Gun Appreciation Thread - Page 7

actually, the ak-47 type 1 is rare, but then the russians made ak-47 type 2 and 3 before they switched to the akm. and they made a ton of the type 2 and 3.

but that doesn't even matter because saying that only the type 1 are ak-47s is stupid in the first place.

AK-47 had a lot of minor modifications in caliber and length of the barrel over the years. However modern AK is practically unchanged AK-47. It has the same, well , everything as original AK-47. Also it is common knowledge to refer to it as AK or AK-47 in US or other countries. There is an engineering difference between machine gun and automatic rifle. AK is a machine gun NOT a rifle.

I'd like to see anything that agrees with you on that.

the M-60 is a machine gun. the AK is an assault riffle, perhaps wven the best example of an assault riffle.

An M-60 can be referred to as a machine gun as it has a bipod and is belt fed but more importantly requires a crew to operate. However, this is still not the correct term. An AK47 is certainly not a machine gun as it has a rifled barrel.

A gun is a weapon with a smooth bore barrel, such as a shotgun. In military terms, a gun is usually something much larger, like large caliber Naval guns fired from crews on ships.

I am not sure about US nomenclature, but in Russia AK-47 is called AVTOMAT (machine gun) not RIFLE. The difference is the length of the barrel. The effect is: bullet does not complete 360+ movement inside the barrel prior to exit. Thus AVTOMAT (machine gun) has shorter killing distance and lower accuracy than a rifle with longer barrel.

Meh, it's all in your particular choice of terminology, and even choice of vernacular, as the terms are not explicit, and have different meanings in the common, legal, and engineering senses. To be explicit: Machine gun: In common parlance, it means a fully automatic firearm of any type, including submachineguns such as the MAC/Ingram/UZI, light machine guns such as the M16, AK47, FN-FAL, and even heavy belt-fed machine guns such as the Browning M2. The legal definintion is almost the same, and includes light machineguns and heavy machineguns under the simple heading 'machine gun.' That is to say that on the registration paperwork for a fully-automatic Browning belt fed or for an AK-47, the firearm type is called out as, simply, 'Machine Gun.' Technically, the term machine gun is broken into the three classes outline above. Submachinegun: Technically, a submachinegun refers to a pistol caliber machinegun, i.e, the MAC, Uzi, Thompson, etc. The legal definition appears to be the same. In common parlance it almost always refers to the Thompson Submachinegun. Automatic Rifle and Automatic Pistol The two most nebulous of phrases in the firearms world. Strictly, they refer to semi-automatic rifles and pistols, respectively, and not necessarily those capable of fully automatic fire. A better equivalent phrase is 'self-loading' rifle or pistol. The difficulty arose from the fact that automatic-loading firearms were developed prior to fully-automatic firearms, so sem-autos were simply called 'automatics' back in the day. In common parlance, the phrases mean pretty much anything and are thus worthless, technical people will avoid their use outside of the community. Assault Rifle Strictly, an Assault Rifle is a fairly light, very durable, reliable and manuverable infantry rifle that is capable of select-fire (choice of semi- or fully-automatic fire modes). Common examples are the AK-47, the M16, and the Sturmgewehr. Commonly, an Assault Rifle is anything that looks marshal and can fire semi-automatically. In other words, calling an AK a 'machine gun' is not strictly wrong, and in fact legally correct, but is still a poor choice of words. As is 'Automatic Rifle.' I'd choose 'select-fire assault rifle' if I had to pick. As for the 'engineering difference' between a self-loading rifle and a fully-automatic rifle, I feel confident in saying, as an engineer, that in many cases it's not much. Regards, Huntsman

US military terminology for "gun", http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/dod...a/g/02385.html.

I could not find "machine gun".

Bipods have nothing to do with it. Being crew-served only indicates that it is a heavy machine gun. Machine gun is a correct, if not very specific, term. I have in front of me and original training manual published by GM's Frigidaire Division for the .50 cal Browning. I quote from the cover "Caliber .50, M2, Browning Machine Gun." And US Army Technical Manual TM 9-1005-213-10 "Operator's Manual, Machine Gun, Caliber 50, Browning, M2 [...]". The Browning .30 cal, and the M-60 are called out in the same manner. Simply not true. Rifling does not affect the definition of a machine gun. If that were the case there would be no machineguns. Navy types do use 'gun' to refer to large caliber rifled or smoothbore projectile-firing weapons, but 'gun' does not only refer to a smoothbore. 'Musket' or 'shotgun' is the appropriate terms where applicable for smoothbores, as 'rifle' is for a rifled, long barreled, small caliber, shoulder-fired small arm. 'Gun' is really the blanket, most general and generic term, excepting only that military caveat. Firstly, Avtomat is simply 'automatic' or 'automatic gun' -- to claim it denotatively translates to 'machine gun' is stretching it. By connotation it probably now does, but that means nothing really. I will check with a Russian friend of mine. Length of barrel does not determine the qualification of 'machine gun' -- that's freaking ridiculous! ~ Huntsman

I stand corrected Huntsman. I was always under the impression machine gun meant a crew operated weapon, and gun was used for large heavy artillery type weapons. I also thought anything smaller and rifled was not to be called anything but a rifle.

I learned something today.

Well, a lot of the terms are really quite nebulous, and definitions have changed over the years, so a great deal of confusion, even amongst the cognoscenti, typically ensues. I recall learning from you about rims...

I also don't think that an M-60 is a crew fired weapon - but I may be wrong. the M-60, if I remember correctly, is the machine gun carried by infantry and fired by one operator, who carries it. it is chain fed. I am more familiar with the MAAG, but it is the same idea.

the browning .30 and 50 are crew fired weapons.

aside from the occasional shotgun, I can't think of that many weapons that are in use on the modern battlefield that are not rifeled.


my understanding is that the assult rifle was a weapon designed to be "assulted" with - as opposed to many military rifles that came before, that were considred better defensive weapons - in wwii, it was considered better to use troops armed with machine pistols, submachine guns and carbines to assult, and rifles to defend. the assult rifle gives that light weight and shorter lenght of a smaller weapon, with the longer range and rate of fire of a heavier weapon - thus "assult rifle".

yes, this is what I thought it was, basically a squad gun

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M60_machine_gun

a 50 would be a company gun - carried by a crew and used to provide cover for a company of men. an M-60 would be carried two in a platoon - one to give cover and one near point to bolster the front end of the platoon, and would be operated and carried by one man.

for a period of time, I was a MAAGist - the operator of a MAAG. very satisfying, but heavy. the ammo is a killer.

Dear Huntsman not only length of the barrel but what happens with a bullet inside, that is what separates AVTOMAT (machine gun) from VINTOVKA (rifle). You should have checked with your RUS friend before posting. P.S. As far as AK-47 being developed from German WWII MP44 (STG44)...It is only a speculation. If you take apart MP-44 you immediately realize that it has significantly more similarities to AR-15 (M-16) than Kalashnikov.

where do you get this shit?

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as51-e.htm

Pistol grip housing is hinged on M16 just like on MP.
Gas return chamber is not a separate piece and not removable just like on M16
Piston and lock-return spring are reaching back into the stock housing just like on M16
Overall crappy design which is more suitable for recreational shooting and requires cleaning after each use.