Unholy fascination - a brief overview of the AK-47

My interest in firearms grew out of a general fascination for European military history of most periods, particularly the development of warfare and tactics through the Classical Period, Migration Era, the Norman influence on Mediaeval warfare, the Napoleonic Wars and Modern warfare.

I was struck at an early age by the interaction of culture and new technologies with modes of fighting – which ultimately means weapons and equipment and their uses. A higher technology and organized use of it always gave peoples the edge over their opponents; competition demanded the improvement of technology; and technology transformed the activity (or organization) of warfare. In all this I find three subjects of particular interest.

One is the advance of pre-industrial metallurgy from around early Roman times, until the birth of refined alloyed steel production around 1100 A.D., in other words, hammer- or pattern-welding of swords, axes and spears together from small smelted iron ingots of different consistency. This process required high skill and was expensive, and thus gave politico-military pre-eminence to wealthier classes. I possess some swords, and intend to collect superb pattern-welded replicas from such modern master-smiths as Paul Binns (www.paul-binns-swords.co.uk).

The second is the design history of the tank, whose form follows function perhaps most faithfully of all man-made artifacts, balancing mobility, firepower and armour.

The third is the evolution of the assault rifle through the submachine-gun - service rifle debate that preoccupied the first half of the Twentieth Century, which found its culmination in an effective combination of the two, in both form and ammunition caliber adjustments.

Specifically, this subject focuses on the AK-47.

The AK-47 family of weapons, evolving over fifty years and still continuing, may be used to demonstrate, by analogy, a thesis of parallels with phenomena observed in evolution both in the natural world of physics and biology, and in all man-made artifacts. The phenomena are “speciation”, linear, circular and reverse evolution, complexification and stagnation. While at the same time the AK-47 group arouses admiration, it also in the final analysis succumbs to conservatism and fails to take us further – to a new generation of small arms and fighting culture.

My grandfather (O. G. Davies) was a colonel in the SAAF during World War Two. He sparked an intense interest in reading on the subject, which found its ultimate focus on the epic struggle between Germany and the Soviet Union on the Eastern front. Though a large part of this history is played by the relative organization and application of human resources, weapons development was also paramount.

My membership of 61 Mechanised Battalion of the SADF in 1982, when I was in combat myself as a mechanized infantryman in Angola, brought the context of personal experience. Thus I am interested in infantry skirmishing techniques, armour warfare, and their combination; but I especially came into contact with the reality, and the mythology, of the AK-47. I began to reflect on its origins and its practicality for modern war.

It was in purchasing hunting ammunition in the last years of the 1990s that I had the idea of a collection of military weapons – never an intention previously. A semi-automatic (modified) AK-47 Type 66 of Norinco (Chinese) manufacture was on sale in a Cape Town gun shop. I recognized its historical significance as an early mark, and conceived the idea of a collection that traces the historical development of this family of weapons, which has become very widespread and diverse – and with a wide scope in itself. This weapon thus became the seed core of the intended collection, and I quickly saw it as defining the collection too. Since then my interest in the AK-47, its development and evolution has grown and expanded.

While my main interest is those weapons that have actually passed trials and been adopted for the Russian armed forces (in other words, been shaped by the uncompromising reality of warfare), there are numerous side branches – secondary forms that have been discarded at prototype stage or been used for purposes other than the military; and these are nevertheless interesting in the context of the evolution of the weapon.

In contemplating the scope of the future collection, it was important to determine some restrictions. Firstly, it was important to realize that the AK-47 was itself a direct product of the experience of the Second World War, and might be thought of as merely an upgrade, in a war that was ongoing. Therefore, precedents were to be found mainly in that war, seldom earlier. It may be that mechanical design ideas were drawn from by the design teams that originated in much earlier types, but they had to be excluded (it is to be remembered that the AK-47 was not, as some believe, a spontaneous original design, but went through many changes while still on the drawing board, as existing ideas were sifted and discarded by many designers and review teams). The influences that produced it were literally in the hands of the designers during the war years, and came from both German, and Russian, as well as Western Allied (lend-lease), armouries. The Soviets were never ashamed to borrow or steal.

Precedents include the main infantry small arms either carried by Soviet troops, or enemy weapons which were enviously admired. It might be thought admissible to include such weapons as the Mosin-Nagants and the Mausers G98 and K98, but these are of only unrelated interest to me as they do not substantially differ from thousands of other bolt action rifles around the world. The focus should be on integrated, blowback or gas operated small arms such as the Fedorov Avtomat and StG44 (if available!), PPSh-41 etc.

Since the end of the Second World War until the present day, the basic form, or typology of the AK-47 has undergone several main strategic improvements as the Soviets, and subsequently the Russians, have restructured their fighting ability. These improvements centre around caliber options, accuracy, tactics, production issues and portability / ergonomics. But during each phase, too, numerous adjustments have been made for specialized needs, and cheap mass-production particularly brought in new forms not just in the Soviet Union but among its satellites and allies of the Cold War.

Added to this, the mechanical typology (the typology of a spoon being equivalent to the typology of a pot – each having the elements container and handle) has been used to produce new weapons that are not assault rifles, but are other forms, for example light machine-guns, submachine-guns, sniper rifles and specialist weapons for limited special needs.

The AK-47 has also been copied by other nations to produce entirely new assault rifle identities, recognizably unique in form but adhering to the same mechanical typology. For example: the Israeli Galil group and descendents.

All these many categories are admissible in the collection, if their typology adheres to the requirement, namely, a box-shaped receiver containing a rolling bolt in a bolt-carrier, fused to a long stroke gas piston in a cylinder above the barrel; a captive return spring assembly; a dust cover / safety lever; and having large clearance between the bolt group and the receiver walls.

A cautionary note has to be made regarding the many unauthorised copies or replicas that are being made by civil manufacturers for commercial consumption, particularly in the USA. These fall outside the parameters of the collection.

The currently in-vogue bullpup forms and variations are also to be excluded. To me they are a side issue, the theoretical advantage of a long barrel within a short overall length not being borne out by significant combat superiority, while designs suffer from over-complexity.

To return now more specifically to the thesis of evolutionary parallels, one may note the “speciation” of the weapon in an environment of specific stresses and demands, creating a product radically different to all that had gone before; to a linear improving evolution through successive similar types as the martial environment altered through the Cold War years; the circular evolution beginning in a blowback submachine-gun era, through the assault rifle, and ending in modern gas operated submachine-guns having greater complexity, lower rate of fire, and that are arguably inferior in certain design comparisons (doing less with more); complexification embodied in the Nikonov AN-94 Abakan, which while undeniably remarkable as a design feat and as a weapon, depends for its existence on forgiveness in an industry not known for it – it has some obvious faults, like the eccentrically weighted magazine and the fact that greater penetrating power can be provided simply by changing ammunition; and the stagnation and conservatism that have given us the highly accessorized yet fundamentally unaltered AK-200.

What is highly interesting is that in the stringent trials for an assault rifle for the Red Army, the AK-47 was not the leading contender in all categories. In fact it performed poorly when it came to accuracy and especially so in full automatic mode, always the primary mode in Russian military doctrine. The Bulkin AB-46 / TKB-415 came first in this category, but was finally rejected in favour of the AK-47’s superior durability and reliability. It was considered more astute to start production on the reliable and production-ready AK-47 and improve its accuracy in successive types. With hindsight, it might have been better to commit to other options sooner; the AK group’s relative inaccuracy has been a constant issue until the present day.

This discussion may further be expanded to concede the effects of the politics, socioeconomics, the demand economy, fashion and culture of the Russian people, technological constraints, as well as the actual personalities and group dynamics of the design teams and their masters.

It has to be admitted at once that opportunity plays a part in the selection and purchase of collectables. Desired items may never become available or be too expensive, and conversely, affordability and availability may include an unexpected item in the collection. So, opportunity is thus a criterion, and may be allowed to extend the parameters slightly, although the basic rules apply.

This said, I have formulated the following needs:-

1.    The weapon should have a service history. It should have been used in a historical context, a particular war or incident, or have belonged to earmarked for a notable unit or person. It should not be new, nor be a copy produced for civilian markets, although for certain rare forms, or types still classified within Russia, exceptions may be made.

2.    It must be definitively a Type, recognizable as such with clear markings and manufacturing history.

3.    It must be in relatively good condition, a good example of the Type. (For example, I possess a PPSh-41, which has original flaws in the metal of the block. This makes it more interesting, as it is evidence of the stresses of both uncritical hurried manufacture, and over-use during WW2. This makes it better than a copy).

4.    The weapon must be semi-automatic or converted to semi-automatic.

5.    The weapon must specifically be a direct WW2 precedent of the AK-47, an AK-100 series rifle, or be a submachine-gun, light machine-gun, sniper rifle or special needs weapon derived from the AK typology.

6.    Unlicensed copies or adaptations by other nations’ militaries are admissable.

7.    It is preferable that the weapon has passed the litmus test of being the weapon of choice for a national military, and is not merely a version produced for commercial reasons.

Certain key weapons are particularly desirable for this collection. These are the main stages of the weapon’s evolution, as well as extreme variations, even if these have not yet been adopted for the Russian military. In defining the scope of this collection, these items, specifically are:

Fedorov, the earliest assault rifle produced

PPSh-41, the main WW2 infantry sub-machinegun

SSK, SVT-40, M1 Carbine, early self-loading rifles

Stg.44, the German WW2 assault rifle, the earliest in active use

AK-47, AKM, AK-74, AKS-74, AKS-74U – the AK group in linear development

The balanced action AK-107/108

The remarkable blowback shifted pulse AN-94 Abakan

PP-19 Bizon and SR-3 submachine-guns as examples of this adaptation

RPK, RPK-74 light machine-guns

SVD Dragunov quick-firing sniper rifle.

=

I learned several years ago to interpret the world in terms of critical reality. Whatever views you yourself espouse, there will be instances when all other formulations are discarded, like if you are caught in the hills in a hailstorm, or are being herded toward a gas chamber, or are attacked by lions. Our responses are emphatic, immediate and final; to declare, as did the rabbi at Auschwitz, “There is no God,” or to be infused with adrenaline and act. In my own case, I was attacked by lions. There was no time to ponder existential theories of reality, and afterwards it was useless.

This is, in a way, to argue anthropically. On the basis of my own existence and nature, the world, because I experience it so, is thus. The domain of our subjectivity constitutes a proper and essential sphere of investigation into the nature of the universe (Sam Harris, The End of Faith). In other words, if we do not use consciousness to discover some facts, they might never be discovered at all. One must also remember that our experience of life is dualistic – in which we the subject observe the object. This is the product of our particular evolved consciousness – and not necessarily useful when contemplating phenomena we CANNOT observe, such as atomic particles and quanta, black holes and the start of Universe. Perhaps it is this failing that prompts us to conjecture deity, the remote observer manufactured by our consciousness to witness and account for that which lies forever beyond our gross perception. Our subjectivity throws up dust before our eyes.

There are many instances where an anthropic argument has been used conclusively to satisfy questions that have no other means of clarification. For example, the universe (I will name it “Universe” in the same way we speak of reality, as opposed to the reality) is the way it is because, were it any other way, we would not be here to see it. I am a product of the world; my chemistry is the world’s chemistry; I must have the wherewithal to know it truly, even if to do this I must think indirectly. For metaphor and intuition are the tools of the unknowable. God has been a metaphor for all things unseen till science opened expanding vistas of knowledge. Yet even scientists employ metaphor and abstraction to comprehend quantum physics, the deep past and the nature of time and space - places where our thoughts and senses struggle to go.

Having done some reading myself, and quite probably not nearly enough, I am about to present to you an original and new view of Universe based on my own reasoning, using the anthropic principle. It differs a little from the mainstream scientific viewpoint, and yet I (humbly) think it’s important. I know its heavy stuff (I mean, writing this caused some brain pain) but please try your best and give me your opinions.

Here goes:-  

e=mv² is the old formula that gives us the energy of a moving object: if you weigh m (mass) kilograms and are running from a lion at v (velocity) metres per second, then your e (energy) can be calculated. e=mv² had been around for 200 odd years until (having done some reading), in an accomplishment of pure thought, Einstein reasoned that since no velocity higher than the speed of light is possible for matter, this limiting factor must be integral to the relationship between energy and mass. And thus, e=mc². c is the velocity of light, incorporating distance and time. These are the basic constituents of Universe: energy, mass, and spacetime, and in fact the basic constituents of our reality. Together, they are reality.

But what about = ? Is it not as intrinsic a part of this reality? “Equals” represents the activity of a verb, or verbs, but fails to tell us what actually happened, for the process of obtaining energy out of mass is anything but simple. The formula, we must remember, is a mathematical statement replete with unsolved mystery. Saying that Einstein had a brainwave is an understatement, is itself a colossal understatement! Some, who knew him, thought that he himself may even have understood the formula! All = tells us is that mc² becomes e, but it fails to qualify this in any way. As = also appears in a myriad of forms, its generic use here shrouds a wide field of enquiry. It is the elephant in the room.

Black holes, the Table of Elements, the Big Bang, Hiroshima: all these can be understood in terms of e=mc². Almost all is understood, yet the need to invent God survives still in the lingering human questions containing “why”. Perhaps the human child in us simply needs to be told “because why is a crooked letter”. There are many times when the why question is neither useful nor welcome – it is thinking inside the box.

In the beginning was the word. “Word” and “verb” are etymologically related, verbum being the Latin for word. It may well be that ancient desert musings intuited accurately that at the core of all the reality we can perceive is some, personal or not, volition. (I don’t see why my own stream of ideas should not have been repeated many times by others down the ages). For what caused the Big Bang to be, in all its blinding light? It most definitely occurred in a process contained in = , the relationship between the participants in reality.

So what is this word, or sentence, or recipe, that describes the relationship? If we can find its meaning, perhaps it will be the meaning of all we have ever sought, this relationship between energy, matter, distance and time; and it may also flesh out the mystifying pivotal instant of inevitability immediately prior to the Big Bang, when reality came into being.

It has to be more than a simple word, most probably a complex sentence or understanding, with qualifications and provisions. The formula stands alone quite satisfactorily as a mathematical statement. But we know that for a large part of the life of Universe (i.e. during reality) most matter, and most energy, are not actively engaged in the formulaic process of transformation. Thankfully for us. It happens under certain circumstances, to be found in very heavy elements, stars, and some bigger reactions. Most matter is stable and most energy remains energy. So first of all, conditions have to be correct for = to operate.

The object, or rather Situation, that existed prior to and became the Big Bang was neither energy nor matter nor did it have dimension or duration. These were all unrecognisably transformed. It incorporated all, in a combination for which we have no conception or practical description. It also, like a super-black hole, exerted a field of almost infinite gravity. This definitely does not mean void, as the pre-primal non-substance is biblically named. Far from it. This was simply a non-reality thing. We, being products of Universe where energy, mass and spacetime are interdependently discrete, and gravity is weak, can only use the now-unbundled tools of this (our) reality to observe them. e=mc² emerges as the very definition of reality itself.

Now pay attention! Transcending the absolute moribund nature of this Situation, was its ability to transform – we know it did, for we are here. It seems as if = represents the requirement to transform, a Law of Progression, or Law of Unlimited Compulsion. (This is not to be confused with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which, only within Universe, dictates an increase of entropy, making possible the changes of Universe, including the production of forces and particles, and the evolution of elements and life). It is as if, with e, m, and timespace collapsed upon each other, = still retains its freedom of action: it stands outside.

I believe that the extreme tension between collapsed matter and the resultant  intense gravitational field caused a reversal in the disposition of energy, somewhat analogous to a reversal in polarity. I do not think there was a Big Bang as it has been suggested up till now: an explosion. Instead, the gravitational field became evenly infused with all (i.e. the total amount of all) the energy previously locked in the Situation, the energy dissolved, forming a uniform distribution of energy particles as a pressureless colloidal dust, or field matrix plasma. Simply put, the gravity “vacuumed” the energy from an inwardly collapsed state into an outwardly open and distributed state. This occurred with a commensurate dissipation of the gravity – and a surge of released spacetime (with some attributes of superconductors) which is still continuing, even as gravity again accumulates (for gravity results from the accretion of mass. Bear in mind that gravity distorts and bends spacetime in on itself). This explains the observed uniformly expanding nature of Universe as well as its residual electromagnetic radiation; imagine dots on an elastic sheet which is being stretched.

I feel it is necessary to paraphrase this explanation simply, lest its meaning escapes us. The Big Bang does not emerge explosively from a point; it erupts equally everywhere into energy, and there is an oscillation of states of being as equilibrium is maintained (gravity – spacetime – gravity). The singularity was not a point but a pervading field having the potential for transformation into energy and spacetime.

There are parts of Universe we cannot see because their light has not yet reached us. In conventional Big Bang theory, for this to have occurred, the speed of the explosion must have been great indeed. Those invisible parts must have reached their destination at speeds greater than the speed of light… or else we could see them. Is this speed possible for matter? Is not an Instant Universe a more compelling theory?

For those who would disagree I ask: Where is the singularity located? In an infinite gravitational field, CAN it be located?

The field yields a sudden even distribution of elementary energy particles which, from a momentary matrix of average symmetry, are, through freedom of motion, and cooling and convection, thrown into interactions which result in uneven, asymmetric concentrations of forces, and the onset of angular momentum. These concentrations are the factories of proto-mass, recreating gravity again, to begin the evolution of matter and stars. It is in the emergence of energy particles from gravity that unifies it with the other forces.

It was in this super-hot, elementary particle “flour” in which collisions and associations between particles led to elementary mass particles akin to the theoretical Higgs Boson, and subsequently to hydrogen atoms. It is the non-regular, angular momentum of elementary particles and their resultant increase in speed that gives rise to their relativistic mass – or protomass – in unstable packets of short duration. Some transmutation occurs, inducing interactions of strong nuclear forces and permanent relationships.

Were elementary particles initially as various as those we have recently discovered? Or are many of these the offspring of later stars, elements and cosmic combinations? I guess that the initial mix was simpler, yet complex enough to produce hydrogen, and helium. Simple hydrogen therefore might contain the original recipe.

We know that the bonds that keep mass from reverting explosively to energy are very strong. We now know that in achieving fission in the most unstable of elements, this is only partial. But what about the opposite process? What about ongoing solidification of energy into mass?

We live in the Universe Epoch. It may well be incorrect to speak of alternate universes: such things may have been so strikingly different to Universe (our reality), that we could neither experience them, let alone describe or name them.

Universe functions by means of intrinsic laws and actors – forces, energy and mass, gravity and linear spacetime. Without these, including the Second Law of Thermodynamics, we simply could not be here.