Talk:AKMSU

I highly doubt this is real...

Any specific reason? DS (talk) 21:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The AKMSU was never actually made by the soviet union. There were a few versions made by other countries, and a whole bunch by hollywood movie armourers, but there was no "official" version. It's basically just an normal AK with aftermarket parts. --2.24.181.65 (talk) 02:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Country of origin

Just because of the fact that AKMSU is a least produced and used original AK, (since that it came jut a few years before the then new AK-74 and its variants) and by that there is no recorded photo of it in the hand of a Soviet soldier, does not simultaneously mean that the rifle is not of Soviet origin. That can be claimed only by typical theoreticians which think that everything is black and white.

First of all, how can the AKMSU be 'Palestinian' when, ironically, the sole name of it stands in Russian - 'Avtomat Kalašnjikova Moderinizovanij Skladnoi Ukoročenij' (Automatic Kalashnikov Folding Modernized Shortened), moreover, this logically proves that the rifle is just another Soviet made variant of the original AKM - like the AKMS, there is also the AKMSU. The most important, it is obviously forgotten fact that the AKMSU is actually the first AK carbine (shortened variant), which means that it has many features never seen on any other AK before, like firstly, the shorter barrel with a flash hider (muzzle brake) on the end, (which is indispensable for functioning of the rifle on the automatic mode, considering the shorter barrel with faster overheating), then the shorter gas tube with front sight on it, also, completely different rear sight, with completely different adjustment (by click for short or long distance, instead of usual sliding like on the all other AK's till then), then shorter receiver with different cover opening (just raising instead of taking off), with another function of fixing the upper handguard (when closed) with a small rod coming out of rear sight. It also features a trumbhole foregrip on the lower handguard for easier controlling the rifle on the automatic mode, since the recoil is higher considering the smaller and lighter weapon.

The point is, almost all of those features (except this lower handguard) are, interestingly, also seen on the other carbine, the AKS-74U, (short variant of the AKS-74 assault rifle), which came years later than AKMSU. So, according to this, so called, 'conspiracy theories' stated on the article, the Soviets actually 'copied' those features from some Pakistani arms plant, to be even worse, which only makes modification from already existing firearms. Moreover, the Pakistani, which are usually known as 'experts' in firearms, would have known that the rifle would require already mentioned muzzle brake for proper functioning on the auto firing mode. Yeah right.

Moreover, even the Russian Wikipedia states completely different theory, quote - 'укороченный вариант АКМ со складным прикладом, предназначенный для спецподразделений и воздушно-десантных войск. Был выпущен в очень малом количестве и широкого распространения в войсках не получил. На вооружение официально не поступал.' (A shortened version of the AKM with folding stock, designed for special and airborne forces. It was released in very small quantities and the troops did not get wider dissemination. Adopted officially.)

So, the conclude is as follows - The AKMSU is a Soviet designed and produced weapon, like the AKMS, as an example. It cannot be designed from anyone else, since firstly, the sole name stands in Russian and it has many stated features which were not seen before on any AK, till the AKS-74U, which came later, as stated, so it's impossible that the AKMSU is a modification of some then existing AK. Reason why it was very rare among Soviet army is the fact that it was produced and used in very small quantities, due to the fact that firstly, AK-74 and its variants came soon and the M43 (7,62x39mm) round was not good for a such firearm (carbine) due to fast overheating and high recoil.

One other thing, the stated effective range of the AKMSU cannot be 400m, since its longer variants, (AKM or AKMS) both have effective range of approximately 300m in single fire and 200m in bursts on automatic mode. So, AKMSU as a carbine, which is by less accurate, due to higher recoil of the smaller and lighter firearm, cannot have greater effective range that longer rifle, especially in this case. The true effective range of the AKMSU is around 200m on single and 100m in bursts on auto mode.

This article needs an urgent edit, it spreads completely unconfirmed and unargumented info.

It's simple. To develop AKMSU, a top-secret special project was created. It turned out that the Chinese receiver is optimal for a short rifle. This was the main reason for the start of the war in Afghanistan: a lot of receivers were required. It was impossible to buy, it threatened the secrecy of the project. Later, all the developers were repressed. The AKMSU was assembled on a special line somewhere in the Far East. To disguise the production, a fake project of the Baikal-Amur Mainline was launched. It worked. At the end of production, the equipment was destroyed, and the workers signed a non-disclosure agreement. The produced guns were sent to the warehouses of the KKVO (Kiev), where they were stored next to special ammunition and even had a similar status with them. AKMSU were listed as Reserve Machines of the Supreme High Command (RVGK). They were intended to qualitatively strengthen ground forces in the main attack directions. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, these guns became almost the main subject of closed disputes between Russia and the former Ukrainian SSR. The question was stark - either AKMSU or maintaining the nuclear status. In 1999, the rifles were allegedly given to Russia as payment for a natural gas debt. I note that at that time in Yalta the command was choosing between AKMSU and TU-160 bombers and 575 Kh-55SM missiles. It is known that the missiles and planes were cut on scrap metal. Thank you for reading this nonsense to the end because it is just as logical and plausible as the comment above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.170.86.46 (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)