Renowned rifle inventor Mikhail Kalashnikov dies at 94
Source: RT
The inventor of the iconic AK-47 assault rifle, Mikhail Kalashnikov, has died at the age of 94.
“Today news sad news has arrived that Mikhail Kalashnikov has died after a lengthy illness,” said the statement from the press secretary of the Udmurtia administration Viktor Chulkov.
Kalashnikov, who had been suffering from heart-related problems in recent years, had been in intensive care in Izhevsk - where the plant that produces the eponymous rifles is located - since November 17. The official cause of death will be revealed following a mandatory autopsy.
A public funeral will be organized by the regional administration, in consultation with surviving relatives, though no date has been named so far.
Read more: http://rt.com/news/kalashnikov-dies-inventor-ak-47-887/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
onehandle
(51,122 posts)MOSCOW: Mikhail Kalashnikov, who designed the iconic AK-47 assault rifle, a weapon arguably responsible for the deaths of more people in battle than weapons of mass destruction of the chemical, biological and nuclear variety, has died, Russia’s ITAR-TASS news agency reported on Monday.
http://tribune.com.pk/story/649583/weapon-of-mass-death-ak-47-assault-rifles-creator-dead-at-94
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)by the Soviet army when it was reeling from the Nazi invasion. It was developed for a legitimate purpose. That fact that it has been misused shouldn't tarnish the reputation of a man who was a geniuine patriot to his country in time of great danger.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)he's equating every gun owner with mass murderers. One mode is all he has: ludicrous hyperbole.
OnlinePoker
(5,722 posts)Development of the AK-47 began in 1945 and it wasn't introduced until 1949. The Nazis were on their last legs when development started.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)OnlinePoker
(5,722 posts)"The experience gained from the reliability issues of the lightened Sudayev design convinced the GAU that a brand new competition had to be held, and for this round the requirements were explicitly stated: a wholesale replacement of the PPSh-41 and PPS-43 sub-machine guns was what they were after. The new competition was initiated in 1946 under GAU TTT number 3131-45. "
So there was no need to build the weapon except to keep the factory working after there was no longer a threat from the Nazis. This was a weapon the Soviets could use and export anywhere in the world because of its reliability. Was he a patriot? Only as much as any weapon designer who creates a better method to kill the opposition in hopes that his country will buy it.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)For good reason, given the kill counts of the last WW.
Not everything went back to sunshine and daisies at the end of WWII.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)OnlinePoker
(5,722 posts)...we should maintain our arms building MIC? At some point, someone has to take a step back and say "Is this worth it?" Instead, it's business as usual and more national treasure is squandered with nothing to show for it.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I'm pointing out Russia's perception of a threat from Germany didn't end at the end of WWII, and that war, and it's outcome was the primary motivator for the design of this rifle.
Your objection to that poster upthread was a total non-sequitur, but not quite as bizarre as THIS response of yours. Sheesh.
Germany killed a good 26 million Russians, and penetrated within pissing distance of Moscow itself. If you were a '40's era soviet, you'd be hot on the trail for a counter to the weapons technology that was just used against you and your fellow citizens too.
Edit: Jesus Christ, re-read what I posted. That is RUSSIA afraid of GERMANY, under NATO inclusion, not the US afraid of Russia/Putin.
What the hell
K.O. Stradivarius
(115 posts)General George S Patton wanted to ally our forces with the German army and invade Russia, the Soviets justifiably still had a great deal to fear about an invasion from it's western borders.
Doesn't matter that Pattons superiors thought him and his idea was crazy.
Just the perception or slightest possibility of that happening should have been enough to put Stalin and his generals on high alert.
And as it turns out, Old Blood and Guts wasn't that crazy or that far off the mark when he predicated that the Soviet Union would be America's next nemesis.
OnlinePoker
(5,722 posts)K.O. Stradivarius
(115 posts)Point is, that I'm certain that the Russians were just as aware (or believed), as Patton was, that another epic conflict threatening their borders was inevitable.
seattledo
(295 posts)Patton was insane.
K.O. Stradivarius
(115 posts)Especially Stalins version of it?
Hitler and the Nazi Party were amateurs compared to the number of people Stalin had murdered and sent to die a slow death in the labor camps.
Pattons pact wouldn't have been with the Nazi party, but rather with the German high command, whom were not all party members, and detested what Hitler and the party had done to Germany.
I'm not saying Pattons idea was a sane or wise one, but one has to wonder how history would have been changed had it been carried out.
yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)exhausted. Also - and this is key, there was zero public support in the U.S. to fight the USSR. A democracy cannot fight a war without the support of the citizens. And it would have been no cakewalk - history and geography would have favored the Soviets in such a conflict. The Soviet army's contribution to defeating Germany has been underrated by Americans.
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)The Germans had introduced the Sturmgewehr (also called MP43 and MP44) and it had proven very effective. It just came out too late to stop the collapse of the German eastern front. The soviets in many cases were armed with bolt action rifles, and were outclassed in medium range warfare by this new rifle. They still won but recognized the need for a better battle weapon. If you look at the German rifle, you will see that it had a lot of influence on the AK-47.
Diclotican
(5,095 posts)onehandle
To be fair - Michail Kalashnikov - was making that rifle the AK-47 as a army rifle for the Soviet union army - not for the many rebels who have used it - the many nations who bought it - and then sold it to their own little "friends" world wide - and not to say the millions of AK-47 copies and knock-offs who have been produced worldwide for more than 40 years - the AK-47 and derivatives have also been produced - on licenses to many nations... It exist more clones from China in the hands of rebels worldwide than it exist real soviet made AK47 with all derivatives in rebel hands - just to point it out...
But indeed - AK47 have been uniformly known for being the weapon of choice when you want to rebel against repressive governments - or also other vice - just want to rebel to crush a regime - democratic or not - if you do not like it - CIA have bought a few AK-47 who they have used to buy friends in Africa, Latin-America and other vice since 1989 - they got their hands of millions of AK-47 from Albania - and the former Yugoslavia - not all of them was destroyed to put it bluntly - and they have sold tonnes and tons of it to Afghanistan - and the many "stan" states in Asia - to arm "your form of rebels" against more or less legal governments in the area - they was doing it from the early 1980 in Afghanistan - to mask it from international conventions - as the AK-47 was more used in that part of the world - if CIA had getting their hands on regularly americans weapons - even old ones - it could go right back to the Reagan Administration - and it had no interest for doing THAT...
The AK-47 is known for beeing a rough rifle - able to be used in conditions - more advanced weapons could have problems opperate in - I guess it is one of the few weapons you is able to use - even after put in the earth for a year.....
I have myself never used or owned a AK-47, have never had the intend to have it - and also never needed it in any way or form - but a few I know - who have used it - say it is a rather good rifle - easy to opperate and handle...
Diclotican
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)There would have been no reason for Kalashnikov to have invented the rifle. And truth be known the AK is a Russian adaptation / copy of the Nazi STG-44 Sturmgewehr which was the world's first Assault Rifle. The literal translation of Sturmgewehr is Storm Rifle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StG_44
So if anyone is truly to blame here it is was Hitler and his followers. Kalashnikov was doing his duty and helping defend his country from Fascists. Real ones, not what some people call Fascists today.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)Alternately:
"World's most extensively manufactured and issued military rifle with a 70-year history of use was used to kill a lot of people".
I suppose it would be more acceptable if each nation in the Soviet Bloc developed it's own infantry rifle, so the blame could be spread among more designers?
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)about certain physics departments.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,321 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)
hack89
(39,171 posts)Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)but the AK far outclasses the AR for durability and ease of use IMO.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I own an AR. I don't happen to own any AK derivatives. But there are conditions in which one would be clearly advantageous. In which I would trade my AR for an AK. You bet.
Having a 600 yard tack driver is fun and all, but if you're living in a desert, slogging though mud, living in a jungle, etc... Probably not the best platform.
Blanket Statements
(556 posts)Problem solved
derby378
(30,252 posts)It'll be interesting to see if the military ever goes that route, ordering a new batch of rifles complete with gas piston.
Blanket Statements
(556 posts)I have no doubt the military is looking at it but it would be a big change to replace all the gas uppers.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)having as many as possible, especially if the model has killed a bunch of folks.
hack89
(39,171 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)And, I don't even own a semi-auto rifle.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)easy to manufacture, easy to clean, easy to use, almost impossible to jam, all in all, one of history's most formidable battle rifles every built.
RIP Mr. Kalashnikov.
otohara
(24,135 posts)you forgot how easy it is to kill what ever it is you're shooting at.
RIP old man with buckets of blood on your hands...
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)the average Soviet soldier weren't very well educated then and Mr. Kalashnikov built a weapon that suited the Soviet Army for it's ease of use, reliability, and lethality.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Yes, the design went on to be flooded into countries, including the US, where it enabled much mayhem, but that's true of every firearm ever invented.
And most things ever invented too. Turn on a light, that draws power generated by or offset by a nuclear reactor? You're profiting from the legacy of incinerated humans in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Fly in a Boeing aircraft? You're profiting from the legacy of aircraft built to drop every manner of mayhem on humans worldwide.
So, look to your own hands...
otohara
(24,135 posts)My hands will never help the makers of these WMD's with their profits.
Always try to deflect the damage of guns onto other things.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)This thread is about the passing of Mikhail Kalashnikov, who invented a product that became famous, it's not about you dude.
otohara
(24,135 posts)and my hands were brought into this conversation - not by me and not by you dude or dudette.
I won't assume your sex.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Nothing I can say will 'deflect the damage of guns onto other things'. Not a thing. What I can, and did do, was fix this issue in perspective.
Those rifles were used for a mix of good and bad. Just like atomic power. Just like military bomber aviation advancements that fed into commercial air travel.
SpectorGrowl
(25 posts)An AK-47, by definition, is NOT a weapon of mass destruction. An AK-47 is not radioactive, nor is it biological, nor is it chemical. And, in and of itself, it is orders of magnitude less lethal and destructive than true WMDs. By leaking your misappropriation of the term into the political realm of gun-control debate, you succeed in little more than shrill hyperbole and add nothing of substance to the conversation.
As to Mr. Kalashnikov himself, I respect the man's Edison-esque ingenuity, interest in tinkering, engineering acumen, and tenacity. Say what you will about the role of his machines in social context, but machines they are, requiring talent and knowledge to construct. In a situation where I need something my enemy and my death, I'll gladly take an AK-47 over John Lennon's utterly vacuous, hypocritical, vomit-inducingly saccharine "Imagine." Because the entirety of that 60's counter-revolutionary schlock has accomplished nothing, except to provide Boomers some nostalgic distraction while they remain comfortably ensconced in their Wall Street offices, D.C. corridors of power, board of corporations, and suburban enclaves keeping them at least two levels above the ground in Maslow's pyramid.
The Boomers and the laughably crowned "Greatest" generation killed the future, although the Boomers opted to go further in their declaration of war against artistic talent by providing an lucrative audience for Bob Dylan.
otohara
(24,135 posts)Three to be exact ... killing a total of 21 people.
Maybe that's not mass enough for you.
Totally creepy you would trash a beloved and famous victim of gun violence.
I hope your stay here is short lived.
Boudica the Lyoness
(2,899 posts)you and your little children face torture, rape and certain death in the gas chambers, you have a chance to use a gun to save their lives...what would you do?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)ever seen, that was actually accurate.
Aristus
(66,387 posts)I salute his patriotism. I'm sure he never intended for the AK to be the masturbatory NRA icon, and schoolyard shooting facilitator it has become in civilian hands.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)
Kingofalldems
(38,458 posts)Seen it all now.
penultimate
(1,110 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)have been shot up by an AK?
Response to Marrah_G (Reply #55)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Demeter
(85,373 posts)He was no Mandela, for god's sake!
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Demeter
(85,373 posts)To be released would be the last joy of life. I think that the virtues of death are highly underrated, when it occurs naturally.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)His passing will be somewhat momentous for a lot of people, for various reasons. Yes, there's the death and mayhem connotation of his invention. But there's also the engineering simplicity and beauty of it. For people who remember the cold war, his rifle, against the Stoner rifle, was a perfect yin/yang representation of 'The West' vs. 'The Soviets'.
Ironically, 'Stoner died in 74, the year the Russians revamped and adopted the AK-74, a more modern, stoner-like rifle.
To the Russians, living in fear of another invasion from the 'great terror' (German fascists) the AK-47 represented a fighting chance, a weapon that they could crank out in tractor sheds out of railroad rails if needed.
I do lament the entire cold war. So many decades of rivalry. So much enmity. When we could have been working together. We were not so different...
happyslug
(14,779 posts)I remember watching the show, basically they were talking of their weapons AND both commented on those weapons good and bad points. Both also talked about government rules that interfere with their designs, for example various reasons were given why the AK-74 had groves cut on the outside of the barrel from 1974, when it as released, till after the fall of the Soviet Union, including it was needed to cool down the barrel for it became to hot. After the fall Kalashnikov revealed why. The Soviet Army wanted the AK-74 at a set weight. Given the smaller bore compared to the AK-47, it was to heavy. The groves were installed to make the weapon lighter to meet the specs, nothing more/.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I should have known better. Never saw them having met, but I think I did read about it. Thanks for the correction.
sir pball
(4,743 posts)Objectively he had one hell of an influence on the last 60 years. Doubtful that a precise, expensive, difficult to manufacture weapon would have enabled nearly so many revolutions, for better or worse.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)
dickthegrouch
(3,174 posts)NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)He was a patriot of his country, using his talent to give them a better weapon after the brutal beating they had taken at the hands of Nazi Germany. The Soviet Union had lost 14% of it's population in the war, roughly 20 Million lives and it had been apparent near the end that the Germans had a superior rifle (The first assault rifle - MP 44) and had lost many lives because of it. He built a rifle for his country much as John Browning built rifles for ours. In fact, we still use some of John Browning's weapons to this day in the US military.
The man had no control on what his government then did with the rifle, or the fact that many other nations made copies of the rifle. He simply made an improved rifle for his nation's military after the worst conflict in human history. I can't fault him for that.
penultimate
(1,110 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)And he wasn't shot by an AK?
No poetic justice, I guess.
dookers
(61 posts)"Blame the Nazi Germans for making me become a gun designer," said Kalashnikov. "I always wanted to construct agricultural machinery."
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Monday. I can think of no better send off for Misha.
daleo
(21,317 posts)Lee-Enfield, Gatling, Krupp. Someone who really knows this stuff could come up with dozens more.
I don't see why Kalashnikov should be singled out.
Nolimit
(142 posts)"Of all the weapons in the vast Soviet arsenal, nothing was more profitable than Avtomat Kalashnikova model of 1947. More commonly known as the AK-47, or Kalashnikov. It's the world's most popular assault rifle. A weapon all fighters love. An elegantly simple nine-pound amalgamation of forged steel and plywood. It doesn't break, jam, or overheat. It'll shoot whether it's covered in mud or filled with sand. It's so easy, even a child can use it... and they often do. The Soviets put the gun on a coin. Mozambique put it on their flag. Since the end of the Cold War, the Kalashnikov has become the Russian people's greatest export. After that comes vodka, caviar, and suicidal novelists. One thing is for sure, no one was lining up to buy their cars."
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Kalashnikov first design was in 1943 for a submachine gun, made while recovering from injuries incurred in battle It was rejected in favor of existing systems, but liked enough for him to be transferred to a design bureau for weapons instead of being sent back to the front lines.
Now, it is now known that the 7.62x39mm round was standardized in 1939 (Through it would be revised and standardized again in 1943, thus the confusion as to its date of adoption, the purges of 1938 affected it as did the War with Finland in 1940 and WWII starting in June 1941 for the Soviet Union). This explains why the Soviet Union finally withdrew 6.5x50mm Japanese round from its stocks in 1938. The 6.5mm Japanese round had been adopted by the Russians after the 1905 Russo-Japanese war, due to its performance in that war and was seen by many people a good option for an assault rifle, and thus there had always been questioned why it was withdrawn in 1938. The Russians, under Czars and later the Soviet Union saw it as an good round for automatic weapons, but by 1939 it had been decided that the 6.5x50mm round was still to powerful so the 7.62x39 round was adopted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.5%C3%9750mmSR_Arisaka
Now Kalashnikov's design was accepted in 1947, but its intended use at that time is still debated. Prior to WWII, the Soviet Union had adopted a two step policy. First it was to go to semiautomatic weapons design by Fedor Vasilievich Tokarev, the SVT-40 in 7.62x54R Russian Ammunition, then a conversion to 7.62x39mm weapons. This conversion was stopped by WWII. The Conversion to an semi-automatic was well underway by June 1941, when the Nazis attacked the Soviet Union, but it was determined that more older Russian Bolt Action rifles could be produced in the same factories that were making these Semi-automatic weapons. The Soviet Army was doing its best NOT to do what the Czar had been forced to do in WWI, sent in troops with rifles, followed by other troops armed with just ammunition with orders to pick up weapons of fallen soldiers and use them in Combat. The Soviet Union also issued a huge number of Submachine Guns for the same reason, but these weapons were considered less effective in Russia then elsewhere. This was due to the fact Soviet Russia is one big open plain, and the long range fire power of a rifle comes into its own. The Submachine gun was more effective in deep woods and in city fighting. Combat ranges are shorter in both situations.
Thus the Soviet Union did NOT embrace the Sub Machine gun because they liked it, they adopted it for it was cheap and soldiers prefer to have SOME weapon as opposed to NO weapons when they go into Combat.
Anyway, by 1944 it was clear that the Soviet Army was on the offensive and it was only a matter of time before the Red Army took Berlin. Western Small arms were used extensively during WWII, mostly along the Southern Russian and Ukrainian areas, for their were nearest the Western Supply line that ran through Iran during WWII. It is NOT unusual to see Soviet Soldiers with M1 Thompson Sub machine guns on that front. I can NOT find reports of any Western Rifles being used by the Soviets, just the Thompson and the M1911 Pistol. This is mostly due to the shortage of Rifles that the US and Britain had do to also fighting WWII.
Thus by 1944, it was possible for the Soviet Army to re-look into its weapons. The SVT-40 had been found to have been to light and complicated and thus it was decided NOT to put it back into production. Also by that date, it was decided that the failure of the earlier Automatic rifles had been do to the fact that all of them had been designed to use the 7.62x54R round. That round had a rim (thus the letter R in its designation) and that rim made making a workable, but lightweight rifle impossible. The adopted of the 7.62x39 round solved this problem.
Anyway, Stalin liked the designed of Simnov better then the designs of Takarev by 1944 (In 1938 when the last design competition had been held Stalin liked the Design of Takarev better, thus in 1938 it was the Takarev that was adopted, but in 1945 the SKS was adopted).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedor_Tokarev
Sergei Gavrilovich Simonov
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Gavrilovich_Simonov
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SKS
Thus in 1945 the SKS was adopted along with a Squad Automatic Weapon, the RPD. These were the Standard weapons of the Red Army starting in 1945 but only slowly replacing both the bolt action rifles still in use the the Soviet Red Army AND the DP machine guns (Both in 7.62x54R).
More on the DP:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degtyaryov_light_machine_gun
More on the RPD:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPD
The RPD has one vice, it was a belt feed weapon being used as a Squad Automatic Weapon, thus it was used to go through rough terrain as the infantry advanced, as opposed to the DP which fired from a round magazine, that protected the ammunition from being caked in mud. Now the RPD had a magazine, but that Magazine was just a container for the belt of ammunition. The magazine could to attached to the RPD, or just laid beside it. The meant the belt was exposed to the elements (mainly sand, dust and mud) as it exited the magazine but before it entered the rifle. The reports I have read was the troops preferred the DP, even through the DP was much heaver and the DP used 7.62x54R ammunition as opposed the SKS's 7.62x39 ammunition. The reason was the circular magazine kept the ammunition clean and thus less chance of jamming.
I go into the above, for Soviet Infantry Doctrine post WWII, was that its main infantry weapon was to be the SKS. Each platoon had attached to it some bolt action rifles in 7.62x54R rifles, for long range fire power (The US Army and Marines has recently adopted the same policy, bring back the M14 for the same role in the US Infantry Squad AND replacing the M14 with 7.62x52 NATO caliber weapons based on the AR design, i.e an updated AR-10). Squad Fire Power was to be provided by the RPD or the DP. Submachine guns were to be issued to anyone who could NOT get an SKS or a bolt action rifle AND squad leaders. Thus only one person in a Squad was to have a sub machine gun, unless there was nothing better to be issued. The old WWII era Sub machines were kept in stock for this purpose.
Thus where did the AK-47 fit into this program? One aspect of the AK was in the early days ammunition had be collected and accounted for. None could be left behind for any reason. This was more then gather up all the brass fired, which is normal in firing of weapons (Which is NEVER counted, just picked up and set aside to be shipped back to the Factory). In these early days they actually counted the rounds issued and counted the spent rounds. The official line was to keep the AK secret from the outside world, but you did NOT need to count every round to do that. I suspect that since Stalin had commented that the SKS was the best infantry weapon for the Russian Soldier, people did NOT want Stalin to learn that the AK was being developed. The AK did NOT fit into the Soviet plans of operations 1945-1959.
A further complication was the AK-47 was designed to be STAMPED, not machined made. The Soviet Union had limited Stamping ability in 1945, and had used it in making their Sub Machine Guns. Thus the official line that the AK-47 could NOT be put into production for the Soviet Union did not have the Stamping ability sounds hollow. But on the other hand, the AK-47 was then modified to be made using machine tools. This was an expensive way to make a weapon, but could be done by the Soviet Union in 1945. These machined AK-47 is the version that was adopted by the Finns (The Velmet 62/76/95 Series), Israel (Galil, which was replaced in the Israeli Infantry by the M16 for the US was giving the M16 away) and the Swiss (Sig SG 551).
In 1959, the Soviet Union had the AK47 redesigned to make it once again Stamp-able and became the AKM. This is the version that took the world by Strom. In 1974, it was replaced by the AK-74 in 5.45x39mm Ammunition in Soviet Service. Technically it was replaced by AN-94 starting in 1994, but till this day most rifles in Russian Service is still the AK-74. This is do to the severe cut in the Military budgets since 1990.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN-94
Thus in 1959 the Soviet Army decided to replaced the SKS with the AKM, and in the same year replaced both the DP and RPD with the PKM-47. The PKM is an AK-47 with a 20 inch barrel so it can be used in the Squad Automatic role function in the Soviet Service. It can use the same Magazines as the AK-47, it is generally issued with a 50 round circular magazine and feeds right into the weapon. Unlike the American Squad Automatic Weapon, the PKM does NOT have a quick change barrel.
Thus the post 1959 plan for the AK was that it be the Standard weapon of the Soviet Red Army. The RPK was to be the Squad Automatic Weapon. The PK, another Kalashnikov design, was to be the General Purpose Machine Gun for the Soviet Army. A derivative of the AK design, the Dragunov, which fired 7.62x54R ammunition replaced the remaining bolt action rifle in the Platoon, i.e. gives the platoon its long range reach.
http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sniper-rifles/rus/dragunov-svd-e.html
Thus it is easy to see what the AK is today and what it has been since 1959, but what was its role between 1948 and 1959? Thousands were produced in those years, but way fewer then the RPDs and SKSs.
Here is one site that states the AK was in production, but ignores the fact the SKS was also in production between 1948 and 1959 (and the Article says Automatic Fire is the primary purpose of an assault rifle in Russia, unlike the US where semi-Automatic fire is preferred. The problem with that position is that there is little truth in it, the Ark's "Default" firing position if you are in a hurry and rush to turn off the Safety of an AK, you end up in Semi-Automatic fire mode, for it is more accurate, thus the Russian position is the same as the American position, semi automatic fire is preferred).
http://world.guns.ru/assault/rus/ak-akm-e.html
Thus why the SKS? Why NOT the AK-47. I suspect some in fighting among the Army high command. The SKS was seen, by some, as a temporary weapon to be made, issued and then put into storage once enough AK came into production. Others saw the SKS as the preferred weapon with the AK reserved for use by elite forces. I suspect the later was the position of Stalin, thus how many AKs were being made was kept a secret, more to keep the total numbers from Stalin's attention then anyone else's attention.
Just a comment that some infighting among the designers were involved in the development of the AK. Just like such infighting in the US when it comes to US weapons. No matter how good is the weapon, someone will hate it for it is NOT they design.
