Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Technology / Weaponry Start‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force Russia: Technology & engineering / Military High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the technology and engineering in Russia task force. This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force. Firearms This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 100 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.

An anonymous user added "allegdly" (sic) to the sentence about Hitler coining the term Sturmgewehr. The edit was subsequently removed by User:RAF910 with the note "U.S. War Department publication is a reliable reference". That may be so, but:

1. The source webpage itself says As with all wartime intelligence information, data may be incomplete or inaccurate,;
2. It's written like propaganda in the source document;
3. There doesn't appear to be a scan of the source document available for verification, the only source is transcribed;
4. The German wiki entry says it's unclear who named the weapon, and suggests it may have been General Erich Jaschke;
5. No other source can be found which supports the claim that Hitler named the weapon.

I'm not saying Hitler didn't name it, but I think having the word allegedly in there is a good idea.

--Dziban303 (talk) 11:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AIUI, the weapon was named by a group of generals (maybe Jaschke) for political reasons to appease Hitler (rather than Hitler himself coming up with the name).

Hitler was a lousy general and tactician, in particular because he was still thinking in terms of a WWI trench mentality. He thought that rifles were for taking slow aimed shots across No Man's Land. He didn't like machine pistols for front line combat, as he saw their small cartridges as pointless. He didn't like the early goals of what would become the Sturmgewehr, or the Maschinenpistole 43 as it then was. Remember that this is using the Kurz round.

So as all good German generals learned to do, they pandered to Hitler's biases. Hitler did like Sturmtruppen, again from his WWI mentality. So rename it from Maschinenpistole to Sturmgewehr and play up to his fixed thinking. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia of Military Technology and Innovation, p. 25 "Minor changes, and Hitler's personal endorsement, brought the new name 'Sturmgewehr 44' in 1944"

The Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II, p. 218 "In 1944 Hitler rescinded his opposition to the MP 43 and bestowed the more accurate designation of Sturmgewehr 44 (StG 44) upon the weapon."

So there's two sources that say that Hitler named it Sturmgewehr. Might be that the authors confused Hitler's approval of the name with him coining it, but this is what the sources say nonetheless.--Sus scrofa (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That second source (can't read the first one) says that it was renamed from Maschinenkarbine (which is the idea Hitler didn't like) to Maschinenpistole (MP40s already existed, so weren't a novel idea) to appease or hide from Hitler. It was then renamed a second time, to Sturmgewehr, and that was the rename by Hitler. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Towards the end of 1944, a further term was given to the weapon: this, StG44 (for Sturmgewehr - 'assault rifle' - 44), is said to have been bestowed upon the rifles by a well-satisfied Adolf Hitler. At any rate, it more adequately describes the rifles' role. the weapon was originally designated as a machine pistol - or submachine gun - in order to circumvent Hitler's directive that development of rifles was to cease and production of machine pistols stepped up: by calling the weapon an MP the production figures thus appeared in the 'MP' columns of the monthly production reports boosting the figures, and disappeared from the rifle columns." (Military Small Arms of the 20th Century, 7th Edition, Ian V. Hogg, page 243).

As for the idea that Hitler "was still thinking in terms of a WWI trench mentality. He thought that rifles were for taking slow aimed shots across No Man's Land. He didn't like machine pistols for front line combat, as he saw their small cartridges as pointless." is absolute nonsense (see above reference). Hitler was obsessed with new tactics and weapons. He was a champion of blitzkrieg, V weapons, air warfare, paratroopers, tank warfare, etc...and especially the production of all types of machine guns.--RAF910 (talk) 03:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I took a bold step and added two of the sources brought up here to the relevant piece of text. Don't be afraid to revert if you have a reason to, but please say why on talk if you do.--Sus scrofa (talk) 20:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Faceless Enemy, the classical definition for an assault rifle is one with a "large-capacity magazine" as cited by Musgrave and Nelson, Assault Weapons of the World, vol. II, (1967). Yes, an AKM is still an assault rifle whether it has a 5-round mag or none at all but if we're going by strict definitions we need to change the definition of effective range of 300 meters. Most military's and major law enforcement agencies throughout the world use submunitions for training. I think you'd agree that even though they lack an effective range of much less than 300 meters it doesn't change the definition of an assault rifle anymore than if they were firing blanks. Either, we say typically has a large-capacity magazine and typically has an effective range of 300 meters, as we can't be a purist with one definition and a generalist with the other. Thank youIcemanwcs (talk) 06:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Icemanwcs:, that's exactly my point. Simply using simmunition in a rifle doesn't turn it into a different type of firearm, just as putting a 5-round magazine into an AKM doesn't mean it's no longer an assault rifle. It's kind of a moot point either way though - I can't think of any firearms that meet the other definitions but don't have large-ish capacity magazines. Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Faceless Enemy, you're right, moot point either way. All the best,Icemanwcs (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This addition is a clear case of misrepresenting the sources so I have removed it. What Hogg actually states is "The Federov selective-fire rifle can probably lay claim to being the ancestor of the present generation of assault rifles, although it falls into that category perhaps more by chance than by design." He will go on to state that the rifle suffered from excessive muzzle blast and recoil in addition to having an open receiver which left the weapon exposed to mud and dirt. "Whether it was this defect, or simply that the unusual locking system failed to live up to its promise, the fact remains that the AVS had a very short service life, being replaced in 1938 by the more simple Tokarev."

If the designers of the StG 44 used the AVS as a blueprint to any part of their design then there might be a claim but in actuality they didn't. It was a failed weapon that had no influence on the StG 44. Claiming it was the forerunner is false.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Failed weapons ? No. StG is a failed weapon, not AVS. AVS was ceased to be used because the catridge is Arisaka 6,5mm, by which the USSR did not import and did not spend effort to domestically produce it. AVS is the first assault rifle but the Western propaganda do not want to recognize it.

StG is a failure and it has nothing to do with AVS, and nothing to do with AK. StG is not even an assault rifle, it is a machine pistol. The original name is MP 44.

MP 44 is not an assault rifle. It has no handguard and the catridge is damn weak. Михаил Александрович Шолохов (talk) 05:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source that you provided stated that it is a failed weapon...but I actually see that you went and grabbed a block of refs from the StG 44 article...refs that you don't actually have, do you? You didn't bother to read any of them did you? I walked twenty feet from where I was editing and picked up the actual book out of a bookshelf full of firearms books. The AK was designed after Kalashnikov was given captured StG 44s. (This is what the sources say) Your credibility is now zero. We're not going to argue semantics here as English terminology is clear and we don't need anymore confused Checkovs. Competence is required on Wikipedia. You misrepresented the sources and now that you got caught you want to call it "Western propaganda".
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is propaganda, from book to media, from school to workplaces. A propaganda make nearly half of the population believe in idiocy of the Bible.

Kalashnikov was given the StG 44 ? So ? That doesn't make the StG 44 an assault rifle and that doesn't make any connection between StG 44 and AK. StG 44 uses tilting bolt, while AK uses rotating bolt. AK's design rotating bolt is learned from M1 Garand, it has nothing to do with StG 44. USSR began to develop M43 intermediate catridge in 1943, tried it in AS-44 of Sudaev and verified the concept of intermediate cartridge established by Fedorov Avtomat.

Not to mention that StG 44 is machine pistol, its original name is MP 44. An assault rifle does not have proper handguard ? Don't joke with me, have you ever try to aim using a rifle ?

You read books but do you understand the concept of assault rifle behind it ? 115.78.134.153 (talk) 02:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "MP" designation was to sneak it by Hitler. "As work moved forward to incorporate this new firing system, development halted when Hitler suspended all new rifle programs due to administrative infighting within the Third Reich. Hitler ordered that newer submachine guns were to be built, and he strongly disagreed with the use of the Kurz ammunition. To keep the MKb 42(H) development program alive, the Waffen Amt (Armament Office) re-designated the weapon as the Maschinenpistole 43 (MP 43) and, making a few improvements, billed the weapon as an upgrade to existing submachine guns." And 7.92×33mm is an intermediate rifle cartridge, not a pistol cartridge. Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I read the Osprey source that you provided, I can't help but laugh because it basically bolsters my point that it was a failed weapon. Since you previously used Hogg as a source, you may be interested in what he actually says regarding the progenitor of modern combat weapons. Yeah, I have put a few hundred thousand rounds through numerous weapons; built weapons starting from just the receiver, etc. I personally prefer .308 weapons so I own several of these; HK91(s), L1A1, Rem 700 VS, Rem 700 LTR...but I do own weapons that use assault rifle calibers as seen in the photos. I got rid of SKS (junk) and don't care to own an AK-47 because in the US they are grossly over-priced. If I'm going to spend that kind of money, I prefer machined weapons rather than stamped metal. If I could get a Romainian AK-47 for $200 then it would be a decent deal. So no, I'm not just someone with an academic-only interest in firearms. Faceless Enemy's point can be seen here.

Have you considered that it might be you who has been subject to propaganda? We use reliable sources in our articles.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What ? You use a lot of gun and you don't know that a handguard is neccessary for gunner to put a hand to it to make a proper aim ?

MP 44 is truly a MP. It has no handguard, and soldiers put the left hand to the magazine, that pose is to quickly change the direction of the gun in close combat, that is a distinctive characteristic of machine pistol. On the other hand, a rifle/assault rifle desire much more about accuracy, that's why people put the hand at the handguard, nearer to the muzzle, to have a better aiming.

Kurz 7.92mm is also weak. It is slightly stronger than PPSh 7.62x25mm, but still weak. The name is Pistolenpatrone 43, a pistol cartridge. MP 44 is truly a machine pistol, it was named MP not because of evading the wrath of Hitler.

The reason why Fedorov Avtomat was produced in a short period and small number, because it used foreign catridge, Arisaka 6.5mm. Fedorov tried to developed a domestic catridge for the Avtomat, but thanks to the idiocy and slavery nature of Russian monarch, he could not manage to. After 1917, the Red Army was poor, and did not have enough money to develop a domestic intermediate cartridge and further develop the concept of Fedorov Avtomat. Therefore they reverted back to the cheap and already reliable Mosin Nagant. Fedorov Avtomat was still limitedly use until WW2 due to out of ammunition. The design of Fedorov Avtomat was modified to use the old Mosin 7.62mm, it became Degtyaryov LMG. Russian assault rifles was stagnated for roughly a decades until WW2 when people started to realize the importance of "assault" characteristic and/or accumulate enough money to invest into that. Михаил Александрович Шолохов (talk) 02:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But they weren't investing in any Russian anything. The developments were independent of Russian developments...one thing had nothing to do with another. On the other hand, Kalashnikov's developments had everything to do with the captured StG 44s.

Your handguard arguments don't hold water. For a time, I had reconfigured my L1A1 into an L2A1 facsimile (without full auto sear) and this meant removing the handguard and adding a bipod. Photos for reference. Handguard or not, it was still the same basic rifle.

You're not going to be able to argue with your original research, synthesis and non-neutral point of view. You stooped to patently misrepresenting the sources to carry your own view which directly contradicts reliable mainstream sources. You have been shown sources but are carrying on as if you didn't hear that. Again, we're not going to argue semantics here.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Kalashnikov's developments had everything to do with the captured StG 44s" ? What the... ? Wait, wait, wait a bit there what does AK's rotating bolt has anything to do with MP 44's tilting bolt ? 115.77.4.168 (talk) 05:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To prevent any misunderstanding, although you know full well, I am the above IP. I forgot to log in. Михаил Александрович Шолохов (talk) 11:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Further up in this same section is another of your IPs and I knew that this was you and don't believe that you were trying to do anything illegitimate.

Making the point about the rotating bolt doesn't really help your case because it shows that he was borrowing technology and does more to show that he was engaged in copying more than he invented...i.e. they weren't his innovations. What does that prove?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the editor making changes to a well reference article, the burden of proof falls on Sholokhov to provide irrefutable references to support his claims. He has failed to meet this standard. Contrary to all established references in the article, Sholokhov claims that the StG 44 is NOT an assault rifle and had nothing to do with the development of the AK-47. He claims that the references provided in the article are nothing more than propaganda. He claims that the StG 44 has no hand-guard and that it is a short range weapon comparable to a sub-machinegun. The only evidence that he has provided to support these unique claims is a single Wiki image. See below...

Yet, this image clearly shows an StG with a hand-guard and and fitted with ZF 4 sniper scope, completely refuting his own argument. ( see second photo with the hand-guard clearly labeled... http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt07/stg44-assault-rifle.html). The fact that he seems completely unaware of this most basic piece of firearms knowledge, disqualifies him from editing this page. Competence is required on Wikipedia and Sholokhov is clearly incompetent on the subject matter. Also, the fact that he calls all establish references in the article nothing more than propaganda, lead me to believe that he is unwilling to assume good faith and as such is unfit to edit Wikipedia in general. --RAF910 (talk) 16:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hell. Does that "handguard" prevent your hand from being heatburned if you put your hand continuously long time ? The only thing it can does it reduce the effect of heat if you mistakenly put the hand into the place.

@Berean Hunter: I am not hurt if you say Kalashnikov copy from this to that. AK design was "copy" from many thing, it didn't appear from nowhere. The gas operation tube was borrowed from Czechoslovakia ZB. The bolt was borrow from M1 Garand. The concept was set from Fedorov Avtomat. The idea of M43 cartridge was developed and tested by the USSR before AK was born. In short, Russian assault rifle is a collective and long term program, developed by many people and competitors, and get the idea from many places. Kalashnikov's design was the final winner in that long-time development. But MP 44 has nothing to be suited as the ancestor or inspiration of AK. Again, what does MP 44's tilting bolt has anything to do with AK's rotating bolt ? Михаил Александрович Шолохов (talk) 06:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've read this discussion in full. It seems like User:Sholokhov is trying to push some kind of POV into the article. He claims that the StG44 is a "failed weapon", not an assault rifle but a machine pistol, and had no influence on the AK47. Every single available source refutes his claims, but he turned around and accused ever available source as being "Western propaganda". This incredible insistance at denying the hard facts shows an obvious WP:CIR violation. Any continued editing in this fasion is disruptive and should result in a short block or topic ban. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 07:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably last post before I get a temporal/permanent ban, who knows. Without a proper handguard to effectively isolate the heat, the soldier cannot put the hand near the muzzle to have a proper aim. Nobody forbid you to put your hand at that position when the barrel is still not very hot, but I guess you already know full well how hot the barrel of a gun can become and in which time. About the Pistolenpatrone, that is pistol cartridge. The warhead diameter is nearly big as AK, but the propellant chamber is damn short. Germany killed MKb rifle program in 193x, and in 194x modified a MP to match the role of assault rifle, that method is totally stupid and it was caused by the stupidity of Hitler and his allies.

AK uses rotating bolt learned from M1 Garand, while MP 44 uses tilting bolt. You have to remember that, MP 44's kind of tilting bolt causes unfavorable vibration which is disliked by Russia and Germany. Actually Russia had the AS-44 using tilting bolt, but the historical role of AS-44 is simply testifying the concept of assault rifle and M43 cartridge, and AS-44 was not adopted. The Belgium FN FAL also used tilting bolt, but it was designed so that the vibrations more or less neutralize each other, which reduces the net effect.

But to be fair, we can consider that 193x-194x German guns for examp;le SK39 with the GECO cartridge 7.92x40mm, as the first attempt of Germany to create assault rifle. SK39 is one of the latest version of the MKb35 program - the first assault rifle program of Germany, and the GECO 7.92x40mm is quite similar to the Russian M43 7.62mm.

Let me off topic a bit. You may know full well the goals of German MKb program, the product of MKb program should be 1) lighter and shorter than Mauser K98, 2) effective range similar to K98, 3) full auto fire-rate not faster than 360-450rpm, 4) resistance against dust and sand, 5) simple design. The biggest mistake of MKB requirements is that, it demanded the effective range similar to Mauser K98, that requirement significantly hamper the "assault" capability due to high recoil, and K98 effective range is not necessary because for average human soldier 300 metre is enough.

Back to SK39, it was killed by Hitler and his political allies. You may already know full well about Hitler dislike the idea of assault rifle. Because his close allies who held power in Nazi war industry were mainly MP producers. For the sake of MP allies, Hitler killed SK39 and MKb programs, and went on with MP designs. Only a small number of MKb35 guns were produced, and the strongest supporter of German assault rifle, Heinrich Vollmer, fell out of favour. Haenel and Walther continued to maintain the research of MKb prototypes, but H and W were wealthy businessmen rather than true scientists. To please the ego of Hitler faction, H and W corrupted the MKb program, use simpler design, smaller cartridge, i.e. made the MKb program become more and more like MP. Researches and experiments of the strong 8x40mm cartridge stopped after 1939. At the year of 1942, MKb prototypes used smaller 8x33mm cartridge, similar to the Pistolenpatrone of the MP 44.

German MKb received a further blow with the impressive performance of German MP at the beginning of WW2. At that time, opponents of Germany were small countries, weak countries, or countries with obsolete tactics and wrong military doctrine (France, etc). Therefore MP could easily win the battle and it caused the delusion of "superman MP". But Germany received a terrible shock when it invaded Russia in June 1941. Germany gradually witness Russian weapons like PPD, PPSh which were much stronger than MP38, and T-34 which was much better than Panzer 3 or Panzer 4. Shocked by the performance of PPSh and 7.62x25mm Tokarev, Hitler ramped up the already-corrupted MKb since 1942. But the MKb program was damn corrupted since 1939, 8x40mm cartridge was stopped to be developed for years, the MKB prototypes had no choice but went on with the weak 8x33mm cartridge.

That means, instead of making a matured assault rifle right from the beginning, Hitler killed the assault rifle SK-39 to went on with MP, and then modified the MP to match the role of assault rifle. A crazy way to go, that craziness was caused by the idiocy and ignorance of Hitler faction.

So you can see, the result of it, the MP 44, or you people like to name, StG 44, is a prematured baby, a freaking fetus. MP 44 is a laughing stock for German weapon makers. The 8x33mm is slightly stronger than 7.62x25 Tokarev, but still weak and in fact it essentially is a MP cartridge. In order to increase the power, Germany put as much as possible propellant into the small 33mm chamber, but that caused overpressure and increased the burden to the gun. The gun is as weak as a MP, but heavy (5.2 kg), and does not have a proper handguard which is necessarily to have a proper aim for a rifle.

MP 44 was adopted in the same year as G43 and MG42. The number produced is limited (430,000). And it is a failure, disregard of Hitler's attempt to propaganda as a magic to stop PPSh, and disregard of Western propaganda as a mean to dishonor the Avtomat Kalashnikov.

So in short it is like this.

• AK has nothing to do with MP/StG 44.
• StG 44 is essentially a MP who were, unsuccessfully, modified to fight as a StG.
• Germany actually had its own StG program, that is the MKb35, but the StG idea was killed by Hitler to favour the faction of MP.
• Later, due to harsh truth in Eastern Front, Germany ram up the MKb program which was already corrupted, and in fact Hitler force the MP design to have performance of StG, which is ultimately unsuccessful.

Done. Михаил Александрович Шолохов (talk) 07:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sholokhov: Do you know why that might be your last post before a temporary or permanent "ban" (block)? It isn't because a cabal of evil editors are out to hide the WP:TRUTH. You are making wild accusations (which you apparently believe are true) that have no supporting evidence and refuse to listen to anyone. We are not trying to "dishonor" the AK series; in fact my personal favorite assault rifle (after QBZ95) is the AK74. I understand that you must have a lot of national pride, but you can't just ignore the facts to make Russia look better. So AK47 is based off of the StG44, StG44 was only ever called MP44 to hide it from Hitler (it was never an actual machine pistol), and the StG44 was a very successful weapon. By the way товарищ, have you ever shot a StG44 yourself? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 14:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following is what the Russians have to say about the origins of the AK-47...."The history of the world-known gun (AK-47) started on July 15th, 1943, when in a captured complex—an MP-43 gun (Sturmgewehr) and cartridge—were demonstrated at a meeting of the arms committee. Chief designer Nikolay Elizarov and chief engineer Pavel Ryazanov created the Soviet "interim cartridge" (M43 7.62x39mm) within a very short period of time. The technological support was provided by Boris Syomin. After that, scientists started working on a new fire arms systems (SKS, RPD & AK-47) for that cartridge." The History of Kalashnikov Gun. Pravda. 02.08.2003. http://english.pravda.ru/history/02-08-2003/3461-kalashnikov-0/

The following is what Mikhail Kalashikov had to say about the origins of the AK-47..."I was in the hospital, and a soldier in the bed beside me asked: ‘Why do our soldiers have only one rifle for two or three of our men, when the Germans have automatics?’ So I designed one. I was a soldier, and I created a machine gun for a soldier. It was called an Avtomat Kalashnikova, the automatic weapon of Kalashnikov—AK—and it carried the date of its first manufacture, 1947." An interview with Mikhail Kalashnikov, Robert Fisk, The Independent (centrist), London, England. April 22, 2001. http://www.worldpress.org/cover5.htm

In another interview Mikhail Kalashikov said the following..."I sleep well. It's the politicians who are to blame for failing to come to an agreement and resorting to violence," Kalashnikov said Friday at a ceremony marking the birth of the rifle, whose initials stand for "Avtomat Kalashnikov." It was before he started designing the gun that he slept badly, worried about the superior weapons that Nazi soldiers were using with grisly effectiveness against the Red Army in World War II. He saw them at close range himself, while fighting on the front lines. While hospitalized with wounds after a Nazi shell hit his tank in the 1941 battle of Bryansk, Kalashnikov decided to design an automatic rifle combining the best features of the American M1 and the German StG44. "Blame the Nazi Germans for making me become a gun designer," said Kalashnikov, frail but sharp at age 87. "I always wanted to construct agriculture machinery." AK-47 Inventor Doesn't Lose Sleep Over Havoc Wrought With His Invention An interview with Mikhail Kalashnikov. Published July 06, 2007. Associated Press http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/07/06/ak-47-inventor-doesnt-lose-sleep-over-havoc-wrought-with-his-invention/

Sholokhov is an incompetent POV pusher. His revisionist history is completely refuted by the Pravda story and the words of Mikhail Kalashikov himself. I motion that a ANI be filed and that his edit privileges should be revoked. All in favor........--RAF910 (talk) 15:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That may not be necessary. To his credit, he hasn't tried to reintroduce any of this into article space and as a consensus has begun to form here that does not support him...it may be about over. Editors may want to peruse his contributions to make sure that anything contentious is not still out there.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page has numerous cases of citation overkill and needless repetition. Citations should be trimmed/merged and repetitions removed. MaxRavenclaw (talk) 11:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree...However, the number of references is unfortunately necessary, because as the page history and discussions above illustrates, there are editors who refuse to acknowledge that the German StG 44 was the worlds first assault rifle. These editors routinely attempt to rewrite the article to fit there own point of view. They are willing misrepresent references, to discredit the references as "western propaganda", to rewrite history and to vandalize the page to get their way. Also, because of the seemingly controversial nature of the topic, there are editors who use this page as a political soap-box. This of course requires legitimate editors to expend time and effort to correct the page.--RAF910 (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Very well, no complaints from me. I know the controversial matter of what the first assault rifle was, and frankly I myself am unversed on the matter so I refrained from saying anything about it and instead simply pointed out the citation overkill issue, but what you say makes sense. Well, keep up the good work. Cheers! --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 15:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I read on the page for the SturmGewehr page that it was the first modern assault rifle, I'm just saying that that should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benners88 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is mentioned in the third paragraph of the lead section.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently read about the Fedorov Avtomat. Isn't that technically the first assault rifle? I noticed it being mentioned above, but I don't get what the conclusion is. Is it or is it not, and why? --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 12:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Fedorov Avtomat doesn't fit the definition of assault rifle since it was chambered for the Japanese 6.5mm Arisaka "full power" rifle cartridge, and not an intermediate cartridge. Thomas.W ^talk 13:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]