AK-47 in particular. It starts well before that, with the impact of automatic weapons on warfare in general, but quickly comes back to the development of the AK. It covers a lot of interesting details around the social, political, and technical environment that led to the creation of the AK and its development since.
From a US-centric political perspective, the author seems pretty obviously "anti-gun". That said, it's one of those rare books where the author's political perspective is pretty much irrelevant. It's extremely well-researched and well-written. It's honestly an enjoyable read if you're at all interested in history, politics, warfare, or industrial design.
Many years ago, I read a breakdown of the systems thinking behind the development of the AK-47. It showed how the design features of the gun related to the goal of optimizing number of enemy killed for expenditure of all forms of resources. Does this book cover that in detail or point to studies that do?
Where could I find this breakdown you mention?
It was so long ago, I don't even remember whether it was in a book or article. That's why I asked, hoping to find it again. I just remember being impressed with the complex considerations behind what initially appeared to be simplistic design choices.
In 2010 there were a lot of articles about "The gun: the AK-47 and the evolution of war" by Christopher John Chivers which described its design process and what the supply chain resource tradeoffs were. That's likely to be it.
I read "The Gun" a while ago and I got the feeling Chivers was pro-2A.
https://gerikson.com/blog/books/read/The-Gun.html
https://gerikson.com/blog/books/read/The-Gun.html
Seconded for the same reasons you state.
I have never touched a gun. And I don't intend to.
(I'm from a country where people don't have access to guns. And most animals here are considered exotic and shooting them is illegal.)
Nevertheless, I can appreciate a piece of good engineering, even if a little dark.
I also like other well engineered simple long-lasting stuff. Things like the Toyota Land Cruiser, BMW B57 & B58 straight-6 engines, and ThinkPad laptops come to mind.
People sometimes even say "ThinkPad is the AK-47 of laptops".
What are some other well engineered long-lasting products?
---
Update: explained why I haven't touched guns. Thanks for the downvotes ;)
(I'm from a country where people don't have access to guns. And most animals here are considered exotic and shooting them is illegal.)
Nevertheless, I can appreciate a piece of good engineering, even if a little dark.
I also like other well engineered simple long-lasting stuff. Things like the Toyota Land Cruiser, BMW B57 & B58 straight-6 engines, and ThinkPad laptops come to mind.
People sometimes even say "ThinkPad is the AK-47 of laptops".
What are some other well engineered long-lasting products?
---
Update: explained why I haven't touched guns. Thanks for the downvotes ;)
I had an old Soviet-era made excavator digger standing on my property. It was standing out there long enough for trees to grow through the cabin and way above it. We cleared them and put a little grease here and there and it started like charm.
Another random example seems to be a Remington beard trimmer I had which recently gave up after nearly 20 years of service.
Edit: I guess we should make an honourable mention for the Opportunity Mars Rover.
Another random example seems to be a Remington beard trimmer I had which recently gave up after nearly 20 years of service.
Edit: I guess we should make an honourable mention for the Opportunity Mars Rover.
> I also like other well engineered simple long-lasting stuff.
Soviet engineering as a whole is interesting in this respect. From syllabuses I've read, engineering education in the USSR was at least as rigorous as in the USA. The problem for them was that they had to design things for an extremely unreliable and inefficient society, so they had to emphasize simplicity and durability in both manufacture and use. I've seen a few books covering the social issues facing Soviet engineers and examples of notable designs.
Soviet engineering as a whole is interesting in this respect. From syllabuses I've read, engineering education in the USSR was at least as rigorous as in the USA. The problem for them was that they had to design things for an extremely unreliable and inefficient society, so they had to emphasize simplicity and durability in both manufacture and use. I've seen a few books covering the social issues facing Soviet engineers and examples of notable designs.
That bit about 'having to design for an extremely unreliable and inefficient society' sounds like Cold War Western propaganda. Soviet designs were not made efficient and durable because of that. They were made efficient and durable because that was the default for engineering until capitalism discarded that default and forced profit-maximizing designs that function over bloated specs and planned obsolescence. Otherwise in late 19th century and early 20th century, every country was more or less doing similar engineering design.
Also, the science and engineering curriculums were much heavier than the US ones. Just check a few Soviet science/eng textbooks that you can find online.
Also, the science and engineering curriculums were much heavier than the US ones. Just check a few Soviet science/eng textbooks that you can find online.
As someone who remembers the latter part of the Cold War, I can tell you that the actual inefficiencies of the Soviet system were significantly underestimated in the dominant Western narrative.
Your ideas about Soviet industry appear to be based on some ideology rather than familiarity with Soviet culture. I can't think of one single book that gives a good overview of Soviet engineering, but some good ones to start with might be Graham's The Ghost of the Executed Engineer, Gerovitch's From Newspeak to Cyberspeak, and Idov's Made in Russia: Unsung Icons of Soviet Design. I think most of the really interesting examples are in military technology, but unfortunately I don't know any good books surveying that area.
Even if there was a "good old days" of manufacture in the West when products were always designed to be as efficient and durable as possible, that is different from what I described in the USSR. Since quality of manufacture was usually terrible, Soviet designs could not demand close tolerances in manufacture and had to be considerably over-engineered to avoid catastrophic failure from manufacturing defects. The USSR was also chronically short of equipment, so for things deployed, long life and resistance to abuse was more important than polish.
Your ideas about Soviet industry appear to be based on some ideology rather than familiarity with Soviet culture. I can't think of one single book that gives a good overview of Soviet engineering, but some good ones to start with might be Graham's The Ghost of the Executed Engineer, Gerovitch's From Newspeak to Cyberspeak, and Idov's Made in Russia: Unsung Icons of Soviet Design. I think most of the really interesting examples are in military technology, but unfortunately I don't know any good books surveying that area.
Even if there was a "good old days" of manufacture in the West when products were always designed to be as efficient and durable as possible, that is different from what I described in the USSR. Since quality of manufacture was usually terrible, Soviet designs could not demand close tolerances in manufacture and had to be considerably over-engineered to avoid catastrophic failure from manufacturing defects. The USSR was also chronically short of equipment, so for things deployed, long life and resistance to abuse was more important than polish.
> actual inefficiencies of the Soviet system were significantly underestimated in the dominant Western narrative
Not at all.
> Your ideas about Soviet industry appear to be based on some ideology rather than familiarity with Soviet culture.
They are based on quite sizable knowledge of history of warfare, defense technology. Which all the effort of the Soviet system was geared towards. Placing its efficiency there.
> Since quality of manufacture was usually terrible
There. That bit is strongly-entrenched Cold War propaganda that actually stems from the aristocratic propaganda against the left-wing ideologies when they first appeared in late 19th century - 'them peasants' cant do anything good.
For example, in this outlook, we are told that T-34 had 'terrible build quality' because one could see outside from in between some riveted plates. And this is drummed up incessantly by comparing mainly Angloamerican tanks to Soviet ones. Not outright saying that those tanks were better, mind that - because the track record of that particular Soviet technology, the T-34, is too obvious to be able to deny. But anything can be smeared. And that's the objective of such propaganda. Similarly, Angloamerican establishment diminishes German or Italian technologies by smearing them with non-related issues. Absolutely no different than how outlets like Murdoch press operate today.
None of which have any relation to the questions at hand, obviously - since no bullet could statistically enter from the tiny opening in between the riveted plates of T-34, nor the 'over-complicated' German tanks had much problem with being so because they were mainly intended for defense operations in the latter parts of the war so they did not need to travel much.
Same goes for consumer sectors.
The fact that Soviet system raised more than a hundred million people from mud huts to apartments, from illiteracy to space age is undeniable. So, it is SMEARED on the 'quality' of Kruschevka apartments, and, well, its rather hard to smear Soviet scientists, but they try anyway.
The USSR was chronically short of everything outside what was needed for the military to fight World War 3, indeed. That was because they had only 15% of the world's resources to rely on in order to maintain a military bloc that was preparing to fight the war to end human civilization.
One can easily turn the table and say that, why the US, who had 85% of world's resources and who had the benefit of making entire '3rd world' work as its unpaid colonies had so much poverty, homelessness and suffering in the same period. Especially among the blacks, minorities and those who were not from the 'right' socioeconomic background.
Then again, the inefficiency is built into capitalism in the form of maximization of profit.
Not at all.
> Your ideas about Soviet industry appear to be based on some ideology rather than familiarity with Soviet culture.
They are based on quite sizable knowledge of history of warfare, defense technology. Which all the effort of the Soviet system was geared towards. Placing its efficiency there.
> Since quality of manufacture was usually terrible
There. That bit is strongly-entrenched Cold War propaganda that actually stems from the aristocratic propaganda against the left-wing ideologies when they first appeared in late 19th century - 'them peasants' cant do anything good.
For example, in this outlook, we are told that T-34 had 'terrible build quality' because one could see outside from in between some riveted plates. And this is drummed up incessantly by comparing mainly Angloamerican tanks to Soviet ones. Not outright saying that those tanks were better, mind that - because the track record of that particular Soviet technology, the T-34, is too obvious to be able to deny. But anything can be smeared. And that's the objective of such propaganda. Similarly, Angloamerican establishment diminishes German or Italian technologies by smearing them with non-related issues. Absolutely no different than how outlets like Murdoch press operate today.
None of which have any relation to the questions at hand, obviously - since no bullet could statistically enter from the tiny opening in between the riveted plates of T-34, nor the 'over-complicated' German tanks had much problem with being so because they were mainly intended for defense operations in the latter parts of the war so they did not need to travel much.
Same goes for consumer sectors.
The fact that Soviet system raised more than a hundred million people from mud huts to apartments, from illiteracy to space age is undeniable. So, it is SMEARED on the 'quality' of Kruschevka apartments, and, well, its rather hard to smear Soviet scientists, but they try anyway.
The USSR was chronically short of everything outside what was needed for the military to fight World War 3, indeed. That was because they had only 15% of the world's resources to rely on in order to maintain a military bloc that was preparing to fight the war to end human civilization.
One can easily turn the table and say that, why the US, who had 85% of world's resources and who had the benefit of making entire '3rd world' work as its unpaid colonies had so much poverty, homelessness and suffering in the same period. Especially among the blacks, minorities and those who were not from the 'right' socioeconomic background.
Then again, the inefficiency is built into capitalism in the form of maximization of profit.
[deleted]
[deleted]
There's a (long-ish) quote out there about Soviet ammunition sizes vs American/NATO. About how it's simpler etc, they have less variety of sizes, do you know what I'm talking about? I can't find it.
Doesn't ring a bell. If you can give more details about who said it, that might help someone find your answer.
Seeing your comment being downvoted is the most American thing I've witnessed on the internet today
> What are some other well engineered long-lasting products?
How dare you not mention Nokia!?
Jokes aside, if you restrict it to "long-lasting" - Japanese woodworking, Toyota Hilux, Honda Super Cub... in fact a lot of post ww2 era Japanese manufacturing.
If you include high fault tolerance as well - a lot of USSR engineering is beautiful in this aspect. I recall they design a propeller with 8 blades because they expected 4 of them will crack in early stage of usage. Same apply to screw enclosures.
> What are some other well engineered long-lasting products?
How dare you not mention Nokia!?
Jokes aside, if you restrict it to "long-lasting" - Japanese woodworking, Toyota Hilux, Honda Super Cub... in fact a lot of post ww2 era Japanese manufacturing.
If you include high fault tolerance as well - a lot of USSR engineering is beautiful in this aspect. I recall they design a propeller with 8 blades because they expected 4 of them will crack in early stage of usage. Same apply to screw enclosures.
What scares you from touching guns? Guns are fun, shooting is one of my favorite hobbies but I don't one a ton like a gun nut.
I don't begrudge anyone being scared of guns. They can have carastrophic results even when handled properly.
The snake charmer isn't afraid of snakes, but that doesn't mean that your average Joe should go around, blithely picking up every snake they see.
The snake charmer isn't afraid of snakes, but that doesn't mean that your average Joe should go around, blithely picking up every snake they see.
A snake charmer isn't afraid of snakes because he'll typically mutilate the animal by breaking the fangs or cutting out the venom sacks before going anywhere near it. A snake charmer will be afraid of every other snake.
One of the craziest stories I am familiar with when talking about an AK is from a 'Nam veteran who they stumbled upon a body that had been decaying in the jungle for two weeks or so, when they turned it over they found an AK underneath. They cleared the action, and the thing still worked flawlessly.
There is something to be said about that level of engineering.
There is something to be said about that level of engineering.
I've seen videos from Afghanistan showing US troops finding AKs buried that date from the Soviet invasion in the late 1970s. They were covered in rust and looked terrible - but were 100% operational even in that condition. Run a rod through the barrel to make sure it's clear, insert a magazine, and it still runs.
For what it's worth, the "AR family" of rifles (AR-15, M-16, M-4, etc.) actually surpass AKs in terms of field reliability and use in hostile conditions. They're built to tighter tolerances, but with the dust cover closed there isn't really any way for sand/mud/dirt to get into the action, so they continue to work.
The AK takes the opposite approach - looser tolerances and plenty of room in the action to allow foreign debris to stay out of the way and let it continue to function. You can take the dust cover off an AK, turn it upside down, and smack it a few times to knock all the junk out of the action.
AKs tend to work better with no/minimal maintenance, and are much easier to field strip and restore to operable condition. ARs require more maintenance but are easier to make (and keep) accurate, and require a bit more in terms of training and tooling to maintain under use.
I've always found it interesting that AKs are relatively easy to manufacture in rough conditions, but that ARs are easier to manufacture in the US. I can build a working AR lower receiver in the US with tools I have laying around my home (drill press, rotary tool, etc). I can't do the same for an AK because I don't have a spot welder to attach the rails. The fact that what qualifies as "easy to make" is so different depending on the environment.
For what it's worth, the "AR family" of rifles (AR-15, M-16, M-4, etc.) actually surpass AKs in terms of field reliability and use in hostile conditions. They're built to tighter tolerances, but with the dust cover closed there isn't really any way for sand/mud/dirt to get into the action, so they continue to work.
The AK takes the opposite approach - looser tolerances and plenty of room in the action to allow foreign debris to stay out of the way and let it continue to function. You can take the dust cover off an AK, turn it upside down, and smack it a few times to knock all the junk out of the action.
AKs tend to work better with no/minimal maintenance, and are much easier to field strip and restore to operable condition. ARs require more maintenance but are easier to make (and keep) accurate, and require a bit more in terms of training and tooling to maintain under use.
I've always found it interesting that AKs are relatively easy to manufacture in rough conditions, but that ARs are easier to manufacture in the US. I can build a working AR lower receiver in the US with tools I have laying around my home (drill press, rotary tool, etc). I can't do the same for an AK because I don't have a spot welder to attach the rails. The fact that what qualifies as "easy to make" is so different depending on the environment.
>I've always found it interesting that AKs are relatively easy to manufacture in rough conditions, but that ARs are easier to manufacture in the US. I can build a working AR lower receiver in the US with tools I have laying around my home (drill press, rotary tool, etc). I can't do the same for an AK because I don't have a spot welder to attach the rails.
Worse than that: AK receivers have to be stamped, rails welded on, then heat treated. A soft AK receiver will run for a while but eventually waller out all the pin holes. The gun will get more and more rattly until it can't completely chamber a round, at which point it will blow up.
The heyday of the stamped sheet metal gun was, of course, WW2. The Sten, MP 36, M3, and postwar AKM, CETME, G3, etc etc. The central planners were staring down the barrel of total war. They were thinking they would have to arm every single man, woman and child in the country. The Brits made four million Stens, at about $150 each.
For that, you want as few machining operations as possible, but you can spend on the tools themselves, since they'll be amortized over huge production runs. Therefore you see heavy industrial processes with specialized tools: 100 ton presses stamping out 20 receivers at a time, specialized heat treat ovens to make up for the downsides of metal stamping, complex assembly jigs, etc.
The AR pattern rifle is unattractive for super-mass production. Milled receivers with curved surfaces and finicky blind holes. But it's not a stressed component, so you can make the damn thing out of plastic if you want, and none of the dimensions are safety critical, since the barrel is self headspaced with bolt lugs built in. (The US could put complex features into the barrel because they could trust their subcontractors to build interchangeable parts-- the Sten had magazine feed problems the entire war because of contractors going off spec and the Soviets had innumerable problems with QA. If you can't trust outside firms then you have to build everything in house)
This means when you shoot out the barrel in an AR, your unit's armorer can put in a new one. If you wear out the barrel in an AK, you throw away the gun-- headspacing is a factory operation, and the Red Army isn't going to waste time transporting trash. Official doctrine on the US M3 was to provide no replacement parts. The whole gun was welded and riveted together. You could clean it, but otherwise it was a disposable unit. Heavy industrial processes are cheap, but not amendable to field repair.
Worse than that: AK receivers have to be stamped, rails welded on, then heat treated. A soft AK receiver will run for a while but eventually waller out all the pin holes. The gun will get more and more rattly until it can't completely chamber a round, at which point it will blow up.
The heyday of the stamped sheet metal gun was, of course, WW2. The Sten, MP 36, M3, and postwar AKM, CETME, G3, etc etc. The central planners were staring down the barrel of total war. They were thinking they would have to arm every single man, woman and child in the country. The Brits made four million Stens, at about $150 each.
For that, you want as few machining operations as possible, but you can spend on the tools themselves, since they'll be amortized over huge production runs. Therefore you see heavy industrial processes with specialized tools: 100 ton presses stamping out 20 receivers at a time, specialized heat treat ovens to make up for the downsides of metal stamping, complex assembly jigs, etc.
The AR pattern rifle is unattractive for super-mass production. Milled receivers with curved surfaces and finicky blind holes. But it's not a stressed component, so you can make the damn thing out of plastic if you want, and none of the dimensions are safety critical, since the barrel is self headspaced with bolt lugs built in. (The US could put complex features into the barrel because they could trust their subcontractors to build interchangeable parts-- the Sten had magazine feed problems the entire war because of contractors going off spec and the Soviets had innumerable problems with QA. If you can't trust outside firms then you have to build everything in house)
This means when you shoot out the barrel in an AR, your unit's armorer can put in a new one. If you wear out the barrel in an AK, you throw away the gun-- headspacing is a factory operation, and the Red Army isn't going to waste time transporting trash. Official doctrine on the US M3 was to provide no replacement parts. The whole gun was welded and riveted together. You could clean it, but otherwise it was a disposable unit. Heavy industrial processes are cheap, but not amendable to field repair.
> the Sten had magazine feed problems the entire war because of contractors going off spec and the Soviets had innumerable problems with QA. If you can't trust outside firms then you have to build everything in house)
Another good thing to point out, is that both the sten and especially soviet weapons were being produced in rapid numbers by mainly unskilled workers in semi finished factories behind the ural (in the soviet's case) or in small workshops by local machinists (in the sten's case).
Another good thing to point out, is that both the sten and especially soviet weapons were being produced in rapid numbers by mainly unskilled workers in semi finished factories behind the ural (in the soviet's case) or in small workshops by local machinists (in the sten's case).
> Milled receivers with curved surfaces and finicky blind holes.
AR-15 lower receivers are forged and then milled. Of course, referring to mass produced ones for the military. Forged parts are typically stronger than purely machined parts of the same material.
AR-15 lower receivers are forged and then milled. Of course, referring to mass produced ones for the military. Forged parts are typically stronger than purely machined parts of the same material.
Sure, but I've never seen a 20% forging that had holes through the two main stress points, the buffer tube mount and the magazine well. Won't milling down the exterior remove all the aligned crystal boundaries and take you back to billet strength?
Looking at that section again, I totally forgot to actually complete my thought there. Large stamping presses have the attractive quality of sublinear scaling: a press that can punch out twice as many parts per cycle is not twice the price.
But if you want to double the production of milled parts, you have to buy twice as many milling machines. Worse yet, you need twice as many machinists, who are going to be in desperately short supply in wartime!
But the US was not at war in 1956, and making the tradeoff of increased modularity against ease of manufacture has self-evidently paid off for the AR weapons family.
Looking at that section again, I totally forgot to actually complete my thought there. Large stamping presses have the attractive quality of sublinear scaling: a press that can punch out twice as many parts per cycle is not twice the price.
But if you want to double the production of milled parts, you have to buy twice as many milling machines. Worse yet, you need twice as many machinists, who are going to be in desperately short supply in wartime!
But the US was not at war in 1956, and making the tradeoff of increased modularity against ease of manufacture has self-evidently paid off for the AR weapons family.
> Won't milling down the exterior remove all the aligned crystal boundaries and take you back to billet strength?
Most of the forming is done using a forging press at high temperature (hot forging). The only machining that needs to happen is for holes/threads/bosses/flanges and for cleanup. Forging strength remains as is, since milling is an operation that only affects the newly milled surface atoms, not the internal grain boundries.
> Large stamping presses have the attractive quality of sublinear scaling: a press that can punch out twice as many parts per cycle is not twice the price.
Interesting, I bet.
> But if you want to double the production of milled parts, you have to buy twice as many milling machines.
Yes, milling from casted or extruded material is not the best in terms of part strength as well as cost. Usually, forging + milling is very expensive for small volumes; but it is the best way to strengthen the part (Up to 2.5x yield strength!) for a given material. Aluminum forging is often equivalent to mild steel parts in terms of strength.
Most of the forming is done using a forging press at high temperature (hot forging). The only machining that needs to happen is for holes/threads/bosses/flanges and for cleanup. Forging strength remains as is, since milling is an operation that only affects the newly milled surface atoms, not the internal grain boundries.
> Large stamping presses have the attractive quality of sublinear scaling: a press that can punch out twice as many parts per cycle is not twice the price.
Interesting, I bet.
> But if you want to double the production of milled parts, you have to buy twice as many milling machines.
Yes, milling from casted or extruded material is not the best in terms of part strength as well as cost. Usually, forging + milling is very expensive for small volumes; but it is the best way to strengthen the part (Up to 2.5x yield strength!) for a given material. Aluminum forging is often equivalent to mild steel parts in terms of strength.
> The Brits made four million Stens, at about $150 each.
$11 each, at the time :)
$11 each, at the time :)
This was interesting, thanks for taking the time to post. Just to get a little pedantic, I believe it was the MP 36 that was machined and rather the MP 40 that was stamped, the former being more of a prototype for the latter.
https://youtu.be/l9RqKA7jh9o?t=55
They'll still run without the recoil spring, although probably not great for the bolt carrier/rear trunnion
They'll still run without the recoil spring, although probably not great for the bolt carrier/rear trunnion
> For what it's worth, the "AR family" of rifles (AR-15, M-16, M-4, etc.) actually surpass AKs in terms of field reliability and use in hostile conditions. They're built to tighter tolerances, but with the dust cover closed there isn't really any way for sand/mud/dirt to get into the action, so they continue to work.
That dust cover is a big gotcha. You have to remember to close it after firing, and sometimes the spring wears out and it doesn't even stay closed anyway. Another problem is the carbon buildup from the direct gas impingement system if you don't clean it enough, and there are some tough to get spots.
> I can build a working AR lower receiver in the US with tools I have laying around my home (drill press, rotary tool, etc). I can't do the same for an AK because I don't have a spot welder to attach the rails.
Interesting. I'm familiar with the process of building up an 80% AR style rifle, and a 1911 handgun. I know there are 80% AK-47 blanks available but I never looked into what it would take to build one.
That dust cover is a big gotcha. You have to remember to close it after firing, and sometimes the spring wears out and it doesn't even stay closed anyway. Another problem is the carbon buildup from the direct gas impingement system if you don't clean it enough, and there are some tough to get spots.
> I can build a working AR lower receiver in the US with tools I have laying around my home (drill press, rotary tool, etc). I can't do the same for an AK because I don't have a spot welder to attach the rails.
Interesting. I'm familiar with the process of building up an 80% AR style rifle, and a 1911 handgun. I know there are 80% AK-47 blanks available but I never looked into what it would take to build one.
>You have to remember to close it after firing
You actually don't (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAneTFiz5WU&t=110s).
The trick is that the bolt carrier itself seals the action so mud doesn't get into it; most other modern rifles eschew the dust cover entirely and just rely on this. It seems to work pretty well since they keep doing it.
You actually don't (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAneTFiz5WU&t=110s).
The trick is that the bolt carrier itself seals the action so mud doesn't get into it; most other modern rifles eschew the dust cover entirely and just rely on this. It seems to work pretty well since they keep doing it.
You generally need at a minimum:
* riveting tools to mount the trunnions to the receiver, * welding tools to attach the rails to the receiver, * a bunch of jigs to place various holes in the right places in the receiver, * ...and a 12(?)-ton press: you'll be pressing the barrel into the front trunnion, and you may be using the press (and an appropriate jig) to press a steel flat into the proper shape for a receiver.
There are at least a couple companies out there that offer AK build classes that will walk you through all this, and then transfer the results of your work to your local FFL.
* riveting tools to mount the trunnions to the receiver, * welding tools to attach the rails to the receiver, * a bunch of jigs to place various holes in the right places in the receiver, * ...and a 12(?)-ton press: you'll be pressing the barrel into the front trunnion, and you may be using the press (and an appropriate jig) to press a steel flat into the proper shape for a receiver.
There are at least a couple companies out there that offer AK build classes that will walk you through all this, and then transfer the results of your work to your local FFL.
The only thing that can’t be easily substituted with fairly common tools is the spot welder.
I’ve thought about making one from an old transformer (or was it a microwave oven?), but didn’t pursue it. I only had a few AKs, and have mostly abandoned the platform since the dirt cheap ammo for it has dried up. It’s easier and more practical for me to reload for NATO cartridges.
I’ve thought about making one from an old transformer (or was it a microwave oven?), but didn’t pursue it. I only had a few AKs, and have mostly abandoned the platform since the dirt cheap ammo for it has dried up. It’s easier and more practical for me to reload for NATO cartridges.
It's not like a spot welder is terribly expensive or difficult to get your hands on. That said, I've never bothered to try and build an AK from an 80% receiver. It always looked like a hassle, and frankly the AKs that I own just sit in the back of the safe anyway. I've built a handful of 80% ARs though, pretty simple. But nothing is as simple as the 80% Glock pistols. Those are literally ten minutes with a Dremel once you've done a couple, if you don't care about it looking a bit scruffy.
> The fact that what qualifies as "easy to make" is so different depending on the environment.
You can actually see this in the AK itself - you don't even need to compare it to the AR. The original AK was always intended to be stamped metal construction, but they couldn't get that working reliably, so they used milled receivers for basically a decade until the AKM model was released.
You can actually see this in the AK itself - you don't even need to compare it to the AR. The original AK was always intended to be stamped metal construction, but they couldn't get that working reliably, so they used milled receivers for basically a decade until the AKM model was released.
It will be interesting to see what happens as 3D printed firearms continue to develop. I know it’s a big boogeyman with “ghost guns” etc but the military applications could be revolutionary: possibly your small arms printed on-the-fly to fit a specific mission.
The days of stamped steel and milled/forged aluminum firearms may soon be behind us. A Growing number of modern weapons rely heavily on polymer lowers.
The days of stamped steel and milled/forged aluminum firearms may soon be behind us. A Growing number of modern weapons rely heavily on polymer lowers.
I'm bearish on that idea. For infantry weapons, militaries much prefer standardization anyway. The advantages of 3d printing is really only in tooling time/cost, which is why it its industrial applications have mostly been for prototyping. Conventional manufacturing still excels in quality and price per part at high volumes.
Printing small arms on the fly would be a sure fire way to lose a campaign. You can't 3D print your ammo. There's also a lot of stuff like springs you can't 3D print. So any disruption in any supplies you can't print, including electricity, leaves you with no weapons.
It's a far inferior model to taking completed weapons with you. You can build a million units in a factory on another continent and hand them out in safety. They can be built to whatever tolerances are appropriate using whatever exotic materials you want. They won't be limited to materials that can be 3D printed. Your ammo used also won't be limited to ammo that can be safely used in 3D printed parts.
It's a far inferior model to taking completed weapons with you. You can build a million units in a factory on another continent and hand them out in safety. They can be built to whatever tolerances are appropriate using whatever exotic materials you want. They won't be limited to materials that can be 3D printed. Your ammo used also won't be limited to ammo that can be safely used in 3D printed parts.
> Printing small arms on the fly would be a sure fire way to lose a campaign.
Mostly, yes - but I could see a place for it in an insurgency, where having a weapon is a liability an individual wouldn’t want, unless it’s in active use at the time.
Things are changing quickly, though:
> You can't 3D print your ammo.
True - but there are active projects out there to address this, and they’re getting better all the time. I think you’ll see viable 3D-printed cartridges soon, with chemical components made from accessible ingredients.
> There's also a lot of stuff like springs you can't 3D print.
You can print forms and jigs that make creating springs of the correct dimensions much easier, though. Spring steel wire isn’t in short supply anywhere.
Mostly, yes - but I could see a place for it in an insurgency, where having a weapon is a liability an individual wouldn’t want, unless it’s in active use at the time.
Things are changing quickly, though:
> You can't 3D print your ammo.
True - but there are active projects out there to address this, and they’re getting better all the time. I think you’ll see viable 3D-printed cartridges soon, with chemical components made from accessible ingredients.
> There's also a lot of stuff like springs you can't 3D print.
You can print forms and jigs that make creating springs of the correct dimensions much easier, though. Spring steel wire isn’t in short supply anywhere.
Maybe several generations of 3D printers down the road they would be decent weapon printers. Right now and in the near term they're unsuitable for printing weapons. If you're an insurgent you're better off making a zip gun out of office scraps to get yourself a better recently owned gun.
Good insurgencies don't keep weapons at home. They stash them at drop points and pick them up when they need to use them. 3D printers have the same problems as weapons. If an occupying force finds out you've got a 3D printer they're going to confiscate it if you're lucky and jail/kill you if you're not.
I'd also suggest that anymore insurgencies are more interested in IEDs than small arms. An insurgent doesn't need to be around when an IED goes off. An IED can do a lot more damage to even moderately armored vehicles than 3D printed or scratch built small arms.
Good insurgencies don't keep weapons at home. They stash them at drop points and pick them up when they need to use them. 3D printers have the same problems as weapons. If an occupying force finds out you've got a 3D printer they're going to confiscate it if you're lucky and jail/kill you if you're not.
I'd also suggest that anymore insurgencies are more interested in IEDs than small arms. An insurgent doesn't need to be around when an IED goes off. An IED can do a lot more damage to even moderately armored vehicles than 3D printed or scratch built small arms.
In a pinch: raid a piano.
> possibly your small arms printed on-the-fly to fit a specific mission.
What you’d gain in “mission-fit” you’d lose in muscle memory.
What you’d gain in “mission-fit” you’d lose in muscle memory.
Maybe. I doubt you could 3D print a barrel though.
You can, sort of. With electrochemical machining you can make a barrel at home for under $200 in tooling (plus the 3D printer). Basically you 3d print a mandrel for the rifling, and run copper wiring through the grooves of the mandrel. You then run electrified saltwater through the tubing and it will cut the rifling.
It's stupid simple to do, and the people who have tried it have gotten results comparable to factory barrels. So probably won't win a shooting competition, but definitely good enough.
It's stupid simple to do, and the people who have tried it have gotten results comparable to factory barrels. So probably won't win a shooting competition, but definitely good enough.
Lol. Holy crap. I've been out of the AK making game for too long and didn't know about this. I'll have to look it up.
Last I checked, you could mostly find references to ECM in reference to the FGC-9.
I played with when it was first published, and successfully made a rifled barrel blank. I’ll probably do it again at some point, to comply with the NFA for some other projects I have in my backlog - smoothbore pistols are considered “Any Other Weapons”, but even rudimentary rifling is enough to make it “just a pistol”.
I played with when it was first published, and successfully made a rifled barrel blank. I’ll probably do it again at some point, to comply with the NFA for some other projects I have in my backlog - smoothbore pistols are considered “Any Other Weapons”, but even rudimentary rifling is enough to make it “just a pistol”.
I stumbled onto a youtube video demonstrating how to make a gun very similar to what was used to kill Abe in Japan. They used this for the barrel in the video and it's surprisingly simple and controllable, or at least was to me.
The front trunnion is the only thing anyone would have trouble with, IMO. It has to attach tightly to the barrel and withstand the explosion from firing.
Somewhere on the internet is a forum post where someone took a shovel and made all the necessary parts for a functional AK. The receiver and rails were cut up from the metal shovel part, the handle was used as a stock. He used the trunnion, barrel, and trigger group from an existing AK. The later of which could easily be CNCed or even 3D printed at this point.
Somewhere on the internet is a forum post where someone took a shovel and made all the necessary parts for a functional AK. The receiver and rails were cut up from the metal shovel part, the handle was used as a stock. He used the trunnion, barrel, and trigger group from an existing AK. The later of which could easily be CNCed or even 3D printed at this point.
> Somewhere on the internet is a forum post where someone took a shovel and made all the necessary parts for a functional AK
I was “there” for that thread, but don’t have a link handy. The title was “shit shovel AK”, I think. Here’s a link showing it:
https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2012/11/27/shit-shovel-ak-...
I was “there” for that thread, but don’t have a link handy. The title was “shit shovel AK”, I think. Here’s a link showing it:
https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2012/11/27/shit-shovel-ak-...
Nope. But you can build the crap. you need to ECM a barrel with your 3d printer. Look at what they're doing with JStark (pbuh)'s FGC-9 design over there in myanmar.
Well the AK doesn't do so well - despite legendary lore saying very much otherwise - once the debris isn't dry sand that can just fall out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX73uXs3xGU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX73uXs3xGU
As much as I appreciate InRange, I feel there are more field-accurate tests around:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbjpIP5ShH0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-kE_wbGLhE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hxvrhb7ayW8
And pretty much any of the stress tests that Rob Ski does.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbjpIP5ShH0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-kE_wbGLhE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hxvrhb7ayW8
And pretty much any of the stress tests that Rob Ski does.
>I can't do the same for an AK because I don't have a spot welder to attach the rails
Harbor freight sells the simplest possible welders for like $150. Would that be sufficient?
Harbor freight sells the simplest possible welders for like $150. Would that be sufficient?
A spot welder is not the same as the better known arc welders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spot_welding
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spot_welding
Harbor freight does indeed sell both: https://www.harborfreight.com/120v-spot-welder-61205.html
Most AK home builders use HF spot welders, or the somehow even cheaper Amazon clones.
Most AK home builders use HF spot welders, or the somehow even cheaper Amazon clones.
Besides the fact that HF does sell spot welders, you can substitute a rosette weld for a spot weld, and do it using any fusion welding process like MIG, TIG, Stick, or even oxy-acetylene. With practice they are nearly indistinguishable from a spot weld.
https://garage.eastwood.com/tech-articles/perfect-rosette-or...
https://garage.eastwood.com/tech-articles/perfect-rosette-or...
I thought "spot welding" might be used as a reference to just "tacking" a part with a commodity welder. Anyone know/think why the AK-47 was built/designed that way?
Spot welding is universal in sheet metal construction. A typical car is a stamped sheet metal frame held together with hundreds of spot welds.
My guess is 1. Because that technology is used absolutely everywhere, eg in cars, and 2. Because it's quite easy: take a transformer, replace the lower-voltage side with a few turns of a _really_ thick wire, connect the other side to mains and make lots of amps flow for a few seconds through two pieces of sheet metal pushed together.
tbh I'd be scared of a Harbor Freight welder
I’m much more scared using my harbor freight table saw than the hf arc welder.
People like to dump on HF but when it comes to things like tape measures, vices, disposable gloves who cares. Stay away from the table saws though
Edit: got a 110v arc welder open box this spring for like $90 and it’s been amazing
Edit: got a 110v arc welder open box this spring for like $90 and it’s been amazing
HF makes great tools for one-off or very occasional use.
I wouldn’t have an issue picking up a HF welder if I only had one or two things to use it on. Any more than that and I’d be watching pawn shops and Facebook Marketplace for a used, better-quality version.
I wouldn’t have an issue picking up a HF welder if I only had one or two things to use it on. Any more than that and I’d be watching pawn shops and Facebook Marketplace for a used, better-quality version.
A friend of mine needed a chainsaw to chop up a tree branch in her yard. She told her dad she was going to Harbor Freight to get one and he emphatically said, "NO" and bought her a decent one.
Dad’s hate “Chinese crap tools?” Say it ain’t so!
The average person that says “I need a chainsaw” will likely be well served by renting one from a home store, or buying a cheap one from Harbor Freight. They’ll probably use it a dozen times at most.
Is your cheap chainsaw going to hold up as well as the Husqvarna my dad has been using since the late 80s? Absolutely not. Do you live on a 70 acre orchard? No, so a consumer grade tool will do.
The average person that says “I need a chainsaw” will likely be well served by renting one from a home store, or buying a cheap one from Harbor Freight. They’ll probably use it a dozen times at most.
Is your cheap chainsaw going to hold up as well as the Husqvarna my dad has been using since the late 80s? Absolutely not. Do you live on a 70 acre orchard? No, so a consumer grade tool will do.
I bought a harbor freight drill press, and the metal pole that holds the drill up cracked the 3rd or 4th time I used it.
Just buy the cheap chainsaw at Home Depot, it costs like $10 more.
Just buy the cheap chainsaw at Home Depot, it costs like $10 more.
I was helping a buddy with his car once. He bought a breaker bar from HF and it started to bend on the second wheel we used it on. Like, dude, you had one job...
A good question to ask when considering Harbor Freight is "when this thing breaks, am I driving back to Harbor Freight or to the hospital?". They do have some decent quality tools nowadays, not to mention the heaps of consumables where quality isn't exactly a critical factor. Their Icon tools come with a lifetime warranty and they seem to be similarly uncaring about "misuse" in an effort to mirror SnapOn's reputation. They will even accept the phone number alone for proof of purchase instead of having to keep track of a thermal printer receipt that will fade away over time like how Lowe's handles warranty exchanges if you don't have the same credit card it was purchased on.
I love Harbor Freight but you'll never find me using one of their chainsaws.
I love Harbor Freight but you'll never find me using one of their chainsaws.
> There is something to be said about that level of engineering.
Or simplicity. Keep it simple and make it work reliably.
Or simplicity. Keep it simple and make it work reliably.
[deleted]
> The strengths of the AK-47 are its ease of operation, endurance to mistreatment, and insignificant failure rate. It trades these features for weaknesses including less accuracy, less safety, and a smaller range than similar weapons.
I'm not sure how it's unsafe, but regarding accuracy I'll point out that a modern AK with a decent barrel is much more accurate than most people think. I used to hunt with an AK and standard ball ammunition, and killed several deer at about 80 yards. It was more than adequate for the task, in fact I never had one run off.
On paper, I'm usually at about a 2" group at 100 yards. Certainly there are more accurate rifles, and that group would open up substantially at 300 yards, but for my purposes it was a great rifle.
I'm not sure how it's unsafe, but regarding accuracy I'll point out that a modern AK with a decent barrel is much more accurate than most people think. I used to hunt with an AK and standard ball ammunition, and killed several deer at about 80 yards. It was more than adequate for the task, in fact I never had one run off.
On paper, I'm usually at about a 2" group at 100 yards. Certainly there are more accurate rifles, and that group would open up substantially at 300 yards, but for my purposes it was a great rifle.
> I'm not sure how it's unsafe
The front trunnion is a block of metal into which the barrel is pressed.
Cast front trunnions (as opposed to forged), a common cost saving measure, fail more quickly. When they fail, those failures can be spectacular, and extremely dangerous to the operator.
The front trunnion is a block of metal into which the barrel is pressed.
Cast front trunnions (as opposed to forged), a common cost saving measure, fail more quickly. When they fail, those failures can be spectacular, and extremely dangerous to the operator.
TIL, thank you
> I'm not sure how it's unsafe, but regarding accuracy I'll point out that a modern AK with a decent barrel is much more accurate than most people think.
We were qualifying at up to 300 meters (and training farther) with iron sights with the M16 and M4 in the US Army. I've fired two AK-47s, one was the Czech version, the other I'm not sure of, and neither was able to consistently hit anything past somewhere around 150 meters. I'm sure with a little bit of work and upgrades those AK-47s might be shooting better, and I understand there are more modern variants, but I have no experience with them.
Edit: Just want to add that I compare with the M16 and M4 because those (and variants) are what I'm most familiar with. Also, there may be other comparisons that matter more for the expected use than ability to hit targets at 300 meters with iron sights.
We were qualifying at up to 300 meters (and training farther) with iron sights with the M16 and M4 in the US Army. I've fired two AK-47s, one was the Czech version, the other I'm not sure of, and neither was able to consistently hit anything past somewhere around 150 meters. I'm sure with a little bit of work and upgrades those AK-47s might be shooting better, and I understand there are more modern variants, but I have no experience with them.
Edit: Just want to add that I compare with the M16 and M4 because those (and variants) are what I'm most familiar with. Also, there may be other comparisons that matter more for the expected use than ability to hit targets at 300 meters with iron sights.
AK-74 ie. 5.45 version, not the old AK-47 (i.e. 7.62), is very fine in the 300m exercise with the plain iron sights. In the burst mode naturally only the first bullet in the burst hits the target at that distance while the second usually hits at least a meter to the right (for the right handed position) - that is solved in the totally new and unrelated AK-94 where 2 first bullets are able to go out before the recoil jerks the gun.
thank you for mentioning the AK-74 since it hasn't been mentioned. It was introduced in the late 70's!
the other gun you mention is the AN-94
the other gun you mention is the AN-94
Lack of accuracy on AKs is fudd lore at this point. All my AKs are under 2 MOA, shooting old yugo M67. The SAM7 is just beyond anything else, losing only to the Vz58, which is a different thing altogether.
I think it is a mixture of prejudice against "the enemy rifle", "usa made" and other xenophobic feelings, as well as ignorance towards the manual of arms, how to use the sights, etc.
I think it is a mixture of prejudice against "the enemy rifle", "usa made" and other xenophobic feelings, as well as ignorance towards the manual of arms, how to use the sights, etc.
one of the problems with accuracy on an ak47 is not so much the mechanism itself, but the more limited and weird options for mounting a modern red dot sight or holographic sight. when compared to a modern nato-spec rifle with fully railed top.
very modern AK designs have hinged dust covers with rail on top, you can mount on that. needs tighter fitting more precision rear cover that doesn't slop around as much.
older AK designs have limited spots to mount a modern rifle sight on them. some hacks exist to remove the rear sight position and jam a piece of 1913 rail onto it and then mount an optic on that.
if you look at photos of russian infantry using their version of the ak104 they have dust covers with 1913 rails on them.
other options for a side-rail-mount that extends off the left side of the lower part of the receiver and float a rail above the dust cover are an ugly hack.
very modern AK designs have hinged dust covers with rail on top, you can mount on that. needs tighter fitting more precision rear cover that doesn't slop around as much.
older AK designs have limited spots to mount a modern rifle sight on them. some hacks exist to remove the rear sight position and jam a piece of 1913 rail onto it and then mount an optic on that.
if you look at photos of russian infantry using their version of the ak104 they have dust covers with 1913 rails on them.
other options for a side-rail-mount that extends off the left side of the lower part of the receiver and float a rail above the dust cover are an ugly hack.
I really feel like the modern Galil managed to polish all those issues and has nailed the evolution of the platform.
Is accuracy even that big of a concern to most soldiers? If I'm attacking, sure. But if I'm in a defensive situation, I'd much rather prefer being able to fire anything than being able to fire accurately. Reliability trumps accuracy.
The thing about the AK is that it really was designed to be a cheap weapon to put in the hands of masses of soldiers. It gives large squads of soldiers the ability to spray-and-pray in devastating fashion. 7.62x39 tumbles pretty well and under auto-fire, does a decent job of eating up concrete to hit targets behind walls.
This was the Soviet doctrine of ground war immediately post-WW2. This countered the US Western doctrine which emphasized precision, and more limited resources in terms of soldiers and weapons.
So you're right. The AK isn't accurate, and it didn't matter. It does what it's designed to do very well.
So you're right. The AK isn't accurate, and it didn't matter. It does what it's designed to do very well.
>7.62x39 tumbles pretty well and under auto-fire,
Gun wives tale.
No bullets are designed to tumble in air - ever.
Gun wives tale.
No bullets are designed to tumble in air - ever.
Where did I say it tumbles in the air?
Precisely where you said it "tumbles". If not in air, then where were you refering to this tumbling occurring?
He is (probably) referring to tumbling when it hits a body which is also a ton of misinformation. When a bullet hits, you want it to fragment and dump all its energy into the target and not exit. Or expand and stop, which is better. Leaving means it still had some energy.
So because the sectional density and makeup of the cheap 7.62x39 bullets when coupled with their relative low velocity won’t fragment, their only option is to tumble. This is obviously going to happen and not part of the design. “Thing flying through the air suddenly hitting something makes it unstable” isn’t magic.
So the claim by AK people is that it tumbles - by design! When really, it failed to fragment or expand. So “it tumbles well” is really bad when they talk about air which is a bad muzzle crown or bad rifling, bad bullets… but not much better when talking about terminal ballistics. There are some decently expanding x93 hunting rounds, but like two maybe. This discussion revolves around military and surplus ammo.
It’s wrong either way, but less wrong than air which is a common belief.
So because the sectional density and makeup of the cheap 7.62x39 bullets when coupled with their relative low velocity won’t fragment, their only option is to tumble. This is obviously going to happen and not part of the design. “Thing flying through the air suddenly hitting something makes it unstable” isn’t magic.
So the claim by AK people is that it tumbles - by design! When really, it failed to fragment or expand. So “it tumbles well” is really bad when they talk about air which is a bad muzzle crown or bad rifling, bad bullets… but not much better when talking about terminal ballistics. There are some decently expanding x93 hunting rounds, but like two maybe. This discussion revolves around military and surplus ammo.
It’s wrong either way, but less wrong than air which is a common belief.
You are thinking of accuracy in terms of precise shots in precise targets, but think of it from the perspective of being deterministic. If my rifle is accurate, and deterministic, then I know I can land shots effectively at 600 yards for example using simple calculations. Or 800. Being able to do that has enormous significance in the battlefield.
Wouldn’t you rather be able to hit your enemies with your shots before they hit you? Why do you suppose soldiers train so much on shooting, in addition to other tactical skills? War isn’t a videogame or an action movie…
Yes, even if your just talking about suppressive fire, accuracy matters.
Accuracy being the ability to hit targets in combat that will shoot you, is absolutely something soldiers care about.
Accuracy being the ability to hit targets in combat that will shoot you, is absolutely something soldiers care about.
Lol. Fucking HN.
Cool username, but poor comment. Context-less metacommentary isn't for this place.
Cool.
It's accurate enough for sure, but I think the "lack of accuracy" lore doesn't come from Fudd's in the general sense, but from comparing it in particular to the AR, which it's true that the AK is measurably less accurate [1].
[1] https://youtu.be/_YNOt-UHIyY?t=652
[1] https://youtu.be/_YNOt-UHIyY?t=652
One of the interesting things is that the US has effectively re-invented the 7.62x39 round (at a much higher per round cost) with same weight bullet and nearly same length, which is the .300 Blackout supersonic.
It's designed to work in a standard NATO 556 magazine, receiver and bolt carrier, the cartridge body is the same as a 556 NATO, it's necked to take a 7.62 bullet.
https://thebiggamehuntingblog.com/300-blackout-vs-7-62x39/
It's designed to work in a standard NATO 556 magazine, receiver and bolt carrier, the cartridge body is the same as a 556 NATO, it's necked to take a 7.62 bullet.
https://thebiggamehuntingblog.com/300-blackout-vs-7-62x39/
Blackouts were an attempt to get enough thump in a room-clearing range where 5.56mm is a little lacking. Long-term, 6.8mm seems to be the direction small arms are going:
https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2022/04/19/army-cho...
Those new 6.8mm rounds are crazy. For context, your typical rifle chamber pressure is ~60,000 psi (5.56mm, .338 lapua mag, etc) and these 6.8mm rounds go to ~80,000 psi. Punches above it's weight. Very interested in this space lately.
interesting videos for the layman by Ian McCollum of Forgotten Weapons
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTZRCEh1Czg and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4gst0QoMw4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTZRCEh1Czg and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4gst0QoMw4
Thanks for sharing. I love Gun Jesus
yes it was clearly designed for short range engagements - not exactly same application as 7.62x39 as a general purpose medium range infantry cartridge. the military/contractor folks I know wouldn't even think of using blackout at ranges where anything above 250 yards would be anticipated.
the blackout is also unique in that the subsonic version of it was designed from the start to be NATO-rifle-platform compatibile with a suppressor. and due to even lower velocity, even shorter range (definitely 75 yard and less).
also fairly unsure on its performance vs. modern plate based body armor vs greater velocity of regular 556 nato, 6.8 as you mention, etc.
the blackout is also unique in that the subsonic version of it was designed from the start to be NATO-rifle-platform compatibile with a suppressor. and due to even lower velocity, even shorter range (definitely 75 yard and less).
also fairly unsure on its performance vs. modern plate based body armor vs greater velocity of regular 556 nato, 6.8 as you mention, etc.
Blackout is limited to spec-ops use. More interesting is this: In April 2022 the DOD awarded substantial contracts[1] to Sig Sauer for the manufacture of the XM5 rifle and XM250 automatic rifle and the "6.8 Common Cartridge" as part of the Next Generation Squad Weapon Program.
The new 6.8 is a much heavier and higher pressure round than the 556 and delivers far greater range and body armor defeat capability. The pressure is so great (80,000 psi, 551.6 MPa) that the case head (the 'back' part where firing pin hits) is made of stainless steel instead of brass; a 'composite' (steal + brass) case. I don't think that has ever been done in a military infantry weapon; all steel cases have been around a long time, but those are about cost saving as opposed to performance.
80,000 psi is pretty extreme in a rifle round. The high end of traditional brass case ammunition is 65,000 psi. That includes high performance rifle calibers like 338 Lapua Magnum and 22-250.
Also, the XM157 Fire Control optic being built for these new rifles is remarkable: "variable magnification optic (1X8), backup etched reticle, laser rangefinder, ballistic calculator, atmospheric sensor suite, compass, Intra-Soldier Wireless, visible and infrared aiming lasers, and a digital display overlay."
Due to the undoubtedly high cost these weapons will be limited to the 'first responder' combat forces and M4/M249 will be the mainstay for the rest for many years yet. But this commitment including the official designation of a new cartridge is a clear signal that the DOD is taking infantry weapon performance rather seriously.
[1] https://www.army.mil/article/255827/army_awards_next_generat... "The XM5 Rifle will replace the M4/M4A1 carbine within the close combat force, and the XM250 Automatic Rifle is the planned replacement for the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon"
The new 6.8 is a much heavier and higher pressure round than the 556 and delivers far greater range and body armor defeat capability. The pressure is so great (80,000 psi, 551.6 MPa) that the case head (the 'back' part where firing pin hits) is made of stainless steel instead of brass; a 'composite' (steal + brass) case. I don't think that has ever been done in a military infantry weapon; all steel cases have been around a long time, but those are about cost saving as opposed to performance.
80,000 psi is pretty extreme in a rifle round. The high end of traditional brass case ammunition is 65,000 psi. That includes high performance rifle calibers like 338 Lapua Magnum and 22-250.
Also, the XM157 Fire Control optic being built for these new rifles is remarkable: "variable magnification optic (1X8), backup etched reticle, laser rangefinder, ballistic calculator, atmospheric sensor suite, compass, Intra-Soldier Wireless, visible and infrared aiming lasers, and a digital display overlay."
Due to the undoubtedly high cost these weapons will be limited to the 'first responder' combat forces and M4/M249 will be the mainstay for the rest for many years yet. But this commitment including the official designation of a new cartridge is a clear signal that the DOD is taking infantry weapon performance rather seriously.
[1] https://www.army.mil/article/255827/army_awards_next_generat... "The XM5 Rifle will replace the M4/M4A1 carbine within the close combat force, and the XM250 Automatic Rifle is the planned replacement for the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon"
> 80,000 psi is pretty extreme in a rifle round. The high end of traditional brass case ammunition is 65,000 psi.
It is pretty extreme but I can't say I'm exactly surprised, metallurgy has clearly advanced quite a bit since the days when 556 NATO pressures in chamber were standardized 50+ years ago. If you have DoD budget levels of money to spend on a barrel you can clearly do higher.
Barrels that meet 556 NATO spec are as cheap per unit as $100, a really nice one is $300. If it's not a problem that your barrel alone might cost $700 I can see this being totally possible.
It is pretty extreme but I can't say I'm exactly surprised, metallurgy has clearly advanced quite a bit since the days when 556 NATO pressures in chamber were standardized 50+ years ago. If you have DoD budget levels of money to spend on a barrel you can clearly do higher.
Barrels that meet 556 NATO spec are as cheap per unit as $100, a really nice one is $300. If it's not a problem that your barrel alone might cost $700 I can see this being totally possible.
> body armor defeat capability
The 6.8x51mm will not defeat any armor that M2AP won't. NIJ certified level IV armor will stop M2AP, 6.5 Creedmoor, .300 Win Mag, and in some cases, up to .338 Lapua Magnum. The last two are far more powerful, with greater velocity and sectional density, than 6.8x51mm, and they still won't reliably penetrate with a single hit.
Armor penetration was a stated goal of the Army's NGSW program, and the new cartridge will penetrate better than 5.56, but it's still not going to penetrate modern level IV armor.
The 6.8x51mm will not defeat any armor that M2AP won't. NIJ certified level IV armor will stop M2AP, 6.5 Creedmoor, .300 Win Mag, and in some cases, up to .338 Lapua Magnum. The last two are far more powerful, with greater velocity and sectional density, than 6.8x51mm, and they still won't reliably penetrate with a single hit.
Armor penetration was a stated goal of the Army's NGSW program, and the new cartridge will penetrate better than 5.56, but it's still not going to penetrate modern level IV armor.
from the point of view of a ukrainian infantryman walking around right now with some newly issued 556 NATO stuff it might be interesting to see how many russians are really wearing the equivalent of class 4 plates/carrier, and how many are not wearing plates at all, or some lesser capability.
in some of the DIY-drone-strike footage I've seen recently it appears that the russians are wearing no plates at all.
in some of the DIY-drone-strike footage I've seen recently it appears that the russians are wearing no plates at all.
Level 3 grade plates can't defeat 5.45 so it's moot anyways.
I think you're thinking of IIIA, which is only rated to stop pistol/shotgun calibers. NIJ level III plates will stop 7.62x51.
https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/nlectc/250144.pdf
https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/nlectc/250144.pdf
[deleted]
PSA for anyone who doesnt know this,
A .300 blackout, will 'fit' into a .223; or 5.56 NATO chamber, AND allow the bolt to go into battery position.
cataclysm results:
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2018/06/19/lfd-research-...
https://rifleshooter.com/2019/06/kaboom-300-blk-in-5-56-223-...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbfIkaNlECo
A .300 blackout, will 'fit' into a .223; or 5.56 NATO chamber, AND allow the bolt to go into battery position.
cataclysm results:
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2018/06/19/lfd-research-...
https://rifleshooter.com/2019/06/kaboom-300-blk-in-5-56-223-...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbfIkaNlECo
Is 7.62x39 a problem here too?
no it wont even chamber, however there is a further nuance.
most current AR chambers are .223 / 5.56 WYLDE chamber meaning both will fit and function.
the problem comes from a straight up old school .223 being fed 5.56.
the evolved gas pressure is higher for the 5.56 round, and will probably work for a while, will put extreme use on the rifle and will eventually malfunction probably with similar results to the .300BLK problem.
a 5.56 can be forced to chamber in a 7.62 chamber, but is about 6mm too long so you will know theres a problem
7.62 nato of standard configuration wont fit the lede [ogive] of the 5.56 chamber unless you shove really hard with a mallet.
what you may see is a lower receiver stamped for 5.56 NATO assambled with a 7.62 upper and barrel. this is proably fine for most aluminum lowers but i would stay clear of the polymer lowers or the skeletonized milled out lowers, for the 7.62
most current AR chambers are .223 / 5.56 WYLDE chamber meaning both will fit and function.
the problem comes from a straight up old school .223 being fed 5.56.
the evolved gas pressure is higher for the 5.56 round, and will probably work for a while, will put extreme use on the rifle and will eventually malfunction probably with similar results to the .300BLK problem.
a 5.56 can be forced to chamber in a 7.62 chamber, but is about 6mm too long so you will know theres a problem
7.62 nato of standard configuration wont fit the lede [ogive] of the 5.56 chamber unless you shove really hard with a mallet.
what you may see is a lower receiver stamped for 5.56 NATO assambled with a 7.62 upper and barrel. this is proably fine for most aluminum lowers but i would stay clear of the polymer lowers or the skeletonized milled out lowers, for the 7.62
> what you may see is a lower receiver stamped for 5.56 NATO assambled with a 7.62 upper and barrel
the last paragraph is not exactly correct, a lower receiver for 556 NATO STANAG magazines has a different length magazine well (AR-15 derived design, not AR-10) and cannot take the dimensions of an AR10 magazine/7.62 NATO magazine.
you can mistakenly chamber a .300 blackout in a 556 nato rifle upper because the blackout is the same length cartridge as a 556 nato round and will feed.
you cannot mistakenly shove a 7.62x51 NATO/.308 winchester round into a rifle lower/upper that is not an AR-10 derived design because there would be no way to even seat the magazine.
even if you were to somehow mistakenly mount an ar10/762 NATO upper and barrel on an ar15 lower the only way you could try to get a round into the chamber would be to shove it in sideways through the ejection port
the last paragraph is not exactly correct, a lower receiver for 556 NATO STANAG magazines has a different length magazine well (AR-15 derived design, not AR-10) and cannot take the dimensions of an AR10 magazine/7.62 NATO magazine.
you can mistakenly chamber a .300 blackout in a 556 nato rifle upper because the blackout is the same length cartridge as a 556 nato round and will feed.
you cannot mistakenly shove a 7.62x51 NATO/.308 winchester round into a rifle lower/upper that is not an AR-10 derived design because there would be no way to even seat the magazine.
even if you were to somehow mistakenly mount an ar10/762 NATO upper and barrel on an ar15 lower the only way you could try to get a round into the chamber would be to shove it in sideways through the ejection port
thats right you cant mistakenly do that, you would know something is wrong.
>>what you may see is a lower receiver stamped for 5.56 NATO assambled with a 7.62 upper and barrel<<
5.56 magazine wells can be modified to fit 7.62 magazine there a couple examples on the range right now, also a .375 win magnum necked down to a .223 projectile.
up here its common to ammo up with a full mag, +1 one in through the out door
>>what you may see is a lower receiver stamped for 5.56 NATO assambled with a 7.62 upper and barrel<<
5.56 magazine wells can be modified to fit 7.62 magazine there a couple examples on the range right now, also a .375 win magnum necked down to a .223 projectile.
up here its common to ammo up with a full mag, +1 one in through the out door
considering that a stripped designed for purpose AR10/LR308 lower is maybe $140 from a decent quality manufacturer it would be exceptionally rare for someone to hack up a AR15 lower and magazine well to accept AR10 magazines, I have never heard of anyone actually doing that.
if you have a photo example of someone actually doing that on an ar15 magazine well i'd be very interested to see what the hack job looks like
if you have a photo example of someone actually doing that on an ar15 magazine well i'd be very interested to see what the hack job looks like
you should check out modular lowers, hydra and i think viper-A [or vipera] have re thunk the lower into two pieces, result being exchangeable magazine wells to match the upper config.
why would someone actually chop a lower? because its not available, or its a do something winter project to chase off the cabin fever.
why would someone actually chop a lower? because its not available, or its a do something winter project to chase off the cabin fever.
300bo was done by AAC on its own though. There were some in the SOF community that were looking for better subsonic/more knockdown.
I think 300bo is closer to 9x39mm in application.
I think 300bo is closer to 9x39mm in application.
Dumb question: how does a 762 ballistic fit in a 556 barrel?
It doesn't. 300 blackout requires a new barrel. It's 'trick' is that all of the other components don't need to change.
PLEASE look here regarding safety issues:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32389075
it doesnt fit the bore of the barrel, it 'fits' the chamber.
if you are using .300 blackout and .223/5.56 nato be very carefull or do something like colour your rounds with a sharpie
[edit] by the way there are very few dumb questions, asking a question is far more intelligent than acting like you know it and blundering through it by luck.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32389075
it doesnt fit the bore of the barrel, it 'fits' the chamber.
if you are using .300 blackout and .223/5.56 nato be very carefull or do something like colour your rounds with a sharpie
[edit] by the way there are very few dumb questions, asking a question is far more intelligent than acting like you know it and blundering through it by luck.
for your average hobbyist who doesn't actually have to worry about camouflage of anything, do something like wrap bright orange hockey grip tape around any magazine body that contains .300 blackout. And some totally other color on 556.
exactly that sort of thinking.
there is a color coding system for ammunition:
https://www.bulletpicker.com/pdf/MIL-STD-709C.pdf [PDF]
indicating special function, such as armor piercing; incindiary; fragmentary HE etc.
it is also a popular option to have receivers colorized or stamped. alot of magazines are polymer and could easily be colorized, and detailed, for instance with a large pictogram of the intended ammunition.
this is also on a little more of an angle, a reason to not let that combination of, persons you dont trust; .300 blk; and 5.56 chambers to occur.
there is a color coding system for ammunition:
https://www.bulletpicker.com/pdf/MIL-STD-709C.pdf [PDF]
indicating special function, such as armor piercing; incindiary; fragmentary HE etc.
it is also a popular option to have receivers colorized or stamped. alot of magazines are polymer and could easily be colorized, and detailed, for instance with a large pictogram of the intended ammunition.
this is also on a little more of an angle, a reason to not let that combination of, persons you dont trust; .300 blk; and 5.56 chambers to occur.
not exactly milspec, but I have also seen custom laser engraved dust covers on AR platform stuff that has ".300 BLK" or "5.56 NATO" etched into both sides of the cover, in addition to whatever markings might be placed on the lower/upper receiver bodies.
It requires a different barrel. As mentioned, lower receiver, bolt carrier, magazines can be reused.
You've got it backwards, pretty much all cartridges were developed off of cartridges originally available to US hunters.
I really love engineering, and small simple machines, and it is such a shame that so many small simple machines are guns. I still enjoy learning about them and their history, I just wish there were an equivalent for something positive. There is a lot of depth and ingenuity in weapons engineering that is fascinating to read about.
Guns, bombs and nukes are what keep the world as peaceful as possible. It is kind of a mutually assured destruction thing that keeps everybody safe. Better your “team” have them than some other “team”…
There is no "mutually assured destruction" in sub-nuclear weapons. If you're in the Northern Emisphere you might be lucky and never be shot (this does not apply to North America), but if you're in a poorer country, you're not safe from being bombed or in the mid of a war. How did this MAD you're talking about help any Afghan children?
It's called mutually assured destruction, not one-sided nor with exceptions.
It's called mutually assured destruction, not one-sided nor with exceptions.
It is MAD for powerful countries with those resources when they are up against similar powerful countries.
Plus, if it wasn't for the nuke, the Soviets would've conquered Europe and possibly US too.
Clockwork wristwatches? The movements are pretty ingenious, though sadly there's only a couple standard ones that get riffed on.
I recently found the "Wristwatch revival" channel on YT where a hobbyist restores vintage watches while being very informative.
I recently found the "Wristwatch revival" channel on YT where a hobbyist restores vintage watches while being very informative.
Funny... The old infantryman wasn't expecting much out of the HN comments on a gun article and I'm now feeling that I'm the lightweight on the topic now... Lol
Worth a watch for a laugh: AK-47 vs. M16 by R Lee Ermey
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x32ced2
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x32ced2
The K-2 rifle used in ROK army is also seemingly inspired by AK-47 gas piston while taking design clues from American rifle. It's amazing how influential the AK was, Israelis, Belgium etc.
Any article on the AK-47 that doesn't start by mentioning the 7.92×33mm Kurz is missing out. The realization at the heart of modern infantry rifles is that the conversation you're having is with people who aren't a 1000 meters away - they're 300 meters or less. Once it was clear what could be given up it was that much more clear what could be gotten.
If you are in the US and got curious by this thread, I highly recommend reading the following wiki and joining the hobby:
https://thinlineweapons.com/wiki/index.php/Soviet_Firearms/K...
The experience of assembling/disassembling the rifle, taking it out to range and seeing the engineering feats first hand is just incredible. As an engineering nerd, there is something to this platform that is just amazing. Simple Made Easy comes to mind.
The experience of assembling/disassembling the rifle, taking it out to range and seeing the engineering feats first hand is just incredible. As an engineering nerd, there is something to this platform that is just amazing. Simple Made Easy comes to mind.
"AK-47, the very best there is. When you absolutely, positively got to kill every motherf*cker in the room, accept no substitutes."
-- Quentin Tarantino
-- Quentin Tarantino
[deleted]
[deleted]
If you are interested in Russian guns, check out this marvel of overengineering, a dark twin of AK: https://armamentresearch.com/russian-an-94-self-loading-rifl...
> “I keep having the same unsolved question: if my rifle claimed people’s lives, then can it be that I… a Christian and an Orthodox believer, was to blame for their deaths?”
Yes/no/whatever. Someone else would've created something similar eventually. Same with the Oppenheimer and the atomic bomb.
Yes/no/whatever. Someone else would've created something similar eventually. Same with the Oppenheimer and the atomic bomb.
What about racist bridges?
If you invent low-height bridges to keep black people out of select neighborhoods (because they tend to take the bus, and busses can't cross the bridge / tunnel), would you just be "someone else would have created something similar eventually??".
As an engineer, you are responsible for your inventions. That's always been true. Ideally, you create things for people who are trustworthy.
If you don't care about ethics, then don't be surprised if those ethics come to bite you in the ass later. Is it "just a low height bridge", or is it a "racist bridge"? As an engineer, its your job to make the thing (or decide to not make the thing).
If you invent low-height bridges to keep black people out of select neighborhoods (because they tend to take the bus, and busses can't cross the bridge / tunnel), would you just be "someone else would have created something similar eventually??".
As an engineer, you are responsible for your inventions. That's always been true. Ideally, you create things for people who are trustworthy.
If you don't care about ethics, then don't be surprised if those ethics come to bite you in the ass later. Is it "just a low height bridge", or is it a "racist bridge"? As an engineer, its your job to make the thing (or decide to not make the thing).
> As an engineer, you are responsible for your inventions
To a point. Intention and context matter more. If you build low-height bridges because at the time it was the economical thing to do, and perhaps not even considering bus sizes, then you are not responsible. This happens ALL THE TIME in software.
To a point. Intention and context matter more. If you build low-height bridges because at the time it was the economical thing to do, and perhaps not even considering bus sizes, then you are not responsible. This happens ALL THE TIME in software.
> If you build low-height bridges because at the time it was the economical thing to do
When I talk about "racist bridges", I'm talking about the well known case of Robert Moses. Most people who have studied the ethics of engineering should be familiar with him.
When I talk about "racist bridges", I'm talking about the well known case of Robert Moses. Most people who have studied the ethics of engineering should be familiar with him.
Correct, but not everyone knows this case. So to put an even finer point to it - context matters a helluva lot.
Fair. Its a bit of a controversial topic, and I expect that historians will continue to revisit the issue of Robert Moses as the decades go on.
> As an engineer, you are responsible for your inventions.
Disagree. Feel free to design whatever you want. The person actually building and putting it to use would be the one at fault.
Disagree. Feel free to design whatever you want. The person actually building and putting it to use would be the one at fault.
An engineer takes an oath similar to the hippocratic [do no harm]
[ I am an Engineer.
[ I am an Engineer.
In my profession I take deep pride. To it I owe solemn obligations.
As an engineer, I, (full name), pledge to practice Integrity and Fair Dealing, Tolerance, and Respect, and to uphold devotion to the standards and dignity of my profession, conscious always that my skill carries with it the obligation to serve humanity by making best use of the Earth's precious wealth.
As an engineer, I shall participate in none but honest enterprises. When needed, my skill and knowledge shall be given without reservation for the public good.
In the performance of duty, and in fidelity to my profession, I shall give the utmost.]Well, some engineers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Engineer. Looks like there are similar associations in other countries.
> Feel free to design whatever you want.
Yes. And if you design a racist bridge designed to keep black people out of a neighborhood, you're either helping racists, or are racist yourself.
Feel free to be whatever you want, but accept that if you make racist decisions it makes you a racist.
Yes. And if you design a racist bridge designed to keep black people out of a neighborhood, you're either helping racists, or are racist yourself.
Feel free to be whatever you want, but accept that if you make racist decisions it makes you a racist.
but you don't understand! I didn't create my face tracking software for surveillant capitalism!
I'm not racist! I just chose to work under racist bosses, do what the racist bosses say, and build / design things that those racist bosses liked!
Now replace "racism" with whatever other adjective is out there (face-tracking software, guns, etc. etc.) and its really the same thing. We engineers must ethically agree with the things we make, and their expected use. Its one thing if maybe our boss uses the device in a way we didn't expect. But on the other hand, Oppenheimer knew damn well what he was making.
The people we support and work for are ethically and morally tied to us engineers. They can only do the things they want with our support. And we are tied with them, since their use of our inventions is actually quite predictable in most situations.
Now replace "racism" with whatever other adjective is out there (face-tracking software, guns, etc. etc.) and its really the same thing. We engineers must ethically agree with the things we make, and their expected use. Its one thing if maybe our boss uses the device in a way we didn't expect. But on the other hand, Oppenheimer knew damn well what he was making.
The people we support and work for are ethically and morally tied to us engineers. They can only do the things they want with our support. And we are tied with them, since their use of our inventions is actually quite predictable in most situations.
This sort of moral principle is easy to apply in extreme scenarios, but most decisions are not so clear cut: a lot of engineers don’t have complete agency in choosing where they work, and a lot of engineers work on dual-use technology with plausible ethical use. As an example, if we assume Facebook is 100% evil (debatable but let’s go with it), then did the developers of React act unethically because their work furthered Facebook’s goals, or ethically because React is morally neutral (or even positive, as Free software) and it was other engineers who put it to evil uses?
And furthermore, even nuclear bombs had a plausible ethical use (end the war sooner).
And furthermore, even nuclear bombs had a plausible ethical use (end the war sooner).
How hard is it for a React.js developer to find a new job elsewhere?
If Facebook is 100% evil, then it behooves the workers to work for a less evil company, at a minimum. Of course, Facebook itself isn't 100% evil so things break down in your example.
If you're a React.js developer and you're worried about internet privacy, intrusive ad-tech being used to track people (etc. etc.), then maybe... just maybe... you should find something else to work on in a company that matches your ethics better.
If Facebook is 100% evil, then it behooves the workers to work for a less evil company, at a minimum. Of course, Facebook itself isn't 100% evil so things break down in your example.
If you're a React.js developer and you're worried about internet privacy, intrusive ad-tech being used to track people (etc. etc.), then maybe... just maybe... you should find something else to work on in a company that matches your ethics better.
Only siths deal in extremes. No company is 100% evil. But given you are the guy who brought up the "racist bridge" analogy I'm not surprised.
Just point out that the siths don't exist and we are not in the Hollywood movie. The reason I wanted to point this out is that Hollywood provides an extremely distorted view on the society and a lot of people are using it as reference frame as if it's something real. Having said that, I agree with the poster that no company is 100% evil. It's a good point.
> And furthermore, even nuclear bombs had a plausible ethical use (end the war sooner).
Some things have no real ethical use.
At least in some cases inventors are unethical to invent some things.
Some things have no real ethical use.
At least in some cases inventors are unethical to invent some things.
Sure, and those are what I think are the extreme scenarios. What I’m saying is that nearly all scenarios are not so extreme and not so easy to judge.
I would consider working on improving spyware for adtech as similar "definitely evil", though with massively smaller impact.
Or working on better ads for scammers.
Or trying to invent legal loophole to enable something evil.
Or working on better ads for scammers.
Or trying to invent legal loophole to enable something evil.
Or giving an edge to the small player in the field with a better product trying to get it to the masses.
I would not treat it as self-evidently evil.
This is why I brought up the atomic bomb as an example - nuclear fission has excellent non-warfare use cases. Creating a "racist bomb" would be a stupid example.
I think I can safely call the gas chambers the Nazi created as intended to be an anti-semitic weapon.
Could they have been used in another manner? Yes. But we all know what the intent was, and any engineer who worked on that project knew damn well what was going on.
Could they have been used in another manner? Yes. But we all know what the intent was, and any engineer who worked on that project knew damn well what was going on.
Strong disagree. If you build a bridge with a safety factor of 0.00001 and people die, it is your fault. The deaths as a result of those actions are predictable.
So you're saying the engineer who designed it is innocent and the manager who actually put the trainwreck into production is to blame? If so then I agree with you completely.
Ideas require free flow of ideas, concepts, experiments. If the bridge happens to be "racist" (what a dumb example) then so what. Let the person you pitch it to (if you get that far) point it out and go from there. If it passes initial examination and goes as far as to actually getting built, I'm way past washing my hands off any guilt.
Edit: And your example is equally weird. Who in their right mind would ever design a bridge that was 0.001% safe? There are a ton of people up the chain who make way dumber (and "RACIST") decisions if they go ahead and build the contraption.
Ideas require free flow of ideas, concepts, experiments. If the bridge happens to be "racist" (what a dumb example) then so what. Let the person you pitch it to (if you get that far) point it out and go from there. If it passes initial examination and goes as far as to actually getting built, I'm way past washing my hands off any guilt.
Edit: And your example is equally weird. Who in their right mind would ever design a bridge that was 0.001% safe? There are a ton of people up the chain who make way dumber (and "RACIST") decisions if they go ahead and build the contraption.
[deleted]
Someone who invented and designed gas chambers in Auschwitz concentration camp is partially blameworthy for their use.
(less if they were forced/unaware or there are somehow other mitigating reasons)
The same goes for other designer of things that could be clearly put into primarily or only bad use.
(less if they were forced/unaware or there are somehow other mitigating reasons)
The same goes for other designer of things that could be clearly put into primarily or only bad use.
Comparatively few German soldiers were stationed at the Holocaust death camps. The people working on the railroads didn't kill the Jews. The people processing Jewish identities to build lists of people to pick up didn't kill them. The neighbors who reported the Jews didn't kill them. The statisticians who calculated how many people could be killed per month, and how to transport them all efficiently, didn't kill them. The chemists who sold Zyklon B to the SS for use on humans didn't kill them. Somebody else would have done the same thing anyway.
If you agree with the above statement, then the basic rationalization of "I didn't directly do it, therefore I am innocent" holds. But if you disagree with the above statement, you acknowledge that simply not being the person who "pulls the trigger" does not absolve you of doing the work leading up to it.
Or put another way: "All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to design their death camps."
If you agree with the above statement, then the basic rationalization of "I didn't directly do it, therefore I am innocent" holds. But if you disagree with the above statement, you acknowledge that simply not being the person who "pulls the trigger" does not absolve you of doing the work leading up to it.
Or put another way: "All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to design their death camps."
I would argue that building a too low bridge is failure anyway. But not do racism, but do effects on regular commerce. If a bus can't pass under a reasonable sized delivery truck can't either.
This is specifically a reference to Robert Moses who built the bridges that accessed Long Island beaches low enough that busses from the city wouldn't be able to get to the beach.
It is pretty widely accepted that he did this to keep "certain people" away from the public beaches.
It is pretty widely accepted that he did this to keep "certain people" away from the public beaches.
This is a story about a rifle and as such it has nothing to do with race or 'racism' [1]. Knowing that the mere mentioning of 'racism' is enough to derail a discussion I want to ask why you brought this up and I suggest the need for a corollary to Godwin's law [3] to be applied here. He who mentions race or 'racism' where there is no call for such has put himself out of the discussion.
[1] 'racism' is not the same as racism [2]
[2] https://www.britannica.com/topic/racism
[3] https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20...
[1] 'racism' is not the same as racism [2]
[2] https://www.britannica.com/topic/racism
[3] https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20...
It's not even 100% clear that it's really "Kalashnikov's Rifle".
It appears to share its pedigree with a number of German firearms from the WW2 era, the designers of which just so happened to "immigrate" to the Soviet Union in 1945.
The Soviets wouldn't have found it very palatable to field a weapon designed by Germans, and the story of a common soldier designing one of the great battle rifles of the 20th Century and being elevated to a Hero of the Soviet Union as a result is great propaganda.
I'm not asserting that the man had nothing to do with it, don't get me wrong. It's just very obviously not the work of one individual's mind, and given the context of the era we should probably take a critical view of the official story.
It appears to share its pedigree with a number of German firearms from the WW2 era, the designers of which just so happened to "immigrate" to the Soviet Union in 1945.
The Soviets wouldn't have found it very palatable to field a weapon designed by Germans, and the story of a common soldier designing one of the great battle rifles of the 20th Century and being elevated to a Hero of the Soviet Union as a result is great propaganda.
I'm not asserting that the man had nothing to do with it, don't get me wrong. It's just very obviously not the work of one individual's mind, and given the context of the era we should probably take a critical view of the official story.
While the latter was a clear inspiration, the AK operating mechanism is very different from the Stg 44 I believe you are referencing. There are plenty of disassembly videos on YouTube you can check to see differences. They’re no more similar than is say the AR15. On the other hand Kalashnikov worked with other soviet weapons designers and some features of the AK are clearly borrowed from some of their designs. There are plenty of records, schematics and eye witness accounts of the weapons development and military trials at various stages, and no Germans were involved.
I immediately thought of the Stg 44, but while my memory is foggy, I do remember that that wasn’t the rifle that the AK drew from in inspiring the actual action itself. Ergonomics and overall layout, sure - but the action was another gun, that I can’t remember right now.
Getting older sucks sometimes, but it beats the alternative!
Getting older sucks sometimes, but it beats the alternative!
Stg 44 from what I can see can clearly be called German. That is rather complicated in engineering.
Unlike AK which is exceedingly simple.
I think only thing is the inspiration for class of weapon which time had clearly come. Something beyond sub-machine gun. With decent single shot accuracy.
Unlike AK which is exceedingly simple.
I think only thing is the inspiration for class of weapon which time had clearly come. Something beyond sub-machine gun. With decent single shot accuracy.
Indeed, the Russian military was explicitly trying to develop a weapon like the 44. First they developed the 7.62x39 cartridge and then developed a weapon to use it. Kalashnikov had been working on a sub machine gun design and then adapted it (redesign really) to the new cartridge.
That is a very widespread notion, but even though the StG 44 looks like the AK, the operating mechanism is inspired by the M1 Garand. Kalashnikov himself mentions the Garand as an inspiration: https://www.amazon.com/Kalashnikov-Arms-Edward-Clinton-Ezell...
You can see a comparison done by a popular AK builder/engineer here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4l33puWET0
You can see a comparison done by a popular AK builder/engineer here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4l33puWET0
"Standing on the shoulders of giants". Very few things in recent centuries have been invented from scratch.
The PPSh-41 was also inspired by a weapon from Finland, but still the Soviet designer Spagin had to make a lot of adjustment. For example they used stamped parts, in order to make it easier to produce the weapon in great numbers.
Something similar must have happened with the AK-47 as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PPSh-41
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PPSh-41
> Yes/no/whatever. Someone else would've created something similar eventually. Same with the Oppenheimer and the atomic bomb.
I don't think this reasoning works. A few years ago I turned down a job at an MLM after digging through their mandated public filings and determining that almost everyone who worked with them ended up underwater. More recently I turned down a very well paying job in a financial investment company after reflecting on the fact that they didn't produce anything, or provide any services and instead took a (lower paying) job writing software for hospitals/medical clinics. They basically existed to leach of the market.
My point is that I think if you build something knowing full well how it will be used, you carry a certain amount of responsibility when it is indeed used that way. You don't get to absolve yourself of responsibility because someone else is doing the has their hand on the trigger/button. You wired that trigger/button knowing what it was for.
"Someone else would do it anyway" could be used to justify anything. To go full Goodwin it could be used to justify "just following orders" under the Nazis. After all someone else would've done it anyway.
I don't think this reasoning works. A few years ago I turned down a job at an MLM after digging through their mandated public filings and determining that almost everyone who worked with them ended up underwater. More recently I turned down a very well paying job in a financial investment company after reflecting on the fact that they didn't produce anything, or provide any services and instead took a (lower paying) job writing software for hospitals/medical clinics. They basically existed to leach of the market.
My point is that I think if you build something knowing full well how it will be used, you carry a certain amount of responsibility when it is indeed used that way. You don't get to absolve yourself of responsibility because someone else is doing the has their hand on the trigger/button. You wired that trigger/button knowing what it was for.
"Someone else would do it anyway" could be used to justify anything. To go full Goodwin it could be used to justify "just following orders" under the Nazis. After all someone else would've done it anyway.
jzellis(3)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47#Concept
#1 "I was a soldier, and I created a machine gun for a soldier."
#2 "A lot of Russian Army soldiers ask me how one can become a constructor, and how new weaponry is designed. These are very difficult questions. Each designer seems to have his own paths, his own successes and failures. But one thing is clear: before attempting to create something new, it is vital to have a good appreciation of everything that already exists in this field. I myself have had many experiences confirming this to be so."
Particularly the latter could be a valid corollary to the Chesterton's Fence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton's_...