Kalashnikov

[Túrin Turambar]

This is an unusual topic to be writing about on Christmas morning, but I saw yesterday that Mikhail Kalashnikov has died. His lasting legacy is the gun that he designed during the Second World War, the AK-47.

It is one of those classic cases of unintended consequences. A tinkerer with an interest in weapons from his childhood, Kalashnikov was conscripted into the Red Army in 1938. During the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, he saw that the Russian soldiers were at a disadvantage in small arms. Wounded in action in 1941, he began to develop a new, light, reliable automatic rifle for use in the desperate struggle to defend his homeland against a brutal and ruthless enemy. It did not go into production until 1947 (hence its name) but when it did it became obvious that Kalashnikov had hit on a winner. The gun would operate in conditions from the Siberian winter to the Kazakh summer. Snow, mud and dust would not stop it. It could be easily cleaned and maintained in harsh conditions with limited tools, it was light and had little recoil, yet could fire at the range of other rifles.

These advantages meant that the AK-47 has since proliferated around the developing world. More AK-47s have been produced than any other gun, and it is possible that it has claimed more lives than any other single gun as well. Insurgent movements from Vietnam to Afghanistan have relied on AK-47s – it is hard to see how any other weapon could have allowed the Viet Cong to match firepower with U.S. Marines. It is used throughout Africa, where its light weight and low recoil make it practical as a powerful weapon for child soldiers. As we speak AK-47s, little-changed from the original design, are being used to kill people in conflicts from Syria to the South Sudan.

Kalashnikov seemed to take a stoic view of his legacy – he had a job to do for his country and he did it. And, of course, it is hardly fair to blame the tool or its designer for how people chose to use it. Had there been no AK-47s, there would still be war. But third world governments and non-state actors would have found it much harder, which is an interesting historical counterfactual.

[Frelga]

Don't modern conflicts use the AKM, where M stands for modernized?

Here's a bit of trivia - field-stripping a Kalash was part of high school curriculum in the Soviet Union.

[River]

Yugoslavia too. Though it may have been a domestic weapon they used. I can't remember and S isn't in the mood to answer those kinds of questions.

[Primula Baggins]

Don't modern conflicts use the AKM, where M stands for modernized?

Here's a bit of trivia - field-stripping a Kalash was part of high school curriculum in the Soviet Union.

Wow, and I thought having to learn to hand-sew a blind hem was oppressive.

[axordil]

The other reason there are so many--and so many variants--is that it's an easy weapon to manufacture...so in addition to the "official" ones there are "licensed" copies from most countries in the old Soviet bloc, China, Cuba et al, and pirated ones from almost anywhere. IP is not Communism's strong suit.

[N.E. Brigand]

Coincidentally, about ten days ago, our valet parking vendor, who is Russian by birth, gave me a curious Christmas gift: in a box imported from Russia and stamped "AK-47": a ceramic, slightly smaller than life-size (I think), fairly realistic copy (to a casual glance) of that rifle ... which was full of vodka.

[axordil]

The, um, best of both worlds? Depending on the vodka perhaps...

[Frelga]

Don't modern conflicts use the AKM, where M stands for modernized?

Here's a bit of trivia - field-stripping a Kalash was part of high school curriculum in the Soviet Union.

Wow, and I thought having to learn to hand-sew a blind hem was oppressive.

We did that, too.