The 1959 introduction of the Avtomat Kalashnikova Modernizirovanniy (AKM) marked a pivotal moment in the history of Soviet small arms manufacturing and global military doctrine. This modernized rifle represented the culmination of a decade-long effort to refine the original AK-47 design, moving away from the costly and time-consuming milled receivers that characterized the Type 2 and Type 3 variants.1 The AKM’s design was revolutionary in its embrace of a mass-producible 1.0 mm stamped sheet steel receiver, a manufacturing approach that had proven problematic in the earliest Type 1 AK-47s but was now perfected.4 This fundamental shift in construction philosophy, from a solid block of steel to a lightweight folded sheet, necessitated the creation of a new, discrete component to bear the immense stresses of firing: the front trunnion.
Known in Russian technical literature as the передний вкладыш (peredniy vkladysh), or “front insert,” the trunnion is the functional heart of the AKM. While the stamped receiver provides the chassis, the trunnion performs the critical tasks previously handled by the forward section of the heavy milled receiver block. It is the structural hub that rigidly secures the barrel, provides the hardened locking abutments for the rotating bolt, contains the immense chamber pressures generated by the 7.62x39mm cartridge (The CIP maximum chamber pressure for the 7.62x39mm cartridge is 355 MPa, which is equivalent to 51,488 psi ), and transmits the violent recoil forces from the bolt carrier group to the receiver shell.6 The mechanical integrity, material composition, and manufacturing quality of this single component are therefore paramount to the safety, accuracy, and operational longevity of the entire weapon system. Its design and fabrication were not afterthoughts but central to the engineering solution that made the lightweight, ubiquitous AKM possible.
The enduring reliability of the AKM platform under the most adverse conditions is a direct testament to the material science and manufacturing doctrine behind its key components. This report seeks to provide a definitive, evidence-based analysis of the specific type of steel used for the front trunnion of the Soviet-era AKM, also commonly referred to by collectors as the AK-47 Type 4.1 By synthesizing data from Russian-language technical and historical sources, analyzing Soviet-era state material standards (GOST), and drawing comparisons to modern engineering practices, this investigation will forensically identify the specific steel grade, manufacturing process, and heat treatment protocols employed by the Soviet military-industrial complex to create one of the most robust and critical components in modern firearms history.
Section 1: The Engineering of the AKM Trunnion: Function and Fabrication
The journey to the AKM’s stamped receiver was neither simple nor direct. Initial attempts at producing a stamped receiver for the Type 1 AK-47 were plagued by manufacturing difficulties, particularly in welding the critical guide rails, leading to high rejection rates.5 The immense pressure to field a new service rifle forced a pragmatic but costly deviation. Soviet industry reverted to a more traditional and resource-intensive method: milling the entire receiver from a solid block of steel. This resulted in the heavy, durable, but slow-to-produce Type 2 (milled from a forging) and Type 3 (milled from bar stock) AK-47s.1 While effective, these rifles were antithetical to the Soviet doctrine of rapid, large-scale production for a mass-conscript army.
The introduction of the AKM in 1959 signaled that these production hurdles had been overcome.1 The design genius of the AKM was not merely in stamping a piece of steel into a U-shape; it was in the strategic isolation of stresses. The engineers recognized that 90% of the receiver was simply a housing, while all of the critical forces were concentrated at the front, where the barrel joined and the bolt locked. The solution was to concentrate the complex, high-strength requirements into a relatively small, precision-made front trunnion that could then be securely riveted into the simple, inexpensive, and rapidly produced stamped steel shell.3 This modular approach was a masterstroke of production efficiency. It allowed the receiver shell to be made quickly on massive presses, while the more complex trunnion could be manufactured on a separate, specialized line. This component was the enabling technology that made the lightweight, reliable, and globally prolific AKM a reality.
Subsection 1.1: Anatomy of a Critical Component: Analyzing the Forces on the Front Trunnion
The front trunnion is a marvel of compact, multi-functional engineering, subjected to a brutal cycle of forces with every shot fired. A detailed mechanical analysis reveals its four primary roles:
Barrel Mounting: The trunnion features a precisely machined journal into which the barrel is pressed and secured with a transverse pin.3 This interface is responsible for maintaining the rifle’s critical headspace—the distance from the bolt face to the cartridge seat—and ensuring a rigid, consistent alignment of the barrel with the sighting plane. Any failure or deformation here would be catastrophic.
Bolt Lock-up: Inside the trunnion are two robust, precisely machined locking recesses. As the bolt rotates into battery, its two opposing lugs engage these surfaces. This lock-up must contain the full rearward thrust of the cartridge case upon firing. For the 7.62x39mm M43 cartridge, this involves peak chamber pressures that can exceed 51,000 psi. The trunnion lugs must withstand this force without shearing, deforming, or developing stress fractures over tens of thousands of cycles.
Impact Absorption: The AKM operates on a long-stroke gas piston system, known for its powerful and violent action.5 At the rearmost point of its travel, the bolt carrier assembly slams into the front face of the trunnion to initiate the camming action that unlocks the bolt. The trunnion must absorb this high-energy, repetitive impact without cracking or peening.
Recoil Transmission: As the central structural element, the trunnion serves as the bridge between the barrel/bolt group and the receiver. It transfers the entire recoil impulse from the point of firing into the receiver shell and, ultimately, to the shooter’s shoulder. Its riveted connection to the receiver must be strong enough to handle these shear and tensile loads without loosening over time.
Russian front trunnion. Image provided by Vladimir Onokoy to the author.
Subsection 1.2: The Soviet Manufacturing Doctrine: From “Стальной Поковки” (Steel Forging) to Final Form
The method of manufacturing the trunnion was as critical as the material itself. Russian-language military and historical sources are unambiguous on this point: the AKM front trunnion was fabricated from a “стальной поковки” (stal’noy pokovki), which translates directly to “steel forging”.6 This was not a part cast from molten metal or machined directly from a simple bar of steel. The process began with a block of steel being heated to a plastic state and then hammered into a rough shape using a set of dies, a process known as die forging.10
The metallurgical advantages of this choice are profound and speak to a deep understanding of materials science within the Soviet design bureaus. Forging imparts several key benefits over other methods like casting:
Refined Grain Structure: The intense pressure of the forging process breaks down the coarse, random grain structure of the initial steel billet, refining it into a fine, uniform structure.
Oriented Grain Flow: Crucially, the forging process forces the metal’s internal grain to flow and align with the contours of the part. This creates continuous grain lines that follow the shape of the locking lugs and barrel journal, drastically increasing the component’s toughness, ductility, and resistance to fatigue and impact. It is analogous to the difference in strength between a piece of wood cut with the grain versus against it.
Elimination of Porosity: Forging physically compresses the steel, eliminating the microscopic voids, gas pockets, and inclusions that can be present in castings. These defects act as stress risers and are often the origin points for catastrophic fractures.
The explicit choice of forging over casting—a method used in some modern, lower-quality commercial AK variants which have demonstrated notable failures 11—is a foundational Soviet military principle in action. For a critical, high-load component like a trunnion, where reliability is paramount, the superior toughness and fatigue life of a forging was non-negotiable. After the initial forging process created the basic shape and optimized grain structure, the part was then subjected to precision machining operations to cut the final, critical dimensions of the locking lug surfaces, the barrel journal, and the rivet holes.10 This two-step method combined the raw strength of forging with the high precision of machining, creating a component optimized for its demanding role.
Section 2: Primary Evidence and Interpretation: Decoding Soviet-Era Documentation
Subsection 2.1: Analysis of the Key Descriptor: “Легированная Конструкционная Сталь” (Alloy Structural Steel)
The most significant piece of direct evidence regarding the trunnion’s material comes from the Russian military history publication dogswar.ru. It states that the primary load-bearing insert—the front trunnion—is manufactured from “легированная конструкционная сталь” (legirovannaya konstruktsionnaya stal’).6 A careful deconstruction of this technical term provides the primary vector for our investigation:
Сталь (Stal’): “Steel.” The base material is an alloy of iron and carbon.
Конструкционная (Konstruktsionnaya): “Structural.” This is a broad but important classification. It designates the steel as being intended for use in construction and machine-building applications where mechanical properties—such as tensile strength, yield strength, toughness, and fatigue resistance—are the primary design considerations. This immediately rules out tool steels (valued for hardness and wear resistance at the expense of toughness) and simple sheet steels.
Легированная (Legirovannaya): “Alloyed” or “Alloy.” This is the most critical descriptor. It confirms that the steel is not a simple carbon steel. Elements other than iron and carbon have been deliberately added to the melt in controlled quantities to achieve specific, enhanced properties that cannot be obtained with carbon alone.
This three-word phrase, therefore, narrows the field of potential materials from hundreds of possibilities to a specific class of steels defined under the Soviet standards system: alloyed structural steels. In the context of the Soviet Union’s focus on logistical simplicity and the use of widely available materials for mass production 5, this term does not imply a complex or exotic high-alloy steel (like a modern chrome-moly-vanadium specialty steel). Instead, it points toward a well-defined, economical, and extensively produced family of medium-carbon structural steels that contain key, but common, alloying elements.
Subsection 2.2: Contextual Clues from the Soviet Military-Industrial Complex
To further refine the search, it is instructive to examine the material specifications for other related components produced within the Soviet sphere of influence. This establishes a pattern of material selection and demonstrates the specificity of Soviet engineering.
For instance, analysis of the 5.45x39mm 7N6 cartridge, which replaced the 7.62x39mm, reveals that its mild steel penetrator core was made from Steel 10 (Сталь 10), a plain low-carbon steel.13 This shows that specific, numbered grades of steel were indeed called out in technical packages.
More directly relevant is the material used for Warsaw Pact AK magazines. High-quality Bulgarian steel magazines, produced to Soviet-era specifications, are explicitly documented as being manufactured from heat-treated, high-grade carbon steel compliant with GOST 1050-88.14 This provides a direct and powerful link to a specific Soviet state standard for a high-stress firearm component. The use of different steels for different parts—a soft, low-carbon steel for a bullet core designed to deform, a hardenable carbon steel for a magazine body requiring rigidity, and a tough, forgeable alloy steel for a trunnion—reveals a highly sophisticated and deliberate material selection process. It was not a crude, one-size-fits-all approach but a tailored engineering strategy based on the unique mechanical demands of each part. The evidence strongly suggests that the “alloy structural steel” of the trunnion would also be defined by a specific GOST standard.
Section 3: Identifying Candidate Materials: An Analysis of Soviet GOST Standards
The entire Soviet industrial base operated under the framework of the ГОСТ (GOST, an acronym for Gosudarstvennyy standart or State Standard). This all-encompassing system of technical standards ensured uniformity, interoperability, and quality control. The description “alloy structural steel” points toward two primary candidate standards, each representing a different but equally valid Soviet engineering philosophy.
Subsection 3.1: Candidate Standard 1: GOST 1050-88 — The “Mass Production” Philosophy
The first candidate is GOST 1050-88: “Sized Bars Made Of High-Quality Structural Carbon Steel with A Special Surface Finish.” While its title specifies “carbon” steel, the standard includes grades with significant manganese content (0.50-0.80%), which technically classifies them as low-alloy steels and fits the description of “alloy structural steel” in the Soviet context. The use of this standard for other high-stress components like magazines supports its candidacy. This choice would reflect a philosophy of using a common, economical, and versatile steel suitable for massive-scale production. The most likely grades from this standard are Steel 40, Steel 45, and Steel 50, which possess the medium carbon content necessary for effective heat treatment.
Table 1: Chemical Composition of GOST 1050-88 Candidate Steels (%)
Steel Grade
Carbon (C)
Silicon (Si)
Manganese (Mn)
Chromium (Cr)
Sulfur (S)
Phosphorus (P)
Steel 40
0.37 – 0.45
0.17 – 0.37
0.50 – 0.80
≤0.25
≤0.040
≤0.035
Steel 45
0.42 – 0.50
0.17 – 0.37
0.50 – 0.80
≤0.25
≤0.040
≤0.035
Steel 50
0.47 – 0.55
0.17 – 0.37
0.50 – 0.80
≤0.25
≤0.040
≤0.035
Subsection 3.2: Candidate Standard 2: GOST 4543-71 — The “High Performance” Philosophy
The second, and perhaps more likely, candidate is GOST 4543-71: “Rolled products from alloyed structural steel.”10 The title of this standard is a near-perfect match for the primary source description of “легированная конструкционная сталь”.7 This standard covers steels with more significant alloying elements, such as chromium, which are specifically designed for high-strength, high-fatigue applications. This choice would reflect a philosophy of selecting a specialized, higher-performance material specifically for the most critical component in the rifle. The most likely grades from this standard are
40X and 45X, which are chromium-alloyed steels.
Table 2: Chemical Composition of GOST 4543-71 Candidate Steels (%)12
Steel Grade
Carbon (C)
Silicon (Si)
Manganese (Mn)
Chromium (Cr)
Sulfur (S)
Phosphorus (P)
40X (40Cr)
0.36 – 0.44
0.17 – 0.37
0.50 – 0.80
0.80 – 1.10
≤0.035
≤0.035
45X (45Cr)
0.41 – 0.49
0.17 – 0.37
0.50 – 0.80
0.80 – 1.10
≤0.035
≤0.035
Section 4: The Decisive Process: Heat Treatment and Final Performance Characteristics
Subsection 4.1: The Metallurgical Imperative: Balancing Hardness and Toughness
The raw, normalized properties of the steel forging are insufficient for the final application. A trunnion must possess a complex combination of competing properties: the locking lug surfaces must be extremely hard to resist wear and deformation from the repeated impact and friction of the bolt lugs, while the core of the component must remain tough and ductile to absorb the shock of firing and bolt carrier impact without fracturing. A material that is uniformly hardened to an extreme degree will be brittle and prone to catastrophic failure. The method for achieving this critical balance of a hard, wear-resistant case and a tough, shock-resistant core is heat treatment.
Subsection 4.2: Analysis of GOST-Specified Heat Treatment Protocols
Both GOST standards provide detailed protocols for heat treatment.14 The process for a component like a trunnion would involve two key stages:
Hardening (Закалка, Zakalka): The machined forging is heated to a specific austenitizing temperature, where its internal crystal structure transforms. For Steel 45, this is 820–860°C; for 45X, it is 840°C.14 Once uniformly heated, it is rapidly cooled (quenched) in a medium like water or oil. This rapid cooling traps the carbon in a very hard, brittle, needle-like crystal structure known as martensite.
Tempering (Отпуск, Otpusk): The now-hardened but brittle part is reheated to a much lower temperature (for Steel 45, 550–600°C; for 45X, 520°C) and held for a period.14 This process allows some carbon to precipitate out of the martensite, relieving internal stresses and transforming the microstructure into tempered martensite. This crucial step reduces brittleness and restores a significant amount of toughness, sacrificing some of the peak hardness for a much more durable final product.
The precise control of these parameters allows the engineer to dial in the final properties of the component. For a trunnion, a target hardness in the range of 40-45 on the Rockwell C scale (HRC) is considered ideal, providing excellent surface durability while ensuring the core remains tough enough to prevent fracture. Both families of candidate steels are capable of achieving this hardness range. Data within GOST 1050-88 shows that Steel 45 can achieve a hardness of 49-58 HRC after quenching, which is then reduced during tempering to the desired final hardness.
Section 5: A Comparative Framework: Soviet Steels vs. Modern International Equivalents
Subsection 5.1: An Examination of Modern Materials for AK-Pattern Trunnions
To contextualize the Soviet material choice, it is useful to examine the steels used in high-quality modern commercial and military production of AK-pattern rifles. These materials represent the current state-of-the-art and serve as a valuable performance benchmark. Across the industry, the most commonly specified and respected materials for forged AK trunnions are chromium-molybdenum (chromoly) alloy steels.
The two most prominent grades are:
AISI 4140 Steel: A medium-carbon chromoly steel renowned for its excellent balance of toughness, fatigue strength, and wear resistance after heat treatment. It is a go-to material for high-stress applications from firearm components to automotive axles.
AISI 4150 Steel: Similar to 4140 but with a higher carbon content, allowing it to achieve greater hardness. It is often specified for military-grade barrels and other components requiring maximum durability.
These modern choices validate the fundamental engineering requirements for a trunnion: a forgeable, medium-carbon alloy steel that responds exceptionally well to heat treatment.
Subsection 5.2: Drawing Parallels: How Modern Material Choices Validate Historical Soviet Engineering
When the chemical and mechanical properties of the Soviet candidates are placed alongside their modern counterparts, a clear picture of parallel technological development emerges. The Soviet engineers, working with the materials available to their massive industrial base, arrived at solutions that were functionally equivalent to the more complex alloys used today.
The steels from GOST 1050-88 (Steel 45, Steel 50) achieve their properties through a medium carbon content and an elevated manganese content. The steels from GOST 4543-71 (40X, 45X) achieve their properties through a similar medium carbon content but with a significant addition of chromium. This makes them the direct chemical and functional analogues of modern AISI 4140 and 4150 steels. The choice between the two Soviet standards represents a choice between a simpler manganese alloy and a higher-performance chromium alloy to achieve the same engineering goal.
Table 3: Comparative Analysis of Soviet GOST Steels and US AISI 4140/4150 Steels
Specification
Steel Grade
Carbon (C) %
Manganese (Mn) %
Chromium (Cr) %
Molybdenum (Mo) %
Functional Analogy
GOST 1050-88
Steel 45
0.42 – 0.50
0.50 – 0.80
≤0.25
–
Economical, high-volume
GOST 4543-71
40X
0.36 – 0.44
0.50 – 0.80
0.80 – 1.10
–
Direct analogue to 4140
GOST 4543-71
45X
0.41 – 0.49
0.50 – 0.80
0.80 – 1.10
–
Direct analogue to 4140/4150
AISI/SAE
4140
0.38 – 0.43
0.75 – 1.00
0.80 – 1.10
0.15 – 0.25
Modern benchmark
AISI/SAE
4150
0.48 – 0.53
0.75 – 1.00
0.80 – 1.10
0.15 – 0.25
Modern high-hardness benchmark
This table serves as a “Rosetta Stone,” translating the Soviet specifications into a familiar modern context. It demonstrates that the Soviet choices were not inferior, but rather different and highly effective paths to the same engineering destination.
Conclusion: A Definitive Finding on the Soviet AKM Trunnion Steel
The evidence, drawn from Russian technical descriptions, analysis of Soviet-era state standards, and comparison with modern engineering materials, converges on a clear conclusion. The manufacturing process for the Soviet AKM front trunnion began with the die forging of a steel billet, a method chosen to impart maximum toughness and fatigue resistance to this critical, high-stress component.7 The material itself was an “alloy structural steel” that was subsequently heat-treated to achieve a precise balance of surface hardness and core toughness.
While the exact technical package for the AKM remains classified, the available evidence points to two highly plausible material specifications, representing two distinct but valid Soviet engineering philosophies:
The “Mass Production” Candidate (GOST 1050-88): It is possible the trunnion was made from Steel 45 or Steel 50. These are economical, manganese-alloyed structural steels that, while officially designated as “carbon steels,” contain sufficient manganese to be considered low-alloy. This choice would prioritize logistical simplicity and the use of a common, versatile material for the widest possible production, a hallmark of Soviet military doctrine.
The “High Performance” Candidate (GOST 4543-71): It is equally, if not more, plausible that the trunnion was made from a dedicated chromium-alloyed steel such as 40X or 45X. The description “alloy structural steel” is a direct match for the title of the GOST 4543-71 standard. Furthermore, these steels are the direct Soviet-era analogues to the modern AISI 4140 and 4150 steels universally favored for high-quality AK trunnions today. This choice would reflect a decision to use a specialized, superior-performance material for the single most critical component of the rifle.
In conclusion, while absolute certainty is elusive without the original blueprints, the evidence strongly supports that the AKM front trunnion was forged from a medium-carbon alloy steel. The choice was between a common manganese-alloyed steel like Steel 45 (under GOST 1050-88) or a higher-performance chromium-alloyed steel like 40X or 45X (under GOST 4543-71). Both pathways would result in a component possessing the extraordinary durability required for a service rifle intended to function reliably through decades of use in the harshest environments on Earth.
Growing up in the 70s and 80s, I was patriotic and was mainly interested in American firearms. In 2006, I read an article about building your own AK by the late great Steven Matthews and I changed course dramatically. I’ve always liked history, machines and firearms and started reading books about Mikhail Kalashnikov and his AK designs. My business, Ronin’s Grips, was born along the way.
I though it might be interesting to share how the Kalashnikov design has proliferated around the world with everyone. Thus, I did some digging to create this.
1. Introduction
The Kalashnikov assault rifle, first introduced in the Soviet Union shortly after World War II, represents one of the most influential and widely proliferated firearm designs in history.1 Its simple design, rugged reliability, and ease of mass production contributed to its adoption by numerous armed forces globally and its appearance in countless conflicts.1 The original AK-47 and its subsequent iterations, including the AKM, AK-74, the AK-100 series, and the modern AK-12, have not only served as the standard armament for many nations but have also inspired a vast array of locally produced variants and derivatives worldwide.2
This report documents the countries that have manufactured Kalashnikov-inspired rifle designs. It aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the specific models produced, their calibers, approximate dates of production, and, where available, estimated production numbers. The scope encompasses rifles directly based on the Soviet/Russian lineage—AK-47, AKM, AK-74, AK-100 series, and AK-12—as well as notable derivatives that share the core Kalashnikov operating principle.
While extensive research has been conducted, it is important to acknowledge that precise production figures for many Kalashnikov-type rifles, particularly those from less transparent or state-controlled manufacturing environments, are often estimates or remain unavailable in publicly accessible records. Nevertheless, this report endeavors to present the most accurate and detailed information possible based on the available data.
2. The Soviet/Russian Kalashnikov Lineage: The Foundation for Global Variants
The evolution of the Kalashnikov rifle series within the Soviet Union and subsequently the Russian Federation laid the groundwork for its global adoption and adaptation. Each major iteration introduced refinements in design, manufacturing, or caliber, reflecting changing military doctrines and technological advancements. Understanding this original lineage is crucial for contextualizing the myriad of international variants.
The AK-47, designed by Mikhail Kalashnikov, was officially adopted by the Soviet military in 1949, though its design work began earlier, around 1947.1 Initial production started in 1948.3 The rifle was chambered for the intermediate 7.62x39mm M43 cartridge, a defining feature that offered a balance between the power of full-sized rifle cartridges and the controllability of submachine gun rounds.3 Early models featured milled receivers (Type 1, Type 2, Type 3), which contributed to their durability.3 The AK-47 was designed for simplicity, reliability in adverse conditions, and ease of mass production using methods available in the post-war Soviet Union.3 Its long-stroke gas piston system became a hallmark of the Kalashnikov design.3 Approximately 75 million AK-47s are estimated to have been built, with the broader Kalashnikov family reaching around 100 million units.3 Key manufacturers included the Izhevsk Machine-Building Plant (Izhmash), now Kalashnikov Concern.3
Soviet AK-47, Type 2A made from 1951 to 1954/55. Image source is Wikimedia.5
2.2. AKM (Avtomat Kalashnikova Modernizirovannyj)
Introduced in 1959, the AKM was a modernized version of the AK-47, also designed by Mikhail Kalashnikov’s team.1 A pivotal change was the introduction of a stamped sheet-metal receiver, which significantly reduced manufacturing costs, lightened the rifle, and simplified mass production compared to the milled receiver of the AK-47.1 The AKM retained the 7.62x39mm caliber and the long-stroke gas piston system.4 Other improvements included a new muzzle brake (slant compensator) to reduce muzzle climb during automatic fire, an improved bayonet, and often, laminated wood furniture.6 Production of the AKM in the Soviet Union ran from 1959 to 1977, with an estimated 10,278,300 units built by Izhmash and the Tula Arms Plant.6 The AKM became the most prevalent variant of the Kalashnikov series globally, largely due to its widespread production and export by the Soviet Union and its allies.7
Photo of an AKM, manufactured in 1975. Picture taken in Managua, Nicaragua in a local firing range. Image source: Wikimedia.9
The AK-74 was developed in the early 1970s and officially adopted in 1974 as a successor to the AKM.10 The most significant change was the adoption of a new, smaller caliber, high-velocity cartridge, the 5.45x39mm M74.4 This shift mirrored developments in NATO countries towards smaller caliber service rifles, aiming for lighter ammunition, flatter trajectory, and reduced recoil, thereby improving hit probability.10 The AK-74 retained the basic Kalashnikov long-stroke gas piston operating system and many AKM components, with some early models reportedly being re-barreled AKMs.10 It featured a distinctive, prominent muzzle brake to further mitigate recoil and muzzle rise.10 Manufactured by Izhmash (now Kalashnikov Concern) and Tula Arms Plant, production of the original AK-74 ran from 1974 to 1991, with over 5 million units built.10 The modernized AK-74M, featuring a side-folding polymer stock and a universal scope rail, entered full-scale production in 1991 and continues to be produced.4
A left side view of a 5.45mm Soviet AK-74 assault rifle, top, and a 5.45mm RPK-74 light machine gun, bottom. The RPK-74 is the light machine gun version of the AK-74 and has a longer, heavier barrel, a larger magazine, and an attached bipod. Image Source: Wikimedia.12
2.4. AK-100 Series (Export-Oriented Evolution)
Introduced in 1994, the AK-100 series, developed by Izhmash (now Kalashnikov Concern), is based on the AK-74M design but was primarily intended for export markets.13 This family of rifles is characterized by black polymer furniture, side-folding polymer stocks, and the use of AK-74M internal systems, ensuring a high degree of parts interchangeability.13 A key strategic development with the AK-100 series was the offering of multiple calibers to appeal to a wider international customer base. This demonstrated a shift from primarily arming domestic and allied forces with a standardized caliber to a more market-driven approach in the post-Cold War era. The availability of rifles chambered in NATO standard ammunition alongside traditional Soviet calibers was a significant step in maintaining the Kalashnikov’s global relevance. Production numbers for the entire series are substantial, with Deagel.com indicating over 30,000 produced (though this seems low for the entire series and may refer to a specific timeframe or subset) 14, while other sources suggest much larger overall Kalashnikov production from Izhevsk which would include these models.15 The AK-100M/200 series, introduced around 2017, represents further modernization with enhanced ergonomics and Picatinny rails for accessory mounting.13
AK-101: An export version of the AK-74M chambered in the NATO standard 5.56x45mm cartridge.4 Production began around 1995.16 Over 270,500+ have been built (this number likely includes other AK-100 variants or is a broader production figure).16
AK-102: A compact carbine version of the AK-101, also chambered in 5.56x45mm NATO, with a shorter 314mm barrel.4 Production: 2000-present.17 Indonesia reportedly acquired 5,000 AK-101 and AK-102 rifles.17
AK-103: A modernized AKM chambered in 7.62x39mm M43, incorporating AK-74M features like polymer furniture and a side-folding stock.4 Production: 1994-present, with over 250,000+ built.18 It has seen significant export success, including licensed production in Venezuela and Ethiopia.4
AK-103 with GP-34 Grenade Launcher. Image Souce: Wikimedia19
AK-104: A compact carbine version of the AK-103, chambered in 7.62x39mm M43, with a 314mm barrel.4 Production began in 1994.20
AK-104 assault rifle at Engineering Technologies 2012. Image Source: Wikimedia.21
AK-105: A compact carbine version of the AK-74M, chambered in 5.45x39mm M74, with a 314mm barrel. It is used domestically by Russian forces as a shorter alternative to the full-sized AK-74M, filling a role similar to the older AKS-74U but with improved ballistics due to a slightly longer barrel and more modern features.4 Production began in 1994.23
AK-105 at the International Military-Technical Forum “Army” in 2022. Image Source: Wikimedia23
2.5. AK-12 Series (Fifth Generation)
The AK-12 represents the latest generation of Kalashnikov rifles, designed by a team including Vladimir Zlobin and Sergey Urzhumcev under the Kalashnikov Concern (formerly Izhmash).24 The project began in 2011, with serial production commencing in 2018 after undergoing trials and refinements.24 Over 150,000 units have been built, with a significant contract for 150,000 AK-12 and AK-15 rifles for the Russian Ministry of Defence between 2019 and 2021.24
The AK-12 series incorporates significant ergonomic and tactical improvements over previous generations. These include an integrated Picatinny rail on the receiver cover and handguard for mounting optics and accessories, a redesigned adjustable and side-folding telescoping stock, an improved pistol grip, and a new rotary diopter rear sight.24 Early versions featured a two-round burst mode, which was later omitted in the 2023 upgrade based on operational feedback.24 This iterative development, even post-introduction, underscores a responsiveness to user needs and battlefield experiences, a characteristic of successful military firearm evolution. The multi-caliber approach initiated with the AK-100 series continues, broadening the family’s potential applications and export appeal.
Models & Calibers:
AK-12 (6P70): Chambered in 5.45x39mm.4
AK-15 (6P71): Chambered in 7.62x39mm.4
AK-19: Chambered in 5.56x45mm NATO.4
AK-308: A battle rifle variant chambered in 7.62x51mm NATO.4
Carbine versions include the AK-12K and AK-15K.24
AK-12 from the Army 2020 Expo. Image Source: Wikipedia. 24
This is an AK-12 at the Army 2022 Expo. Compare it to the 2020 photo above from 2020 Expo. Note the different buttstock, handguard and pistol grip. The rear sight is more compact and the trigger guard was enalged to better accomodate gloves. Image Source: Wikimedia
This photo shows us the four variants – from the top: AK-12, AK-15, AK-19, and the AK-308 at the bottom. This was taken at the Army 2021 Expo. Image Source: Wikimedia
The Soviet/Russian Kalashnikov lineage showcases a remarkable evolution. The initial AK-47 prioritized ruggedness and mass producibility with its milled receiver. The AKM’s transition to a stamped receiver was a critical development, drastically reducing production costs and time, which was instrumental in its massive global proliferation.1 This ability to simplify for mass production without sacrificing core reliability is a key factor in the Kalashnikov’s enduring presence. The AK-74’s adoption of the 5.45x39mm cartridge reflected a broader military trend towards smaller, higher-velocity rounds, aiming for improved soldier loadout and hit probability.10 The AK-100 series marked a strategic pivot towards export markets, offering NATO calibers alongside traditional Soviet ones, demonstrating adaptability to global demands.13 Finally, the AK-12 series integrates modern modularity (Picatinny rails, adjustable furniture) while retaining the fundamental Kalashnikov operating system, indicating an effort to keep the platform competitive in the 21st century.24 The production numbers themselves tell a story: massive outputs of AK-47s and AKMs during the Cold War underscored Soviet military doctrine and global influence, while the export focus of the AK-100 series and the recent ramp-up of AK-12 production reflect current geopolitical realities and domestic military requirements.3 Throughout this evolution, a degree of parts and magazine compatibility (within calibers) has often been maintained, simplifying logistics for users of multiple Kalashnikov generations.18
3. Global Production of Kalashnikov-Inspired Rifles: A Country-by-Country Breakdown
The simplicity, reliability, and Soviet policy of sharing technical data packages with allied nations led to the widespread licensed and unlicensed production of Kalashnikov-type rifles across the globe. Many countries adapted the design to their specific manufacturing capabilities and operational requirements, resulting in a diverse array of variants.
3.1. Albania
Manufacturer(s): KM Poliçan & Gramësh factories; State Arsenal.27
Models & Details:
Automatiku Shqiptar 1978 model 56 (ASH-78 Tip-1): A copy of the Chinese Type 56 (itself an AK-47 derivative), chambered in 7.62x39mm. It often lacks magazine well dimples and features unique selector markings “A” (automatic) and “1” (semi-automatic).4 Production ran from 1978 to 1993, with over 100,000 estimated to have been made.27
ASH-78 Tip-2: A heavy-barreled version, analogous to the RPK.4
ASH-78 Tip-3: Equipped with grenade launching capability.4
Tipi 1982 (ASH-82): Generally a copy of the AKS-47 (underfolding stock).4 However, some rifles designated ASH-82 and dated 1981 are fixed-stock Type 56 copies with extended barrels and grenade spigots, while others dated 1986 are Type 56 copies with underfolding bayonets.31 Caliber: 7.62x39mm.
Various other AKMS-pattern rifles, some with short barrels similar to the Soviet AKS-74U, were also produced.4
Notes: Albanian Kalashnikov variants were developed during a period of national isolation and were heavily influenced by Chinese designs due to close ties after Albania’s split from the Soviet sphere.27 Albania notably supplied 30,000 ASH-78 rifles to the Afghan National Army.27
3.2. Argentina
Manufacturer(s): FMAP-DM (Dirección General de Fabricaciones Militares).33
Model: FARA 83 (Fusil Automático República Argentina), also known as FAA 81.
Caliber: 5.56x45mm NATO.33
Production Dates: Designed in 1981, initial production ran from 1984 to 1990, with a brief resumption in 1990 before cancellation due to economic difficulties.33
Estimated Numbers Produced: 1,193 in the initial run; total production numbers are unknown but limited.33 Some sources suggest “a little over 1000” were made in total.34
Notes: The FARA 83 was primarily inspired by the Italian Beretta AR70/223, particularly in its magazine and some design features.33 It utilizes a gas-operated reloading system.33 While listed as a “similar rifle” to Kalashnikovs in some sources due to design influences from the Galil and Valmet Rk 62 4, its arguably more of an influenced design rather than a direct derivative. It features a folding buttstock and tritium night sights.33
3.3. Armenia
Manufacturer(s): Not specified, but likely domestic state facilities.
Model: K-3
Caliber: 5.45x39mm.4
Production Dates: First displayed in 1996, suggesting production around that period.4
Estimated Numbers Produced: Not specified.
Notes: The K-3 is a bullpup rifle based on the AKS-74U, designed for compactness.4
Wikimedia Photo Link:(A specific Wikimedia Commons link for the Armenian K-3 was not found in the provided snippets; image search required for report inclusion if available.)
3.4. Azerbaijan
Manufacturer(s): Ministry of Defence Industry of Azerbaijan (MODIAR).37
Models & Details:
Khazri: A licensed copy of the Russian AK-74M assault rifle. Caliber: 5.45x39mm. Production commenced in 2011 under a 10-year renewable license from Rosoboronexport, with a potential total production volume of up to 120,000 units for domestic use.4
Wikimedia Photo Link: 39 A representative image of an AK-74M could be used if a specific Khazri image is unavailable.
EM-14: An AK-101 clone. Caliber: 5.56x45mm NATO.37
AZ-7.62: An AK-103 clone. Caliber: 7.62x39mm.37
Notes: Azerbaijan’s production focuses on modern Kalashnikov variants for its armed forces.37
Chinese Type 56: Utilized by Bangladeshi forces, likely imported or assembled locally. Caliber: 7.62x39mm.4
BD-08: Listed as a “Similar rifle”.4 This is likely a locally produced version or derivative of the Chinese Type 81 assault rifle, as BOF manufactures the Type 81 under license.40 Caliber: 7.62x39mm.
Production Dates/Numbers: Specific dates and numbers for local Type 56 usage or BD-08/Type 81 production are not detailed in the provided sources.
Notes: The Type 81, while visually similar to AKs and sharing the same caliber, employs a distinct short-stroke gas piston system.41
Wikimedia Photo Link:(For BD-08, a specific image search is required. For Type 56, see China section.)
3.6. Bulgaria
Manufacturer(s): Arsenal AD (Kazanlak, formerly State Factory 10).4
Models & Details (Examples):
AKK / AKKS: Copies of the Soviet Type 3 AK-47 (milled receiver) and AKS (folding stock). Caliber: 7.62x39mm. Assembly from Soviet parts began in the early 1960s, with full licensed domestic production by the mid-1960s.4
AK-47M1: A Type 3 AK-47 variant with black polymer furniture.4
AR-M1 Series: A modernized derivative of the milled receiver AKK/AK-47, incorporating features from the AK-74 such as a flash suppressor and polymer stock. It is offered in both 5.56x45mm NATO and 7.62x39mm calibers. Production: 1998-present.4
Various AKS-74U pattern carbines, such as the AKS-74UF and the AR-SF (chambered in 5.56x45mm NATO).4
Licensed production of the AK-105 is also noted.22
Estimated Numbers Produced: Arsenal (Factory 10) is estimated to have produced over 1,000,000 Kalashnikov-type rifles in total.15 A specific model, the SA M-7 Classic (a clone of the AK-47 Type 3 by Arsenal), had a limited run of only 243 units.28
Notes: Bulgaria is a significant and highly regarded producer and exporter of Kalashnikov rifles. Mikhail Kalashnikov himself reportedly stated that the finest AKs were made in Bulgaria.45 The AR-M1 series is notable for retaining the durable milled receiver design.44
Manufacturer(s): Not specified; likely imported rather than locally manufactured in significant numbers.4
Models Used: Chinese Type 56, Soviet AK-47, and AKM.4
Caliber: Primarily 7.62x39mm.
Production Dates/Numbers: Not applicable for local production based on available information.
Notes: Cambodia has historically relied on external sources for its Kalashnikov-pattern rifles.
Wikimedia Photo Link:(Refer to links for Type 56 from China, AK-47 and AKM from Soviet Union/Russia sections.)
3.8. China
Manufacturer(s): State Factory 66, Norinco (China North Industries Group Corporation), PolyTech Industries.15
Models & Details:
Type 56 Assault Rifle: A licensed copy of the Soviet AK-47. Early versions (from 1956) featured a milled receiver (based on AK-47 Type 3), while mid-1960s production shifted to a stamped receiver, similar to the AKM.47 Chambered in 7.62x39mm. Many Type 56 rifles are distinguished by an integral folding spike bayonet (often called a “pig sticker”).48
Type 81 Assault Rifle: While visually resembling the AK series and chambered in 7.62x39mm, the Type 81 utilizes a distinct short-stroke gas piston operating system (similar to the SKS) and is not a direct Kalashnikov derivative.4 Production: 1983-present. Numbers: Approximately 400,000 of the basic Type 81 rifle.40This rifle is noted as distinct due to its operating system.
Type 84S: An AK variant chambered in 5.56x45mm NATO, visually similar to the AK-74.11
Norinco AK-2000: A copy of the Russian AK-101.16
CS/LR11, SDM AK-103: Clones of the Russian AK-103.18
Notes: China has been one of the largest producers and exporters of Kalashnikov-type rifles globally, with its Type 56 being particularly widespread.
3.9. Croatia
Manufacturer(s): Končar-Arma d.o.o (a subsidiary of ARMA-GRUPA Corporation).4
Model: APS-95
Caliber: 5.56x45mm NATO.51
Production Dates: Designed in 1993, produced from 1993/1995 until at least 2007.4
Estimated Numbers Produced: Produced in small quantities; large-scale procurement was halted due to budgetary constraints.51 One source mentions “a little over 1000” for a different rifle (Argentine FARA 83) in a similar limited production context, but this is not a direct figure for the APS-95.34
Notes: The APS-95 was developed based on the South African Vektor R4 (itself a Galil derivative, thus tracing lineage to the Kalashnikov via the Finnish RK 62). It features a stamped receiver (unlike the milled receiver Galil/R4), an integrated 1.5x optical sight in the carrying handle, and a distinctive handguard and front sight assembly.51
3.10. Cuba
Manufacturer(s): Unión de Industrias Militares (UIM) is the state entity responsible for military production.4
Model(s): Copies or derivatives of the AKM.4 Specific Cuban model designations are not widely publicized.
Caliber: Primarily 7.62x39mm.
Production Dates/Numbers: Details regarding the start dates, production volume, or specific factories involved in Cuban AKM production are not specified in the provided materials.53 Cuba was a known recipient of Soviet arms and also played a role in the supply chain for other groups in Latin America.54
Notes: Cuba has a long history of utilizing Kalashnikov-pattern rifles.
Wikimedia Photo Link:(Specific images of Cuban-manufactured AKM variants are not readily available in the snippets; a general AKM image may be used as a placeholder if necessary, noting the Cuban context.)
Notes: The Vz. 58 is often mistaken for a Kalashnikov variant due to its external resemblance and shared cartridge. However, it employs a significantly different operating mechanism: a short-stroke gas piston and a striker-fired mechanism, as opposed to the Kalashnikov’s long-stroke piston and rotating hammer.4 Its parts are not interchangeable with AK-pattern rifles.56Therefore, it is not a Kalashnikov-inspired design in terms of its core operating system and will be noted as such in the summary table.
Vz.58 Rifle – while it looks similar to an AK, it is not. Image Source: Wikipedia.
3.12. East Germany (German Democratic Republic)
Manufacturer(s): VEB Geräte- und Sonderwerkzeugbau Wiesa (GSW); Volkseigener Betrieb Fahrzeug- und Jagdwaffenfabrik “Ernst Thälmann” Suhl.15
Models & Details:
MPi-K / MPi-KS: Licensed copies of the Soviet AK-47 and AKS (folding stock), respectively. Caliber: 7.62x39mm. Production began around 1957-1959 and continued into the mid-1960s.4
MPi-KM: A licensed copy of the Soviet AKM, featuring a stamped receiver and often distinctive plastic furniture (buttstock, pistol grip, handguards) with a “pebble” or “dimpled” texture. Caliber: 7.62x39mm. Production: Circa 1966 into the 1980s.4
MPi-KMS-72: A version of the MPi-KM with a side-folding wire stock.4
MPi-AK-74N: A licensed copy of the Soviet AK-74. Caliber: 5.45x39mm. Production: 1983-1990.4
MPi-AKS-74N: Side-folding stock version of the MPi-AK-74N.4
MPi-AKS-74NK: Carbine version of the MPi-AKS-74N.4
Estimated Numbers Produced: Nearly 4 million MPi series rifles in total were produced by East Germany.60 Other estimates suggest 2 million from the Wiesa factory alone 15, or 3-4 million MPi-K/MPi-KM rifles.58 Initial production was slow; the 1958 target of 30,000 rifles took nearly three years to achieve.60
Notes: East Germany was a significant producer and exporter of Kalashnikov rifles. Production ceased with the reunification of Germany in 1990.60
MPi-KM assault rifles are in service of Vietnam People’s Army and used for training. Image Source: Wikimedia.62
3.13. Egypt
Manufacturer(s): Maadi Company for Engineering Industries (Factory 54).2
Models & Details:
AK-47 copies: Egypt began producing AK-47 pattern rifles from 1958 onwards.4
Misr: An AKM copy. Caliber: 7.62x39mm.4
Maadi ARM: An AKM copy, often seen with a distinctive laminated wood stock and pistol grip. Caliber: 7.62x39mm.
Other Maadi variants include rifles resembling the RPK (long barrel).
Production Dates: AK-47/AKM type production commenced in 1958.15 Semi-automatic “MISR S/A” rifles imported into the US bear manufacture dates from the late 1990s (e.g., 1997-1999).65
Estimated Numbers Produced: Not specified in the provided sources. The Maadi factory also produced around 70,000 Hakim rifles (a different Swedish-designed system) in the 1950s-60s.64
Notes: Egyptian Maadi rifles are well-known among collectors, particularly in the United States.
3.14. Ethiopia
Manufacturer(s): Gafat Armament Engineering Complex (GAEC), part of the Metals and Engineering Corporation (METEC).4
Models & Details:
AK-47 copies: GAEC initially produced AK-47 automatic rifles after its establishment in January 1986.67 Caliber: 7.62x39mm.
Et-97/1: This is the local designation for the AK-103 assault rifle, produced under license. Caliber: 7.62x39mm.4
Production Dates: GAEC began AK-47 production in 1986.67 Licensed production of the AK-103 is ongoing.14
Estimated Numbers Produced: Not specified.
Notes: There are reports suggesting North Korean advisors assisted Ethiopia with establishing its small arms manufacturing capabilities.67
3.15. Finland
Manufacturer(s): Valmet; SAKO.2
Models & Details:
RK 60 (Rynnäkkökivääri 60): The initial version of the Finnish Kalashnikov derivative, produced in 1960. It was internally almost a copy of the AK-47 but featured a metallic buttstock, plastic handguard and pistol grip, and notably lacked a trigger guard for easier use with winter mittens.68 Caliber: 7.62x39mm.
RK 62 (Valmet M62): The main production model, designed between 1957-1962 and produced from 1965 to 1994. It is a highly regarded AK-47 derivative known for its quality and accuracy, featuring a milled receiver, distinctive tubular stock on early models (later polymer), unique front sight/gas block combination, and aperture rear sight on the receiver cover.2 Caliber: 7.62x39mm.
Estimated Numbers Produced: Over 350,000 units of the M62 (RK 62) were jointly manufactured by Valmet and Sako.68
Valmet M78: A light machine gun variant based on the RK 62 design.4
RK 95 TP (Sako M95): A further modernized version of the RK 62, featuring a side-folding stock and other improvements. Caliber: 7.62x39mm. Approximately 20,000 were made.4
Notes: Finnish Kalashnikov derivatives are renowned for their high manufacturing quality and design improvements over the basic Soviet models. The RK 62 notably served as the design basis for the Israeli Galil assault rifle.69
3.16. Hungary
Manufacturer(s): Fegyver- és Gépgyár (FÉG).4
Models & Details:
AK-55: A domestic copy of the Soviet 2nd Model AK-47 (milled receiver). Caliber: 7.62x39mm. Production started around 1956.4
AKM-63 (AMD-63 in the US market): A modernized version of the AK-55, featuring a distinctive sheet metal handguard with an integrated forward pistol grip, and a fixed wooden stock. Caliber: 7.62x39mm. Production estimated from circa 1963 to 2000.4
AMD-65M (Automata Módosított Deszantfegyver): A shorter-barreled version of the AKM-63 designed for paratroopers and armored vehicle crews, featuring a side-folding single-strut stock and often a shorter 20-round magazine. Caliber: 7.62x39mm. Production: 1965-1980.4 “Tens of thousands” were produced.73
This team has the distinctive AMD-65M rifles -note how Hungary used leather slings also. Image Source: Wikimedia
AK-63F / AK-63D (Military designations AMM / AMMSz): These models are closer copies of the Soviet AKM and AKMS (stamped receiver), featuring traditional wooden or later polymer furniture, but often retaining the straight pistol grip of the AKM-63. Caliber: 7.62x39mm. Production: 1977–2001.4 Approximately 7,700 AK-63s were modernized to the AK-63MF standard for the Hungarian Armed Forces.72 Around 7,000 semi-automatic SA-85M versions were imported into the US before the 1989 import ban.72
NGM-81: An export version chambered in 5.56x45mm NATO.4
Estimated Numbers Produced: Specific overall numbers for FÉG’s AK production are not available in 15 (“N/A”). However, “tens of thousands” of AMD-65s were made 73, and around 11,000 AK-63s were reportedly exported to Central America during the 1980s.72
Notes: Hungarian Kalashnikovs often feature unique ergonomic (or not so ergonomic_ and design choices, particularly the early models like the AKM-63 and AMD-65.
3.17. India
Manufacturer(s): Ordnance Factories Board (OFB); Armament Research and Development Establishment (ARDE) for design; Indo-Russia Rifles Private Limited (IRRPL) for AK-203 production.2
Models & Details:
INSAS (Indian Small Arms System) Rifle: While incorporating features from other rifles, the INSAS is primarily based on the Kalashnikov (AKM) operating system, utilizing a long-stroke gas piston and rotating bolt.78 Caliber: 5.56x45mm NATO. Development began in the mid-1980s, it entered service in 1990, with mass production starting in 1997.4 The rifle has faced criticism for reliability issues, particularly in extreme conditions.79 Design influences include the Galil and, at least indirectly, the Valmet RK 62..
AK-103: India has arranged for licensed production of the AK-103.13
AK-203: A significant contract was signed for the licensed production of over 600,000 AK-203 rifles in India by IRRPL, a joint venture between Indian OFB and Russian Kalashnikov Concern. An additional 70,000 rifles were to be imported directly from Russia.13 Caliber: 7.62x39mm.
Trichy Assault Rifle: An Indian-produced clone of the Bulgarian AR-M1 series (itself an AK derivative).44
Notes: India’s adoption of the INSAS marked a move to a NATO standard caliber, though its performance has been controversial. The recent large-scale adoption and licensed production of the AK-203 indicates a renewed reliance on the Kalashnikov platform.
KLS: A copy of the AK-47/AKM with a fixed wooden stock. Caliber: 7.62x39mm.4
KLF: A copy of the AKS/AKMS with an underfolding metal stock. Caliber: 7.62x39mm.4
KLT: A copy of the AKMS with a side-folding metal stock. Caliber: 7.62x39mm.4
AK-103 copies: Iran produces licensed versions designated AK-133 and unlicensed copies called KL-133. Additionally, some AK-103s were directly imported from Russia.13
Production Dates/Numbers: Specific production dates and quantities for the KLS/KLF/KLT series are not detailed, though these rifles typically feature seven-digit serial numbers.80
Notes: Iranian Kalashnikov variants are often based on Soviet and Chinese models.
3.19. Iraq
Manufacturer(s): Al-Qadissiya Establishments.4
Models & Details:
Tabuk Sniper Rifle: A designated marksman rifle (DMR) chambered in 7.62x39mm. It is a modified version of the Yugoslav Zastava M76 sniper rifle, which itself is an AK-pattern derivative. The Tabuk features a longer barrel than a standard AKM and is designed for semi-automatic fire only.4
Tabuk Assault Rifle: These are direct clones of the Yugoslavian Zastava M70 series of assault rifles (which are AKM derivatives), available with fixed or underfolding stocks. Caliber: 7.62x39mm.4
Production Dates: Production of the Tabuk Sniper Rifle began in 1978 and is reported as ongoing.84 The Tabuk Assault Rifles (M70 clones) were produced from 1978 into the 1990s.83
Estimated Numbers Produced: Not specified.
Notes: The machinery and technical assistance for establishing Iraqi Kalashnikov production were provided by Zastava Arms of Yugoslavia.84
Manufacturer(s): Israel Military Industries (IMI), later privatized as Israel Weapon Industries (IWI).2
Models & Details:
IMI Galil: An assault rifle family developed in the late 1960s and adopted in 1972. The Galil’s design is heavily based on the Finnish RK 62 (Valmet M62), which is a high-quality AK-47 derivative. The first Galils were even manufactured using Valmet Rk 62 receivers.69 It features the Kalashnikov long-stroke gas piston system.86
Calibers: Primarily 5.56x45mm NATO and 7.62x51mm NATO.70
Production: IMI produced the Galil from 1972 to 1998; IWI continues to export and develop versions.70
Variants: ARM (Automatic Rifle Machine-gun, with bipod and carry handle), AR (Automatic Rifle), SAR (Short Automatic Rifle).70
IWI Galil ACE: A modernized and redesigned version of the Galil, introduced in 2008. It retains the core Galil/Kalashnikov mechanism but incorporates modern materials, Picatinny rails, and improved ergonomics.4
Calibers: 5.45x39mm, 5.56x45mm NATO, 7.62x39mm, and 7.62x51mm NATO.87
Estimated Numbers Produced: Specific numbers for the original Galil are not provided. The Galil ACE production is ongoing.
Notes: The Galil is a highly respected Kalashnikov derivative, known for its reliability, particularly in harsh desert environments, and improved ergonomics over basic AK models. It has been licensed for production to several other countries, including Italy, Colombia, South Africa (as the R4), and Vietnam.85
Comparison of the Hungarian AMD-65 (top), the American M16A1 with A2 handguard (middle) and the Israeli Galil ARM (bottom). Image Source: Wikipedia.
3.21. Italy
Manufacturer(s): Vincenzo Bernardelli S.p.A..4
Models: Bernardelli VB-STD / VB-SR
Caliber: Likely 5.56x45mm NATO, as Bernardelli produced the IMI Galil (which was available in this caliber) under license.86
Production Dates/Numbers: Not specified in the provided materials.
Notes: The Bernardelli VB-STD and VB-SR are listed as “similar rifles” to the Kalashnikov family.4 Given that Bernardelli held a license to produce the Israeli Galil 86, these models are almost certainly Galil derivatives, and therefore share the Kalashnikov-derived operating mechanism. The VB-SR is specifically noted as a modified Galil.
3.22. Nigeria
Manufacturer(s): Defence Industries Corporation of Nigeria (DICON).4
Models & Details:
OBJ-006: A Nigerian copy of the AK-47 assault rifle. Caliber: 7.62x39mm. Production began in 2006.4
Licensed Polish Beryl: DICON has acquired rights to manufacture a copy of the Polish FB Kbs wz. 1996 Beryl assault rifle.90 Caliber: 5.56x45mm NATO.
Production Dates/Numbers: OBJ-006 production started in 2006; specific numbers are not available. Timelines and quantities for the Beryl production are also not specified. DICON has partnered with a firm called D7G to enhance local defense production, including establishing AK-47 assembly lines.89
Notes: Nigeria is working to increase its indigenous small arms manufacturing capacity.
Wikimedia Photo Link (OBJ-006):93
3.23. North Korea
Manufacturer(s): State Arsenals, including Factory 61 and Factory 65 in Chongjin.4
Models & Details:
Type 58 (A/B): A direct copy of the Soviet AK-47, specifically the Type 3 with a milled receiver. The Type 58A is the fixed-stock version, and the Type 58B (or Type 58-1) is the underfolding stock version (AKS equivalent).4 Caliber: 7.62x39mm. Production: 1958–1968.94
Estimated Numbers Produced: Approximately 800,000 units.94
Type 68 (A/B): A copy of the Soviet AKM (stamped receiver) and AKMS (stamped receiver, underfolding stock). Caliber: 7.62x39mm. Production began in 1968 to replace the more time-consuming Type 58.4 The Type 68-1 features a weight-reducing holed underfolding stock.94
Type 88: A copy of the Soviet AK-74 (primarily AKS-74 with side-folding stock). Caliber: 5.45x39mm.4 The Type 88 carbine is noted as a localized copy of the AK-105.23
Notes: Initial North Korean production of the Type 58 utilized Soviet-supplied components before transitioning to fully domestic parts.94 North Korean Kalashnikovs have been exported to various countries and non-state actors.94 Identifying marks include a five-point star in a circle and model designations in Hangul script.94
Manufacturer(s): Pakistan Ordnance Factories (POF) for some models; numerous small workshops in the Khyber Pass region for unlicensed copies.4
Models & Details:
Khyber Pass Copies: A general term for a wide variety of often crudely made, unlicensed copies of Kalashnikov assault rifles (AK-47, AKM, and others). Quality and specifications can vary significantly. Caliber: Typically 7.62x39mm.4
POF PK-10: Listed as a POF product.4 Specific details are sparse in the provided material.
POF PK-21: An unlicensed clone of the Russian AK-103, manufactured by Pakistan Ordnance Factories.18 Caliber: 7.62x39mm.
Production Dates/Numbers: Production of Khyber Pass copies has been ongoing for decades and is decentralized, making numbers impossible to track. Specific production dates and numbers for POF’s PK-10 and PK-21 are not detailed.
Notes: The Khyber Pass region is notorious for its artisanal firearms production, including many Kalashnikov variants. POF produces a range of military hardware under license and develops indigenous designs.
Wikimedia Photo Link:(No specific links for PK-10/PK-21 found. Khyber Pass copies are too varied for a single representative image. An image of a POF-produced rifle would require a specific search.)
pmK (kbk AK) / pmKS (kbk AKS): Licensed copies of the Soviet AK-47 and AKS (folding stock). Caliber: 7.62x39mm. Production started in 1957.4
kbk AKM / kbk AKMS: Licensed copies of the Soviet AKM and AKMS. Caliber: 7.62x39mm. Production: Circa 1965 until 1992, with a short additional run in 2000 primarily from leftover parts.4
kbk wz. 1988 Tantal: An assault rifle chambered in 5.45x39mm, based on the AK-74 but with distinct Polish design features, such as a unique fire selector mechanism allowing for semi-auto, full-auto, and 3-round burst fire, and a side-folding wire stock. Production: 1989–1994.4
Estimated Numbers Produced: Approximately 25,000 units.100
skbk wz. 1989 Onyks: A compact carbine version of the Tantal.4
kbs wz. 1996 Beryl: An assault rifle chambered in 5.56x45mm NATO, developed to meet NATO standards and replace the Tantal. Production: 1997–present.4
Polish Beryl wz. 96 (version C), made by Fabryka Broni “Łucznik”. Image Souce: Wikipedia92
kbk wz. 1996 Mini-Beryl: A compact carbine version of the Beryl.4
Estimated Numbers Produced: For the Tantal, around 25,000 units.100 The Radom factory had a capacity of 70,000 rifles per year in the late 1980s/early 1990s.99
Notes: Polish Kalashnikov derivatives are generally well-regarded. The Tantal and Beryl represent significant indigenous developments on the Kalashnikov platform.
3.26. Romania
Manufacturer(s): Cugir Arms Factory (now part of ROMARM), with some limited production outsourced to Uzina Mecanica Sadu.4
Models & Details:
PM md. 63 (Pistol Mitralieră model 1963): A licensed copy of the Soviet AKM. A distinctive feature of many md. 63 rifles is a forward-pointing laminated wooden vertical foregrip integrated into the lower handguard. Caliber: 7.62x39mm. Production: 1963–present.4
PM md. 65 (Pistol Mitralieră model 1965): The underfolding stock version, equivalent to the AKMS. To accommodate the folding stock, the vertical foregrip, if present, is often canted rearwards or is absent on some sub-variants. Caliber: 7.62x39mm. Production: 1965–present.4
A Romanian soldier armed with a PM md. 65 in 1989. Image Source: Wikipedia
PA md. 86 (Pușcă Automată model 1986): A Romanian derivative of the Soviet AK-74, chambered in 5.45x39mm. It features a distinctive side-folding wire stock (similar to East German designs) and sometimes a 3-round burst capability. It retained some AKM elements like the gas block design.4 Production: Late 1980s–present.
PM md. 80: A short-barreled AK variant, often with a unique side-folding stock and a combined front sight/gas block.4
PM md. 90: A 7.62x39mm rifle that incorporates the side-folding wire stock of the PA md. 86.4 There is also a short-barreled carbine version of the md. 90.
Estimated Numbers Produced: “Several million” total PM md. 63/65 rifles have been produced.105 Over 400,000 were acquired by the Romanian armed forces.105
Notes: Romanian Kalashnikovs are widely exported, often under the designations AIM (for fixed stock md. 63 types) and AIMS (for folding stock md. 65 types).106 Versions marked with a “G” on the trunnion were semi-automatic rifles produced for the Romanian Patriotic Guards and are well-known in the US parts kit market as “Romy G’s”.104
US Air Force personnel with AIM md. 65s during a training exercise in 1985. Image Source: Wikipedia.
3.27. Serbia (formerly Yugoslavia)
Manufacturer(s): Zastava Arms (Kragujevac).4
Models & Details (Examples):
M64: An early Yugoslav Kalashnikov derivative, which led to the M70.
M70 (Automatska Puška M70): The standard issue rifle of the Yugoslav People’s Army, based on the AK-47/AKM design but with several distinct Yugoslav features. These often include a thicker RPK-style receiver (1.5mm stamped or milled on early versions), a longer handguard with three cooling slots, an integral grenade launching sight, and typically a non-chrome-lined barrel.4 Caliber: 7.62x39mm. Production: 1970–present.83
M72: A light machine gun version, analogous to the RPK, based on the M70 design.4
M76: A designated marksman rifle chambered in 7.92x57mm Mauser, based on the long Kalashnikov action.4
M77: A battle rifle chambered in 7.62x51mm NATO, also using the Kalashnikov action.4
M85: A compact carbine chambered in 5.56x45mm NATO.4
M90: An assault rifle chambered in 5.56x45mm NATO.4
M92: A compact carbine version of the M70, chambered in 7.62x39mm (similar to AKS-74U in role).4
M21: A modern assault rifle system chambered in 5.56x45mm NATO, incorporating Picatinny rails and modern furniture, but still based on the Kalashnikov operating system.4
Notes: Yugoslavian/Serbian Kalashnikov derivatives are known for their robust construction and unique features tailored to Yugoslav military doctrine, such as integrated rifle grenade launching capabilities. They often differ significantly in receiver construction and furniture from Soviet models. We have posts on the M70 and M72 families of rifles.
3.28. South Africa
Manufacturer(s): Lyttelton Engineering Works (LIW), later Armscor, now Denel Land Systems.2
Models & Details:
Vektor R4: A licensed variant of the Israeli IMI Galil ARM (which is itself a derivative of the Finnish RK 62, tracing back to the AK-47). The R4 was adapted for South African conditions, featuring a longer stock made of high-strength polymer and other polymer components to reduce weight. Caliber: 5.56x45mm NATO. It entered service with the South African Defence Force (SADF) in 1980.2
Estimated Numbers Produced: Approximately 420,000 units.109
Vektor R5: A carbine version of the R4, similar to the Galil SAR, with a shorter barrel and handguard. It lacks a bipod.85
Vektor R6: An even more compact carbine version designed for paratroopers and vehicle crews.85
Truvelo Raptor: Mentioned as a “similar rifle” with AK-basis.4 Specific details are sparse in provided material.
Notes: The R-series rifles are a clear example of the Kalashnikov design’s adaptability, modified through several iterations (AK -> RK 62 -> Galil -> R4) to suit specific national requirements.
Manufacturer(s): Military Industry Corporation (MIC).4
Model: MAZ
Caliber: Assuming its basis on the Chinese Type 56 4, that strongly suggests the 7.62x39mm cartridge.
Production Dates/Numbers: Not specified in the provided materials.110
Notes: The MAZ rifle is reported to be based on the Chinese Type 56 assault rifle and manufactured using Chinese-supplied machinery.4
3.30. Turkey
Manufacturer(s): Sarsılmaz Silah Sanayi A.Ş..4
Models & Details:
SAR 15T: Described as an AK-47 clone.4 Caliber is likely 7.62x39mm given its AK-47 clone designation.
SAR 308 (V2): Also listed as an AK-47 clone.4 The “308” in its name might suggest the 7.62x51mm NATO (.308 Winchester) cartridge, which would make it more of a battle rifle or DMR if based on the Kalashnikov action, rather than a standard assault rifle. 4 lists it as “SAR 15T/308(V2)”. Further clarification on caliber would be needed for precise classification.
Production Dates/Numbers: Not specified. Sarsılmaz is a major Turkish arms manufacturer founded in 1880 and exports to over 80 countries.112
Notes: Sarsılmaz produces a wide range of firearms for military, police, and civilian markets.
3.31. Ukraine
Manufacturer(s): State Space Agency of Ukraine (for Vepr); Interproinvest (IPI) / Krasyliv Assembly Manufacturing Plant (for Malyuk).4
Models & Details:
Vepr (“Wild Boar”): A bullpup conversion of the AK-74 assault rifle. Designed in 1993-1994 and announced in 2003. It retains the AK-74’s operating mechanism and 5.45x39mm caliber.4
Malyuk (“Baby” or “Vulcan”): Another Ukrainian bullpup assault rifle based on the Kalashnikov operating system (derived from AKM/AK-74 and lessons from the Vepr project). Development started in 2005, it debuted publicly in 2015, and has been in service with Ukrainian special forces since 2017.4
Calibers: Available in 5.45x39mm, 7.62x39mm, and 5.56x45mm NATO.117
Production Dates/Numbers: Specific production numbers and detailed timelines are not extensively provided.
Notes: Both the Vepr and Malyuk represent efforts to modernize existing Kalashnikov-pattern rifles into more compact bullpup configurations, suitable for modern combat scenarios, particularly in confined spaces. The Malyuk notably features ambidextrous controls and improved ergonomics.117
3.32. United States
Manufacturer(s): Numerous commercial and custom manufacturers, including:
Notes: The vast majority of US-produced Kalashnikov-pattern firearms are semi-automatic versions intended for the civilian market, complying with US firearms regulations (e.g., 922R compliance for imported parts). Quality and adherence to original Kalashnikov specifications can vary widely among manufacturers.
3.33. Venezuela
Manufacturer(s): CAVIM (Compañía Anónima Venezolana de Industrias Militares).4
Model: AK-103 (produced under license from Russia)
Caliber: 7.62x39mm.4
Production Dates: The license agreement was made in 2006. Factories were officially opened in 2012, and initial deliveries of CAVIM-made AK-103s to the Venezuelan Army occurred in 2013. Full-scale production was planned to commence by the end of 2019, but the project faced significant delays and challenges, including issues with the Russian contractor and allegations of fraud, forcing CAVIM to attempt to complete construction themselves. The current operational status and output of the plant are unclear.119
Estimated Numbers Produced: The plant was planned to have an annual production capacity of approximately 25,000 rifles.119 However, actual numbers produced are not specified and are likely much lower than initially planned due to the aforementioned issues.
Notes: Venezuela also planned to produce over 50 million rounds of ammunition annually at an associated plant.119 The project has been a subject of scrutiny due to delays and costs.
3.34. Vietnam
Manufacturer(s): Z111 Factory.4
Models & Details:
AKM-1 / AKM-VN: Local designations for AKM pattern rifles, possibly upgraded or locally assembled versions of the Soviet AKM [4 (STL-1A from AKM)]. Caliber: 7.62x39mm.
TUL-1: A light machine gun, likely based on the RPK.4 Caliber: 7.62x39mm.
STL-1A: An upgraded version of older AKM rifles, featuring new polymer handguards, a folding buttstock, an ergonomic pistol grip, an updated muzzle brake, and compatibility with M203-type grenade launchers.122 Caliber: 7.62x39mm.
STV Series (Súng Trường Việt Nam): A family of modern assault rifles based on the IWI Galil ACE design (itself a Kalashnikov derivative), chambered in 7.62x39mm and using standard AK-47/AKM magazines. These were revealed around 2019-2020 and are becoming standard issue for the Vietnam People’s Army.4
STV-215: Carbine version with a 215mm barrel.121
STV-380: Standard rifle version with a 380mm barrel.121
STV-410: Rifle with a 410mm barrel and adjustments to handguard/gas block for grenade launcher compatibility.121
STV-416: Similar to STV-410 but lacks Picatinny rails.121
Production Dates/Numbers: Production of older AKM types and upgrades is ongoing. The STV series entered production more recently (post-2019). Specific numbers are not provided.
Notes: Vietnam has a long history of using Kalashnikov-pattern weapons and has more recently moved towards producing modern derivatives like the Galil ACE-based STV series. Z111 Factory also produces the Galil ACE 31/32 under license.4
4. Summary Table of Kalashnikov-Inspired Rifle Production by Country
The following table summarizes the countries identified as producers of Kalashnikov-inspired rifle designs, along with key details for representative models. It is important to note that “Estimated Numbers Produced” are often broad estimates or refer to total production of all AK types by a specific factory or country, rather than individual models, unless specified. “N/A” indicates data was not available in the provided sources.
Country
Representative Model(s)
Caliber(s)
Manufacturer(s)
Production Dates (Period)
Estimated Numbers Produced
Notes
Soviet Union / Russia
AK-47
7.62x39mm M43
Izhmash (Kalashnikov Concern), Tula Arms Plant
1948–Present (family)
~75 million (AK-47s), ~100 million (Kalashnikov family total) 3
Palmetto State Armory, Kalashnikov USA, Century Arms
Ongoing commercial
Varies by manufacturer
Semi-auto civilian market versions.
Venezuela
AK-103 (licensed)
7.62x39mm
CAVIM
From 2012 (initial deliveries)
Planned 25,000/year; actual output unclear due to delays 119
Licensed Russian AK-103, production issues.
Vietnam
STV-380 / STV-215
7.62x39mm
Z111 Factory
c. 2019–Present
Not Specified
Based on Galil ACE design.
Photo Sources
Main photo of Mikhail Kalashnikov superimposed over a map with countries using or licensing firearms based on his designs highlighted was generated by Ronin’s Grips using Sora. It is release to the creative commons as long as blog.roningsgrips.com is cited as the source.
The majority of photos were obtained from Wikimedia and Wikipedia and are unaltered. Links to their respective pages are included and they remain the copyright of their respective authors.
If you find this post useful, please share the link on Facebook, with your friends, etc. Your support is much appreciated and if you have any feedback, please email me at info@roninsgrips.com. Please note that for links to other websites, I may be paid via an affiliate program such as Avantlink, Impact, Amazon and eBay.
I’ve been involved with AK rifle building since 2006 and there’s something we take for granted – how rivets are used to secure the forged trunnions, and trigger guards to the sheet metal receiver. Not to mention the center support and side mount scope rail. Some have asked why rivets were even used thinking they were some low-end choice. The truth is quite different. Let’s move ahead and take a deeper focused look at the engineering behind the use of the rivet in the AKM rifle – it wasn’t a lowly choice by any means.
Section 1: Introduction to the AKM Stamped Receiver and Rivet-Based Assembly
The design of the 7.62mm AKM represents a pivotal moment in 20th-century small arms manufacturing. Its departure from the milled-receiver construction of its predecessor, the AK-47, in favor of a stamped-steel receiver assembly, necessitated a comprehensive and robust method for joining dissimilar components under significant operational stress. This report provides a detailed engineering analysis of the riveting system employed in the AKM, examining the materials, dimensions, geometry, and underlying mechanical principles that make it a successful and enduring design.
1.1 The Evolution from Milled to Stamped: Engineering and Production Imperatives
The original AK-47, while exceptionally reliable, was built upon a receiver machined from a solid forging of steel. This process was labor-intensive, time-consuming, and resulted in significant material waste. The primary engineering driver for the development of the AKM, introduced in 1959, was the optimization for mass production.1 Soviet engineers sought to reduce manufacturing complexity, cost, and the overall weight of the rifle without compromising the platform’s legendary reliability.2
The solution was a paradigm shift from a milled receiver to one formed from a single 1.0 mm thick sheet of steel.1 This change dramatically reduced machine time and cost, allowing for faster production rates to meet the vast needs of the Soviet military and its allies. However, this created a new engineering challenge: a thin, U-shaped stamped steel shell lacks the inherent strength and rigidity to contain the forces of a firing 7.62x39mm cartridge and guide the bolt carrier group with the necessary precision.4 The AKM’s riveting system is the critical design element that solves this problem. The following table summarizes the four AK-47 types:
Type Designation
Weapon Model
Receiver Construction
Description
Type 1
Early AK-47 (1948–51)
Stamped
First design; lightweight stamped sheet metal with riveted trunnions. Abandoned due to reliability and tooling issues.
Type 2
AK-47 (1952–53)
Milled
First successful milled version; added a rear socket for the stock and heavier construction.
Type 3
AK-47 (1954–59)
Milled
Refined milled design with lighter weight and simplified manufacturing over Type 2. Most common milled AK-47.
Type 4
AKM (from 1959 onward)
Stamped
Standardized modern AKM receiver; made from stamped sheet metal with riveted trunnions, very lightweight and economical.
1.2 The Functional Role of Trunnions and Rivets in the AKM Design
The AKM design cleverly separates the functions of pressure containment and component housing. The immense stress of firing is handled by two key high-strength components: the front and rear trunnions.6
The Front Trunnion: This is a precisely machined block of steel that serves as the heart of the rifle. It holds the barrel, provides the locking recesses for the bolt’s rotating lugs, and contains the peak chamber pressure upon firing. It absorbs the primary rearward thrust of the cartridge case.5
The Rear Trunnion: This machined steel block provides the mounting point for the buttstock and serves as the rear stop for the recoiling bolt carrier group, absorbing its kinetic energy at the end of each cycle.1
The thin stamped receiver acts as a chassis, holding these trunnions and the fire control group in their correct spatial relationship. The rivets are the non-detachable fasteners that permanently join the high-strength trunnions to the receiver shell, transferring the operational loads and creating a unified, rigid structure from otherwise disparate parts.1 Alternative methods like screwing are unsuitable due to the risk of loosening under intense vibration, while welding could warp the thin receiver and create brittle heat-affected zones.7 Riveting provides a permanent, vibration-resistant, and mechanically sound solution.
1.3 System Overview: Mapping the Primary Rivet Groups
The rivet pattern on an AKM is not arbitrary; it is a carefully laid out system designed to secure components and reinforce the receiver. The primary rivet groups, which will be analyzed in detail in subsequent sections, are as follows 8:
Front Trunnion Rivets: A group of six rivets securing the front trunnion to the forward section of the receiver.
Rear Trunnion Rivets: Two long rivets (for a standard fixed stock) that pass through the receiver and the rear trunnion block.
Trigger Guard Rivets: A group of five rivets that attach the trigger guard assembly to the bottom of the receiver.
Center Support Rivet: A single rivet and internal sleeve located midway down the receiver that prevents the receiver walls and guide rails from flexing.
The precise placement of these rivets is critical to the firearm’s function and is standardized across Warsaw Pact production, as can be seen in various build templates and diagrams.10
Top: AKMS (older-style wood handguard typical of AK-47 fitted) with type IV receiver; bottom: AK-47 with type II receiver. Image Source: Wikimedia.
Section 2: A Typology of AKM Rivets: Form, Dimensions, and Location
The rivet set used in an AKM is not a homogenous collection of fasteners. It is a specific kit of components where the geometry and dimensions of each rivet type are engineered for its designated location and mechanical function.
2.1 Rivet Geometry: A Detailed Taxonomy
The rivets used in a standard AKM can be classified into several distinct geometric types, each with a specific purpose.
2.1.1 The Swell Neck Rivet
This is the most specialized and structurally critical rivet in the AKM design. Its geometry features a standard domed head, a shank of a specific diameter, and a distinctive conical flare, or “swell,” located directly beneath the head.9 This swell is designed to fit into a corresponding dimpled (countersunk) hole in the receiver sheet. This interface creates a mechanical interlock that provides superior resistance to shear forces, a concept that will be analyzed in detail in Section 4. These are used in the highest-stress locations, such as the trunnion attachments.8
2.1.2 The Domed (Universal) Head Rivet
This is a standard solid rivet with a semi-spherical head, often referred to as a universal or round head type.15 These are used in locations where the specialized shear-resisting properties of the swell neck are not required, but a secure clamping force is still necessary, such as the upper front trunnion holes and parts of the trigger guard assembly.9
2.1.3 The Flat Head Rivet
The center support rivet is unique in that it features a very low-profile, flat manufactured head.8 This is a design constraint dictated by clearance requirements. The bolt carrier group reciprocates along guide rails inside the receiver, and a standard domed rivet head in this location would interfere with its movement. The flat head ensures a smooth, unobstructed path for the carrier.18
2.2 Rivet Specifications by Location
The following table synthesizes data from military specifications, gunsmithing resources, and commercial rivet sets to provide a comprehensive reference for the dimensions and types of rivets used in a standard fixed-stock AKM. All imperial measurements have been converted to metric for engineering consistency.
Table 2.1: AKM Rivet Dimensional and Type Specification
Rivet Location
Quantity
Rivet Type/Shape
Shank Ø (mm)
Shank Length (mm)
Factory Head Ø (mm)
Factory Head Height (mm)
Required Receiver Hole Ø (mm)
Front Trunnion, Lower
2
Swell Neck, Domed Head
4.0
9.5
~7.1
~2.1
4.0
Front Trunnion, Middle
2
Swell Neck, Domed Head
4.0
9.5
~7.1
~2.1
4.0
Front Trunnion, Upper
2
Standard, Domed Head
4.0
9.5
~7.1
~2.1
4.0
Rear Trunnion, Long
2
Swell Neck, Domed Head
4.8
~50.8
~7.4
~2.8
4.8
Trigger Guard, Front
4
Standard, Domed Head
4.0
9.5
~6.9
~2.1
4.0
Trigger Guard, Rear
1
Standard, Domed Head
4.0
7.9
~6.9
~2.1
4.0
Center Support
1
Standard, Flat Head
4.0
Varies
~7.0
Low Profile
4.0
Data compiled and converted from sources.9 Dimensions are nominal and may exhibit minor variations based on country of origin and production year. Shank length for the center support rivet varies with the sleeve used. Rear trigger guard rivet length can vary depending on the use of a reinforcement plate.17
2.3 Analysis of National and Historical Variations
While the core Soviet design established the standard, minor variations in rivet specifications and patterns exist among different national producers of the AKM and its derivatives.
One of the most well-documented distinctions is in the front trunnion rivet pattern. Soviet/Warsaw Pact AKMs (Russian, Polish, Romanian, etc.) feature a parallel vertical alignment of the three rivets on each side of the trunnion. In contrast, many Chinese Type 56 rifles utilize a staggered or triangular rivet pattern for the front trunnion.12
Furthermore, small dimensional differences in the rivets themselves have been observed. For example, measurements of demilled kits have shown that Romanian factory-formed rivet heads for the trigger guard average around 6.9 mm – 7.2 mm in diameter, while Chinese examples can be slightly larger, averaging around 7.4 mm in diameter with a greater head height.15 These differences, while minor, reflect distinct manufacturing practices and tooling but do not alter the fundamental engineering principles of the riveting system.
Section 3: Metallurgy and Material Science of Soviet-Era Rivets
The choice of material for the AKM’s rivets is a critical aspect of its design, reflecting a deliberate balance between manufacturability, strength, and cost. The material must be soft enough to be formed without fracture, yet strong enough in its final state to withstand the violent operational stresses of the firearm.
3.1 Material Composition: Analysis of GOST Standard Low-Carbon Steels
Based on an analysis of Soviet-era general-purpose fastener standards, such as GOST 10299-80, the rivets used in the AKM are made from a low-carbon, unalloyed, quality structural steel.20 These steels are not high-performance alloys but are cost-effective, readily available, and possess the specific mechanical properties required for cold-forming applications. The two most probable grades are
Сталь 10 (Steel 10) and Сталь 20 (Steel 20).20 The number in the designation indicates the average carbon content in hundredths of a percent (i.e., 0.10% for Steel 10, 0.20% for Steel 20).22
Table 3.1: Nominal Chemical Composition of Soviet Rivet Steels (GOST 1050)
Element
Symbol
Steel 10 (% Content)
Steel 20 (% Content)
Carbon
C
0.07 – 0.14
0.17 – 0.24
Manganese
Mn
0.35 – 0.65
0.35 – 0.65
Silicon
Si
0.17 – 0.37
0.17 – 0.37
Phosphorus
P
≤ 0.035
≤ 0.035
Sulfur
S
≤ 0.040
≤ 0.040
Chromium
Cr
≤ 0.15
≤ 0.25
Nickel
Ni
≤ 0.25
≤ 0.30
Copper
Cu
≤ 0.25
≤ 0.30
Iron
Fe
Balance
Balance
Data compiled from sources.22
3.2 Mechanical Properties: The Engineering Balance of Malleability and Strength
The selection of low-carbon steel is a masterstroke of process-integrated engineering. The material’s properties are ideally suited for both the installation process and the final application.
Malleability and Ductility: The extremely low carbon content makes these steels very soft and ductile in their annealed (as-supplied) state. For Steel 10, the hardness is approximately 143 HB, and for Steel 20, it is around 163 HB.22 This high ductility allows the rivet’s shank to be cold-formed (upset) into the buck-tail or formed head with a press, flowing to fill the hole completely without cracking.25 A harder, higher-carbon steel would be too brittle for this process.
Work Hardening and Final Strength: While the rivets are initially soft, the process of cold-forming induces significant work hardening (also known as strain hardening). As the steel is plastically deformed, dislocations are generated and rearranged within its crystal structure, which impedes further deformation. This has the effect of increasing the material’s tensile strength and hardness in its final, installed state. The rivet becomes substantially stronger than it was before installation. This elegant mechanism means that the assembly process itself is the final step in achieving the required mechanical properties, eliminating the need for a separate, costly heat treatment cycle for the millions of rivets produced.
3.3 Heat Treatment and Surface Finishing
It is critical to distinguish between the treatment of the rivets and the treatment of the receiver. The rivets themselves are not heat-treated after installation.27 Their final strength is a product of material selection and work hardening.
In contrast, the 1.0 mm stamped receiver is selectively heat-treated. Specifically, the areas around the fire control group (hammer and trigger) pin holes and the tip of the integral ejector are hardened to prevent wear and elongation under repeated stress.4 A common specification for this spot-hardening is a Rockwell C hardness of 38-40.13 Attempting to use a non-heat-treated receiver will result in rapid failure, as the pin holes will stretch and deform, leading to malfunction.13
The standard finish applied to military-issue rivets is a black oxide coating.9 This is a conversion coating that provides mild corrosion resistance and a durable, non-reflective black finish that matches the rest of the firearm.
Section 4: Engineering Rationale and Stress Distribution Analysis
The AKM’s riveting system is more than a simple collection of fasteners; it is an integrated system designed to manage and distribute the complex forces generated during the firing cycle. Understanding this system requires analyzing the stresses on the primary components and the specific design features created to handle them.
4.1 The Trunnions as Primary Load-Bearing Structures
As established, the trunnions are the true load-bearing elements of the AKM.
Front Trunnion Stress: The front trunnion bears the highest peak stress in the system. When a cartridge is fired, the expanding gases exert a force on the bolt face, which is transmitted directly to the locking lugs on the front trunnion. This force is on the order of thousands of pounds, corresponding to chamber pressures that can reach approximately 45,000 psi for the 7.62x39mm cartridge.5 The integrity of the trunnion’s locking lugs is paramount. This is why properly forged and heat-treated trunnions are essential; failures of substandard cast trunnions often manifest as cracks or complete shearing of the locking lugs.5
Rear Trunnion Stress: The rear trunnion experiences a different type of load: a high-energy impact. At the end of its rearward travel, the entire mass of the bolt carrier group (approximately 500 grams) slams into the front face of the rear trunnion. While the peak force is lower than the chamber pressure, it is a significant, repetitive shock load that must be absorbed and transferred into the receiver shell without causing deformation or failure.7 This repeated impact is why the rear trunnion rivets are often described as taking the most “abuse” in the system.7
4.2 Analysis of Forces: Shear Stress on Trunnion Rivets
The primary force that the trunnion rivets must resist is shear. The rearward thrust on the front trunnion and the impact on the rear trunnion create forces that try to slide the trunnions relative to the receiver skin. The rivets act as pins, resisting this shearing motion. The load is distributed among the rivets in a group, with each rivet carrying a fraction of the total shear force.
4.3 The Swell Neck/Dimple Interface: A Design Solution for Maximizing Shear Resistance
The most ingenious feature of the AKM’s riveting system is the use of swell neck rivets in conjunction with dimpled receiver holes. This is a specific design solution to the problem of transferring high shear loads into a thin (1.0 mm) sheet of metal.
In a standard rivet joint, the shear load is borne by the bearing surface of the hole against the rivet shank. In a 1.0 mm receiver, this bearing area is minuscule, making the hole highly susceptible to elongation or “egging” under load, which would lead to a loose trunnion and catastrophic failure.
The swell neck/dimple system fundamentally changes this dynamic. The process involves using a specialized die to press a conical countersink, or “dimple,” into the receiver hole.8 The front or rear trunnion must be in place behind the receiver to support the sheet during this process.8 When the swell neck rivet is installed, its conical swell nests perfectly into this dimple.13
The basic formula for shear stress (τ) is τ = F/A, where F is the applied force and A is the area over which the force is acting. This formula calculates the average shear stress across the area.
Explanation:
Shear Stress (τ): It’s a measure of the force acting parallel to the surface area of a material, causing it to deform or potentially fail by sliding or shearing. Force (F): This is the component of the force that is parallel to the surface area. Area (A): This is the cross-sectional area of the material that the force is acting upon. It’s the area of the surface where the force is applied, not the total surface area of the object.
So, as the area increases, the sheer stress decreases all things being equal.
This creates a mechanical interlock. The shear load is no longer concentrated on the thin edge of the hole. Instead, it is distributed across the entire conical surface area of the dimple. This vastly increases the bearing surface, dramatically reduces the bearing stress on the receiver material, and effectively locks the trunnion and receiver together, preventing any relative movement.6 Gunsmithing guides explicitly warn against trying to achieve a flush fit by removing material from the receiver instead of dimpling; doing so defeats the entire purpose of the design, leaving only the rivet’s core to resist shear and guaranteeing eventual failure.6 This feature is the key to making a thin stamped receiver perform as if it were much thicker and stronger at these critical junctions.
4.4 The Role of the Center Support and Trigger Guard Rivets in Receiver Rigidity
While the trunnion rivets handle the primary firing loads, the other rivet groups serve a crucial structural reinforcement role, stiffening the inherently flexible U-shaped receiver.
Center Support: The center support consists of a rivet passing through a steel sleeve that bridges the two sides of the receiver.8 This assembly acts as a critical cross-member. It prevents the long, unsupported upper guide rails from flexing inward under the lateral forces exerted by the reciprocating bolt carrier, ensuring smooth and reliable cycling. It also prevents the receiver walls themselves from bowing or pinching.33
Trigger Guard Assembly: The trigger guard is not merely a safety feature. When its five rivets are properly installed, the entire stamped steel trigger guard assembly acts as a structural floor plate for the receiver.34 This significantly increases the torsional and latitudinal rigidity of the large magazine well opening, preventing the “U” from spreading or twisting under load.
Together, these rivet groups transform the flexible stamped receiver shell into a strong, cohesive chassis capable of withstanding the rigors of military service.
Section 5: The Riveting Process: A Technical Guide to Proper Formation
Achieving the designed strength of the AKM’s riveted joints is entirely dependent on the correct installation process. This is a precision manufacturing operation that requires specialized tooling and meticulous adherence to procedure. Using improper methods, such as a hammer and a simple punch, will result in substandard joints that compromise the safety and reliability of the firearm.
5.1 Essential Tooling: Jigs, Presses, and Forming Dies
Modern, correct riveting practice relies on a set of specialized tools to ensure control and repeatability.
Hydraulic Press: A shop press, typically with a capacity of 12 tons or more, provides the slow, controlled, and immense force needed to properly form the rivets without impact shock.13
Riveting Jig: A purpose-built jig, such as those made by AK-Builder or Toth Tool, is essential. These jigs securely hold the receiver and trunnion assembly, ensuring it is square to the press ram. They have recesses to support the manufactured head of the rivet, preventing it from being flattened, and they align the forming tool perfectly coaxial with the rivet shank.8 Different jigs or configurations are used for short trunnion rivets, long rear trunnion rivets, and the trigger guard.33
Forming Dies and Tools: A set of hardened steel forming tools is used to shape the rivet. This includes cupped support dies for the manufactured head and various forming punches to create a correctly shaped, domed buck-tail on the other end.16
5.2 Receiver and Component Preparation
Proper preparation of the components is as important as the riveting itself.
Hole Location and Drilling: Rivet holes must be precisely located on the receiver blank. This is typically done using a plastic layout guide and a transfer punch to mark the hole centers.10 The holes are then drilled to the correct diameter (e.g., 4.0 mm for a 4.0 mm rivet) using a drill press and high-quality drill bits.37 An undersized hole will prevent the rivet from seating, while an oversized hole will result in a weak joint.
Deburring: After drilling, all holes must be carefully deburred on both sides. Any burrs or sharp edges will prevent the rivet from sitting flush against the receiver and trunnion, creating gaps that compromise the joint’s integrity.6
Dimpling: For all swell neck rivet locations, the receiver holes must be dimpled. This is done using a specialized dimple die in the hydraulic press, with the trunnion installed in the receiver to provide backing support. This forms the conical seat that the rivet’s swell neck will engage.8
5.3 Step-by-Step Installation Protocol
The general sequence for riveting an AKM receiver is as follows, using the appropriate jigs and press tools for each step 8:
Trigger Guard Riveting: The trigger guard assembly is typically installed first, often with a dedicated jig. The four front rivets and the single rear rivet are pressed to secure the guard and magazine catch assembly.13
Front Trunnion Riveting: The front trunnion is placed in the receiver, and the six short rivets are installed. Care must be taken to use swell neck rivets in the four lower and middle holes (which should be dimpled) and standard domed rivets in the two upper holes.8
Rear Trunnion Riveting: The rear trunnion is installed using the two long rivets. This requires a specialized long-rivet jig to support the receiver and apply force linearly down the long shank of the rivet.8
Center Support Installation: The center support sleeve is inserted, and the special flat-headed rivet is pressed into place, again using the long-rivet tool.8
5.4 Inspection and Verification of a Correctly Formed Rivet
A properly formed rivet must meet specific visual and mechanical criteria.
Visual Inspection: The manufactured head must be perfectly flush against the receiver surface with no visible gaps. A common field test is to hold the receiver up to a bright light source to check for light passing under the rivet head.39 The formed head (the buck-tail) must be symmetrical, well-rounded with a dome shape similar to the manufactured head, and centered on the rivet’s shank. It should not be flattened, cracked, or off-center.40
Mechanical Integrity: The finished rivet must be completely tight. There should be absolutely no detectable movement between the trunnion and the receiver when force is applied. The entire assembly should feel and behave as a single, monolithic component. A loose rivet is a failed rivet and must be drilled out and replaced.
This is a Romanian Pistol Mitralieră model 1963/1965 (abbreviated PM md. 63 or simply md. 63) and is the Patriotic Guard or ‘Gardă’ version readily identifiable by the “G” on the rear sight block. Image source: Author.
Section 6: Conclusion: The Engineering Elegance of the AKM Riveting System
6.1 Synthesis of Findings: A Robust System for a Stamped Platform
The comprehensive analysis of the AKM’s riveting system reveals a design that is far more sophisticated than its rugged appearance suggests. The transition from the milled AK-47 to the stamped AKM was a manufacturing revolution, and the riveting system is the lynchpin of its success. The key findings of this report can be synthesized as follows:
A Purpose-Engineered System: The AKM’s riveting system is a holistic solution to the engineering challenges posed by a thin, stamped-steel receiver. It successfully mates high-strength, load-bearing trunnions to a lightweight chassis, creating a firearm that is both durable and easy to mass-produce.
Specialized Components: The system does not rely on generic fasteners. It employs a heterogeneous set of rivets, each with a specific geometry (swell neck, domed head, flat head) and dimension precisely tailored to the mechanical requirements and spatial constraints of its location.
Optimized Material Science: The choice of low-carbon steel (such as Soviet Steel 10 or 20) is a deliberate act of engineering efficiency. The material’s initial ductility facilitates easy cold-forming, while the installation process itself induces work-hardening, providing the final required strength without the need for a separate heat-treatment process.
Advanced Structural Mechanics: The strength of the system is derived not merely from the clamping force of the rivets but from advanced mechanical principles. The swell neck/dimple interface is a brilliant solution for managing shear stress, while the center support and trigger guard rivets act as integral structural reinforcements, adding critical rigidity to the receiver.
Process-Dependent Integrity: The design’s success is inextricably linked to the correct installation methodology. Proper riveting is a precision process that requires specialized tooling and meticulous preparation. Deviations from this process directly compromise the mechanical integrity and safety of the firearm.
6.2 Final Assessment
The riveting system of the AKM is a testament to the Soviet design philosophy of elegant simplicity. It achieves maximum functional robustness with a minimum of manufacturing complexity and cost. By understanding the interplay between the stamped receiver, the machined trunnions, and the specialized rivets that join them, one can appreciate the AKM not just as a firearm, but as a masterclass in pragmatic and effective mechanical engineering. It is a system where every component, every dimension, and every step in the assembly process has a clear and logical purpose, resulting in one of the most successful and widely produced firearm designs in history.
If you find this post useful, please share the link on Facebook, with your friends, etc. Your support is much appreciated and if you have any feedback, please email me at info@roninsgrips.com. Please note that for links to other websites, I may be paid via an affiliate program such as Avantlink, Impact, Amazon and eBay.
Zastava Arms, or Zastava oružje (Застава оружје) as it is known in its native Serbia, stands as a monumental testament to the nation’s industrial and military history. With origins stretching back to the mid-19th century, this Kragujevac-based manufacturer has not only equipped generations of soldiers but has also been a significant contributor to Serbia’s (and formerly Yugoslavia’s) defense industry and a notable exporter on the global stage.1 Its story is one of resilience, adaptation, and an enduring role in the complex tapestry of Balkan and European history.
A Tale of Two Zastavas: Arms and Automobiles
It is crucial at the outset to distinguish Zastava Arms from its erstwhile sibling, Zastava Automobiles (Zastava Automobili / Застава Аутомобили). While both giants of Serbian industry sprang from the same foundational industrial complex in Kragujevac (Крагујевац), their paths diverged. Zastava Arms remained true to its martial origins, focusing on ordnance and firearms, whereas Zastava Automobiles carved its niche in vehicle manufacturing.1 The original cannon-casting plant, established in 1853, is the direct progenitor of the Zastava Arms we know today.1 Although an automobile section was inaugurated within the broader Zastava enterprise in 1904, and the entire complex was later known as Zavodi Crvena Zastava (Заводи Црвена Застава, Red Flag Factories) after World War II, a pivotal decision in 1953 saw a significant portion of the Zastava plant dedicate itself exclusively to automobile production. This bifurcation led to the emergence of Zastava Automobiles and Zastava Arms as distinct, specialized entities.1 This report will navigate the rich history of Zastava Arms.
The parallel development and eventual separation of Zastava’s arms and automotive divisions reflect a broader pattern in state-led industrialization efforts, particularly in nations striving for self-sufficiency. Military requirements often served as the initial catalyst for heavy industry, with civilian applications and diversification emerging as secondary, albeit significant, outcomes. The foundational enterprise was a cannon foundry, driven by the Principality of Serbia’s defense needs.1 Early automotive activities also had military links, such as assembling Ford and Chevrolet trucks for the Yugoslav Army.8 This trajectory suggests that national security imperatives often paved the way for broader industrial capabilities. The eventual split signifies that both sectors achieved a scale and specialization warranting independent operation, but their shared genesis underscores a strategic, state-influenced approach to building national industrial capacity.
The remarkable longevity of Zastava Arms, enduring through multiple state formations, devastating wars, international sanctions, and profound political transformations, highlights not only its intrinsic resilience but also its perceived indispensability to the Serbian state throughout its various iterations. The company’s existence spans the Principality of Serbia, the Kingdom of Serbia, the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY), the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro, and the modern Republic of Serbia.4 It has weathered the storms of World War I, World War II (during which it sustained heavy damage), the turbulent dissolution of Yugoslavia, crippling UN sanctions, and direct NATO bombardment.4 Such persistence through extreme adversity implies a consistent level of state support, a deep-rooted institutional adaptability, and a continuous demand for its products, underscoring its strategic importance.
Table 1: Key Milestones in Zastava Arms History
Year
Milestone
1851
Decision rendered to relocate the Gun Foundry from Belgrade to Kragujevac (Крагујевац).3
1853 (Oct 27)
First cannon barrels cast in Kragujevac; official founding of Zastava Arms, initially as the Topolivnica (Тополивница, Cannon Foundry).1 The broader institution was also known as the Vojno-Tehnički Zavod (Војно-технички завод, Military Technical Institute).8
1880
Major Kosta Milovanović designs the Mauzer Milovanović M.1880 repeating rifle, popularly known as the Kokinka (Кокинка).10
1889
The Gun Foundry wins several medals at the Large World Fair in Paris.3
c. 1924-1928
Ministry of the Interior signs contracts with FN Herstal (Belgium) for licensed production of M24 series Mauser bolt-action rifles; new factory for rifle and ammunition production established.4
Post-WWII
The factory complex is renamed Zavodi Crvena Zastava (Заводи Црвена Застава, Red Flag Factories).1
1948
Production of the M48 bolt-action rifle, based on the Mauser design, commences.3
1953
Significant portion of Zastava plant pivots to automobile production, leading to separation of Zastava Arms and Zastava Automobiles. Zastava Arms begins production of the M53 Šarac (Шарац) machine gun.1
1964-1970
Development of indigenous Kalashnikov-pattern assault rifle begins, culminating in adoption of Zastava M70 by Yugoslav People’s Army (JNA) in 1970.4
1990s
United Nations imposes economic sanctions on FR Yugoslavia due to Yugoslav Wars, impacting production and exports.4
1999
Zastava factory complex in Kragujevac sustains damage during NATO bombing.5
2005
Significant restructuring commences; Memorandum of Understanding signed with Remington Arms (USA) for export.4
2019
Zastava Arms USA established as exclusive importer for US market.4
Forging an Arsenal: From Topolivnica to the Great War (1851 – 1918)
The Birth of Serbian Arms Industry in Kragujevac
The genesis of Zastava Arms lies in a strategic decision made in 1851 by the Principality of Serbia to relocate its Gun Foundry from Belgrade to the more centrally located city of Kragujevac.3 This move was a clear statement of intent: to establish an indigenous capability for arms production, thereby reducing reliance on foreign powers. On October 27, 1853, this ambition materialized with the casting of the first cannon barrels at the new facility.1 This date is not merely a historical footnote; it is celebrated as the official founding day of Zastava Arms and marks the dawn of Serbia’s domestic arms industry. The initial output consisted of four four-pound cannons and two short howitzers.4
The foundry was initially known as the Topolivnica (Тополивница, Cannon Foundry).1 The critical task of organizing these early operations and training the first generation of Serbian arms craftsmen fell to a French engineer, Charles Loubry (referred to as Lubry in some Serbian sources), who oversaw the casting of a battery of six-pounder cannons. After Loubry’s departure in 1854, Milutin Jovanović assumed leadership, progressing to the production of twelve-pounder cannons.14
The Kragujevac Cannon Foundry in its working days, originally built in 1856. The drawing is from Wikimedia – the exact date and author are unknown. It was contributed to Wikimedia by SimonKTemplar
The establishment and early development of Zastava Arms were direct consequences of Serbia’s pressing need for military self-reliance in a volatile geopolitical neighborhood. This drive for sovereignty in defense procurement shaped its initial trajectory and institutional character, with the choice of Kragujevac being a deliberate strategic move for a national arsenal. The official narrative emphasizes the goal of achieving Serbia’s “own production of arms and equipment” 3, breaking dependence on foreign suppliers. The era was marked by frequent regional conflicts and the overarching influence of larger European powers, making an independent arms source vital for the Principality, and later Kingdom, of Serbia.
Institutional Framework and Early Technological Prowess
The Topolivnica was intrinsically linked to, and indeed formed the core of, the Vojno-Tehnički Zavod (Војно-технички завод, Military Technical Institute or VTZ) in Kragujevac.8 The VTZ itself was established by a decision of the Serbian government in 1850, with construction spanning from 1851 to 1853.14
The Kragujevac facility rapidly became a beacon of technological advancement in 19th-century Serbia. It housed the nation’s first steam engines, witnessed the first electric light (the first electric bulb in Serbia was illuminated in the Čaurnica / Чаурница, Cartridge Casing Plant, a building within the VTZ complex, in 1884), established the first formal technical school for industrial training, and implemented the first recognized quality control systems.3 This commitment to quality and innovation garnered early international acclaim when the Gun Foundry was awarded several medals at the prestigious Large World Fair in Paris in 1889.3 Between 1856 and 1860, the facilities underwent significant upgrades, enabling the plant to produce weapons with full parts interchangeability, a hallmark of modern manufacturing.4 The Vojno-Tehnički Zavod was more than just an arms factory; it served as a significant catalyst for broader industrial and technological modernization within Serbia. The documented introduction of Serbia’s “first steam engines, first electric light, first technical school, first quality system” at the VTZ 3 highlights its role as an industrial vanguard. The lighting of the first electric bulb in Serbia within the VTZ complex 14 is a symbolic marker of this pioneering status. This indicates that the investment in defense production had spill-over effects, driving technological diffusion and contributing to the overall modernization of the Serbian economy and society.
Pioneering Firearms: From Cannons to the Kokinka Rifle
While cannons were the initial focus, the evolving nature of warfare demanded modern infantry firearms. By 1878, the Serbian military recognized that its existing “Piboduša“ Model 1870 Peabody rifles, with their large 14.9mm caliber, were becoming obsolete, prompting a concerted effort to modernize its armaments.4
Following a research project and competitive tender in 1879, a new rifle design emerged. In 1880, Serbian Major Kosta “Koka” Milovanović, a key figure in Serbian ordnance, developed an updated version of the Mauser Model 1871 bolt-action rifle. This rifle, chambered in a unique 10.15x63mmR Serbian caliber and featuring Milovanović’s innovative “progressive rifling” (where the grooves reduced in diameter from breech to muzzle), became Serbia’s first domestically designed repeating rifle.4
Known officially as the Mauzer Milovanović M.1880, it earned popular monikers such as the “Mauser-Koka” or, more affectionately, the „Kokinka“ (Кокинка).4 While initially manufactured in Germany by Mauser (as the Mauser-Milovanović M1878/80), Zastava Arms is also listed as a manufacturer, suggesting later production or assembly in Kragujevac.15 Approximately 110,000 of these rifles entered the Serbian arsenal and saw their first major combat use in the Serbo-Bulgarian War of 1885.15 The Old Foundry Museum (Muzej Stara Livnica / Музеј Стара Ливница) in Kragujevac prominently features this historic rifle.24 Zastava’s early operational model, characterized by the assimilation of advanced foreign technology (French engineering expertise for cannons, German Mauser rifle designs) coupled with indigenous innovation (Milovanović’s progressive rifling), established a foundational pattern of pragmatic technological development. The engagement of French engineer Charles Loubry for cannon production and training 14 demonstrates an openness to leveraging external expertise. The Mauser-Koka, while based on a German design, incorporated unique Serbian modifications 10, showcasing adaptive innovation. This blend of acquiring proven foreign technologies and adapting them to specific national requirements, while simultaneously nurturing local talent, proved to be a highly effective strategy for a smaller nation seeking to build a credible defense industry.
Arming the Nation: The Balkan Wars and World War I
The Mauser-Koka rifles, including variants converted around 1907 in Kragujevac to fire the 7x57mm Mauser cartridge from a 5-shot magazine (these conversions often referred to as Đurić Mausers / Ђурић-Маузер), were the mainstay of the Serbian infantry during the Balkan Wars (1912-1913) and World War I (1914-1918).15
The Vojno-Tehnički Zavod in Kragujevac served as the primary arsenal, responsible for producing and maintaining weapons for the Serbian army throughout these critical conflicts.3 On the eve of the Great War, Kragujevac, with a population of nearly 17,000, was home to seven industrial enterprises, with the VTZ being by far the most significant.26
During World War I, Serbia faced severe ammunition shortages, a common problem for many belligerents. The crisis was overcome through a combination of factors: crucial aid from Entente allies (primarily France and Russia), ammunition “borrowed” from then-neutral Greece, and, critically, the maximized efforts of domestic production at the Kragujevac works, where ingenuity and intense labor were applied to produce as many shells as possible.28 The Serbian army even had a permanent delegation at the Schneider factory in Creusot, France, to oversee ordnance matters.28 The co-location of a technical school with the foundry 3 points to a far-sighted strategy for developing the human capital necessary to sustain and advance this critical industry.
Interwar Growth and Technological Assimilation (1919 – 1939)
Post-WWI Rejuvenation and Expansion
Following the devastation of World War I and the creation of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (later Yugoslavia), the Vojno-Tehnički Zavod (VTZ) in Kragujevac embarked on a period of significant reconstruction and modernization. The museum guide’s reference to “VTZ između dva rata | Obnova” (VTZ between the two wars | Restoration) underscores this phase of rebuilding and renewed development.3
The factory underwent substantial expansion. By the late 1930s, on the eve of World War II, it had transformed into a veritable “industrial giant,” employing a workforce of nearly twelve thousand individuals and operating approximately ten thousand machines.3 This scale made it one of the largest and most important industrial enterprises in the Balkans. The massive expansion of Zastava’s workforce and machinery during this period cemented its role as a cornerstone of the regional economy in Kragujevac and a significant contributor to national employment and industrial output. Such a large workforce indicates that the factory was a primary economic engine for Kragujevac and the surrounding Šumadija (Шумадија) region. The demand for skilled and semi-skilled labor would have spurred vocational training and created a substantial industrial working class, extending its impact far beyond purely military considerations.
Strategic Alliances: FN Herstal and the Yugoslav Mauser M24
A pivotal development in the interwar period was the establishment of a close partnership with the renowned Belgian arms manufacturer, Fabrique Nationale d’Herstal (FN Herstal). Between 1924 and 1925, the Ministry of the Interior of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia concluded significant contracts with FN Herstal.4
These agreements facilitated the licensed production of the M24 series bolt-action rifles, a Yugoslav variant of the Mauser 98 system, chambered in the standard 7.92x57mm Mauser caliber.4 Yugoslavia became a major adopter and producer of this Mauser pattern, which was a proven and respected military design.11
Yugoslavian M1924 Mauser. Photo obtained from Wikimedia. Author is The Swedish Army Museum.
To accommodate this large-scale production, a new, modern factory dedicated to the manufacture of rifles and infantry ammunition was constructed in Kragujevac. Ammunition production commenced on March 22, 1928, followed by rifle production on October 15, 1928—a date chosen to coincide with the 75th anniversary of the first cannon casting at Kragujevac, symbolizing continuity and progress.4
The M24 rifle became a standard infantry weapon. Notable variants included the Sokolski karabin M.1924 (Соколски карабин М.1924, Sokol carbine M.1924), a slightly shorter version designed for youth paramilitary training and target practice, and the Jurišna puška M.1924 ČK (Јуришна пушка М.1924 ЧК, Assault rifle M.1924 ČK), designed for specialized assault units, featuring a bent bolt handle and additional sling swivels.16 Bayonets produced for these rifles at the Kragujevac arsenal were typically marked “BT3” (VTZ Cyrillic).30
The interwar era was transformative for Zastava, marking its maturation into a large-scale industrial enterprise capable of mass-producing modern weaponry. This was achieved through a deliberate strategy of acquiring proven foreign technologies via licensing agreements. The contracts with FN Herstal for the M24 Mauser rifle were not merely for a design blueprint but involved establishing comprehensive production lines for both rifles and ammunition.4 This implies a significant transfer of manufacturing technology and quality control processes from a leading European arms maker, allowing for rapid modernization of the Yugoslav military’s arsenal.
Diversification through Czechoslovakian Licenses
Beyond the Belgian collaboration, Zastava also looked to other advanced European arms industries for technology. In 1930, the factory secured a license from Czechoslovakia to produce 26 mm M 1929 signal pistols.4
Furthering this relationship, in July 1936, Zastava obtained a license from the prominent Czechoslovakian arms manufacturer Zbrojovka Brno (Збројовка Брно) to manufacture their highly regarded ZB vz. 26 light machine gun. This weapon, chambered in 7.92x57mm Mauser, was designated the M 1937 in Yugoslav service.4 Approximately 5,000 of these light machine guns were produced by Zastava.11 This strategy of “technology assimilation” allowed the Kingdom of Yugoslavia to equip its forces with reliable, contemporary weapons relatively quickly, enhancing its defense posture in an increasingly unstable Europe.
Nascent Automotive Activities
While this report focuses on Zastava Arms, it is pertinent to note that the broader Zastava industrial complex in Kragujevac also began to engage in automotive assembly during this period, primarily for military needs. In 1930, Ford trucks were assembled for the Yugoslav Army, and in 1939, assembly of Chevrolet military trucks commenced.8 These early forays into vehicle production laid the groundwork for what would eventually become the separate entity of Zastava Automobili.
Under Fire: Zastava Arms in World War II (1939 – 1945)
Cessation of Operations under Occupation
The outbreak of World War II and the subsequent Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941 brought a sudden and brutal halt to the burgeoning operations at the Vojno-Tehnički Zavod in Kragujevac. Production ceased as the country was overrun and occupied.8
The city of Kragujevac, home to this vital arsenal, suffered grievously under occupation. A particularly horrific event was the Kragujevac Massacre of October 20-21, 1941, where German occupation forces, as a reprisal for partisan attacks, executed thousands of civilian men and boys from the city and surrounding areas.31 While the sources do not explicitly state that Zastava workers were singled out, the massacre decimated the local male population from which the factory drew its workforce, casting a dark shadow over the city and the plant.
Wartime Damage and Destruction
Throughout the war, Zastava Arms (then VTZ) sustained heavy damage.3 As a key military-industrial asset, it would have been a strategic target for various warring factions.
Liberation and Swift Resumption of Production
The city of Kragujevac was liberated from Axis occupation on October 21, 1944, by Yugoslav Partisan forces.4 Demonstrating its critical importance to the newly emerging Yugoslav authorities, the Zastava weapons factory was rapidly repaired and brought back into working order within a matter of months following liberation.4
Production recommenced almost immediately. The first firearm to be developed and produced in this new post-liberation phase was the 9mm M 1944 B2 submachine gun, a design initiated in the very same year as the liberation, 1944.4 This quick turnaround underscores the urgency of re-establishing arms production.
The alacrity with which the Zastava factory was repaired and production restarted post-liberation, even amidst the widespread chaos and devastation of war’s end, underscores its paramount strategic value to the nascent communist-led Yugoslav state. This urgency was likely driven by the immediate need to arm the victorious Partisan forces, consolidate control, and lay the foundations for national defense in a volatile post-war European landscape. The phrases “repaired to working order within months” and “production began shortly after” 4 signify a high-priority effort. The immediate development of the M 1944 B2 submachine gun 4 points to a clear focus on equipping forces for ongoing or anticipated needs. This mirrors the factory’s original founding principle: the imperative of indigenous arms production for national security.
The wartime experience of occupation, the brutal Kragujevac Massacre, and the extensive damage to the factory likely had a profound psychological and strategic impact, further solidifying Yugoslavia’s post-war commitment to military self-reliance. The trauma of events like the Kragujevac Massacre 31 and the vulnerability exposed by “heavy damage” 4 would have served as powerful motivators to ensure future defense capabilities were domestically controlled. This may have influenced design philosophies towards weapons that were robust, reliable, and suitable for mass production, as seen in some later Zastava products like the M70 rifle, known for its ruggedness.21
The Red Star Rises: Zavodi Crvena Zastava in SFR Yugoslavia (1945 – 1991)
A New Name for a New Era: Zavodi Crvena Zastava
Following World War II and the establishment of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) under Marshal Tito, the Zastava industrial complex in Kragujevac was nationalized and renamed Zavodi Crvena Zastava (Заводи Црвена Застава), meaning “Red Flag Factories”.1 This symbolic renaming, utilizing a potent communist emblem, reflected the new socialist political order and the factory’s integration into the state-controlled economy, emphasizing its role in serving the collective and the Jugoslovenska Narodna Armija (JHA / Југословенска народна армија, ЈНА, Yugoslav People’s Army).4
Iconic Firearms Production
The post-war era saw Zastava produce some of its most iconic and widely recognized firearms, becoming a cornerstone of Yugoslav defense and a significant exporter.
M48 Rifle: Building on its Mauser expertise, Zastava began production of the 7.92x57mm Mauser Model 1948 rifle.3 This rifle, based on the earlier M24 and the German Kar98k, became the standard service rifle of the JNA from the early 1950s until it was gradually replaced by the M59/66 semi-automatic rifle.38 Several variants were produced, including the M48 (all machined parts), M48A (incorporating some stamped parts like the magazine floor plate to speed production and lower cost), M48B (additional stamped parts, intended for export), and M48BO (bez oznake / без ознаке, unmarked, for export).11
M53 Šarac (Шарац) Machine Gun: In 1954, Zastava commenced production of the 7.9mm M53 Šarac machine gun.4 This weapon was a near-identical copy of the formidable German MG42 general-purpose machine gun from World War II. Yugoslavia utilized captured German machinery and technical data to produce the M53, retaining the original 7.92x57mm Mauser caliber, which remained in widespread Yugoslav service alongside Soviet calibers.12 A key modification was a reduction in the cyclic rate of fire to around 950 rounds per minute, compared to the MG42’s 1,200 RPM, making the M53 more controllable.12 Captured MG42s refurbished to this standard were designated M53/42.39
PAP M59 Semi-Automatic Rifle: As infantry doctrine evolved, Zastava began batch production of the 7.62x39mm Poluautomatska puška M59 (Полуаутоматска пушка M59, Semi-automatic rifle M59), commonly known as the PAP M59, in 1964.4 This rifle was a Yugoslav-produced version of the Soviet SKS carbine. A notable variant, the M59/66, incorporated an integral 22mm NATO-standard grenade launcher and a flip-up grenade sight.11
M70 Assault Rifle Family: Perhaps Zastava’s most famous product line, the M70 assault rifle family, emerged from Yugoslavia’s independent military development path. Development of an automatic rifle based on the Kalashnikov (AK-47) system began in 1964, initially designated the M67 in 1967.4 The Zastava M70, an unlicensed derivative of the Soviet AK-47 (specifically the Type 3 milled receiver variant), was subsequently developed in the 7.62x39mm caliber.4 Due to political differences between Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, particularly Yugoslavia’s refusal to join the Warsaw Pact, Zastava was unable to obtain official technical specifications and instead reverse-engineered the AK design.17 The JNA officially adopted the M70 assault rifle into its arsenal in 1970.4 The Yugoslav M70 incorporated several unique features distinguishing it from Soviet AKs, including a grenade launching sight bracket mounted on the gas block (which also functioned as a gas cut-off when raised for grenade launching), a thicker receiver (initially milled, later stamped), and often, teak wood furniture.17 Later versions, such as the M70B1 and M70AB2 (folding stock), featured stamped receivers, with some incorporating heavier RPK-style bulged trunnions for increased durability, especially for grenade launching.17 Zastava also produced derivatives of the M70 chambered in Western bloc ammunition, such as the M77 in 7.62x51mm NATO and models in 5.56x45mm NATO, for export.4
Other Military Arms: The factory’s output during this period also included the M56 submachine gun, which bore a close resemblance to the German MP40 and was chambered in 7.62x25mm Tokarev 4; the M49 submachine gun, a design that synthesized elements of the Soviet PPSh-41 and the Italian Beretta Model 38 11; the M57 pistol, a Yugoslav derivative of the Soviet Tokarev TT-33 pistol, also in 7.62x25mm 4; and the M70 pistol (distinct from the rifle), a compact handgun chambered in.32 ACP (7.65mm Browning).4
The M53 Šarac Machine Gun. Image obtained from Wikimedia. The Author is Aleksej fon Grozni.
Afghan Local Police (ALP) candidates practice basic rifle marksmanship at a Coalition Forces site in Arghandab district, Kandahar province, Afghanistan, Oct. 16, 2012. The candidates undergo a three-week course which covers basic marksmanship, patrolling, improvised explosive device recognition and security techniques. The ALP program allows Afghans to provide security for their home villages and districts. Note: These are a variant of the M70 rifle as they do not have the grenade launching sight found on the Yugoslav-era M70B1 rifles. Photo obtained from Wikimedia. The author is Petty Officer 2nd Class Ernesto Hernandez Fonte.
Zastava’s arms production during the SFR Yugoslavia era clearly reflects the country’s unique non-aligned geopolitical stance. The decision to utilize and adapt both Eastern bloc (AK-47, SKS) and Western-influenced (Mauser, MG42 concepts) arms technologies, and even to develop unique hybrids or derivatives, demonstrates a pragmatic approach to defense procurement and industrial development. This strategy allowed Yugoslavia to avoid sole reliance on one superpower bloc, maintaining a degree of military autonomy. The production of the M70 as an unlicensed derivative, born out of political rifts with the USSR 17, particularly underscores Yugoslavia’s independent path. Furthermore, the development of weapon variants in NATO calibers 4 suggests a forward-thinking approach towards export markets or ensuring compatibility beyond Warsaw Pact standards, aligning with its non-aligned status and economic needs.
Development of Hunting and Sporting Arms
Alongside its military production, Zavodi Crvena Zastava significantly developed its line of hunting and sporting firearms. This diversification was likely a strategic move to utilize existing manufacturing capacity more fully, generate vital foreign currency through exports, and cater to a growing civilian market, thereby reducing the factory’s sole dependence on fluctuating military contracts.
Production of air rifles and sporting rifles, often based on the robust M48 Mauser rifle action, began as early as 1953.3 In 1954, Zastava further expanded its civilian offerings to include shotguns and small-bore rifles.3
The LK M70 hunting rifle (Lovački Karabin M70 / Ловачки Карабин М70), typically built on a Mauser 98-pattern action, became a particularly well-known and respected civilian product, offered in a variety of popular hunting calibers.4 Other sporting rifles, such as the M85 (a mini-Mauser action for smaller cartridges), were also developed and found success in domestic and international markets.22 The efficiency of basing many of these civilian arms on existing, proven military actions, like the Mauser, streamlined production and maintained a reputation for reliability. Exports of these hunting and sporting weapons became an increasingly important part of Zastava’s business.3
Technology Transfer
The official Zastava Arms website notes that “Years of experience in the field of development of products, technology and capacities created conditions for the transfer of technology to other countries”.3 While specific examples of Zastava Arms licensing its own designs for production in other countries during the SFRY period are not extensively detailed in the provided materials, the statement implies that such transfers were considered or occurred. The primary mode of technology interaction during this era appears to be Zastava receiving and adapting foreign technologies (e.g., Mauser, SKS, AK-47). However, the experience gained in mass-producing these adapted designs would have built considerable institutional knowledge and capacity, potentially laying the groundwork for later technology exports or licensed production agreements with other nations, particularly within the Non-Aligned Movement or other friendly states.
Weathering the Storm: Dissolution, Sanctions, and Bombing (1991 – 1999)
The Impact of the Yugoslav Wars (1991-1999)
The violent dissolution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, beginning in 1991 and continuing through a series of brutal conflicts until 1999 (and beyond in some aspects), created immense instability that directly and profoundly impacted Zastava’s operations, its traditional markets, and its supply chains.11 As the primary arms manufacturer for the JNA and a supplier to various republican territorial defense forces, Zastava weapons, particularly the ubiquitous M70 assault rifle and its variants, were widely used by all factions involved in the Yugoslav Wars.17 The M53 machine gun also saw widespread use during these conflicts.39 The breakup effectively shattered Zastava’s large, unified domestic market.
UN Sanctions and Their Effect on Operations
In response to the conflicts, the United Nations imposed comprehensive economic sanctions, including an arms embargo, on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), which then consisted of Serbia and Montenegro.4 These sanctions, which were in effect for significant periods during the Yugoslav Wars (notably Resolution 757 in 1992 and subsequent resolutions), severely hampered Zastava’s ability to legally export its products, import necessary raw materials or specialized components, and maintain its international business relationships.4 Production inevitably slowed as a result of these restrictions. The experience of Zastava Automobili, which saw exports halted and parts supply disrupted 8, would have been mirrored, if not amplified, at Zastava Arms due to the direct applicability of the arms embargo.
This period represented an existential threat to Zastava Arms. The combination of losing its primary domestic market (the unified Yugoslav state), severe disruption to supply chains and export capabilities due to international sanctions, and ultimately direct physical destruction from NATO bombing, would have been insurmountable for most industrial enterprises. The fact that Zastava Arms continued to operate, and even managed to develop new products under such dire circumstances, speaks volumes about its deeply embedded strategic importance to the Serbian state and an almost wartime operational footing.
NATO Intervention and Damage to the Kragujevac Facilities (1999)
The Kosovo War, which escalated in 1998-1999, led to direct military intervention by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). From March 24 to June 10, 1999, NATO conducted an extensive aerial bombing campaign against military and strategic targets in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.13
The Zastava factory complex in Kragujevac, being a critical component of Yugoslavia’s defense industry, was specifically targeted and sustained significant damage from NATO airstrikes.4 Reports indicate that the Zastava kovačnica (Застава ковачница, Zastava Forge) was bombed on April 9, 1999.18 The company’s Shotgun Shop was also reportedly destroyed during the bombing and was not subsequently restored.11 The NATO bombing, while aimed at degrading military-industrial capacity, inadvertently created a situation where significant rebuilding and, consequently, opportunities for modernization would become a necessity for Zastava in the post-conflict era.
Continued Product Development (Pre-Bombing/During Early Conflicts)
Despite the immense turmoil of the early and mid-1990s, Zastava Arms managed to continue some level of product development. In 1992, as conflicts were already underway, the factory completed the development and initiated batch production of the 7.62x39mm M92 carbine. This compact weapon was based on the earlier M85 carbine (a 5.56mm AK variant) but chambered in the more common 7.62x39mm round.4
Zastava M92 semi automatic rifle on display at “Partner 2011” military fair. Obtained from Wikimedia. Author is Srđan Popović.
Additionally, leveraging its long experience with Mauser bolt-action mechanisms, Zastava developed the M93 Black Arrow (Crna Strela / Црна Стрела) long-range anti-materiel rifle during this period. This heavy rifle, typically chambered in 12.7x108mm or.50 BMG, was designed for engaging targets at extended distances.4 The development of such specialized weapons even under conditions of conflict and sanctions underscores the factory’s retained engineering capabilities and the ongoing demand from military forces.
Zastava M-93 Black Arrow, 12.7 mm. Obtained from Wikimedia. Author is Marko M.
Rebuilding and Rebranding: Zastava Arms in the 21st Century (2000 – Present)
Restructuring and Modernization Efforts
The dawn of the 21st century found Zastava Arms grappling with the aftermath of wars, sanctions, and bombing. A period of significant restructuring was initiated, formally lasting from 2005 to 2014, aimed at adapting the company to a new political and economic reality.4 The factory, damaged during both World War II and the 1999 NATO air raids, was largely rebuilt with substantial government assistance.19
In a move to integrate it more formally within the national defense framework, Zastava Arms became part of the Defense Industry of Serbia in 2003, a decision by the Ministry of Defense that facilitated state support.7 On March 10, 2005, the Serbian government passed a decision to actively support the company’s restructuring process.7 A significant milestone in its international standing occurred on August 30, 2005, when Zastava Arms was placed on the United Nations list of proven suppliers of arms and military equipment.7
Technologically, the company has sought to modernize its design and production processes. It employs CATIA (Computer-Aided Three-dimensional Interactive Application) software for product design, enabling a more agile response to evolving market demands.3 Furthermore, Zastava Arms applies a Quality Management System (QMS), holding SRPS ISO 9001:2008 and SNO 9000/05 certificates, to ensure product quality and process improvement.3
Current Military Product Lines
Zastava Arms continues to produce a wide array of military firearms. According to its 2019 military catalog and other company information, its current offerings include 4:
Assault Rifles: The M21 series chambered in 5.56x45mm NATO (the standard service rifle of the Serbian Armed Forces), the M05E series in 7.62x39mm (upgraded M70 versions), the classic M70 B3/AB3 in 7.62x39mm, and the M90 in 5.56x45mm.
Submachine Guns/Carbines: Compact versions of the M21 and the M92 carbine in 7.62x39mm.
Light Machine Guns: The M72 RPK-style LMG in 7.62x39mm.
Sniper Rifles: The M91 (7.62x54R Dragunov-style), the M07 (bolt-action, various calibers including 7.62x51mm and.308 Winchester), and the M17 (7.62x51mm).
Long Range/Anti-Materiel Rifles: The M12 Black Spear (Crno Koplje / Црно Копље) and the M93 Black Arrow (Crna Strela / Црна Стрела), both available in.50 BMG and 12.7x108mm.
Machine Guns: The M84 general-purpose machine gun (PKM derivative in 7.62x54R), the M87 heavy machine gun (NSV derivative in 12.7x108mm), and the M02 Coyote heavy machine gun (12.7x108mm).
Automatic Grenade Launcher: The M93 (BGA / БГА – Bacač Granata Automatski) in 30mm.
Underbarrel Grenade Launchers: The BGP 40x46mm and BGP 40mm (for M70 pattern rifles).
Pistols: The CZ 999, EZ 9, and EZ 9 Compact, available in 9mm Parabellum and.40 S&W.
Zastava М21 rifle of Serbian Gendarmerie. Photo obtained from Wikimedia. The author is Boksi.
Zastava M12 Black Spear on display during Partner 2013 arms fair, Belgrade. Photo obtained from Wikimedia. The authors is Proka89.
Civilian Hunting and Sporting Arms
Zastava maintains a strong presence in the civilian firearms market, particularly with its hunting and sporting rifles known for their Mauser-based actions and Kalashnikov-derived semi-automatics 22:
Hunting Rifles (Bolt-Action): The flagship LK M70 series (Lovački Karabin M70), based on the Mauser 98 action, is offered in a wide range of calibers (e.g.,.243 Win,.270 Win,.30-06,.308 Win,.300 Win Mag, 7×64, 8×57 JS, 9.3×62,.375 H&H Mag,.458 Win Mag). Other models include the LK M85 (mini-Mauser action for calibers like.223 Rem, 7.62x39mm), M808, and precision-oriented M07 Match and M12 models.
Sporting Rifles (Semi-Automatic): The PAP series (Poluautomatska Puška / Полуаутоматска Пушка, Semi-automatic Rifle), derived from the Kalashnikov action, is highly popular. Key models include the ZPAP M70 in 7.62x39mm and the PAP M77 in.308 Winchester/7.62x51mm. The M2010 is another semi-automatic offering. The ZPAP M70, particularly as imported by Zastava Arms USA, is noted for its robust construction, often featuring a heavier 1.5mm thick RPK-style receiver and a bulged front trunnion.21
Small Bore Rifles: Models like the MP22 (.22 LR) and MP17 (.17 HMR).
Pistols: A range including Tokarev-pattern pistols like the M57A and M70A (chambered in 7.62x25mm and 9mm Para respectively), the compact M88A (9mm Para), and modern double-action designs like the CZ 999 and EZ9/EZ40 series (9mm Para /.40 S&W).
The product line demonstrates a dual strategy: maintaining and updating Kalashnikov-pattern weapons (M70, M05E, ZPAP series) for markets familiar with their robustness and reliability, while also developing more modern, modular systems (like the M19 Modular Rifle mentioned in some catalogs 54, and the M21) and precision long-range rifles (M07, M12, M93) to compete in different segments and meet evolving military and civilian marksmanship requirements. This diversification is crucial for a global exporter.
Table 2: Overview of Current Zastava Arms Product Categories
Export remains the lifeblood of Zastava Arms, with the company stating that 95% of its product placement is through international sales.7 It exports hunting and sporting weapons to over thirty countries 3 and military products to over forty countries worldwide.4
Zastava Arms USA: A pivotal development was the establishment in January 2019 of Zastava Arms USA, based in Des Plaines, Illinois. This subsidiary serves as the exclusive importer and distributor of Zastava Arms products for the lucrative US market, also handling warranty, repair services, and parts.4 This move was partly aimed at exercising greater control over product quality and presentation in the US, addressing issues that had arisen with previous third-party importers who sometimes made modifications that caused reliability concerns.56 The establishment of Zastava Arms USA represents a critical strategic pivot, allowing direct management of its brand and quality in its most significant export market.
Yugoimport SDPR: Domestically, Yugoimport SDPR (Југоимпорт СДПР), the Serbian state-owned defense equipment company, is a key partner for Zastava Arms, often facilitating international defense contracts and joint participation in global defense exhibitions like IDEX in the UAE.7
International Golden Group (UAE): Zastava Arms lists International Golden Group, based in the United Arab Emirates, as an important international partner, indicative of its reach in the Middle Eastern market.7
Past Partnership with Remington Arms: In 2005, a memorandum of understanding was signed with the American company Remington Arms to export Zastava-made hunting and sporting firearms (often Mauser-action rifles) to the United States, Canada, and Mexico.4 However, this cooperation was later discontinued, reportedly at Remington’s initiative due to its own financial difficulties. Zastava then sought new US mediators, such as EA Armory, to maintain its presence in the US market prior to forming Zastava Arms USA.58
Key Export Markets and Contracts: Asia, Africa, and the United States are consistently cited as major destinations for Zastava’s products.4 Historically, Zastava rifles like the M48 were exported to countries including Burma, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Syria, Algeria, and Chad.11 More recent specific export deals mentioned in news reports include contracts with Armenia 59 and a large announced contract for hunting and sporting arms to the US valued at $235 million (reported in 2021).60 In a notable instance of military aid, Canada supplied 35,000 Zastava M70 assault rifles to Ukraine in 2022 as part of support efforts during the Russo-Ukrainian War.62
Recent Developments, Financial Status, Achievements, and Challenges
Zastava Arms navigates a complex environment characterized by its strategic importance, historical legacy, financial pressures, and the demands of a competitive global market.
Financial Situation and Government Support: The company has faced persistent financial challenges. As far back as 2013, it was reported to owe over 80 million euros in unpaid taxes, the largest debt among Serbian defense industry companies.4 By June 2019, its total debt was estimated at around 145 million euros.4 A 2014 article in Privredni pregled (Привредни преглед, Economic Review) noted that Zastava Oružje was operating with significant losses.63 More recently, the Serbian news outlet Nova Ekonomija (Нова Економија, New Economy) reported in November 2023 that the factory had accumulated losses exceeding seven billion dinars (approximately 60 million euros) over the preceding six years under a controversial supervisory board.64 Despite these financial burdens, the Serbian government continues to provide support, recognizing Zastava’s strategic role. An investment of 9.7 million euros was made in 2017 for factory modernization to meet defense industry needs.4 The Serbian state remains a major shareholder (the Wikipedia entry from May 2025 lists the Government of Serbia as 48% owner 4, although a 2025 company document regarding a shareholders’ meeting mentions a more complex structure involving social capital shares 66).
Production and Sales Performance: Notwithstanding its financial difficulties, Zastava Arms has reported periods of strong production and sales. For instance, firearm production reportedly increased by 20% in 2020, with deals concluded that year valued at $95 million, primarily with buyers from Asia, Africa, and the United States.4 The aforementioned $235 million US export contract announced in 2021 also points to significant market activity.60
Controversies and Allegations of Mismanagement: Zastava Arms has not been immune to controversy. Reports from Serbian media, including Nova Ekonomija 64, and discussions on international forums referencing articles from the Serbian weekly NIN (Недељне информативне новине, Weekly Informational Newspaper) 67, have detailed serious allegations of mismanagement by past leadership. These allegations include claims of unfavorable export contracts, particularly with Zastava Arms USA, where fixed prices for firearms were reportedly maintained despite sharply rising material and energy costs, to the detriment of the Kragujevac factory.67 There were also accusations of questionable deals with domestic private companies, resulting in further financial losses for Zastava Arms.67 The Independent Trade Union at Zastava Arms filed criminal charges against the former president of the supervisory board, Ivica Marjanović, citing abuse of official position and responsibility for the factory’s decline.64 Concerns have also been voiced by users and observers about the condition of some of the factory’s machinery being worn out and an underpaid workforce potentially leading to occasional quality control issues in production, although export samples for the US market are often perceived to be of better finish.68 The entire supervisory board was eventually replaced in late 2023.64
Achievements and Ongoing Activities: Despite its challenges, Zastava Arms’ enduring legacy of over 170 years in continuous operation is a significant achievement in itself. It maintains a substantial export reach and continues to develop new products, such as the M19 Modular Rifle 54, to meet contemporary demands. The company remains a cornerstone of the Serbian defense industry.4 Zastava Arms actively participates in major international arms fairs, including SHOT Show in Las Vegas, USA, and IWA OutdoorClassics in Nuremberg, Germany, showcasing its products to a global audience.7 Recent company news includes the reopening of its “Old Gun Foundry” museum in Kragujevac in November 2023, emphasizing its rich heritage 69, and its participation in the “Zastava 2024” military capability display of the Serbian Army in June 2024.70
Zastava Arms appears to operate in a precarious yet persistent balance: it is a strategically vital state-supported defense asset with an remarkable historical lineage, yet it is simultaneously burdened by significant accumulated debt and the shadow of past mismanagement allegations. Its future trajectory will likely depend on a confluence of factors: continued and effective state backing, successful and profitable penetration of competitive export markets (especially the US), and sustained improvements in internal governance and operational efficiency.
Conclusion: Zastava Arms – A Legacy Forged in Steel
The history of Zastava Arms is a compelling narrative of industrial ambition, technological adaptation, and national identity, forged over more than 170 years in the heart of Serbia. From its humble beginnings as the Topolivnica in Kragujevac, casting its first cannons for a nascent Principality of Serbia intent on self-reliance, the factory has evolved into a globally recognized arms manufacturer. Its journey mirrors the tumultuous history of the Balkan region and Serbia itself—a saga of nation-building, devastating wars, profound political transformations from monarchy through socialism to a modern republic, economic booms, and periods of acute crisis including sanctions and foreign bombardment.
Throughout these epochs, Zastava Arms has demonstrated remarkable resilience. It armed Serbian and later Yugoslav forces through the Balkan Wars, two World Wars, and the tragic conflicts accompanying the dissolution of Yugoslavia. It assimilated and adapted technologies from both West and East, reflecting Yugoslavia’s unique non-aligned stance during the Cold War, producing iconic firearms like the Mauser-pattern M48, the MG42-derived M53 Šarac, and the Kalashnikov-based M70 family. This ability to absorb, modify, and mass-produce diverse weaponry underscores a deep-seated engineering capability and a pragmatic approach to fulfilling national defense needs.
In the 21st century, Zastava Arms continues to be a pivotal entity in the Serbian defense industry and a significant exporter. The establishment of Zastava Arms USA signifies a strategic commitment to directly engage with its largest and most demanding civilian market, aiming to enhance its brand presence and profitability. However, the company also contends with substantial challenges. A legacy of financial debt and recent allegations of mismanagement have cast shadows, necessitating ongoing restructuring and a reliance on state support. The competitive nature of the global arms market demands continuous innovation, stringent quality control, and agile business practices.
The story of Zastava Arms is, in many ways, a microcosm of Serbia’s own historical trajectory—a narrative defined by a persistent quest for sovereignty and agency on the world stage, often in the face of formidable external pressures and internal complexities. The inherent tension between its role as a strategically vital, state-influenced national asset and the commercial imperatives of the global arms market—including financial sustainability, technological competitiveness, and the ethical considerations of arms exports—will undoubtedly continue to shape Zastava’s path forward. Its enduring legacy, however, is already forged in steel: a symbol of Serbian industrial heritage and a testament to the enduring human endeavor of arms making.
Image Sources
The main photo is from Wikimedia and here’s how the author described it (translated into English from Serbian): “The SM-1 Zastava NTV drone command vehicle of the Serbian Armed Forces exhibited at the “Colonel Pilot Milenko Pavlović” military airport on the occasion of the “Zastava 2024″ display of the capabilities of the Serbian Armed Forces.” Author is Srdjan Popovic.
The Kragujevac Cannon Foundry in its working days, originally built in 1856. The drawing is from Wikimedia – the exact date and author are unknown. It was contributed to Wikimedia by SimonKTemplar
Yugoslavian M1924 Mauser. Photo obtained from Wikimedia. Author is The Swedish Army Museum.
The M53 Šarac Machine Gun. Image obtained from Wikimedia. The Author is Aleksej fon Grozni.
Afghan Local Police (ALP) candidates practice basic rifle marksmanship at a Coalition Forces site in Arghandab district, Kandahar province, Afghanistan, Oct. 16, 2012. The candidates undergo a three-week course which covers basic marksmanship, patrolling, improvised explosive device recognition and security techniques. The ALP program allows Afghans to provide security for their home villages and districts. Note: These are a variant of the M70 rifle as they do not have the grenade launching sight found on the Yugoslav-era M70B1 rifles. Photo obtained from Wikimedia. The author is Petty Officer 2nd Class Ernesto Hernandez Fonte.
Zastava M92 semi automatic rifle on display at “Partner 2011” military fair. Obtained from Wikimedia. Author is Srđan Popović.
Zastava M-93 Black Arrow, 12.7 mm. Obtained from Wikimedia. Author is Marko M.
Zastava М21 rifle of Serbian Gendarmerie. Photo obtained from Wikimedia. The author is Boksi.
Zastava M12 Black Spear on display during Partner 2013 arms fair, Belgrade. Photo obtained from Wikimedia. The authors is Proka89.
If you’ve ever held a military era Yugo M70B1, you know it’s heavy for an AK. If you thought that was heavy, now lift an M72B1 … now’s that’s heavy. The M70B1 and M72B1 are my favorite AK variants. I’ve owned and sold M76s, M77s, M92s and just keep returning to the M70B1 and M72B1. No, I’m not an underfolder fan so I am specifically talking about the fixed stock rifles. At any rate, let’s look into the history of the M72 specifically.
In the decades following World War II, the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia embarked on an ambitious program to establish a self-sufficient domestic arms industry. Spearheaded by the state-owned Zastava Oružje (Zastava Arms) factory in Kragujevac, Serbia, early efforts involved experimenting with captured German designs like the StG 44 before turning towards the globally influential Kalashnikov pattern.1 While Zastava initially faced challenges in reverse-engineering early AK-47 samples, their persistence laid the groundwork for a unique family of Yugoslav small arms.1
Within the tactical doctrine of the Jugoslovenska Narodna Armija (JNA or Yugoslav People’s Army), a clear need emerged for a weapon capable of delivering sustained, accurate suppressive fire at the squad level. This requirement mirrored the Soviet military’s thinking, which led to the development of the RPK (Ruchnoy Pulemyot Kalashnikova or Kalashnikov Handheld Machine Gun) as a companion weapon to the standard AKM assault rifle. Yugoslavia’s answer to this challenge was the Zastava M72 Puškomitraljez (Light Machine Gun).2 Developed in the late 1960s and entering service around 1973, the M72 was undeniably rooted in the Kalashnikov operating system but, true to Zastava’s emerging tradition, incorporated distinct features reflecting Yugoslavian design priorities and manufacturing capabilities.2 The creation of the M72 was more than just filling a tactical niche; it was a statement of Yugoslavia’s growing industrial independence and its approach of adapting, rather than simply replicating, foreign weapon designs to meet its own specific military requirements.
2. Foundation: From the M64 to the M70
The journey to the M72 LMG begins with Zastava’s earlier work on Kalashnikov-type assault rifles. The M64 Automatska Puška (Automatic Rifle), Zastava’s first serious attempt at a domestic AK, served as a crucial, albeit limited-production, developmental stepping stone.1 Though not adopted in large numbers by the JNA, the M64 introduced several features that would become hallmarks of Yugoslav Kalashnikov derivatives. These included a milled receiver, heavily based on the Soviet AK Type 3 but with cosmetic differences like a raised step on the left side, a thicker (though not chrome-lined) barrel, and, significantly, an integral folding grenade sight mounted on the gas block.1 This sight, when raised, also acted as a gas cut-off, safely disabling the gas system for launching rifle grenades – a capability the JNA valued highly. Other M64 innovations included a unique latch mechanism to prevent the dust cover from being dislodged by grenade recoil and, on some prototypes, a bolt hold-open device.1
Building on the M64 experience, Zastava developed the AP M70 (Automatska Puška Model 1970), which was formally adopted by the JNA in 1970.1 The M70 represented a refinement and simplification of the M64 design for mass production. While the complex bolt hold-open mechanism within the receiver was removed to cut costs, Zastava introduced proprietary magazines with follower plates designed to hold the bolt open after the last round, achieving a similar function.1
The enlarged left lobe of the follower catches the bolt and locks the action open thus signalling the rifle is empty.
Crucially, the M70 retained the vital grenade launching sight and gas cut-off system. Early M70s featured milled receivers like the M64, but production soon shifted towards using pressed and pinned barrels and, eventually, receivers made from stamped sheet steel.1 These stamped receiver models, designated M70B1 (fixed stock) and M70AB1/AB2 (underfolding stock), featured receivers notably thicker (1.5mm) than the standard Soviet AKM (1.0mm) and incorporated a distinctive bulged front trunnion.6 This added reinforcement was widely seen as necessary to withstand the repeated stresses of launching rifle grenades.1 The M70B1 also introduced a longer wooden handguard with three cooling slots, another visual identifier of Yugoslav AK variants.6
The M70, particularly in its robust stamped receiver M70B1 configuration, provided the direct technical foundation upon which the M72 LMG was built.2 The M72 inherited the M70’s basic operating mechanism, receiver construction principles, and general layout. The emphasis on receiver strength in the M70, driven largely by the requirement to handle rifle grenades, inadvertently created an exceptionally sturdy platform. This inherent robustness proved highly advantageous when adapting the design for the M72’s intended role as a light machine gun, a role demanding durability under the heat and stress of sustained automatic fire, even though the M72 itself would dispense with the grenade launching capability.2
3. The Birth of the M72: Adapting the RPK Concept
Zastava’s objective in developing the M72 was clear: create a light machine gun based on the M70 assault rifle, mirroring the relationship between the Soviet AKM and RPK.2 Such an approach offered significant logistical advantages, ensuring commonality of ammunition (7.62x39mm M67), operating principles, and many internal parts between the standard issue rifle and the squad’s light support weapon. This simplified training, maintenance, and supply lines for the JNA.
To fulfill the LMG role, Zastava incorporated several features standard to the RPK concept:
Longer, Heavier Barrel: The M72 was fitted with a significantly longer and heavier barrel than the M70 – typically cited as 542mm (approximately 21.3 inches) compared to the M70’s 415mm (16.3 inches).1 This increased the muzzle velocity from the M70’s 720 m/s to 745 m/s for the M72, enhancing effective range, and provided greater mass to absorb and dissipate heat during sustained fire.2
Integral Bipod: A folding bipod was mounted near the muzzle, providing a stable firing platform when deployed.2
Reinforced Receiver: The M72 utilized the robust receiver design principles established with the M70, whether milled in early versions or the heavy-gauge stamped type in later models.4
Modified Stock: While Soviet RPKs featured a distinct “clubfoot” stock for better support, early Zastava M72s used a fixed wooden stock shaped similarly to the standard AKM/M70 rifle.4
Windage Adjustable Rear Sight: The M72 has an elevation and windage adjustable rear sight but they are not nightsights. The M70 series has an elevation adjustable but fixed windage rear sight plus night sights front and rear.
However, Zastava did not merely copy the RPK. The M72 incorporated distinctive Yugoslav elements:
Barrel Cooling Fins: The most visually striking and functionally significant Yugoslav innovation was the inclusion of prominent cooling fins machined into the exposed portion of the barrel, just forward of the handguard.2 These fins increased the barrel’s surface area, promoting more efficient air cooling during prolonged automatic fire sequences. This feature, absent on Soviet or Romanian RPKs, suggests that Zastava’s engineers specifically identified potential barrel overheating under sustained fire as a critical area for improvement in the LMG role and implemented a proactive engineering solution, even though it added complexity to barrel manufacturing. It points towards an independent design assessment focused on enhancing practical performance beyond simply adding barrel mass.
Omission of Scope Rail: Unlike many contemporary LMGs and later RPK variants, the standard M72 series typically lacked the side-mounted scope rail common on many Kalashnikov-pattern weapons.4 Optical sights required optional mounts.
No Grenade Launching Capability: In a departure from its M70 parent, the M72 design omitted the rifle grenade launching sight and the associated gas cut-off mechanism.2 This simplified the gas block and front sight assembly, focusing the weapon solely on its machine gun role. Also, the top cover lock found on the M70 series was not needed either.
Early development reports also suggest that Zastava experimented with quick-change barrels for the M72, a feature common on heavier machine guns, but ultimately abandoned this complexity in favor of a simpler, fixed-barrel design for the production models.2
4. The Milled Receiver M72: The First Generation
The initial production version of the Zastava M72, entering service around 1973, featured a receiver machined from a solid block of steel, following the manufacturing techniques used for the M64 and early M70 rifles.2 These milled receivers adhered to the Zastava pattern, likely heavier than their Soviet counterparts and incorporating subtle differences in geometry.1 Evidence suggests there might have been minor variations even among these early milled M72s, sometimes retrospectively distinguished as M72A (potentially using M64-style receivers with threaded barrels and remnants of bolt-hold-open provisions) and M72B (using slab-sided receivers with pressed/pinned barrels).10 Common characteristics of this first generation included the heavy, finned 542mm barrel, a fixed wooden stock shaped like that of the M70, an integral folding bipod, standard adjustable iron sights graduated to 1000 meters, and chambering for the 7.62x39mm cartridge.2 The weight was substantial, around 5.0 to 5.5 kg empty.2
Compared to the Soviet RPK of the era, the milled M72 stood apart due to its unique receiver details, the distinctive cooling fins, and the lack of the RPK’s characteristic clubfoot stock.4 Compared to its M70 sibling, the M72 was easily identified by its much longer and heavier finned barrel, the bipod, and the absence of the grenade sight.2 The decision to launch the M72 with a milled receiver likely stemmed from Zastava’s existing production infrastructure and perhaps an initial design emphasis on maximum possible durability, a common attribute associated with milled Kalashnikovs. The subtle variations noted within the milled production run hint at ongoing refinement and potential manufacturing adjustments even before the major shift towards stamped receivers occurred.7
5. Evolution: The Stamped Receiver M72B1 and M72AB1
Mirroring the global evolution of Kalashnikov manufacturing seen in the transition from the AK-47 to the AKM, Zastava eventually shifted M72 production from milled receivers to stamped sheet steel receivers. This move resulted in the M72B1, which became the most common and widely produced variant of the Yugoslav LMG.2 The primary drivers for this change were economic and logistical: stamped receivers are significantly faster and less expensive to manufacture than milled ones, allowing for higher production volumes.1
Despite the shift to stamping, Zastava maintained a focus on robustness. The M72B1’s receiver was formed from a thicker 1.5mm steel sheet, compared to the 1.0mm standard for Soviet AKM and RPK rifles.6 It also incorporated the heavy, bulged front trunnion characteristic of the M70B1 assault rifle, providing extra support at the critical barrel-receiver interface.7 This commitment to heavier construction ensured the stamped M72B1 retained a high degree of strength and durability suitable for its role, even without the solid steel receiver block. Other features remained largely consistent with the earlier milled M72: the signature finned heavy barrel, fixed wooden stock (typically AKM/M70 pattern), and usually a fixed folding bipod.2
Zastava M72B1 exhibited at the Partner 2015 show. The author is Srđan Popović. The photo is from Wikimedia.
Recognizing the need for a more compact weapon for specialized troops, Zastava also developed the M72AB1 variant.2 The defining feature of the M72AB1 was its sturdy, steel underfolding stock, patterned after the one used on the M70AB2 assault rifle.2 This allowed the overall length of the weapon to be significantly reduced for easier storage and maneuverability within vehicles or for airborne operations.3 The M72AB1 is often noted as being quite unique, potentially the only mass-produced RPK-type light machine gun to utilize this style of underfolding stock, which is more commonly associated with assault rifles.2 Some sources also suggest that the bipod on the M72AB1 variant was designed to be detachable, unlike the typically fixed bipod of the M72 and M72B1, further enhancing its adaptability.4
The evolution from the milled M72 to the stamped M72B1 and M72AB1 showcases Zastava’s ability to adapt modern manufacturing techniques for cost-effectiveness while preserving the core Yugoslavian design philosophy emphasizing robustness, evidenced by the heavy-gauge receiver and bulged trunnion. The development of the M72AB1 further demonstrates a tailoring of the basic design to meet specific operational requirements of the JNA, adding versatility to the M72 family.
6. Foreign Production: The Iraqi Al Quds
The Zastava M72’s reputation for robustness and reliability extended beyond Yugoslavia’s borders. Around 1978, Iraq secured a license from Zastava to manufacture the M72 domestically.2 Production was undertaken by the state-run Al-Qadissiya Establishments.2 The Iraqi-produced versions were designated Al Quds (Arabic: القدس), meaning “The Holy,” a reference to Jerusalem.2
Iraq manufactured licensed copies corresponding to both the fixed-stock M72B1 and the underfolding-stock M72AB1 Yugoslav models.3 The Al Quds became a standard issue LMG within the Iraqi armed forces and saw extensive service. This licensing agreement stands as the most significant instance of foreign production for the M72 design. It not only highlights the international regard for the Yugoslav weapon’s qualities but also underscores the maturity and export success of Yugoslavia’s arms industry during that period. Yugoslavia, under Josip Broz Tito, cultivated relationships with many Non-Aligned Movement nations, including Iraq, positioning itself as an alternative arms supplier to the major Cold War blocs. The selection of the Zastava M72 design for licensed production, potentially over the Soviet RPK itself, may reflect specific Iraqi preferences for the M72’s features (like the cooling fins or heavier receiver) or simply more favorable terms offered by Zastava. The Al Quds production significantly contributed to the proliferation of the M72 pattern, particularly throughout the Middle East.2
I think he is holding an Al Quds. When I zoomed into the rear sight block, there appears to be a good deal of script on it even though I can’t read it – more than I would expect to see on a Zastava manufactured M72B1. The image is from Wikimedia and the description is “Iraqi army soldiers assigned to 3rd Battalion, 52nd Brigade, 14th Iraqi Army prepare to assault an objective during a live fire exercise on Tealeaf Island near Basra, Iraq, Oct. 25, 2010. Iraqi forces conducted live fire exercises to better prepare them for real world situations with U.S. soldiers with 1st Infantry Division on hand to provide advice and assistance in support of Operation New Dawn.” The author is SSgt Michael Casteel.
This Iraqi soldier is carrying a M72AB1 pattern rifle. Whether an Al Quds or a Zastava, I am not sure. Most likely an Al Quds. What is unknown is the barrel – it may just be the lighting but I am not sure there were the typical cooling fins between the handguard and the gas block. The photo was obtained from Wikimedia and the photo is attributed to James McCauley. Junly 17, 2005. The author noted “The Iraqi soldiers liked the idea of passing out teddy bears to kids. So, they attached them to their helmets like we did.”
7. Comparative Overview: The M72 Family
The Zastava M72 evolved through several distinct variants, primarily differing in receiver construction and stock configuration. While all shared the core LMG features of a long, heavy, finned barrel and bipod, understanding their key differences clarifies their development path and intended roles.
The following table summarizes the main characteristics of the primary Yugoslav M72 variants:
Note: Weights and exact bipod configurations can vary slightly based on specific production runs and sources.2
This comparison highlights the M72 family’s clear lineage. The initial model prioritized ultimate durability via milling. The subsequent M72B1 adopted more efficient stamped construction while retaining robustness through heavier materials and design features like the bulged trunnion. The M72AB1 adapted this stamped platform for portability, catering to specialized military units. Throughout this evolution, the core concept – a squad automatic weapon built on the Yugoslav Kalashnikov pattern, distinguished by its heavy, finned barrel – remained consistent.
8. Legacy and Conclusion
The Zastava M72 proved to be a durable and effective light machine gun. It served as the standard squad automatic weapon for the Jugoslovenska Narodna Armija and continued in service with the armed forces of the successor states formed after Yugoslavia’s dissolution.4 Its ruggedness ensured its appearance in numerous conflicts across the globe, from the Balkan wars of the 1990s to conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and various parts of Africa, often wielded by both state militaries and non-state armed groups.4
Generally regarded as a high-quality Kalashnikov derivative, the M72 earned a reputation for reliability and solid construction.6 Its unique features, particularly the barrel cooling fins, set it apart visually and functionally from its Soviet RPK counterpart and other RPK-pattern LMGs. While perhaps heavier than some contemporaries due to its robust build, this contributed to its perceived durability under harsh conditions and sustained fire.
In the vast family tree of Kalashnikov weapons, the Zastava M72 represents a significant and distinct branch. It exemplifies Yugoslavia’s successful approach to adapting a proven foreign design, enhancing it with unique engineering solutions born from independent assessment and national manufacturing capabilities. The M72 was not merely an RPK clone; it was a Yugoslav Puškomitraljez, tailored to meet specific requirements and built to last. Its enduring presence on battlefields decades after its introduction is a testament to the fundamental soundness of its Zastava M70-derived design, enhanced for the demanding role of a light machine gun, and a lasting symbol of Zastava Oružje‘s Cold War-era prowess in small arms development.
Image Sources
The main photo was obtained from Wikipedia and the exposure increased to show the M72 a bit better. The description of the photo is “U.S. Marine Corps Lance Cpl. Branden G. Cooper, left, with Security Cooperation Task Force Africa Partnership Station 2012, receives familiarization training on a foreign weapon system at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, N.C., May 18, 2012. The training was designed to educate the Marines in order to work effectively with foreign host nations during deployment. Africa Partnership Station is an international security cooperation initiative facilitated by Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Europe-Africa aimed at strengthening global maritime partnerships through training and collaborative activities in order to improve maritime safety and security in Africa.” The Author is SSgt Jemssy Alvarez Jr.
Zastava M72B1 exhibited at the Partner 2015 show. The author is Srđan Popović. The photo is from Wikimedia.
“Iraqi army soldiers assigned to 3rd Battalion, 52nd Brigade, 14th Iraqi Army prepare to assault an objective during a live fire exercise on Tealeaf Island near Basra, Iraq, Oct. 25, 2010. Iraqi forces conducted live fire exercises to better prepare them for real world situations with U.S. soldiers with 1st Infantry Division on hand to provide advice and assistance in support of Operation New Dawn.” The author is SSgt Michael Casteel. The image is from Wikimedia
This Iraqi soldier is carrying a M72AB1 pattern rifle. Whether an Al Quds or a Zastava, I am not sure. Most likely an Al Quds. The photo was obtained from Wikimedia and the photo is attributed to James McCauley. Junly 17, 2005. The author noted “The Iraqi soldiers liked the idea of passing out teddy bears to kids. So, they attached them to their helmets like we did.”
If you find this post useful, please share the link on Facebook, with your friends, etc. Your support is much appreciated and if you have any feedback, please email me at info@roninsgrips.com. Please note that for links to other websites, I may be paid via an affiliate program such as Avantlink, Impact, Amazon and eBay.
Really, my experience with Yugo rifles began with the stamped M70 series. We’ve spent these last few posts providing the backstory, but how did Zastava move from the M64 to the M70 series? Let’s find out.
1. Introduction: Yugoslavia’s Independent Path to the Kalashnikov
In the complex geopolitical landscape following World War II, the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, under the leadership of Marshal Josip Broz Tito, charted a course distinct from both the Western NATO alliance and the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact.1 This policy of non-alignment fostered a unique national identity but also necessitated a high degree of self-sufficiency, particularly in defense production.1 Central to this effort was the state-owned Zastava Arms (Zastava oružje) factory located in Kragujevac, Serbia. With roots tracing back to a cannon foundry established in the 1850s 2, Zastava oružje possessed a long and storied history of arms manufacturing for Serbia and later Yugoslavia.2
As the nature of warfare evolved in the mid-20th century, the limitations of traditional bolt-action rifles, like the Mauser patterns previously produced by Zastava 1, became apparent. Yugoslav military planners and engineers recognized the need for a modern assault rifle chambered for an intermediate cartridge. Early research in the 1950s involved studying captured German StG 44 rifles 1, but the future clearly lay with the design rapidly proliferating across the Eastern Bloc: the Kalashnikov AK-47.
However, due to the political rift between Belgrade and Moscow, Yugoslavia could not simply acquire a license to produce the AK-47, as many other nations did.1 Instead, Zastava embarked on an ambitious path of independent development through reverse engineering. The process began in earnest after 1959, when two Albanian border guards defected to Yugoslavia carrying Soviet-made AK-47s.1 These initial samples, while valuable, provided insufficient data for full reproduction. The effort received a significant boost when Yugoslavia covertly purchased a batch of 2,000 AK rifles from an unnamed African nation, which had originally received them as Soviet military aid.1 This allowed Zastava’s engineers – a team including Božidar Blagojević, Major Miloš Ostojić, Miodrag Lukovac, Milutin Milivojević, Milan Ćirić, Stevan Tomašević, Predrag Mirčić, and Mika Mudrić – to meticulously study the design and develop their own manufacturing processes.1
This independent development program, known as FAZ (Familija Automatika Zastava – Family of Zastava Automatic Weapons) 1, aimed to create a whole family of firearms based on the Kalashnikov operating principle. The culmination of the initial phase was the M64 series of prototypes. Building directly upon the lessons learned from the M64, Zastava refined the design to create the Automatska Puška M70 (AP M70), or Automatic Rifle Model 1970. Officially adopted that year, the M70 became the standard infantry weapon of the Jugoslovenska Narodna Armija (JNA – Yugoslav People’s Army) and represented a uniquely Yugoslavian interpretation of the Kalashnikov, distinct from its Soviet progenitor and other licensed copies.7
2. From Prototype to Production: The M64’s Legacy and the Birth of the M70
The Zastava M64, though never mass-produced in its original forms, served as the crucial stepping stone to the M70. The late M64 prototypes established several features that would become characteristic of the Yugoslav AK family. These included a robust milled receiver, heavily based on the Soviet AK Type 3 but featuring unique cosmetic differences like a distinctive raised step on the left side.7 The barrels were threaded into the receiver, similar to the early Soviet AKs, but were slightly thicker and, notably, were not chrome-lined.7
From the very beginning, Yugoslav engineers designed their Kalashnikov variant with the capability to launch rifle grenades, a feature deemed essential.1 The M64 incorporated an integral flip-up grenade sight, typically mounted on the gas block, which also functioned as a gas cut-off mechanism. When raised for firing grenades, the sight would block the gas port, preventing gas from cycling the action and ensuring all propellant force was directed to launching the grenade.1 Other distinctive M64 features included longer wooden handguards with three cooling vents instead of the usual two found on Soviet AKs 5, a unique hollow cylindrical charging handle borrowed from the Yugoslav M59 SKS rifle 1, and, on the M64B folding stock variant, an underfolding stock adapted from the M56 submachine gun.1
A particularly interesting feature of the M64 was its internal bolt hold-open (BHO) mechanism, housed within the receiver.7 This device automatically locked the bolt to the rear after the last round was fired, providing a clear visual and tactile indication that the weapon was empty. However, this internal BHO required specially modified AK magazines with a specific cut to function correctly.11
Despite satisfactory performance in field trials, the JNA did not adopt the M64 in large quantities.7 Military thinking, however, was evolving. Initial reluctance among some senior officers towards issuing automatic weapons to every soldier 1 gradually gave way, potentially influenced by observations of conflicts like the 1968 Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, where Soviet troops were universally equipped with AK-pattern rifles.1 The push for a domestically produced automatic rifle gained momentum, leading the JNA to formally approve the Zastava design for serial production in 1970, designated as the AP M70.7
To prepare the design for mass production, Zastava implemented several key changes compared to the M64 prototypes. The most significant alteration was the removal of the M64’s internal, receiver-mounted bolt hold-open mechanism.7 While functionally desirable, the internal BHO added complexity and cost to receiver manufacturing. Zastava opted for a simpler, more cost-effective solution: transferring the BHO function entirely to the magazine. They designed proprietary M70 magazines equipped with follower plates that had flat rear edges. After the last round was fired, this flat edge on the follower would physically block the bolt from closing, achieving the hold-open function without requiring the complex internal linkage of the M64.7 This decision represented a classic engineering trade-off, prioritizing the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of rifle production by simplifying the receiver, while accepting the need for specific, slightly more complex magazines – a consumable item – to retain the desired BHO capability.
Many other features from the M64 were carried over directly into the initial M70 production models. These included the milled receiver construction, the integral grenade sight and gas cut-off system, the distinctive 3-slot handguards, and the non-chrome-lined barrel.7 The unique method of securing the dust cover using a locking recoil spring guide, crucial for preventing it from being dislodged during grenade launching, was also retained.7
3. The Milled Era: Early M70 Variants (M70, M70A, M70A1, M70B, M70AB)
The first Zastava rifles to enter widespread service with the JNA in 1970 were built on robust milled receivers.7 These early variants established the foundation of the M70 family:
M70: The baseline model featured the milled receiver and a traditional fixed wooden stock.7
M70A: This variant offered increased portability for airborne troops or vehicle crews by incorporating an underfolding metal stock, again paired with the milled receiver.7
These initial production M70 and M70A rifles shared the core characteristics inherited from the M64 program. Their milled receivers were patterned after the Soviet Type 3 AK-47 but possessed distinct Yugoslav features, most notably the smooth left side lacking the large lightening cut found on Soviet and many other milled AKs.7 Zastava also engraved serial numbers just above the magazine well, rather than on the front trunnion as was common Soviet practice.7 Initially, these rifles featured barrels that were threaded into the receiver 7, a strong but relatively labor-intensive method. They retained the integral grenade launching sight/gas cut-off, the 3-slot handguards, the non-chrome-lined barrels, and the unique locking dust cover system.7
Recognizing the growing importance of night vision and optical sights, Zastava soon introduced a variant specifically designed to accommodate them:
M70A1: This model was essentially an M70A (milled receiver, underfolding stock) equipped with a factory-installed scope rail riveted to the left side of the receiver, allowing for the mounting of various optical or night sights.7
Shortly after the M70 series entered production, Zastava implemented a significant change to streamline manufacturing, even while still using milled receivers. They transitioned from the time-consuming process of threading barrels into the receivers to the faster and cheaper method of pressing the barrels into the receiver trunnion and securing them with a cross-pin.7 This change mirrored the production techniques already used for the Soviet AKM. Rifles produced with this updated barrel attachment method received new designations:
M70B: Milled receiver, fixed stock, with a pressed-and-pinned barrel.7
M70AB: Milled receiver, underfolding stock, with a pressed-and-pinned barrel.7
This relatively rapid adoption of pressed-and-pinned barrels, occurring before the eventual switch to stamped receivers, demonstrates Zastava’s proactive approach to optimizing production efficiency. It suggests that engineers were continuously evaluating and implementing cost-saving measures, likely learning from the initial M70 production runs or analyzing contemporary Soviet AKM manufacturing techniques, which had long utilized the press-and-pin method. This incremental optimization occurred even within the constraints of the more complex milled receiver production line.
4. The Stamped Revolution: The M70B1 and M70AB2
By the mid-1970s, seeking further reductions in production time and cost to meet military demands, Zastava followed the path previously taken by the Soviet Union and transitioned from milled receivers to stamped sheet metal receivers for the M70 family.7 However, the Yugoslav approach to the stamped receiver resulted in a design significantly different and more robust than the standard Soviet AKM.
The defining characteristic of the Zastava stamped receiver was its thickness. Instead of using the 1.0mm thick sheet steel common to the AKM and most of its derivatives, Zastava opted for a heavier 1.5mm thick stamping.11 Compounding this increase in strength, Zastava incorporated a front trunnion design based on the one used in the RPK light machine gun.7 The RPK trunnion is substantially larger and more robust than a standard AKM trunnion, designed to withstand the stresses of sustained automatic fire. To accommodate this larger RPK-style trunnion within the stamped receiver, Zastava introduced distinctive bulges on the forward section of the receiver, just ahead of the magazine well.7 These “bulged trunnion” receivers became a visual hallmark of the later M70 series and related weapons like the M72 RPK.
This combination of a 1.5mm thick receiver and an RPK-style bulged front trunnion resulted in an exceptionally durable rifle, significantly stronger and more rigid than a standard AKM.20 The decision to adopt this heavier construction for the standard infantry rifle, not just the squad automatic weapon, strongly suggests a deliberate design philosophy prioritizing extreme robustness and the ability to reliably handle the stresses of repeated rifle grenade launching, which remained a core requirement.7 This “overbuilding” came at the cost of increased weight compared to other AKM derivatives 9, but clearly aligned with Yugoslav military preferences.
The two primary variants featuring this heavy-duty stamped receiver construction became the workhorses of the JNA and subsequent forces:
M70B1: Featured the 1.5mm stamped receiver with the bulged RPK-style trunnion and a fixed wooden stock.7 The stock on the M70B1 was often noted for being slightly longer than typical Warsaw Pact AKM stocks and frequently included a thick rubber buttpad, enhancing shooter comfort, particularly when launching grenades.10
M70AB2: Combined the 1.5mm bulged trunnion stamped receiver with the practicality of an underfolding metal stock.7 This became one of the most widely produced and recognizable M70 variants.
Both the M70B1 and M70AB2 typically included flip-up night sights integrated into the standard iron sight blocks. These sights utilized either tritium vials (which glow continuously) or phosphorescent paint (which needs to be charged by a light source) for low-light aiming.7 They retained the integral grenade launching ladder sight and gas cut-off mechanism on the gas block 7 and continued the practice of using non-chrome-lined barrels for standard military production.7 The standard Yugoslav fire selector markings were present on the right side of the receiver: “U” for Ukočeno (Safe), “R” for Rafalna (Automatic fire), and “J” for Jedinačna (Semi-automatic fire).7
This is a replica M70 receiver from Childer’s Guns. It does give us a chance to see a few defining characteristics of a Yugo model. Starting at the top left is the hole for the top cover receiver lock. Zastava introduced the lock to prevent the cover from popping off under the heavy recoil of a rifle grenade launch. Moving to the right, you can see the URJ selector markings. Note, while there is a position for “R” Rafalna (Automatic fire), the receiver is actually only configured for semi-automatic as it lacks the third fire control group hole where the pin that holds the full auto sear would go. Thus, no third hole, means this is semi-auto only. Lastly, you can see the the bulge for the bulged RPK trunnion.
Here you can see the RPK-style front trunnion. We can see it was a M70B1 (fixed stock) and the year was 1983. The serial number is on the right. Note, the ATF requires serial numbers to be on the receiver. The Childer’s receivers have their information on the bottom.
The persistent use of non-chrome-lined barrels throughout the main production run for the JNA stands in contrast to Soviet practice, where chrome lining was standard for AKMs to enhance barrel life and corrosion resistance. This Yugoslav decision was likely driven by cost considerations and potentially an established maintenance doctrine that emphasized frequent and thorough cleaning by soldiers, mitigating the risks of corrosion.9 However, this lack of chrome lining could lead to issues, particularly with corrosive ammunition or in humid environments if cleaning was neglected, a problem noted with exported rifles and the Iraqi-made Tabuk copies.9 Indeed, even rifles from various Balkan conflicts arrived in the US aftermarket with heavy bore erosion that would likely have been reduced had there been a sufficient hard chrome lining. It wasn’t until around 2020, largely driven by the demands of the commercial export market (particularly the US ZPAP series), that Zastava began consistently chrome-lining the barrels of its M70 pattern rifles.18
5. Further Specialization: Later Stamped Variants
As military tactics and technology evolved, Zastava continued to adapt the robust M70 stamped receiver platform to meet new requirements, leading to several specialized variants:
Building upon the M70B1 and M70AB2, versions were developed with factory-installed side rails to facilitate the mounting of optical sights and night vision devices:
M70B1N: This variant combined the stamped 1.5mm bulged receiver and fixed stock of the M70B1 with an added scope rail on the left receiver wall.7
M70AB2N: Similarly, this model added the optics rail to the underfolding stock M70AB2 platform.7
Another line of development focused on integrating dedicated underbarrel grenade launchers (UBGLs), offering potentially greater range, accuracy, and variety of munitions compared to standard rifle grenades. For these models, the original flip-up rifle grenade sight and gas cut-off were typically removed, replaced by a 40mm UBGL, likely the Yugoslav BGP 40 mm:
M70B3: This model featured the stamped receiver and fixed stock, but was configured for use with an underbarrel grenade launcher, omitting the standard rifle grenade sight.7
M70AB3: The underfolding stock equivalent, this variant also removed the rifle grenade sight assembly to accommodate the UBGL.7
This is a M70AB3 – “AB” designating and underfolder and the “3” that there is a under barrel grenade launcher (UBGL).
The emergence of these ‘N’ (optics-ready) and ‘3’ (UBGL-equipped) variants demonstrates the M70’s inherent adaptability. Zastava successfully modernized the core design to incorporate technologies and meet tactical demands that evolved beyond the original concept focused heavily on integrated rifle grenade capability. This allowed the M70 platform to remain relevant and effective, extending its service life and operational utility by providing specialized tools for enhanced sighting and auxiliary firepower integration.
6. The Extended Family: Related Zastava Designs
The success and robustness of the M70 design led to its use as a foundation for other important firearms within the Zastava portfolio, creating a true family of related weapons:
M72 RPK: Serving as the squad automatic weapon counterpart to the M70 rifle, the Zastava M72 Light Machine Gun shares the same 7.62x39mm caliber and operating principles. Crucially, it utilizes the same heavy-duty 1.5mm stamped receiver with the bulged RPK-style front trunnion found on the later M70 rifles.7 Key differences include a longer, heavier barrel (often featuring cooling fins to aid heat dissipation during sustained fire), a standard integral bipod, and sometimes modified rear sights.8 The shared receiver construction underscores the inherent strength Zastava built into their AK platform.
M92 Carbine: For roles requiring a more compact weapon, such as for vehicle crews, special forces, or close-quarters battle, Zastava developed the M92 carbine.7 Essentially a shortened version of the M70AB2, the M92 retains the 7.62x39mm chambering, gas operation, and underfolding stock. Its most defining feature is its significantly shorter barrel, typically around 10 inches (254mm) long.8 To manage the increased muzzle blast from the short barrel, the M92 is usually fitted with a distinctive conical flash hider or muzzle booster.31 Despite the shorter barrel, the 7.62x39mm cartridge retains much of its effectiveness at typical carbine engagement ranges.31
The Iraqi Connection: Tabuk The M70’s influence extended beyond Yugoslavia’s borders through a significant technology transfer agreement with Iraq. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Zastava provided machinery and technical assistance to Iraq’s Al-Qadissiya Establishments to set up domestic production of AK-pattern rifles.9 The resulting Iraqi rifles were collectively known as the Tabuk.
The standard Iraqi Tabuk assault rifle was essentially a direct copy of the Zastava M70B1.7 Early production Tabuks faithfully replicated the M70B1’s features, including the 1.5mm stamped receiver with bulged trunnion, 3-slot handguards, and the integral grenade launching sight (though this was omitted on later, simplified versions).9 Critically, they also copied the non-chrome-lined barrels, which proved problematic in Iraqi service due to harsh conditions and potentially less rigorous cleaning discipline compared to the JNA.9
Iraq also produced the Tabuk Sniper Rifle, a designated marksman rifle (DMR) based not on the M70 rifle, but on the Zastava M72 RPK.7 While visually similar to an RPK, the Tabuk DMR featured a longer, but thinner, barrel than the M72, was modified for semi-automatic fire only, included an optics rail on the receiver, and sported a distinctive skeletonized wooden buttstock with a cheek rest.24 It retained the 7.62x39mm chambering, making it effective out to intermediate ranges (around 600 meters) but lacking the reach of true sniper rifles chambered in full-power cartridges.24
Iraqi production quality reportedly declined over time, especially after the Iran-Iraq war and subsequent sanctions.9
The development of the M72 LMG and M92 carbine, alongside the licensed production of Tabuk rifles in Iraq, highlights the M70’s significance as more than just Yugoslavia’s standard rifle. It served as a versatile and robust foundational platform adaptable to various infantry roles and was successfully exported, demonstrating Zastava’s capabilities as an arms manufacturer and technology partner during the Cold War era. The shared heavy-duty receiver across the M70B1/AB2, M72, and Tabuk variants became a defining characteristic of this branch of the Kalashnikov family tree.
7. Zastava M70 Family Variations: A Comparative Overview
The following table summarizes the key characteristics and differences between the main variants within the Zastava M70 family, tracing their evolution from the late M64 prototype stage through the various milled and stamped receiver models, as well as related designs.
Zastava M70 Family Variations Summary
Model Designation
Receiver Type
Trunnion
Barrel Attachment
Stock Type
Grenade Sight/Gas Cutoff
Optics Rail
Key Distinguishing Features
M64 (late proto)
Milled
Standard
Threaded
Fixed Wood (A) / Underfolding (B)
Yes
No
3-slot HG, Internal BHO, Grenade sight, M59/M56 parts (handle/stock)
M70
Milled
Standard
Threaded
Fixed Wood
Yes
No
First production model, 3-slot HG, Grenade sight, Dust cover lock, Smooth left receiver
M70A
Milled
Standard
Threaded
Underfolding Metal
Yes
No
Folding stock version of M70
M70A1
Milled
Standard
Threaded
Underfolding Metal
Yes
Yes
M70A with added optics rail
M70B
Milled
Standard
Pressed & Pinned
Fixed Wood
Yes
No
M70 with pressed/pinned barrel
M70AB
Milled
Standard
Pressed & Pinned
Underfolding Metal
Yes
No
M70A with pressed/pinned barrel
M70B1
Stamped (1.5mm)
Bulged RPK-style
Pressed & Pinned
Fixed Wood
Yes
No
First stamped model, Bulged trunnion, Night sights, Rubber buttpad (often)
M70AB2
Stamped (1.5mm)
Bulged RPK-style
Pressed & Pinned
Underfolding Metal
Yes
No
Folding stock version of M70B1, Bulged trunnion, Night sights
Iraqi DMR based on M72, Semi-auto only, 7.62x39mm, Optics rail, Skeleton stock
Note: Barrel lining refers to original military production; modern commercial Zastava ZPAP M70 variants imported into the US typically feature chrome-lined barrels.18 HG = Handguard.
This table provides a clear, side-by-side comparison, highlighting the evolution of receiver types, barrel attachment methods, stock configurations, and specialized features across the Zastava M70 lineage, fulfilling the need for a consolidated overview of the family’s variations.
8. In Service: The M70 in Yugoslavia and Beyond
Formally adopted in 1970, the Zastava M70 quickly became the standard infantry rifle of the Jugoslovenska Narodna Armija (JNA), gradually replacing older firearms like the Zastava M59/66, itself a Yugoslav derivative of the Soviet SKS carbine.7 For over two decades, the M70, particularly the robust stamped M70B1 and M70AB2 variants, served as the primary armament for Yugoslav soldiers.
The rifle’s most prominent and tragic service came during the brutal Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s. As the federation violently disintegrated, the vast stockpiles of JNA weaponry, including millions of M70 rifles, fell into the hands of all warring factions.6 The M70 became a ubiquitous sight on the battlefields of Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Kosovo, wielded by soldiers and paramilitaries on all sides, making it an enduring, somber symbol of those conflicts.7
Following the wars, the M70 remained in service with the armed forces of the newly independent successor states, including Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, North Macedonia, and Slovenia.6 While some nations, like Croatia (which donated its stocks to Ukraine 7) and Slovenia, have largely transitioned to NATO-standard firearms, the M70 continues to serve in various capacities across the former Yugoslavia.
Beyond the Balkans, the Zastava M70 achieved significant global proliferation through both official exports and the illicit arms trade fueled by the Yugoslav Wars.10 Zastava Arms exported the rifle widely during the Cold War and after, with known users including Iraq (which also produced the Tabuk copy), Cyprus, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine (PLO and PNA), and numerous African nations such as Angola, Burkina Faso, Liberia, Libya, Rwanda, South Sudan, Yemen, and Zaire (used by Serbian mercenaries).7 M70s captured from Iraq were even used by Iran.7 Rifles from former Yugoslav stocks have surfaced in conflicts across the globe, including the War in Afghanistan (provided as US military aid to Afghan forces), the Syrian Civil War, the conflict in Mali, and most recently, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, where M70s were donated by Croatia and purchased by the UK for training Ukrainian troops.6 The rifle’s presence in European terror attacks, sourced from Balkan black markets, underscores the dangerous legacy of weapons proliferation from the Yugoslav conflict.33
Ramadi police officer with either a Zastava M70 or an early model Tabuk wherein they retained the grenade sight, 2008. Given this photo was taken in Iraq, it is most likely to be an early model Tabuk but we’d need more detail than the photo can give, notably the markings. (obtained from Wikimedia – the author submitted it to the Arabic Wikipedia and used the author name of: هــشـام or “Hisham” in Roman script)
A French soldier from the Military Instruction Advisory Detachment (IMAD) of the 5th Regiment International Army Overseas (RIAOM) trains Somali policemen on the assembly and disassembly of the AK-47 assault rifle in Baidoa. The French were providing training for the Somalian police in Baidoa and Buurhakaba. (Obtained from Wikimedia and the author was Staff Sgt. Jeffrey T Brady)
Iraqi policemen from the Dhi Qar province pull security during an air assault training event with Soldiers of the 2nd Battalion, 12th Cavalry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Regiment, at Camp Cedar, Iraq, March 2. Date: 02.25.2009. The rifle appears to be a M70AB – zooming in I can see the “URJ” Yugoslav selector markings vs. arabic script that a Tabuk would have. (Obtained from Wikimedia and the author was DVIDSHUB)
The sheer scale of the M70’s production, estimated at around 4 million units 7, combined with its inherent durability and the chaos surrounding the JNA’s dissolution, ensured its widespread and lasting presence. Its appearance in conflicts decades after its introduction speaks volumes about its robust design, the vast quantities produced, and the long-lasting impact of regional instability on global arms trafficking. The rifle’s legendary toughness undoubtedly contributes to its longevity in the harsh conditions often found in these conflict zones.
9. Conclusion: The Enduring Legacy of the Yugoslav AK
The Zastava M70 family stands as a significant and distinct chapter in the global story of the Kalashnikov rifle. Born from Yugoslavia’s unique geopolitical position and drive for self-reliance, it represents an independent, unlicensed development path that resulted in a firearm tailored to specific national requirements.1 Its defining characteristics – the emphasis on extreme robustness evident in the thicker 1.5mm stamped receivers and RPK-style trunnions, the integral grenade launching capability that was a design priority from the outset, the evolution of the bolt hold-open feature, the distinctive three-slot handguards, and the long-standing use of non-chrome-lined barrels in military production – set it apart from its Soviet AKM contemporaries and most other licensed variants.7
While often praised for its exceptional durability and reliability, sometimes considered superior to other AKM derivatives 1, this robustness came at the cost of increased weight.9 The M70 proved itself adaptable, evolving from early milled receiver models to the ubiquitous stamped variants, and later incorporating features like optics rails and underbarrel grenade launchers to meet modern tactical needs.7 Its foundational design spawned a successful family of weapons, including the M72 LMG and M92 carbine, and served as the basis for Iraqi Tabuk production.9
From its decades of service as the standard rifle of the JNA, through its tragic ubiquity in the Yugoslav Wars, to its continued use by successor states and proliferation across global conflict zones, the Zastava M70 has carved an undeniable legacy.6 Its enduring presence is further cemented by continued production and popularity in the civilian market, particularly in the United States with the ZPAP M70 line.13 The Zastava M70 remains a highly regarded, distinctively durable, and historically significant member of the vast Kalashnikov family, a testament to Yugoslav engineering and a tangible link to a complex period of European history.
Ramadi police officer with either a Zastava M70 or an early model Tabuk wherein they retained the grenade sight, 2008. Given this photo was taken in Iraq, it is most likely to be an early model Tabuk but we’d need more detail than the photo can give, notably the markings. (obtained from Wikimedia – the author submitted it to the Arabic Wikipedia and used the author name of: هــشـام or “Hisham” in Roman script)
A French soldier from the Military Instruction Advisory Detachment (IMAD) of the 5th Regiment International Army Overseas (RIAOM) trains Somali policemen on the assembly and disassembly of the AK-47 assault rifle in Baidoa. The French were providing training for the Somalian police in Baidoa and Buurhakaba. (Obtained from Wikimedia and the author was Staff Sgt. Jeffrey T Brady)
Iraqi policemen from the Dhi Qar province pull security during an air assault training event with Soldiers of the 2nd Battalion, 12th Cavalry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Regiment, at Camp Cedar, Iraq, March 2. Date: 02.25.2009. The rifle appears to be a M70AB – zooming in I can see the “URJ” Yugoslav selector markings vs. arabic script that a Tabuk would have. (Obtained from Wikimedia and the author was DVIDSHUB)
If you find this post useful, please share the link on Facebook, with your friends, etc. Your support is much appreciated and if you have any feedback, please email me at info@roninsgrips.com. Please note that for links to other websites, I may be paid via an affiliate program such as Avantlink, Impact, Amazon and eBay.
This report addresses the question of the identity of the “Third World nation” from which the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia secretly procured approximately 2,000 Soviet-designed AK-47 assault rifles in 1959. This transaction, a relatively obscure event in the annals of Cold War arms proliferation, was nonetheless of considerable importance for Yugoslavia’s military development. The acquisition of these rifles proved pivotal for Zastava Arms, Yugoslavia’s premier weapons manufacturer, in its ambitious endeavor to independently develop and produce a domestic version of the Kalashnikov rifle. This effort culminated in the Zastava M70, a weapon that would become a mainstay of the Yugoslav People’s Army (JNA) and a significant export item.1
The clandestine nature of this purchase and the persistent anonymity of the supplier nation underscore the intricate geopolitical landscape of the late 1950s. Yugoslavia, under Marshal Josip Broz Tito, navigated a complex path of non-alignment, maintaining independence from both the NATO and Warsaw Pact blocs. This unique position influenced its foreign policy and its methods of military procurement, often necessitating unconventional approaches to acquire advanced weaponry.
B. Methodology and Scope
The analysis herein is based on an examination of available research materials, encompassing English, Russian, Serbian, and Arabic language sources. A central piece of evidence for this specific arms deal is C.J. Chivers’ comprehensive work, The Gun: The AK-47 and the Evolution of War.1 This report will critically assess the claim made by Chivers, situating it within the broader context of Soviet arms export policies of the era and Yugoslavia’s diplomatic and military relations. The objective is to evaluate the plausibility of potential candidate nations and, if the evidence permits, to identify the most likely intermediary.
C. Unraveling the Layers of Secrecy
The clandestine nature of the 1959 rifle purchase points towards a multi-faceted diplomatic maneuver. Yugoslavia, due to its political estrangement from the Soviet Union following the 1948 Tito-Stalin split, could not openly or directly procure sensitive military technology like the AK-47 from Moscow.1 The term “secret purchase” strongly implies a deliberate effort to bypass official channels and to shield the transaction from public scrutiny, particularly from Soviet intelligence. A “Third World nation” already receiving Soviet military aid would have had legitimate access to such weapons. This intermediary role could have offered benefits to all parties: the supplier nation might have gained financially or strengthened its diplomatic ties with Yugoslavia; Yugoslavia would secure the much-needed rifles for its reverse-engineering program. The Soviet Union itself might have tacitly approved such a transfer if it served a broader, albeit unstated, strategic objective, such as subtly bolstering a non-aligned nation’s defense capabilities against Western influence without direct Soviet commitment. Alternatively, the Soviets might have been unaware of, or unable to prevent, a relatively small diversion of arms.
The specified quantity of “approximately 2,000” rifles is a critical detail. This number is substantial enough to provide a sufficient sample base for detailed reverse engineering, including disassembly, metallurgical analysis, live-fire testing, and comparison of components – a significant step up from the mere two rifles acquired earlier from Albanian defectors which proved insufficient.1 Simultaneously, a batch of 2,000 units is arguably small enough to have been diverted from a larger consignment of Soviet military aid, or siphoned from existing stockpiles within the recipient nation, without triggering immediate alarm or major geopolitical fallout. Soviet aid packages to favored client states, such as Egypt or Iraq, were often extensive.2 Diverting such a quantity, especially if oversight and record-keeping for every individual small arm were not meticulously stringent, would be more feasible and less likely to provoke a severe diplomatic crisis than, for example, the unauthorized transfer of tanks or combat aircraft.
II. Yugoslavia’s Pursuit of the Kalashnikov: A Non-Aligned Nation’s Arms Dilemma
A. The Political Context: Independence and Necessity
Yugoslavia’s foreign policy under President Tito was characterized by a resolute commitment to independence and non-alignment. This stance meant a refusal to join the Warsaw Pact, leading to periods of significant political tension with the Soviet Union, particularly in the aftermath of the 1948 Informbiro period.1 While relations with Moscow experienced thaws and freezes, Yugoslavia could not depend on the Soviet Union for direct, licensed production of critical military hardware such as the AK-47 assault rifle.1 Consequently, the nation adopted a pragmatic approach to arms procurement, seeking weaponry and military technology from both Eastern and Western sources as opportunities arose.6 The inability to secure technical specifications for the AK-47 directly from the USSR compelled Zastava Arms, the national arsenal, to embark on the challenging path of reverse engineering.1
B. Early Steps: The Albanian Defectors’ Rifles
A significant, albeit insufficient, breakthrough occurred in 1959 when two Albanian soldiers defected to Yugoslavia, bringing with them their Soviet-manufactured AK-47s.1 These weapons were promptly handed over to Zastava engineers for detailed examination. While the engineers were able to create metal castings from these two samples, they quickly realized that this limited number of rifles did not provide enough technical data to fully understand the design intricacies, material specifications, or manufacturing processes required to reproduce the weapon or its components accurately.1 This initial encounter with the Kalashnikov highlighted the pressing need for a larger quantity of rifles to complete the reverse-engineering process successfully.
C. The Imperative for More Samples: The Road to the Zastava M70
The development of what would become the Zastava M70 assault rifle took place between 1962 and 1968, with the rifle officially entering service with the Yugoslav People’s Army (JNA) in 1970.1 The acquisition of a more substantial batch of AK-47s in late 1959 would have been a critical enabler for this development timeline, providing Zastava’s engineers with the necessary physical examples for comprehensive study and analysis. The Zastava M70 was ultimately an unlicensed derivative, closely based on the Soviet AK-47 Type 3 variant.1 The AK-47 Type 3, which featured a milled receiver, was produced by the Soviet Union from 1955 until 1959, when it began to be phased out in favor of the modernized, stamped-receiver AKM.8 This transition in Soviet production could have made surplus Type 3 models more readily available through third-party channels.
Yugoslavia’s unique non-aligned status presented both challenges and opportunities. It constrained direct access to Soviet military technology but simultaneously allowed Belgrade to cultivate a wide network of relationships with numerous “Third World” nations, many of which were emerging from colonial rule or navigating their own paths between the Cold War blocs. Several of these nations became recipients of Soviet military assistance as Moscow sought to expand its global influence.2 Yugoslavia’s prominent role within the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), of which it was a founding member 4, provided a diplomatic framework that could facilitate discreet arms deals and technology transfers that would have been impossible through conventional East-West channels. This network of non-aligned partners became an invaluable asset for Yugoslavia’s unconventional procurement strategies.
The sequence of events in 1959 – the arrival of the Albanian defectors’ rifles early in the year, the rapid assessment by Zastava that these were insufficient, and the subsequent “secret purchase” of approximately 2,000 additional AKs “by the end of the year” 1 – suggests a swift and opportunistic response by Yugoslav intelligence and arms procurement agencies. Once the limitations of the initial two samples became clear, an active search for more examples was likely initiated, leveraging existing diplomatic or intelligence contacts, or rapidly activating networks to locate and secure a larger quantity of the desired rifles. This was not a passive waiting game but a proactive effort to seize any available opportunity.
III. The 1959 Transaction: Corroborating the “Secret Purchase”
A. C.J. Chivers’ “The Gun” as the Primary Source
The specific assertion that “by the end of the year , however, the Yugoslav government had obtained more early pattern AKs from an unidentified Third World nation that was receiving Soviet military aid” is directly attributed to C.J. Chivers’ book, The Gun, published in 2011, on pages 250-251.1 Chivers, a former Marine officer and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, produced a work generally acclaimed for its meticulous research into the history of automatic weapons, with a particular focus on the Kalashnikov.12 His book meticulously documents the origins, global proliferation, and multifaceted impact of the AK-47 and its variants. The information provided indicates that this 1959 purchase was crucial, furnishing Zastava Arms with a sufficient number of AK-47s to “study and effectively reverse engineer the weapon type”.1
B. Contextualizing the Purchase in Zastava’s M70 Development
The timeline and technical details surrounding the development of the Zastava M70 lend credence to Chivers’ account. The Zastava M64, an early prototype that directly led to the M70, incorporated design features heavily based on the Soviet AK-47 Type 3, which utilized a milled receiver.1 Soviet production of the Type 3 AK-47 spanned from 1955 to 1959.8 This aligns perfectly with the claim that Yugoslavia acquired “early pattern AKs” in 1959, as these would likely have been Type 3 models. The successful reverse-engineering effort, facilitated by this larger batch of rifles, enabled Zastava to commence unlicensed production of its AK-47 derivative in 1964.1 This production start date is consistent with a 1959 acquisition followed by several years of intensive research, development, and tooling.
The fact that the Soviet Union began to replace the AK-47 with the modernized AKM (Avtomat Kalashnikova Modernizirovanniy) in 1959 is also significant.8 The AKM featured a stamped sheet-metal receiver, making it lighter and cheaper to mass-produce than the milled-receiver AK-47 Type 3. This transition in Soviet small arms production could have rendered existing stocks of AK-47 Type 3s obsolescent in Soviet eyes, or at least less critical. Consequently, Soviet client states that had received Type 3s might have found it easier to re-transfer a portion of their inventory, perhaps in anticipation of receiving newer AKM models. Such a re-transfer, especially of older models, might have been viewed as less diplomatically sensitive by the Soviets or easier for the intermediary nation to justify. Thus, the “early pattern AKs” mentioned by Chivers were likely Type 3s, a plausible type of weapon to be involved in a clandestine deal of this nature at that specific time.
The absence of other readily available public sources explicitly naming the “Third World nation” involved in this specific 1959 transaction is noteworthy. This suggests that C.J. Chivers may have had access to unique primary sources, such as declassified intelligence reports, internal Zastava documents, or interviews with individuals directly or indirectly involved, which are not yet in the public domain or widely known to other researchers. Alternatively, the details of this transaction may remain obscure precisely because of the success of the secrecy that originally enveloped it. The conclusions drawn in this report must, therefore, rely on interpreting Chivers’ historically credible claim within the broader framework of circumstantial evidence regarding Soviet arms recipients and Yugoslav foreign relations during this period.
IV. Identifying Potential Supplier Nations: Soviet Arms in the “Third World”
A. Overview of Soviet Military Aid and AK-47 Proliferation (Late 1950s)
During the Cold War, the Soviet Union strategically employed military aid as a key instrument of its foreign policy, aiming to expand its influence, support ideologically aligned regimes, and counter Western power.10 The AK-47 assault rifle, renowned for its simplicity, reliability, and ruggedness, became a ubiquitous symbol of this policy. It was widely supplied to “developing countries,” nations espousing communist ideals, and various national liberation movements that Moscow sought to cultivate as allies or proxies.11 By the late 1950s, a significant number of “Third World” nations across the Middle East, Asia, and Africa had become recipients of Soviet military assistance, which often included consignments of AK-47s.2 The AK-47 (Type 3) was the standard Soviet rifle until the introduction of the AKM in 1959, meaning that AK-47s were already in circulation through Soviet supply lines to these recipient states prior to or during that year.8
B. Egypt: A Prime Candidate
Soviet-Egyptian Arms Deals: Egypt, under Gamal Abdel Nasser, emerged as a major recipient of Soviet bloc weaponry following the landmark Egyptian-Czechoslovak arms deal announced in September 1955.25 This agreement, valued at over $83 million, effectively ended the Western monopoly on arms supplies to the Middle East and signaled a significant geopolitical shift.2 The 1955 deal explicitly included small arms and munitions.25 While the initial manifests detailed in the provided material do not itemize AK-47s specifically, subsequent Soviet military aid to Egypt was extensive and continuous. By 1966, the total value of Soviet military equipment extended to the United Arab Republic (UAR), of which Egypt was the dominant part, reached $1.16 billion, with approximately 90% of this aid reportedly delivered by that time.2 This substantial aid program commenced in 1955.2 Given the AK-47’s status as the standard Soviet infantry rifle during this period, it is highly probable that significant quantities were supplied to the Egyptian armed forces well before 1959. Russian sources confirm deliveries of various Soviet armaments to Egypt between 1955-1957, including tanks, artillery, and aircraft, though specific numbers for AK-47s are not provided in these particular texts.26 The AK-47 was indeed being developed into the AKM by 1959, implying its prior establishment.27
Yugoslav-Egyptian Relations: Relations between Yugoslavia and Egypt were exceptionally close during this period. Both countries were founding and influential members of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), sharing a common vision of independence from superpower blocs.4 Diplomatic ties strengthened considerably following the 1948 Soviet-Yugoslav split and the 1952 Egyptian Revolution.4 The year 1959, the precise timeframe of the AK-47 purchase, was marked by high-level diplomatic exchanges: President Tito visited Egypt in February 1959, and President Nasser visited Yugoslavia in November 1959.29 Such frequent top-level interactions indicate a robust and trusting political relationship, conducive to arranging sensitive, clandestine transactions. Furthermore, there is a documented instance from 1954 where Egypt is believed to have supported Yugoslav efforts to arm Algerian National Liberation Front (FLN) rebels by nominally purchasing Yugoslav-made weapons, which were then discreetly transferred to Algeria.4 This historical precedent suggests a pattern of cooperation in complex, covert arms movements involving both Egypt and Yugoslavia, making Egypt a very strong candidate.
The first ever meeting between Josip Broz Tito and Gamal Abdel Nasser – onboard the Yugoslav ship Galeb in the Suez Canal (1955). (Photo from the Online Museum of Syrian History, Shared on Wikimedia.
President Gamal Abdul Nasser and Yugoslavian President Josip Tito in Aleppo in 1959 / From left to right: United Arab Republic Vice President Akram al-Hawrani, the Aleppo industrialist Sami Saem al-Daher, director of Egyptian Intelligence Salah Nasr, President Josip Tito, his wife Jovanka Broz, President Gamal Abdul Nasser. The photo was taken in the home of Sami Saeb al-Daher, who was nationalized by President Nasser and left in bankrupcy in 1960 (Photo from the Online Museum of Syrian History, Shared on Wikimedia.
C. Iraq: A Plausible Alternative
Soviet-Iraqi Arms Deals: Iraq emerged as another significant recipient of Soviet military assistance following the 14 July Revolution in 1958, which overthrew the Hashemite monarchy and established a republic under Abd al-Karim Qasim.30 The new Iraqi regime quickly pivoted away from Western alliances and sought closer ties with the Soviet bloc and non-aligned nations. In February 1959, the Soviet Union extended a substantial loan of $137.5 million to Iraq for economic and technical development, which likely included provisions for military hardware.32 The USSR became a major arms supplier to Iraq commencing in 1958.3 While specific quantities of AK-47s delivered to Iraq between 1958 and 1959 are not detailed in the available materials, it is highly probable that these rifles formed part of the initial arms packages supplied to the new revolutionary government. Later Iraqi consideration of replacing Kalashnikovs with M16s implies prior widespread adoption of the Soviet rifle.33
Yugoslav-Iraqi Relations: Diplomatic relations between Yugoslavia and Iraq were formally established in 1958, in the immediate aftermath of the Iraqi revolution.30 Crucially, a Trade and Cooperation Agreement between Yugoslavia and Iraq was signed and came into force on February 19, 1959.30 This development aligns perfectly with the timeframe of the secret AK-47 purchase later that year. Yugoslavia would go on to become a major arms exporter to Iraq, particularly during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s 30, indicating the foundation of a long-standing military-technical relationship that may have had its early, discreet origins in transactions like the one in question. The new Iraqi regime, eager to assert its independence and forge new international partnerships, might have been willing to facilitate such a transfer to Yugoslavia to build goodwill, for financial considerations, or as part of its broader realignment.
D. Other “Third World” Recipients (Brief Assessment)
Syria: Syria had been a recipient of Soviet military aid since the early 1950s.34 However, early arms supplies from other Eastern Bloc countries like East Germany sometimes consisted of WWII surplus before transitioning to more modern Soviet-pattern weapons like the AK-47, typically in later periods (e.g., post-1967 for significant AK-47s from GDR).34 While direct Soviet supply lines to Syria for AK-47s would have existed by 1959, the available information does not highlight the same degree of intimate political alignment or specific diplomatic activity with Yugoslavia in 1959 that is evident with Egypt or the nascent relationship with Iraq.
Indonesia: Indonesia began receiving Soviet arms, with initial deliveries noted in 1958 (such as GAZ-69 military vehicles).35 The extent to which AK-47s were delivered and available in sufficient quantity for a 2,000-unit re-transfer by late 1959 is not clearly established by the provided sources.
India: India started to receive Soviet military technology and arms, including licenses for local manufacture, primarily in the 1960s, although some foundational agreements may have been laid earlier.22 The timeline for substantial AK-47 deliveries to India that could have been re-transferred by 1959 appears less probable compared to Middle Eastern recipients.
Cuba: The Cuban Revolution, led by Fidel Castro, triumphed in January 1959. Significant Soviet military assistance to Cuba commenced in the early 1960s, notably escalating around the time of the Bay of Pigs invasion and the Cuban Missile Crisis.36 It is therefore highly unlikely that Cuba would have been in a position to act as a supplier of Soviet-made AK-47s to Yugoslavia in 1959.
African Nations (e.g., Angola, Ethiopia, Mozambique): While the Soviet Union did provide arms to various African states and liberation movements 37, the large-scale proliferation of AK-47s to these specific sub-Saharan African nations is generally associated with independence struggles and post-colonial conflicts of the 1960s and 1970s, rather than a 1959 timeframe for re-export.
The political ideologies and strategic alignments of these potential Third World suppliers are crucial factors. A nation deeply enmeshed within the Soviet ideological sphere might have been less inclined to engage in an unauthorized or clandestine re-transfer of Soviet-supplied arms. However, many “Third World” recipients of Soviet aid, while benefiting from Moscow’s support, pursued their own distinct national interests. Egypt under Nasser, for instance, adeptly navigated the Cold War currents, leveraging relations with both East and West to its advantage.25 Such a nation, particularly one like Egypt that shared leadership with Yugoslavia in the Non-Aligned Movement, might have viewed a discreet arms deal as a means of strengthening its own non-aligned credentials, assisting a fellow NAM state, or gaining diplomatic or economic leverage, even if it involved Soviet-origin weaponry. Iraq, with its new revolutionary government, was in a phase of actively seeking new international partnerships and asserting its autonomy, which could have provided a motive for such a transaction.
Furthermore, a secret arms purchase of this nature would necessitate a degree of trust and established communication channels. Yugoslavia, as a key architect and proponent of the Non-Aligned Movement, actively cultivated diplomatic, economic, and intelligence relationships with a wide array of nations within this group.4 This favors nations with which Yugoslavia had demonstrably active and positive diplomatic interactions in or before 1959, such as Egypt, and the rapidly developing ties with post-revolution Iraq.
Table 1: Assessment of Potential “Third World” Nations for the 1959 AK-47 Transfer to Yugoslavia
Candidate Nation
Recipient of Soviet Military Aid (incl. AK-47s) by 1959? (Evidence & Likelihood)
Nature & Strength of Yugoslav Relations by 1959 (Political, Diplomatic, Military)
Specific Chronological Markers Supporting/Contradicting 1959 Transfer
Plausibility as the “Unnamed Nation”
Key Supporting Snippets
Egypt
Yes. Major recipient since 1955. Highly likely to possess AK-47s in quantity.
Very Strong. Founding NAM members, frequent high-level visits (Tito Feb ’59, Nasser Nov ’59). Precedent of arms facilitation.
Supports: Close ties in 1959. Soviet arms flow well established.
High & Most Likely
2
Iraq
Yes. Recipient since 1958 revolution. Likely included AK-47s in early packages.
Developing. Diplomatic relations established 1958. Trade/Cooperation agreement effective Feb 1959.
Supports: New regime seeking partners. Trade agreement in place.
High, but second to Egypt
3
Syria
Yes. Recipient since early 1950s.
Moderate. Established relations, but less intimacy highlighted for 1959 specifically compared to Egypt/Iraq.
Possible, but less direct evidence of specific 1959 impetus.
Medium
34
Indonesia
Yes. Initial Soviet arms deliveries in 1958.
Moderate.
Less clear if AK-47s available in sufficient quantity for re-transfer by late 1959.
Low-Medium
35
V. The “Unnamed Nation”: Deciphering the Secrecy
A. Motivations for Anonymity
The enduring anonymity of the supplier nation in most historical accounts points to a convergence of interests in maintaining secrecy:
Yugoslavia’s Perspective: For Yugoslavia, discretion was paramount. The country meticulously maintained a delicate geopolitical equilibrium between the Eastern and Western blocs. Openly acknowledging a clandestine arms deal involving Soviet-origin weapons, even if acquired through a third party, could have unnecessarily strained its already complex relationship with the USSR. It might also have compromised its carefully cultivated image as a genuinely non-aligned nation, potentially inviting suspicion or pressure from either superpower.
The Supplier Nation’s Perspective: The intermediary country would have had strong reasons to ensure the transaction remained covert. Re-transferring military aid, particularly weapons as significant as assault rifles, without the explicit consent or knowledge of the original supplier (the Soviet Union) could have invited serious repercussions. These could range from a curtailment of future Soviet aid to diplomatic censure or other punitive measures. Protecting its own ongoing diplomatic and trade relationships with both the USSR and Yugoslavia, as well as other international actors, would have been a key concern.
Soviet Perspective (if aware or subsequently discovered): Even if Soviet intelligence became aware of the transfer, Moscow might have preferred the matter to remain quiet. If the USSR tacitly approved the deal for its own strategic reasons – for instance, to subtly aid Yugoslavia’s independent defense posture without direct involvement, thereby keeping it from leaning too heavily towards the West – publicity would be counterproductive. Conversely, if the transfer occurred without Soviet knowledge or approval, publicizing it would reveal a potentially embarrassing lack of control over its arms exports and the actions of its client states.
B. Weighing the Evidence: Egypt vs. Iraq
When comparing the two strongest candidates, Egypt and Iraq, both present compelling arguments:
Arguments for Egypt:
By 1959, Egypt had a well-established, deep, and multifaceted relationship with Yugoslavia. This included close personal ties between President Nasser and President Tito, shared leadership in the Non-Aligned Movement, and frequent high-level diplomatic consultations, including visits by both leaders to each other’s countries in 1959.4 Such a strong foundation of trust and mutual understanding would be highly conducive to arranging a secret arms transfer.
Egypt was a very significant recipient of Soviet arms from 1955 onwards and would have possessed substantial stocks of AK-47s by 1959.2
The precedent of Egypt reportedly facilitating the transfer of Yugoslav arms to Algerian rebels in 1954 demonstrates a historical willingness and capability to engage in complex, discreet arms movements in cooperation with Yugoslavia.4
Arguments for Iraq:
Iraq’s relationship with Yugoslavia was newer but developing rapidly in the crucial 1958-1959 period. The establishment of diplomatic relations in 1958 was quickly followed by a Trade and Cooperation Agreement that came into force in February 1959.30 This formal framework for interaction was in place at the time of the AK-47 deal.
Following its 1958 revolution, Iraq became a recipient of Soviet arms and was actively seeking to diversify its international partnerships beyond its former Western patrons.3 A deal with a prominent non-aligned country like Yugoslavia would fit this new foreign policy orientation.
The new revolutionary government in Baghdad might have been motivated by political solidarity, financial gain, or a desire to quickly establish Iraq as an independent actor on the regional stage.
While both nations are strong candidates, Egypt appears to hold a slight edge. The depth and maturity of its political relationship with Yugoslavia by 1959, coupled with the precedent for cooperation in sensitive arms transfers, make it a particularly compelling possibility. However, the confluence of Iraq’s recent political transformation, its immediate embrace of Soviet military aid, and the formalization of ties with Yugoslavia in early 1959 make it an almost equally plausible source. The critical factors are the combination of access to Soviet-supplied AK-47s and a motive or willingness to transfer approximately 2,000 of them to Yugoslavia under conditions of secrecy.
Logistical considerations, though not detailed in the available materials, would also have played a role. The transfer of 2,000 rifles and their ammunition is not a trivial undertaking. Both Egypt and Iraq, being Middle Eastern nations, share maritime proximity with Yugoslavia via the Mediterranean Sea. Existing trade routes (e.g., Yugoslav timber for Egyptian cotton mentioned in 4, or the general trade agreement with Iraq 30) could have provided cover for such shipments, perhaps disguised as other goods or moved through less scrutinized channels.
C. Limitations of the Provided Material
It is crucial to acknowledge that the available research documentation, while extensive, does not contain a definitive, explicit statement from an undeniable primary source (such as a declassified Yugoslav, Soviet, Egyptian, or Iraqi government document or a direct admission from a key participant) that unequivocally names the country involved in this specific 1959 AK-47 transfer to Yugoslavia. The identification process relies heavily on interpreting C.J. Chivers’ well-regarded but singular claim regarding this transaction, and then constructing a circumstantial case based on the known patterns of Soviet arms supplies and Yugoslav foreign relations during the specified period.
The successful execution of this secret purchase likely had a reinforcing effect on Yugoslavia’s broader strategy of acquiring foreign military technology through various means, including reverse engineering. It would have demonstrated the feasibility of such clandestine operations and underscored the value of cultivating diverse international relationships to achieve strategic defense objectives, ultimately contributing to the growth and capabilities of its significant domestic arms industry.6
VI. Conclusion: Assessing the Probabilities and the Lingering Mystery
A. Summary of Findings
The evidence strongly supports the claim, primarily advanced by C.J. Chivers, that in late 1959, Yugoslavia secretly purchased approximately 2,000 “early pattern” Soviet AK-47 assault rifles from an unnamed “Third World nation” that was itself a recipient of Soviet military aid.1 This acquisition was a critical step for Zastava Arms, providing the necessary physical examples to successfully reverse-engineer the Kalashnikov design, leading directly to the development and subsequent mass production of the Zastava M70 assault rifle, a cornerstone of Yugoslav military armament.
B. The Most Plausible Candidate(s)
Based on a comprehensive analysis of Soviet arms distribution patterns in the late 1950s, Yugoslav foreign relations, and specific chronological markers, Egypt emerges as the most plausible candidate for the role of the unnamed intermediary.
Key factors supporting this assessment include:
Its status as a major recipient of Soviet weaponry, including AK-47s, by 1959.2
The exceptionally close political and diplomatic ties between Yugoslavia and Egypt, exemplified by their joint leadership in the Non-Aligned Movement and reciprocal presidential visits in 1959.4
A documented precedent of Egypt facilitating complex arms transfers involving Yugoslavia.4
Iraq stands as another strong contender. The 1958 revolution brought a new regime to power that rapidly sought Soviet military assistance and established diplomatic and trade relations with Yugoslavia in early 1959, making the timeline and political context feasible for such a transaction.3 The new Iraqi government may have seen this as an opportunity to solidify new alliances or gain other advantages.
Without more explicit, declassified documentary evidence directly naming the nation in the context of this specific 1959 AK-47 transaction, a definitive identification remains an educated deduction based on the available circumstantial evidence rather than an absolute certainty.
C. The Enduring Nature of the “Unnamed” Nation
The continued anonymity of the supplier nation in most historical accounts, with Chivers’ work being a notable exception in detailing the event itself, underscores the initial success of the secrecy surrounding the deal. This secrecy was vital for all parties involved: Yugoslavia needed to protect its non-aligned stance and its complex relationship with the USSR; the supplier nation needed to avoid Soviet repercussions for re-transferring arms; and the USSR itself may have preferred the transaction to remain unpublicized. This episode highlights the intricate and often opaque nature of Cold War diplomacy, where non-aligned nations frequently resorted to clandestine means to achieve their strategic security objectives while navigating the treacherous currents between the superpowers.
D. Implications for Yugoslav Arms Self-Sufficiency
This successful, albeit covert, acquisition of a significant quantity of AK-47s was a landmark achievement for Yugoslavia’s burgeoning defense industry. It directly enabled Zastava Arms to overcome the hurdles of reverse engineering and eventually mass-produce the Zastava M70. This rifle not only equipped the Yugoslav People’s Army but also became a notable export product, reflecting Yugoslavia’s determined pursuit of military self-reliance and its capacity for indigenous arms development.1
The very fact that this inquiry is prompted by a specific passage in a relatively recent historical work (Chivers’ The Gun, published in 2011) suggests that this particular detail of Cold War arms proliferation may still be emerging from historical obscurity. The Cold War was characterized by extensive secrecy, and archives from that period are continually being declassified and re-examined by historians. It is plausible that the “unnamed” status of the intermediary nation persists simply because the specific documents, testimonies, or archival records that could provide definitive confirmation have not yet entered the public domain or been widely analyzed. Future archival research in Yugoslav (now Serbian and other successor states’), Russian, Egyptian, Iraqi, or other relevant national archives could one day yield a conclusive answer.
Ultimately, the story of Yugoslavia’s 1959 secret AK-47 purchase serves as a compelling microcosm of the broader phenomenon of Kalashnikov proliferation. It illustrates that the global spread of this iconic weapon was not solely due to direct state-to-state transfers from the Soviet Union or licensed production by its allies. Secondary and tertiary movements of these arms, through various overt and covert channels and involving a diverse range of state and non-state actors, played a crucial role in the AK-47 achieving its unparalleled global ubiquity.10 This particular transaction demonstrates the resourcefulness of a non-aligned state in securing vital defense technology and the complex, often hidden, networks that facilitated the movement of arms during the Cold War.
Author’s Comment
This question intrigued me because Yugoslavia needed more AK-47 Type III samples to reverse engineer their milled M70s. To investigate this question, I ran a number of searches and scenarios and it is my opinion based on what I found that the most likely country was Egypt with Iraq being a less likely second. To be clear, I can’t guarantee it, but the odds favor Egypt given the factors indentified. I was once told that “It’s surprising how little history we really know” and this is an example of an event in recent history where we may never know the details.
Image Sources
The map of the Middle East in 1959 was generated by the author using Sora. The intent was to mainly show Egypt, Saudia Arabia, Iraq and Iran to give some geographical context.
The first ever meeting between Josip Broz Tito and Gamal Abdel Nasser – onboard the Yugoslav ship Galeb in the Suez Canal (1955). (Photo from the Online Museum of Syrian History, Shared on Wikimedia.
President Gamal Abdul Nasser and Yugoslavian President Josip Tito in Aleppo in 1959 / From left to right: United Arab Republic Vice President Akram al-Hawrani, the Aleppo industrialist Sami Saem al-Daher, director of Egyptian Intelligence Salah Nasr, President Josip Tito, his wife Jovanka Broz, President Gamal Abdul Nasser. The photo was taken in the home of Sami Saeb al-Daher, who was nationalized by President Nasser and left in bankrupcy in 1960 (Photo from the Online Museum of Syrian History, Shared on Wikimedia.
To be honest, Bergara wasn’t even on my radar until the Summer of 2023. I was talking to my good friend, Scott Igert, who, along with his wife Alicia, own Michigan Gun Exchange, about a slick looking bolt rifle he bought for inventory to sell – it was a Bergara B14 HMR. I’d not heard of the brand before and he told me they were known for their barrels. If I had heard of Bergara before then, I really hadn’t paid attention and what was in front of me was a very nicely done bolt gun with a sub-Minute of Angle (MOA) guarantee.
The Bergara B14 HMR looked and felt good – nice trigger, smooth action and shouldered well. My only problem was that I knew nothing about them so I didn’t buy it and decided I better do some digging. What I found out was impressive and want to share it – by the way, I did go back and buy the rifle a few weeks later.
Corporate and Brand Structure
Like many arms companies these days, understanding the organizational and brand structure around Bergara took some research. Bergara is basically a brand owned by Dikar S Coop of Spain who is owned by Mondragon. Let me show you a chart to better explain this – click on the diagram to see a full size copy:
That diagram is the best I can come up with after reading Mondragon, Dikar S Coop and BPI Outdoor websites, 3rd party stories, etc. If anyone from BPI or Dikar want to email me some corrections, I’d very much welcome them.
Let’s Look At Each
Mondragon Corporation – Books could be written about this firm and their cooperative business model – I can only summarize a tiny bit. Mondragon was founded in 1956 in Mondragon, Spain. Today, Mondragon is the seventh largest corporation in Spain (based on asset turnover) and is a worker cooperative [Click here for a ton of webpages that cover their “co-op” model in more detail]. In 2024, it had over 70,000 workers, 30,660 in the Basque Country, 29,340 in the rest of Spain and around 10,000 abroad. It has four broad categories of business – finance, industrial/equipment (I’ve seen this group mentioned three different ways – industrial, equipment and manufacturing), retail, and knowledge. To me, I think of them as a holding company with a very interesting set of management principles.
Dikar S Coop – Is a cooperative owned by Mondragon Corporation. It’s part of the industrial/equipment group. Dikar S Coop focuses on sporting goods. It was formed by the merger of two Spanish gunmakers in 1969 Mendi S Coop (shotguns) and Jukar (muzzle loaders). Jukar was looking for access to the US market and Mendi mainly sold there. It joined Mondragon in 1991. In 2003, Dikar bought BPI Outdoors who was their largest barrel customer at that time. Today, Dikar it has over 300 people and markets in 45 countries. Note, their website links to online stores for Quake and Bergara direcly.
Dikar Portugal – Launched in 2003 initially to produce products for Quake Industries. There are current references to them making products for Bergara, CVA and Quake.
Bergara – the brand was launched in 2010 initially focused on barrels and introduced rifles and accessories to the US market in 2015. Within five years, Bergara sales exceeded the other brands. Note, the Dikar website is ambiguous but I think they mean within five years after the introduction to the US market. What I find interesting is their early emphasis on producing high quality barrels. They actually retained Ed Shilen, the brains behind Shilen custom barrels, to help them understand the process and methods behind quality barrels. While you may know Bergara for their rifles, they make a ton of different barrels for other big name companies.
Quake Industries – while focused on the American market, Quake products are sold in 45 countries. They make various accessories for shooters including bags, belts, optics covers, staps/slings and more.
BPI Outdoors – Black Powder Inc (BPI)was founded in 1999 and bought Connecticut Valley Arms (CVA) that same year. BPI Outdoors is directly owned by Dikar S Coop and isn’t surprising given Dikar’s history of muzzleloaders. As of September 2024, they employee about 75 people in Lawrenceville, Georgia.
CVA – is the #1 brand of muzzle loader rifles in the US. In 2020, they entered the centerfire market. They did get a black eye with a barrel quality problem in 1995 and 1996 model years but that was before BPI bought them in 1999. My understanding is that Bergara makes the CVA barrels now.
PowerBelt – is a leading brand of muzzle loader ammunition launched in 2002.
Durasight – is a brand of sights, scope bases and rings for CVA firearms launched in 2005.
Bergara Custom Rifles – In 2012 BPI hired retired USMC Msgt Dan Hanus. Mr. Hanus was schooled and then led the USMC’s Precision Rifle Section in Quantico, VA. He then brought in a few more builders he knew plus BPI invested in CNC machines for them to use. Their custom rifles were almost immediately adopted by a number of Georgia SWAT teams. If I had $5-6,000 + money for a comparable optic, I’d sure get in line for one of their BCR19 Heavy Tactical rifles.
Bergara Academy – they offer long-range shooting classes in Montana and Wyoming. Small class sizes and all-inclusive pricing makes their offerings very interesting. [Read that as “I would go in a heartbeat if I could afford it!”]
Summary
You’d think “Who is Bergara?” would get a simple answer. I guess it depends on where you stop but I learned quite a bit. For example, I had no idea that Bergara started with barrels and that partly explains why my B14 HMR was so accurate. I also didn’t know about the business model set forth by Mondragon.
In short, there is a lot of experience behind Bergara not to mention capital for innovation and expansion. I also think there is a lot of good momentum pushing them forward and we will see more and more from them.
I hope this helps you out.
References
This post took some digging so I want to provide the source pages in case you are interested:
Note, I have to buy all of my parts – nothing here was paid for by sponsors, etc. I do make a small amount if you click on an ad and buy something but that is it. You’re getting my real opinion on stuff.
If you find this post useful, please share the link on Facebook, with your friends, etc. Your support is much appreciated and if you have any feedback, please email me at info@roninsgrips.com. Please note that for links to other websites, I may be paid via an affiliate program such as Avantlink, Impact, Amazon and eBay.
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
