Category Archives: Weapons by Country

AK Analytics, Analytics and Reports, History, Yugoslavia

Yugoslavia’s AK Path: The Venerable M72 RPK

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.

1. Introduction: Yugoslavia’s Squad Automatic Weapon

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:

Zastava M72 Family Variants Comparison

FeatureM72 (Milled)M72B1 (Stamped, Fixed Stock)M72AB1 (Stamped, Folding Stock)
Receiver TypeMilled SteelStamped Steel (1.5mm thickness)Stamped Steel (1.5mm thickness)
Stock TypeFixed Wood (AKM/M70 style)Fixed Wood (AKM/M70 style)Underfolding Metal (M70AB2 style)
BarrelHeavy Profile, Finned, ~542mmHeavy Profile, Finned, ~542mmHeavy Profile, Finned, ~542mm
Bipod TypeFixed FoldingFixed FoldingDetachable Folding (often cited)
Approx. Weight~5.5 kg~5.0 kg~5.0 kg
Overall Length~1025 mm~1025 mm~1025 mm (extended) / ~765 mm (folded)
Key IdentifiersSolid milled receiver; fixed stockStamped receiver, bulged trunnion; fixed stockStamped receiver, bulged trunnion; underfolding stock

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.”

Works cited

  1. Zastava M70 assault rifle – Wikipedia, accessed May 12, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zastava_M70_assault_rifle
  2. Zastava M72 | Weaponsystems.net, accessed May 12, 2025, https://weaponsystems.net/system/377-Zastava+M72
  3. Zastava M72 — Википедија, accessed May 12, 2025, https://sr.wikipedia.org/sr-el/%D0%97%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0_%D0%9C72
  4. Zastava M72 – Wikipedia, accessed May 12, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zastava_M72
  5. Застава М72 | Wiki | S.T.A.L.K.E.R Новая Зона. Amino, accessed May 12, 2025, https://aminoapps.com/c/stalkernovai873/page/item/zastava-m72/aPJM_6pc8IEXVBeWmrDqXez6r4bBnlgxr
  6. Zastava M70 | Weaponsystems.net, accessed May 12, 2025, https://weaponsystems.net/system/376-Zastava+M70
  7. What are the Differences between the yugo milled and stamped RPK other than the receivers? (Only yugo rpk) : r/ak47 – Reddit, accessed May 12, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/ak47/comments/98wdmy/what_are_the_differences_between_the_yugo_milled/
  8. Zastava M72 | Weaponsystems.net, accessed May 12, 2025, https://development.weaponsystems.net/system/377-Zastava%20M72
  9. The Zastava M72 has arrived as per email from ZUSA. : r/ak47 – Reddit, accessed May 12, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/ak47/comments/1hixbvo/the_zastava_m72_has_arrived_as_per_email_from_zusa/
  10. Was the zastava m72 ever produced in a milled version? It’s an original early M72? – Reddit, accessed May 12, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/ak47/comments/sjejgv/was_the_zastava_m72_ever_produced_in_a_milled/
  11. Застава М72 — Википедија, accessed May 12, 2025, https://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0_%D0%9C72
  12. Югославская автоматическая винтовка «Застава» – боевой и гражданский варианты, accessed May 12, 2025, https://www.militaryplatform.ru/10307-jugoslavskaja-avtomaticheskaja-vintovka-zastava-boevoj-i-grazhdanskij-varianty.html
  13. Just picked up the new M72 (low serial #). Here are my initial impressions. : r/zastavaarms101 – Reddit, accessed May 12, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/zastavaarms101/comments/1hx06ru/just_picked_up_the_new_m72_low_serial_here_are_my/

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 in**@*********ps.com. Please note that for links to other websites, we are only paid if there is an affiliate program such as Avantlink, Impact, Amazon and eBay and only if you purchase something.

AK Analytics, Analytics and Reports, History, Yugoslavia

Yugoslavia’s AK Path: The M70 Family of Rifles

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.

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 DesignationReceiver TypeTrunnionBarrel AttachmentStock TypeGrenade Sight/Gas CutoffOptics RailKey Distinguishing Features
M64 (late proto)MilledStandardThreadedFixed Wood (A) / Underfolding (B)YesNo3-slot HG, Internal BHO, Grenade sight, M59/M56 parts (handle/stock)
M70MilledStandardThreadedFixed WoodYesNoFirst production model, 3-slot HG, Grenade sight, Dust cover lock, Smooth left receiver
M70AMilledStandardThreadedUnderfolding MetalYesNoFolding stock version of M70
M70A1MilledStandardThreadedUnderfolding MetalYesYesM70A with added optics rail
M70BMilledStandardPressed & PinnedFixed WoodYesNoM70 with pressed/pinned barrel
M70ABMilledStandardPressed & PinnedUnderfolding MetalYesNoM70A with pressed/pinned barrel
M70B1Stamped (1.5mm)Bulged RPK-stylePressed & PinnedFixed WoodYesNoFirst stamped model, Bulged trunnion, Night sights, Rubber buttpad (often)
M70AB2Stamped (1.5mm)Bulged RPK-stylePressed & PinnedUnderfolding MetalYesNoFolding stock version of M70B1, Bulged trunnion, Night sights
M70B1NStamped (1.5mm)Bulged RPK-stylePressed & PinnedFixed WoodYesYesM70B1 with added optics rail
M70AB2NStamped (1.5mm)Bulged RPK-stylePressed & PinnedUnderfolding MetalYesYesM70AB2 with added optics rail
M70B3Stamped (1.5mm)Bulged RPK-stylePressed & PinnedFixed WoodReplaced by UBGLNoM70B1 adapted for UBGL (grenade sight removed)
M70AB3Stamped (1.5mm)Bulged RPK-stylePressed & PinnedUnderfolding MetalReplaced by UBGLNoM70AB2 adapted for UBGL (grenade sight removed)
M72 (RPK)Stamped (1.5mm)Bulged RPK-stylePressed & PinnedFixed Wood (RPK)NoNoLMG version, Heavy/finned barrel, Bipod, RPK sights
M92 (Carbine)Stamped (1.5mm)Bulged RPK-stylePressed & PinnedUnderfolding MetalNoNoShortened M70AB2, Muzzle booster/flash hider
Tabuk RifleStamped (1.5mm)Bulged RPK-stylePressed & PinnedFixed WoodYes (early) / No (late)NoIraqi copy of M70B1
Tabuk DMRStamped (1.5mm)Bulged RPK-stylePressed & PinnedFixed SkeletonizedNoYesIraqi 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.

Image Source

The main photo is of a Zastava M70-AB3 from Wikimedia. It was taken on July 1, 2011 by Соколрус
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zastava_Arms_M70-AB3.jpg

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)

Works cited

  1. Zastava M64. Part 1. The Unusual History of Yugoslavian AKs …, accessed May 12, 2025, https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2024/05/07/zastava-m64-part-1-unusual-history-yugoslavian-aks/
  2. Zastava Arms – Small Arms Defense Journal, accessed May 12, 2025, https://sadefensejournal.com/zastava-arms/
  3. „Заставин” музеј оружја доступан публици – Politika, accessed May 12, 2025, https://www.politika.rs/scc/clanak/368411/zastavin-muzej-oruzja-dostupan-publici
  4. Застава оружје — Википедија, accessed May 12, 2025, https://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0_%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B6%D1%98%D0%B5
  5. Zastava M64 — Википедия, accessed May 12, 2025, https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zastava_M64
  6. Zastava M70 (автомат) – Википедия, accessed May 12, 2025, https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zastava_M70_(%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82)
  7. Zastava M70 assault rifle – Wikipedia, accessed May 12, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zastava_M70_assault_rifle
  8. Guns in Movies, TV and Video Games – Zastava M70 – Internet Movie Firearms Database, accessed May 12, 2025, https://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Zastava_M70
  9. The History of the Iraqi AK Tabuk Rifle – Recoil Magazine, accessed May 12, 2025, https://www.recoilweb.com/the-history-of-the-iraqi-tabuk-ak-rifle-156496.html
  10. Zastava M70 | Weaponsystems.net, accessed May 12, 2025, https://weaponsystems.net/system/376-Zastava+M70
  11. M64 and M70 : r/ak47 – Reddit, accessed May 12, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/ak47/comments/162awlo/m64_and_m70/
  12. Yugoslavian Steel M64 “Bolt Hold Open” 30 Round AK47 Magazine – 7.62x39mm – Moka’s Raifus, accessed May 12, 2025, https://mokasraifus.com/product/yugoslavian-steel-m64-bolt-hold-open-30-round-ak47-magazine-7-62x39mm/
  13. Zastava ZPAP M70: An Authentic AK For The U.S. Market | An Official Journal Of The NRA, accessed May 12, 2025, https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/zastava-zpap-m70-an-authentic-ak-for-the-u-s-market/
  14. Zastava M70: A Yugoslav derivative of Kalashnikov rifle – Combat Operators, accessed May 12, 2025, https://combatoperators.com/firearms/rifles/zastava-m70/
  15. What weapons were used in the Yugoslav War? – Quora, accessed May 12, 2025, https://www.quora.com/What-weapons-were-used-in-the-Yugoslav-War
  16. Zastava Arms – Wikipedia, accessed May 12, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zastava_Arms
  17. Zastava M70 assault rifle – Wikiwand, accessed May 12, 2025, https://www.wikiwand.com/en/articles/Zastava_M70_assault_rifle
  18. Zastava AKs, Part 2. M70 – The First Mass-Produced Yugoslavian Kalashnikov, accessed May 12, 2025, https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2024/05/14/zastava-aks-part-2-m70-first-mass-produced-yugoslavian-kalashnikov/
  19. How Does The Yugoslavian Zastava M70 Compare To Other Ak-47 Variants? – GunCreed, accessed May 12, 2025, https://guncreed.com/2024/08/17/how-does-the-yugoslavian-zastava-m70-compare-to-other-ak47-variants/
  20. Yugo AK article – Red Star Arms, accessed May 12, 2025, http://www.redstararms.com/uploads/yugo.pdf
  21. YUGOSLAVIA’S AKM ZASTAVA ARMS M70 – Small Arms Review, accessed May 12, 2025, https://smallarmsreview.com/yugoslavias-akm-zastava-arms-m70/
  22. Yugo M70 and M72 (RPK) receivers – what’s the diff?, accessed May 12, 2025, https://forum.pafoa.org/showthread.php?t=141280
  23. Zastava M70 vs. AK-47: Key Differences – AR15Discounts, accessed May 12, 2025, https://ar15discounts.com/zastava-m70-vs-ak-47-key-differences/
  24. Tabuk Sniper Rifle – Wikipedia, accessed May 12, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabuk_Sniper_Rifle
  25. Zastava USA M72 RPK Rifle 7.62 x 39 21″ Ribbed Barrel | Palmetto State Armory, accessed May 12, 2025, https://palmettostatearmory.com/zastava-usa-m72-rpk-rifle-7-62-x-39-21-ribbed-barrel.html
  26. Zastava 7.62×39 M72 RPK Wood Furniture Bipod 30rd Mag Semi-Auto Rifle – K-Var, accessed May 12, 2025, https://www.k-var.com/zastava-m72-rpk-rifle-762×39-wood-furniture-bipod
  27. Zastava M70 FAQ: Your Comprehensive Guide to a Legendary AK – AR15Discounts, accessed May 12, 2025, https://ar15discounts.com/zastava-m70-faq/
  28. M70 B1 Assault Rifle | Armaco JSC. Bulgaria, accessed May 12, 2025, http://www.armaco.bg/en/product/assault-rifles-c2/m70-b1-assault-rifle-p36
  29. ZASTAVA M70B1 semi-automatic rifle – American Liberator, accessed May 12, 2025, https://www.americanliberator.cz/en/gun/samonabijeci-puska-crvena-zastava-m70b1
  30. Yugo M64 RPK Rifle BFPU – Atlantic Firearms, accessed May 12, 2025, https://atlanticfirearms.com/M64-RPK-Rifle
  31. Zastava M92 – Wikipedia, accessed May 12, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zastava_M92
  32. Zastava M92 | ShootingRangePrague.com, accessed May 12, 2025, https://shootingrangeprague.com/arsenal/zastava-m92
  33. How Yugoslavia’s Military-Grade Weapons Haunt Western Europe – The Defense Post, accessed May 12, 2025, https://thedefensepost.com/2020/07/30/weapons-yugoslavia-europe/
  34. Застава М64 — Википедија, accessed May 12, 2025, https://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0_%D0%9C64
  35. Print Page – Zastava M77 – Paluba.Info, accessed May 12, 2025, https://www.paluba.info/smf/index.php?action=printpage;topic=15504.0
  36. Zastava M70 (pistol) – Wikipedia, accessed May 12, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zastava_M70_(pistol)
  37. Застава М70 — Википедија, accessed May 12, 2025, https://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0_%D0%9C70
  38. Застава М70 (пиштољ) — Википедија, accessed May 12, 2025, https://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0_%D0%9C70_(%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%88%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%99)
  39. M70 AB1 Parts Kits | Zastava Arms USA, accessed May 12, 2025, https://zastavaarmsusa.com/m70-ab1-parts-kits/
  40. Home – Zastava oružje ad, accessed May 12, 2025, https://www.zastava-arms.rs/en/

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 in**@*********ps.com. Please note that for links to other websites, we are only paid if there is an affiliate program such as Avantlink, Impact, Amazon and eBay and only if you purchase something.

AK Analytics, Analytics and Reports, Egypt, History, Yugoslavia

Yugoslavia’s AK Path: Where Did the 2,000 Russian AK-47 Rifles Come From

So far, we have covered the history of Yugoslavian and Soviet relations and then the two Albanian defectors and early Yugo AK development leading to the M64 but we glossed over an enduring mystery that deserves its own post. In this artice, we dive into the riddle of what third world nation Yugoslavia purchased 2,000 Soviet AK-47 rifles from to reverse engineer and why it had to be covert.

A. The Core Question and Its Significance

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.

Russian AK-47 Type III (Photo by Gunrunner123 shared on Wikimedia)

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 NationRecipient 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 TransferPlausibility as the “Unnamed Nation”Key Supporting Snippets
EgyptYes. 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 Likely2
IraqYes. 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 Egypt3
SyriaYes. 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.Medium34
IndonesiaYes. Initial Soviet arms deliveries in 1958.Moderate.Less clear if AK-47s available in sufficient quantity for re-transfer by late 1959.Low-Medium35

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.

Russian AK-47 Type III (Photo by Gunrunner123 shared on Wikimedia)

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.

Works cited

  1. Zastava M70 assault rifle – Wikipedia, accessed May 11, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zastava_M70_assault_rifle
  2. SOVIET MILITARY AID TO THE UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC, 1955-66 (RR IR 67-9) – CIA, accessed May 11, 2025, https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000496350.pdf
  3. Russia Reemerging as Weapons Supplier to Iraq – The Jamestown Foundation, accessed May 11, 2025, https://jamestown.org/program/russia-reemerging-weapons-supplier-iraq/
  4. Egypt–Yugoslavia relations – Wikipedia, accessed May 11, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt%E2%80%93Yugoslavia_relations
  5. Yugoslavia and the Non-Aligned Movement – Wikipedia, accessed May 11, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslavia_and_the_Non-Aligned_Movement
  6. 60. Interdepartment Policy Paper Prepared by the Departments of State and Defense, Washington, undated. (7/5/73), accessed May 11, 2025, https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/nixon/e15/107794.htm
  7. YUGOSLAV MILITARY EQUIPMENT AND ITS SOURCES – CIA, accessed May 11, 2025, https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP79T00429A001100010022-0.pdf
  8. Guns in Movies, TV and Video Games – AK-47 – Internet Movie Firearms Database, accessed May 11, 2025, https://www.imfdb.org/wiki/AK-47
  9. AK-47 | Definition, History, Operation, & Facts – Britannica, accessed May 11, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/technology/AK-47
  10. www.macalester.edu, accessed May 11, 2025, https://www.macalester.edu/russian-studies/about/resources/miscellany/ak47/#:~:text=Recognizing%20its%20demand%20in%20developing,being%20sold%20exclusively%20to%20governments.
  11. AK 47 – Russian Studies – Macalester College, accessed May 11, 2025, https://www.macalester.edu/russian-studies/about/resources/miscellany/ak47/
  12. The Gun (Chivers book) – Wikipedia, accessed May 11, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gun_(Chivers_book)
  13. The Gun by C.J. Chivers | Goodreads, accessed May 11, 2025, https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7775851-the-gun
  14. The Gun – CJ Chivers – Amazon.com, accessed May 11, 2025, https://www.amazon.com/Gun-C-J-Chivers/dp/0743270762
  15. The Gun By C.j. Chivers Summary PDF – Bookey, accessed May 11, 2025, https://www.bookey.app/book/the-gun-by-c-j-chivers
  16. The Gun | Book by C. J. Chivers | Official Publisher Page – Simon & Schuster, accessed May 11, 2025, https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Gun/C-J-Chivers/9780743271738
  17. THE GUN – Kirkus Reviews, accessed May 11, 2025, https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/cj-chivers/the-gun/
  18. AK-47 History – C.J. Chivers The Gun Excerpt – Esquire, accessed May 11, 2025, https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a25677/ak-47-history-1110/
  19. ОРУЖИЕ ДЛЯ ПРОФИ – Українська Спілка ветеранів Афганістану (воїнів-інтернаціоналістів), accessed May 11, 2025, http://www.usva.org.ua/mambo3/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=337
  20. AKM – Wikipedia, accessed May 11, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AKM
  21. How did the Middle East get a hold of Russian firearms like the AK-47 and RPG-7? – Quora, accessed May 11, 2025, https://www.quora.com/How-did-the-Middle-East-get-a-hold-of-Russian-firearms-like-the-AK-47-and-RPG-7
  22. The Avtomat Kalashnikov Model of Year 1947 – Sites at Penn State, accessed May 11, 2025, https://sites.psu.edu/jlia/the-avtomat-kalashnikov-model-of-year-1947/
  23. Methodology: Kalashnikov & Variant Factory Dataset (1947-present) – Audrey Kurth Cronin, accessed May 11, 2025, https://www.audreykurthcronin.com/p2p-pvid/p2p-pvid-kalashnikov/kalashnikov-variant-factory-dataset-1947-present/methodology-kalashnikov-variant-factory-dataset-1947-present/
  24. األسلحة الصغيرة – Small Arms Survey, accessed May 11, 2025, https://www.smallarmssurvey.org/sites/default/files/2021-09/SAS-HB-06-Weapons-ID-ch3-ARA.pdf
  25. Egyptian–Czechoslovak arms deal – Wikipedia, accessed May 11, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian%E2%80%93Czechoslovak_arms_deal
  26. Группа советских военных специалистов в Египте – Википедия, accessed May 11, 2025, https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D1%80%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%BF%D0%B0_%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%85_%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D1%85_%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D0%B2_%D0%95%D0%B3%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%82%D0%B5
  27. شاهد بالصور والفيديو: بعد وفاة مصممه “اليوم” ما هو سلاح الكلاشنكوف ومن هو ميخائيل كلاشنكوف القائل: “أنا لا اقتل ولكن يقتل من يضغط زنادي” – دنيا الوطن, accessed May 11, 2025, https://www.alwatanvoice.com/arabic/news/2013/12/23/476461.html
  28. Odnosi Jugoslavije i Egipta — Википедија, accessed May 11, 2025, https://sr.wikipedia.org/sr-el/%D0%9E%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%B8_%D0%88%D1%83%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%98%D0%B5_%D0%B8_%D0%95%D0%B3%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%82%D0%B0
  29. العلاقات المصرية اليوغوسلافية – ويكيبيديا, accessed May 11, 2025, https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%82%D8%A7%D8%AA_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B5%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A9_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%88%D8%BA%D9%88%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%81%D9%8A%D8%A9
  30. Iraq–Yugoslavia relations – Wikipedia, accessed May 11, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq%E2%80%93Yugoslavia_relations
  31. العلاقات العراقية اليوغوسلافية – ويكيبيديا, accessed May 11, 2025, https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%82%D8%A7%D8%AA_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%82%D9%8A%D8%A9_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%88%D8%BA%D9%88%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%81%D9%8A%D8%A9
  32. Революция в Ираке 1958 г. И изменение ситуации на Ближнем Востоке – КиберЛенинка, accessed May 11, 2025, https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/revolyutsiya-v-irake-1958-g-i-izmenenie-situatsii-na-blizhnem-vostoke
  33. القوة البرية العراقية – ويكيبيديا, accessed May 11, 2025, https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D9%88%D8%A9_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A9_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%82%D9%8A%D8%A9
  34. Syrian Civil War: WWII weapons used – wwiiafterwwii – WordPress.com, accessed May 11, 2025, https://wwiiafterwwii.wordpress.com/2017/06/27/syrian-civil-war-wwii-weapons-used/
  35. Russia’s arms exports to Indonesia top USD 2.5 billion over 25 years – Army Recognition, accessed May 11, 2025, https://armyrecognition.com/news/army-news/army-news-2018/russia-s-arms-exports-to-indonesia-top-usd-2-5-billion-over-25-years
  36. THE SOVIET-CUBAN CONNECTION IN CENTRAL AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN – CIA, accessed May 11, 2025, https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP88B00745R000100140026-6.pdf
  37. Soviet Arms Transfers to Sub-Saharan Africa: What are they Worth in the United Nations? – DTIC, accessed May 11, 2025, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA212065.pdf
  38. YUGOSLAVIA, MIDDLE EAST AND CREATION OF THE NON-ALIGNED MOVEMENT Текст научной статьи по специальности – КиберЛенинка, accessed May 11, 2025, https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/yugoslavia-middle-east-and-creation-of-the-non-aligned-movement
  39. The World’s Most Popular Gun – The New Atlantis, accessed May 11, 2025, https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-worlds-most-popular-gun
Sniper / Precision Rifles, USA

Who Is The Rifle Maker Bergara?

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 in**@*********ps.com. Please note that for links to other websites, we are only paid if there is an affiliate program such as Avantlink, Impact, Amazon and eBay and only if you purchase something.

Israel

The 5.56 Tavor X95 Is Still Here Three Years Later Because I Really Like It

It’s really rare that I hold on to a firearm for more than a year. I bought my Tavor X95 in August of 2021. It’s now August of 2024 and it’s still here and probably not going anywhere soon. Why? Because I like it – how’s that for a reason?

There Is A Learning Curve

I’ll start with the one negative – you definitely need to learn how to operate the Tavor. I guess I have spent too much time on AK and AR platforms of various types because I always fumble around with the controls when I get to take it to the range – which only a few times per year.

It has a left side charging handle. To the right and rear of that is the mag releaser button and further to the right of that is the safety selector.
The Tavor uses STANAG MagPul magazines. To the right of the magazine on the undersideis the bolt release. The two domed pins retain the trigger pack.

What’s interesting to me is that the Israelis are phasing the Tavor out. The Israeli military has always been pragmatic and has decided there are too many negatives with continued use of the Tavor. They are actually moving back to the M4 platform with local companies producing the rifles plus a new firing mechanism.

Compact With Full Power

With that said, the Tavor’s bullpup design does allow for a compact weapon that has a surprisingly long barrel. The X95’s barrel is 16.5″ long allowing for higher velocities to be achieved and thus a longer range.

There is a 16.5″ barrel in there!

Reliable

IWI designed the Tavor to be reliable in their harsh conditions. I must say I have never had a failure to feed or failure to eject with the Tavor. Now my round count is probably around 1,000 or just over. So, not thousands and in Michigan vs. the sandbox but I’ve enjoyed shooting it.

By the way, I use bulk M855 ammo. We had the Tavor out just a few weeks ago and experienced one round in the Tavor that was a dud. I recall we were shooting, my niece pulled the trigger and nothing happened. We waited a minute, kept the rifle safely pointing down and ejected the round. There was a good primer strike but probably a bad primer. Our range has a misfires tube that goes down to a bucket buried a few feet down and I dropped it in there.

I’ve found both Magpul and Lancer mags to work just fine with the Tavor. I prefer windowed mags or the translucent Lancers so I can see how many rounds remain.

Trigger

Bullpup triggers are a cludgy affair at best. You have the trigger in the middle of the rifle that is then connected to a linkage that then transmits the pull back to the hidden trigger mechanism in the action at the rear of the rifle. As a result, you tend to get rather wierd triggers – long relativey heavy pulls with spongy breaks in mass produced rifles.

The Tavor’s original trigger was so-so. I looked back in my notes and did not write down the details in terms of pull weight. I installed a Timney trigger with a 4# 9.7oz average pull but it broke – note, Timney has sinced revised their design to address the problem I had with a pin moving out of position and jamming the trigger pack.

The Tavor now has a Geissele Super Sabra that has run just fine. I reported the pull as 4# 12oz from five test pulls when I first did the swap back in February 2023. I did it again now out of curiosity. I did 10 careful pulls and came up with 4# 9oz. It also breaks quite cleanly.

I’m very happy with the Geissele Super Sabra trigger. It gives the Tavor a nice clean 4# 9oz trigger. Note, I just installed the Super Sabra trigger pack. I did not buy their optional Lightning Bow Trigger. It’s supposed to make the Tavor feel even better but I liked what I had and didnt see the need to buy it.

Accurate

I feel the Tavor X95 is just fine. I had no problem keeping bulk M855 ammo in a 2-3″ group at 100 yards with the combination of the Vortex AMG UH-1 holographic sight and Vortex Micro 3x magnifier. My intent with the Tavor was always for relatively close range shooting – within 100 yards most of the time and maybe out to 200 max.

Like the Optics Combination

I really like the flexibility of the Vortex AMG UH-1 optic and magnifier. There are a few pros and cons though. Swing the magnifier out of the way and you have a wide field of view and the benefits of a holographic sight. Swing the Vortex Micro 3x magnifier in place and you have a little bit better view of further targets. The cons are the weight of the two separate components and a reticle that is meant for speed vs. precision – the sheer size of the dot covers up quite a bit of the target at 100 yards so you are in the ballpark with repeat shots.

Now, I bought the rifle for relatively short ranges as mentioned above. I wanted speed, flexibility and good enough precision. I truly feel I got exactly what I wanted. I now have two of the Vortex AMG UH-1 sights. The second is sitting on my 10mm Stribog.

The combination of a Vortex AMG UH-1 and Vortex Micro 3x magnifier allows for a wide field of view and fast target acquisition. If you want the 3x magnification, you can flip the magnifier down into place. I also recommend the Streamlight ProTac light – you can use it with a thumb activated switch like I have or wire a pressure pad into the Tavor’s Picatinny rails that are hidden under covers. You can see the rail behind the light for example.

The Wow Factor

From the moment I open the fitted Peak case, there is a decided “wow” factor from whomever I am shooting with. It turns heads with its looks. The Tavor X95 looks like it stepped out of a Sci-Fi movie with its unique lines and modern look.

The rifle always grabs attention as soon as I open the fitted Peak case. I have it full of loaded mags and spare batteries for the UH-1 and Streamlight ProTac weapons light. The top translucent mags are Lancers and the bottom mags are Magpul windowed units. Note, the original Tavor trigger pack is in the big plastic bag. I kept it in there just in case but haven’t needed it.

I’ve also found it is great with new shooters because of its weight further absorbing the already light recoil of the 5.56 round. The new shooters always want to get a photo with it.

So, It’s Still Here

Yep – I still have it. I tend to buy firearms, take them apart, maybe modify them, go to the range once or twice and then sell them. The Tavor X95 has been the exception so far. I bought it in 2021 and I’m writing this in August 2024. It was just on an outing with some family members that were new shooters from Canada and they all had fun with it.

We had a recent family get together and of course they wanted to go to the range. Here, one of my nieces is shooting the Tavor.
Yours truly putting some lead down range.

Summary

I’d say the Tavor X95 bullpup is primarily a close in weapon if you want to move up past 9mm but it also has the legs to reach out further. It has a steep learning curve and you can’t do a c-clamp grip. As the Israelis found – you might well be better off with an AR with whatever barrel length you prefer. Always assess your needs before you buy.

Would I recommend the Tavor X95 to people? Yes and mainly because of the unique design’s “wow” factor. I still tell people to think about how they want to use a firearm – the use case – and then buy accordingly. Without a doubt though, the Tavor X95 is cool, reliable and accurate.

I hope this helps you out.

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 in**@*********ps.com. Please note that for links to other websites, we are only paid if there is an affiliate program such as Avantlink, Impact, Amazon and eBay and only if you purchase something.

AK & Related Rifles, AKBuilds, Serbia

How to add an AR stock to a Zastava M77

Okay, some guys hate AR gear on AKs and if it’s not your cup of tea, that’s fine. I do like AR stocks and have no problems putting whatever stock on whatever family of firearms. I’m more into pragmatism and making a firearms do what I want than arguing over AR vs. AK or whatever. This is also why I have commenting turned off on the blog.

At any rate, even before I bought the M77, I knew I was going to trick it out for my purposes and I wanted to put one of the Magpul PRS Lite stocks on it for a few reasons:

  • I like adjustable stocks like the PRS but don’t need to constantly change the length of pull or the comb (where your cheek sets) thus I didn’t need to spend the money on a full blown PRS Gen 3. By the way, in case you are wondering PRS stands for “Precision Rifle/Sniper”.
  • The M77 will never be mistaken for a carbine given its length nor do I need to collapse the stock so the fixed postion PRS Lite was fine by me.
  • There are aftermarket thick recoil pads you can put on a PRS to absorb recoil.
  • By using a buffer tube, I can slide in a mercury recoil suppressor to add weight, absorb some of the recoil and balance the rifle out a bit more to compensate for a long barrel and relatively heavy front end.
  • Last but not least, the PRS Lite reminds me a bit of a PKM stock due to the skeletonized opening. (I’m sure someone just spit their drink out reading that). I had a new mint Romanian PKM stock many years ago that I sold at some point and still wish I hadn’t. In short, I like the looks.
  • Also, the PRS Lite is a bit cheaper than a PRS Gen 3 but that wasn’t a big factor for me – the PKM look is actually what tipped me in the direction of the Lite model.
This is the MagPul PRS Lite. It’s definitely a solid stock that I like – it does what I need it to.

Parts you will need

  • Zastava/Yugo to M4 adapter – this screws into the square hole in the rear trunnion and then presents the hole the buffer tube screws into and the end plate. Go with an aluminum model from a reputable vendor like Ace, JMac Customs, Desert Fox, etc. Note, JMac went a very different route with their pioneering 1913 Picatinny rail interface for the stocks and I provide more details down during installation.
  • A buffer tube – I’d recommend a M4 six position Mil-Spec carbine buffer tube for the greatest flexibility. Rifle length tubes are rarely used on new firearms now as people want the adjustable stocks. Commercial sized buffer tubes were due to some things Colt did many years ago and thus on the way out so go with Mil-Spec which refers to the outer diameter of the tube.
  • An AR end plate – on an AR, this plate keeps the selector spring captured and also aligns the buffer tube via vertical key that sticks up and keeps the carbine buffer tube from rotating – it does help to have it for that reason and you have tons of options out there ranging from the basic to ones with sling hooks and even QD sling sockets. Not all adapter support an end plate so this might not be needed,
  • A castle nut – this nut is threaded on the buffer tube and then tightened down against the end plate to secure the buffer tube in place. Note, you will need a spanner wrench or specialized castle nut wrench of install or remove a castle nut without tearing it up – I recommend the Magpul wrench. By the way, the castle nut gets its name from looking like a medevial castle’s crennelated tower. Crenels are the parts that stick up like teeth to give defenders some protection.
  • Finally, whatever stock you want. Just remember to match the buffer tube to the stock. If you get a rifle stock and it needs a rifle buffer tube then get a rifle buffer tube, etc. The PRS and PRS lite have an adapter and can work with either tube type but most stocks designed for a carbine can only work with a carbine buffer tube (just make sure you match on either the Mil-Spec or commercial diameter).

Removing the old stock

The first step is to remove the recoil pad which is held in place by two beefy wood screws with allen/hex wrench sockets in them. Remove them and then the recoil pad will pull off. You then remove the buttstock bolt and the stock pulls out of the end of the rifle.

Remove these two beefy screws and the recoil pad will pull off. I’m happy to see a modern screw head vs. slotted. I would have been even happier if they were torx screws this is a nice upgrade from the old days.
I kind of felt like Crocodile Dundee when I first saw the new recoil pad screws they are using “Now this is a screw”. If you’ve not seen the movie then the reference is lost but my point is that is a really heavy duty screw.
With the recoil pad off, use a 13mm socket on an extension to reach in and unscrew the buttstock bolt. Yes, that’s a bed. It was super cold out and I set up in our spare bedroom to take these photos.
They’ve shortened the buttstock bolt considerably. I’ve considered having these made but Zastava USA seems to keep them in stock so there is no pressing demand for them unlike our original Yugo military length bolts.
This is what goes into the rear trunnion. The numbering reflects the rifle it was fitted to. Note, these do sometimes get a wee bit stuck in the trunnion so you might need to wiggle it a bit or a few light taps with a rubber mallet and it will pull right out.
This is the rear trunnion and the use of a square hole and big bolt to secure it is one of the unique design changes the Yugoslavs did to the Soviet designs. See the finish residue and chips in there? The snug fitting of the stock, how much the finish has stuck to the metal and a bit of sawdust all combine to cause the stock to offer a bit of resistance during removal. In this case it all came out easily with just a bit of wiggling. You should remove all of that of course.

Adding the new stock

To add the buffer tube, I decided to use two parts that I happened to have in stock. I used an Ace modular adapter (“AKRBY-AR15” is the exact model) and then a JMAC modular stock to M4 adapter that has sadly been discontinued – I bought mine a few years ago so it’s not surprising things have changed.

JMac went a different route some years back and pioneered adapters that expose a 1913 Picatinny rail at the rear to which you can mount a ton of different stocks. That’s another option for you – click here. Once you have that, you add a folding mechanism, then a skeletonized tube (ST) for a cool “I’m not a normal AR look” and then your AR stock if you go that route.

Many, many years ago, Ace Riflestocks was its own company and alos quite a few years back they were acquired by Doublestar Corp – a large AR manufacturer. Same products and quality but you now see a Doublestar logo. Note, there is an Ace to M4 adapter that I have used many times but does not support the end plate. Not the end of the world but a different approach.

If you do not want the modular approach, Zastava also sells a direct adapter. It screws into the rear trunnion and gives you the mount for the M4 buffer tube.

This is the Ace Zastava/Yugo modular stock adapter. Only one of the two rows of screws holes are actually used giving you a bit of vertical adjustment. The adapter is secured by an 8mm allen key socket screw. The screw holes are tapped for #10-32 screws.
The JMac M4-Ace adapter is really well made. The two horizontal screw holes are for securing the Mac Adapter to the modular stock adapter. The bottom opening is for securing the botttom of the AR end plate that in turn holds the buffer tube in position vertically.
Put medium strength Loc-tite on before you install the screws.

If you want to insert a mercury recoil reducer

This next step is entirely optional – I installed a C&H mercury reducer to add weight to the rear and absorb a bit of recoil. The completely sealed 7/8″x5″ C&H tube weighs 16oz. The liquid mercury inside sloshes inside and absorbs some of the recoil. Does it do a ton on it’s own – no. Does it and the weight help mitigate some of the recoil? The short answer is yes.

What I do is wrap tape around the C&H so it fits snug and is roughly centered. I spray brake cleaner in the tub to get any oil out. scuff it up and spray it out again. I then scuff up the C&H tube, clean it with alchol (brake cleaner makes the tape gooey), coat the C&B unit with epoxy and push it in. Some epoxy will come out the drain hole so wipe it off with a rag with brake cleaner and then close it with a piece of tape. By the way, one end of the tube is tapped for a 1/4-20 bolt to help install it. Remove the bolt before everything sets up of course.
That’s not coming out or loosen up. Use a towel with brake cleaner to remove any epoxy on surfaces you don’t want. You need to do this before it sets up. By the way, the longer an epoxy takes to cure, the better it will hold up to shocks over time. Don’t use epoxies that claim to set in just 90 seconds or 5 minutes.

Let’s continue with installing the buffer tube

Put the castle nut on the buffer tubes with the largest slots facing backwards and thread it all the way to the bak, Then install the end plate with the “boss” (raised oval) facing forwards to it will go into the end of the AR adapter. You then insert the buffer tube into the adapter and start screwing it in place. When you can’t screw it in any further because of the plate, back it off a turn, push the plate into the adapter, tighten the castle nut with your fingers. Finally, tighten it down with the caste nut wrench – the torque spec is 38-39 ft pounds (you’ll sometimes ready 40 ft pounds but 38-39 is per USMC TM 05538/10012-IN). If you want to do farmer tight, that is up to you. I’d also recommend staking the nut – putting a divot in the nut in one of the small holes between the end nut and the castle nut so the castle nut can no longer turn without a wrench. Again, up to you.

Here you can see the end plate, the groove in the buffer tube that it travels in and just a bit of the castle nut behind. All are oriented correctly.
I screwed in the buffer tube until the end plate couldn’t rotate, backed it off one turn (or so) until I could get the end plate to slide forward and go in its hole. Note the orientation of the castle nut and it is not tight yet.,
Do you mess with castle nuts a lot? Get a Magpul Armorer’s Wrench. In the photo, the right side is for the castle nut. The left is for the barrel nuts and I don’t use that one much but that castle nut portion gives you a wonderfully secure grip especially when you are breaking ones free. The square hole is for a 1/2″ torque wrench. The oval hole is for rifle receiver extensions and the groove in the castle nut end can be used on the traditional bird cage flash hiders.
Once the buffer is installed, the PRS site can go right on. Just follow the directions with the stock, You remove the screw that holds the front flush cup in place and slide the stock on. You can then put the QD swivel flush cup on whatever side you want.
Both the full blow PRS Gen 3 and PRS Lite stocks have thin hard recoil pads that I always replace. This is a Limbsaver PRS Gen 3 recoil pad that fits both models. It’s well made, fits and feels great. I always make the swap unless the stock is going on a light recoiling rifle like 5.56 NATO. If you want the best recoil pad I have found for the PRS Gen 3 or PRS Lite, get the Limbsaver pad.

End Result

The rifle feels really good and handles well. I think it looks great also!

Summary

Once you know the parts you need, it’s a pretty easy swap to make. Once you get the M4 buffer tube installed you have tons and tons of options out there .

I hope this helps you out.

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 in**@*********ps.com. Please note that for links to other websites, we are only paid if there is an affiliate program such as Avantlink, Impact, Amazon and eBay and only if you purchase something.

AK & Related Rifles, Serbia, Yugoslavia

Why Some Grips Will Not Fit Yugo or Zastava AK Rifles

I am often asked if some model of grip will fit a Yugo surplus or current day commercial Zastava rifle and the answer is a bit of an “it depends”.  Let me tell you why.

When Zastava was still located in the former country of Yugoslavia, they did a number of modifications to the base Soviet AK-47 design.  Relevant to this post whas their decision to use a retained grip nut that is riveted to the receiver.  This is different from AKMs that have a removable forged grip nut that drops down through a square hole between the trigger guard and the rear end of the receiver.

All AK-based rifle designs that I know of have this grip nut “strap” that is riveted in place.  Note how the trigger guard rides higher than a normal AKs and a longer rivet is used to pass through the trigger guard, strap and the receiver itself.

When it comes to grips, that strap and its rivets are the problems.  If you have a grip with very limited space in the top, it will not fit – at least not without modification.  The AK-12 grip has a tight backstrap that goes along the bottom of the receiver and I don’t think it could even be made to fit.

Notice the extra rivets sticking up behind the round grip screw hole.
This is our version of a Russian AK-12 grip.  It’s very comfortable and a grip I like a great deal.
The middle of the top and some of the back aren’t going to clear the grip nut strap and rivets.  I could carve/Dremel the middle out but there is very little material to work with in the back.  Might it work?  Maybe but I didn’t have time to give it serious try.

If you look at the top of a traditional Zastava black polymer grip, you’ll notice the top is wide open.  It has plenty of room to accomodate the grip strap.  So, a grip like a Russian Molot will work as well.

The Molot’s top is wide open.
Due to the wide open top, a Molot grip can readily go on a Zastava.

Summary

Grips with shallow tight tops will not fit on a Zastava rifle, unless modificatios are made.  Examples of grips like this are Hungarian AMDs, IMI Galils, Polish Beryl eronomically styled grips, and Russian AK-12s.

What will fit are grips with big top mouths such as many traditional AKMs (Romanian and Egyptian), plus newer grips like the Bulgarian ARMs, and Russian Molots.

I hope this helps.

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 in**@*********ps.com. Please note that for links to other websites, we are only paid if there is an affiliate program such as Avantlink, Impact, Amazon and eBay and only if you purchase something.

AK & Related Rifles, Serbia

Adding a RS Regulate GKR-9DY Handguard To A Zastava M77

Ok, so I planned to completely redo the M77 and keep the Battleworn wood for the future just in case. The first step was to swap out the wood handguards for a RS Regulate GKR-9DY. It’s a 9″ MLOK rail for Zastava AK-type rifles – this matters because a Zastava handguard is longer and a different shape than an AKM handguard.

Scot Hoskinson owns RS Regulate and is a meticulous engineer. His products are top notch and one thing I would tell you is to always read the instructions. He puts a lot of effort into documenting what you need to do so find the instructions and follow them.

Trust me – read and follow the instructions to install a RS Regulate handguard. Note the instruction sheet is for the old part number GKR-9Y. Scot revised the part number and it is now the GKR-9DY — same handguard but different part number.
Per the instructions in steps 3 and 4, I tapped the end cap into place. Note, you do need to test fit and make sure it will fit. You aren’t beating it into place with a ton of force. Mine went in without any filing needed but I did need to tap it to get it fully seated. You want the end cap to sit in the receiver firmly – not loose.

I don’t have photos of every step Scot lists, but I do want to mention step 5 – the front retainer set screws are backed out towards the receiver with the allen heads facing the rear. Once you have the front retainer in place and screwed to the handguard in step 10, you then tighten down the set screws to make everything nice and tight.

In all of his steps, be sure to follow the torque specifications and use blue loc-tite or your favorite medium strength thread locker. If you don’t, then the screws will risk coming loose and potentially falling out.
You can see the rifle’s handguard retainer is locked in place because the cam lever is rotated backwards. Looking down past the barrel you can see one of the two front retainer set screws waiting to be snugged down.
I used a long Bondhaus ball head allen key to reach in and tighten the set screws. Let me spare you some future grief – buy quality sets of allen wrenches that properly engage your fasteners. The cheap import keys are prone to poor fitment and/or rounding over the edges and both will mess up your fasteners.
I applied Blue Loc-Tite before I snugged down the set screws. I removed the residue with a shop towel.

The Gas Tube Cover

The RS Regulate handguards are the lower-half only. It’s up to you to decide if you want to run the wood or just what. In my case, I am using one of our Yugo/Zastava gas tube covers that is made from glass-fiber reinforced high-temp urethane. A Yugo gas tube cover is significantly longer than that of an AKM and are not interchangeable.

To remove it, rotate the locking lever on the rear sight base. Zastava is one of the makers that make that lever really tight. I use a large adjustable wrench’s jaws to hold the lever while I rotate it up. You can also use a hammer with plastic heads to tap the lever up. Once it is rotated, the rear of the tube closer to the receiver can be lifted up and the unit brought back just a tad to clear the front gas block. By the way, the bolt carrier must be removed or the long gas piston will be in the tube and block removal.

I didn’t get a picture of the gas tube with the wood before I removed it so we’ll just pick up here. This is one of our high-temp Yugo/Zastava gas tube covers. The spring clip is from the wood set and pops into the our cover to help provide tension and support. If you don’t have the clip, I would recommend buying one vs. skipping it. Check Apex Gun Parts, Robert RTG, Numrich, Centerfire, etc.
The spring clip just presses into the pocket molded foir it in the cover.
I like to use a vise to hold the forged end of the gas tube. DO NOT try and clamp the thing circular end or you will crush it. The vise you see has smooth jaws and will not hurt the forging – if your vise has aggressive jaws to hold material, use something to protect the gas tube like jaw covers, pieces of wood, etc. In this photo, the cover is fully rotated into position. You may find it easier to rotate your cover to the left or to the right when it comes to installation or removal. If it will not turn, carefully inspect why and remove a bit of material as needed with a file, Don’t rush – you want a firm fit and for it to look good.
What it looks like when done.

Years ago, I did do a blog post with more instructions and links to videos. Please click here if you want to read it.

End Result

Summary

RS Regulate makes some great lower handguards for a variety of AKs including for the Yugo/Zastava M70 and M77s. It takes a little bit of effort to install and is very much worth it. You can optionally use your wood gas tube cover or buy one of our polymer units.

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 in**@*********ps.com. Please note that for links to other websites, we are only paid if there is an affiliate program such as Avantlink, Impact, Amazon and eBay and only if you purchase something.