The introduction of the iconic slant-faced muzzle device on the Kalashnikov rifle was not an incidental aesthetic choice nor was it part of the weapon’s original design. Instead, its development and eventual adoption represent a case study in iterative, problem-driven Soviet small arms engineering. The device emerged as a direct and necessary response to a specific physics problem created by the comprehensive modernization program that transformed the AK-47 into the AKM. Understanding this context is crucial to appreciating the elegant pragmatism of the final design.

From Milled to Stamped: The 1959 AKM Modernization Program

The Avtomat Kalashnikova Modernizirovanny (AKM), or “Kalashnikov’s Modernized Automatic Rifle,” was officially adopted by the Soviet Army in 1959, a decade after its predecessor, the AK-47.¹ While retaining the fundamental long-stroke gas piston operating system and rotating bolt of the original Kalashnikov, the AKM was a significant re-engineering effort driven by a critical strategic need to facilitate true mass production on a scale required for the Warsaw Pact.⁵

The central and most transformative change was the shift from the AK-47 Type III’s receiver, which was machined from a solid forging of steel, to a receiver formed from a U-shaped stamping of 1.0 mm sheet steel.² This single change dramatically reduced manufacturing time, cost, and the need for specialized heavy machinery, making it possible for a wider range of factories to produce the rifle.⁶ This stamped receiver was reinforced with rivets fastening it to milled steel front and rear trunnions, a design that proved both durable and economical.²

This manufacturing philosophy extended to numerous other components. The AKM featured a lighter, thinner barrel profile; a stamped and ribbed dust cover in place of the heavier milled version; and a simplified recoil spring assembly using a dual U-shaped wire guide instead of a telescoping rod.² Lightening cuts were milled into the bolt carrier to reduce its mass.² Even the furniture was optimized for production, with laminated birch plywood replacing solid wood for the stock and handguards, as it was cheaper, more dimensionally stable, and less prone to warping.²

The cumulative effect of these modifications was a substantial reduction in the rifle’s overall weight. An empty AKM weighed approximately 3.3 kg, a full kilogram (about 2.2 lbs) lighter than its 4.3 kg milled-receiver predecessor.² This made the AKM a handier and more portable weapon for the individual soldier, a clear improvement in ergonomics.

The Physics of the Problem: Lighter Rifle, Same Cartridge

The successful weight reduction of the AKM created a direct and predictable consequence rooted in fundamental physics. According to Newton’s laws of motion, recoil momentum is conserved. By decreasing the mass of the rifle while keeping the mass  and velocity of the projectile and propellant gases constant, the free recoil velocity of the firearm must necessarily increase.

This increased recoil impulse amplified the Kalashnikov design’s inherent tendency for muzzle rise. The rifle’s architecture places the bore axis above the shooter’s shoulder and grip, which serve as the primary pivot points. This offset creates a moment arm, causing the recoil force to generate a rotational torque that pivots the muzzle upward with each shot.⁸ For the relatively powerful 7.62x39mm cartridge, this effect was already significant. In the lighter AKM, it became a more pronounced problem, degrading controllability, particularly during sustained automatic fire.⁶

While the AKM did incorporate a hammer-release delaying device into the trigger group, often called a “rate reducer,” its primary function was to ensure the bolt was fully locked before the hammer could fall, acting as a safety feature. While it did have a secondary effect of slightly slowing the cyclic rate of fire, this was not enough to overcome the increased felt recoil and muzzle climb of the lighter platform.²

The timeline of the AKM’s development reveals that this controllability issue was addressed not as part of the initial 1959 design, but as a subsequent product improvement. For the first several years of its service life, from 1959 until approximately 1966, the AKM was issued with a simple threaded muzzle nut, identical to that used on late-model AK-47s, which served only to protect the barrel threads.² This seven-year gap indicates that the need for a compensatory muzzle device was identified through extensive field trials and feedback from troops using the new, lighter rifle. The existence of formal, high-level testing of advanced muzzle device prototypes in 1963-1964 confirms that Soviet engineers were engaged in a methodical, multi-year research and development effort to solve this specific, field-identified operational deficiency.¹⁰ The slant compensator was therefore not an afterthought, but a calculated and retrofitted solution born from empirical data and a responsive engineering culture.

The Search for a Solution: Soviet Muzzle Device Experimentation (1949-1966)

The effort to manage the Kalashnikov’s recoil and muzzle climb was not a new challenge that arose with the AKM. Soviet engineers had been exploring the concept of muzzle devices since the earliest days of the AK-47’s development, providing a crucial foundation of knowledge and experience that would later inform the design of the AKM’s iconic compensator.

Early Attempts and Foundational Lessons (1949-1950)

As early as 1949 and 1950, trials were conducted at the Shchurovsky Polygon to assess methods for improving the accuracy of the original AK-47. These tests involved the evaluation of approximately twenty different experimental muzzle devices, including various active muzzle brakes and compensators.¹⁰

The results of these early experiments established a critical design constraint that would shape Soviet small arms development for decades. While testing confirmed that many of these devices were effective at improving accuracy and reducing muzzle climb, they were universally rejected for one overriding reason: their severe acoustic impact on the shooter. The redirected muzzle blast was so intense that it was reported to “deafen the shooter” and cause painful auditory sensations.¹⁰ The conclusion was that the negative physiological effect on the soldier outweighed the performance benefits, rendering such devices operationally impractical for a standard-issue infantry rifle. This early lesson underscored a core tenet of Soviet design philosophy: a weapon’s technical performance could not come at the expense of the soldier’s fundamental ability to fight effectively.

The NII-61 Prototype: A Case Study in the Perils of Complexity (1963-1964)

By the early 1960s, with the lighter AKM in service and its controllability issues becoming apparent, the search for a viable muzzle device was renewed with greater urgency. The most sophisticated and well-documented effort from this period was the testing of an advanced muzzle brake-compensator designed by NII-61 (Scientific Research Institute-61), conducted at the Rzhevsky Polygon between late 1963 and early 1964.¹⁰

The NII-61 device was a relatively complex, single-chamber design featuring five inclined windows. These were meticulously arranged to generate a corrective impulse vector directed from right-down to left-up at a 30° angle from the vertical firing plane. This was a highly engineered attempt to simultaneously counteract both the vertical muzzle climb and the rightward drift characteristic of the weapon when fired by a right-handed shooter.¹⁰

In controlled testing, the prototype demonstrated significant technical merit. It absorbed 21% of the recoil energy and, most impressively, improved the accuracy of the AKM when firing from a standing position by a factor of four, dramatically reducing the area of dispersion.¹⁰ On paper, these were exceptional results.

However, the NII-61 device was a categorical failure from a practical military standpoint, repeating the very mistakes identified a decade earlier and introducing new problems. The key failures were:

1. Acoustic Trauma: The device caused “painful sensations in the shooter’s left ear.” Instrumented testing revealed that it more than doubled (a 2.1x increase) the sound wave pressure at the shooter’s head compared to firing without a device.¹⁰ In an era before widespread use of hearing protection, this was not merely a comfort issue but a tactical liability that could degrade situational awareness and cause permanent injury.
2. Lack of Interchangeability: The test report noted with evident surprise that the prototypes could not be properly mounted on standard service rifles out of the box. They exhibited significant wobble and misalignment with the barrel axis, requiring individual hand-fitting by an armorer—filing the rear face and reaming the internal diameter—to be installed securely. This complete absence of interchangeability was anathema to the principles of Soviet mass production and field maintenance.¹⁰
3. Interference with Standard Procedures: The device’s design compromised basic weapon handling and maintenance. Its length partially obstructed the blade of a mounted bayonet. More critically, it made it impossible to attach the standard muzzle cap used for cleaning the bore from the muzzle end. This forced the use of the cleaning rod in a manner that would inevitably cause abrasion and damage to the barrel’s crown over time, jeopardizing the weapon’s long-term accuracy and reliability.¹⁰

The Rzhevsky Polygon’s test commission, while acknowledging the device’s accuracy-enhancing potential, ultimately recommended against its adoption due to these severe operational drawbacks. The final verdict was that further comparative testing was needed to find a design that offered a more optimal balance between performance and practicality.¹⁰ This rejection of a technically “superior” device in favor of holistic operational effectiveness is telling. It demonstrates a sophisticated, user-centric design philosophy where the needs of the conscript soldier and the realities of large-scale warfare took precedence over maximizing a single performance statistic.

The Slant Compensator: An Elegant, Pragmatic Solution

Following the rejection of complex prototypes like the NII-61 device, Soviet engineers settled on a design that stands as a testament to the principle of pragmatic simplicity. The slant compensator, introduced around 1966, was not the most powerful device tested, but it was the optimal solution for the AKM weapon system as a whole, perfectly balancing performance with the overriding imperatives of mass production, reliability, and usability.⁶

Design, Function, and Physics of Operation

It is critical to apply the correct engineering terminology: the device is a compensator, not a muzzle brake.¹² A muzzle brake’s primary function is to reduce the rearward force of recoil by venting gases backward or sideways. A compensator’s primary function is to apply a directional force to counteract muzzle movement—specifically, the upward and sideways “climb” or “drift” during firing.

The device itself is a marvel of simplicity: a short cylinder of steel with a diagonal cut at its forward end.¹⁵ This cut creates a single, angled baffle surface. When threaded onto the rifle of a right-handed shooter, this surface is oriented to face generally upward and to the right.² The physics of its operation are a direct application of Newton’s Third Law of Motion. As the high-pressure propellant gases exit the muzzle behind the bullet, they expand rapidly and impinge upon this angled surface. The gas, being deflected up and to the right, creates an equal and opposite reactive force vector that pushes the muzzle of the rifle down and to the left.¹⁴ This thrust vector was precisely calculated to counteract the AKM’s natural tendency to climb and drift to the right during automatic fire.

As a secondary benefit, the downward-vectored portion of the gas blast also helps to suppress the dust and debris kicked up when firing from the prone position, a minor but tactically relevant advantage that reduces the shooter’s signature.¹⁷

Manufacturing, Materials, and Integration

The genius of the slant compensator lies not only in its function but also in its manufacturability. The design’s extreme simplicity meant it could be produced in vast quantities with minimal machining operations, likely starting from basic steel bar stock. After machining, the parts would undergo heat treatment for durability and be given a simple, corrosion-resistant black oxide or phosphate finish.¹⁵ This low-cost, high-volume production methodology was perfectly aligned with the Soviet military-industrial complex’s focus on equipping a massive conscript army for a potential continent-spanning conflict.¹⁹

The compensator attaches to the standard M14x1mm left-hand (LH) threads present on the AKM’s muzzle.¹⁵ The choice of a left-hand thread is a deliberate engineering detail; the torque imparted by the bullet’s right-hand spin through the rifling tends to tighten a left-hand threaded device, preventing it from loosening under the vibration of sustained fire.

The device is correctly oriented, or “timed,” and secured by a spring-loaded detent pin housed in the front sight block (FSB). A small notch is machined into the rear face of the compensator, which engages this pin and locks the device in the correct rotational position. This system is robust, reliable, and crucially, allows for tool-less removal and reinstallation by the soldier in the field for cleaning and maintenance.²²

The Rationale for Adoption (circa 1966): The “Good Enough” Doctrine in Practice

The final decision to adopt the slant compensator was a clear victory for pragmatism over theoretical perfection. It was not the most effective compensator the Soviets tested, but it was the best solution for their specific requirements. It provided a tangible and immediately noticeable improvement in the AKM’s controllability during automatic fire, which was the core problem it was designed to solve.²³

Crucially, it achieved this improvement without introducing any of the crippling operational flaws that doomed the NII-61 prototype. Its acoustic signature, while slightly louder than a bare muzzle, was not painfully so.¹² It was fully interchangeable between rifles. It did not interfere with the use of the bayonet or standard cleaning procedures. And it was exceptionally cheap and easy to manufacture.

Perhaps the most decisive advantage, as noted in the archival analysis of the muzzle device trials, was its minimal effect on the bullet’s flight path.¹⁰ More powerful and complex muzzle devices often induce a significant and sometimes unpredictable shift in the weapon’s point of impact (POI) relative to its point of aim.²⁶ The slant compensator’s effect on the bullet’s exit angle was small enough that any resulting POI shift could be easily and fully corrected by a simple elevation adjustment of the standard front sight post. This eliminated the need for new sighting components, specialized armorer tools, or complex re-zeroing procedures—a massive logistical and training benefit when dealing with an army of millions of conscripts.

The device’s perceived “imperfection” in terms of raw recoil reduction was, in fact, its greatest strength. Its mediocrity in that single performance metric was a direct and deliberate trade-off for excellence in every other relevant engineering and logistical category: cost, manufacturability, reliability, interchangeability, and user-friendliness. It solved the core problem to a degree that was “good enough” for the intended user and doctrine, without creating new, more severe problems. This is a masterclass in pragmatic military engineering, where the goal was not to create the “best compensator” in isolation, but to improve the “AKM weapon system” as a whole.

Comparative Analysis and Legacy

The AKM’s slant compensator did not exist in a vacuum. Its design and adoption can be better understood by comparing it both to what came after it in the Soviet system—the AK-74’s muzzle brake—and to the devices used by its contemporaries in the West. This comparative context reveals the unique path of Soviet small arms philosophy and the enduring influence of this simple piece of steel.

An Evolutionary Stepping Stone: AKM vs. AK-74 Muzzle Devices

The adoption of the AK-74 in 1974, chambered for the new, small-caliber, high-velocity 5.45x39mm cartridge, marked a major evolution in Soviet small arms design, and its muzzle device is a prime example of this technological leap.³

The AK-74 was fitted with a large, highly complex, and exceptionally effective true muzzle brake-compensator.¹² Its sophisticated design features a large initial expansion chamber to allow gases to begin slowing, two large vertical ports on the sides to vent gas sideways and provide a powerful braking (recoil-reducing) force, and two smaller, asymmetrically drilled ports on the top front face to provide downward compensation.¹² A half-moon cut on the right side of the device vents a small amount of gas to counteract lateral drift. This multi-function device was the result of a dedicated engineering effort and was necessary to tame the sharp recoil impulse of the new 5.45mm round, making an already light rifle remarkably controllable in automatic fire.¹⁷ It is vastly more effective at reducing both felt recoil and muzzle movement than the AKM’s simple slant compensator.¹²

The dramatic increase in complexity and cost from the AKM’s device to the AK-74’s reflects a significant shift in Soviet ballistic science and resource allocation. The 7.62x39mm cartridge of the AKM produces a large volume of propellant gas at a relatively moderate pressure. The 5.45x39mm cartridge, by contrast, produces a smaller gas volume but at a much higher pressure and exit velocity.¹⁷ The physics of the problem had changed, demanding a more advanced solution. For the AKM, a simple compensator was sufficient. For the AK-74, maximizing the performance of the revolutionary new cartridge was a primary design goal, justifying the investment in a more complex and expensive component. This evolution shows that by the 1970s, Soviet small arms science had advanced, and the muzzle device was elevated from a simple accessory to a critical, performance-defining component of the weapon system.

Feature	AKM Slant Compensator	AK-74 Muzzle Brake
Primary Function	Compensation (muzzle rise/drift)	True Muzzle Brake & Compensator
Design Principle	Single angled baffle	Multi-chamber (expansion, braking) with tuned ports
Complexity/Cost	Very Low	High
Recoil Reduction	Minimal	Significant
Muzzle Climb Reduction	Moderate	Very High
Acoustic Signature	Moderate increase	Significant increase with pronounced side blast
Associated Cartridge	7.62x39mm	5.45x39mm

Context in Cold War Small Arms Design

A comparison with contemporary Western 7.62x51mm NATO battle rifles further highlights the uniqueness of the Soviet approach. The FN FAL, Heckler & Koch G3, and U.S. M14 all fired the more powerful 7.62x51mm rifle cartridge, which made controllable automatic fire from a shoulder-fired weapon nearly impossible.³⁰ Consequently, their standard-issue muzzle devices were not designed for compensation. They were typically long, slotted flash hiders whose primary purpose was to reduce the weapon’s visible muzzle flash, not to mitigate recoil or muzzle climb.³¹ The Soviet Union’s early and firm commitment to the 7.62x39mm cartridge created a more manageable recoil problem to begin with, which in turn allowed for a much simpler and cheaper solution in the form of the slant compensator.

The Enduring Benchmark and Legacy

The AKM slant compensator is arguably the most recognizable and widely produced muzzle device in history, an aesthetic feature that is synonymous with the Kalashnikov rifle.¹⁵ Its functional legacy is just as significant. In the world of AK performance and aftermarket parts, the simple slant compensator remains the universal baseline against which all modern designs are measured. Performance tests conducted by engineers and enthusiasts invariably include the “standard slant brake” as the control group to quantify the improvements offered by more modern, and more expensive, devices.²⁴

Its core principle—using a simple, asymmetric surface to deflect gas and create a corrective force—continues to influence modern muzzle device design. Many contemporary compensators, while employing more complex geometries, additional ports, and advanced baffles, are ultimately sophisticated expressions of the same fundamental concept pioneered by this elegantly simple piece of Soviet engineering.⁸

Conclusion: Pragmatic Engineering

The design and evolution of the AKM’s slant compensator provide a definitive case study in pragmatic Soviet military engineering. Its creation was not a singular flash of brilliance but the logical outcome of a deliberate, iterative, and data-driven development process that spanned years. Faced with a tangible degradation in the controllability of the new, lighter AKM rifle, Soviet designers methodically explored a range of solutions. They tested complex, high-performance prototypes that, while effective in a narrow sense, failed to meet the holistic operational requirements of a conscript army. The severe acoustic signature, lack of interchangeability, and interference with basic maintenance made these advanced designs impractical for real-world military service.

The ultimate selection of the simple slant compensator was a triumph of systems-level thinking. It perfectly balanced a tangible performance gain against the non-negotiable imperatives of mass production, low cost, logistical simplicity, and the capabilities of the end-user. It solved the immediate problem of muzzle climb to a degree deemed “good enough” for the established combat doctrine, and it did so without introducing new, more intractable problems. The AKM slant compensator is the physical manifestation of the doctrine that, in the unforgiving calculus of warfare, the optimal solution is often the simplest one that works reliably.

---

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, I may be paid via an affiliate program such as Avantlink, Impact, Amazon and eBay.

---

Works cited

1. Kalashnikov AKM: One of the most produced versions of the AK – Combat Operators, accessed July 13, 2025, https://combatoperators.com/firearms/rifles/kalashnikov-akm/
2. AKM – Wikipedia, accessed July 13, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AKM
3. 65 лет назад на вооружение были приняты АКМ и РПК, accessed July 13, 2025, https://kalashnikovgroup.ru/news/65_let_nazad_na_vooruzhenie_byli_prinyaty_akm_i_rpk
4. Автомат Калашникова модернизированный – Википедия, accessed July 13, 2025, https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%B2%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82_%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%88%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0_%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9
5. AKM shooting in Prague, accessed July 13, 2025, https://www.pragueranger.cz/guns/akm/
6. Evolution Of The AKM | An Official Journal Of The NRA – American Rifleman, accessed July 13, 2025, https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/evolution-of-the-akm/
7. The AKM Assault Rifle | PDF | Personal Weapons – Scribd, accessed July 13, 2025, https://www.scribd.com/document/137559756/The-AKM-Assault-Rifle
8. Muzzle brake – Wikipedia, accessed July 13, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzzle_brake
9. Modernized AKM & AKMS – AK History Part II – YouTube, accessed July 13, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xkws8j6WGc
10. Полигонные испытания опытного дульного тормоза …, accessed July 13, 2025, https://gunsforum.com/topic/2398-poligonnye-ispytaniya-opytnogo-dulnogo-tormoza-kompensatora-konstruktsii-nii-61-dlya-akm-v-1964-g/
11. Experimental AK Muzzle Brakes – Forgotten Weapons, accessed July 13, 2025, https://www.forgottenweapons.com/experimental-ak-muzzle-brakes/
12. Best Muzzle Brakes for the AK-47 Rifle Platform – Firearms News, accessed July 13, 2025, https://www.firearmsnews.com/editorial/best-ak47-muzzlebrakes/471378
13. i wish the Compensator attachment for the AK looked like the typical slanted AKM muzzle device, just me? : r/modernwarfare – Reddit, accessed July 13, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/modernwarfare/comments/sr53ae/i_wish_the_compensator_attachment_for_the_ak/
14. The Angled AK Muzzle Brake Explained – YouTube, accessed July 13, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/shorts/DliTcpUhGVo
15. AK SLANT MUZZLE BRAKE – Centerfire Systems, accessed July 13, 2025, https://centerfiresystems.com/ak-slant-muzzle-brake/
16. AK47 muzzle brake slant – YouTube, accessed July 13, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ksDNWb4qSkY
17. Why is the slant muzzle brake so common among AK variants and rarely if at all used with other firearms? – Quora, accessed July 13, 2025, https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-slant-muzzle-brake-so-common-among-AK-variants-and-rarely-if-at-all-used-with-other-firearms
18. AK-Builder Slant Brake, accessed July 13, 2025, https://ak-builder.com/index1.php?dispatch=products.view&product_id=29810
19. TRANSFER OF AUSTRIAN GUN-BARREL FORGING TECHNOLOGY TO THE USSR – CIA, accessed July 13, 2025, https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/05508656
20. 3. Conventional arms transfers during the Soviet period – SIPRI, accessed July 13, 2025, https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/files/books/SIPRI98An/SIPRI98An03.pdf
21. Slant Muzzle Brake M14x1 LH Thread AK-47, AK-74, AKM Steel Matte Black, accessed July 13, 2025, https://www.combathunting.com/AK_47_Accessories_-_AK_47_Parts-AK_Slant_Muzzle_Brake_14x1_LH_Thread_7_62_39mm.html
22. Need help how do i remove the muzzle brake detent pin – Palmetto State Armory, accessed July 13, 2025, https://palmettostatearmory.com/forum/t/need-help-how-do-i-remove-the-muzzle-brake-detent-pin/35699
23. AK-47 muzzle question : r/guns – Reddit, accessed July 13, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/129mcm1/ak47_muzzle_question/
24. Take Some Recoil Out Of Your AK With a Muzzle Brake! – YouTube, accessed July 13, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoH0jjrdqtw
25. AK47 Muzzle Barrel’s Front End Where The Bullet Exits – GunCreed, accessed July 13, 2025, https://guncreed.com/2024/10/01/ak47-muzzle-barrels-front-end-where-the-bullet-exits/
26. Different Point of Impact with Different Brakes – The Original CZ Forum, accessed July 13, 2025, https://czfirearms.us/index.php?topic=65272.0
27. The AK-74: From Soviet Small Arm To Resistance Symbol | An Official Journal Of The NRA, accessed July 13, 2025, https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/the-ak-74-from-soviet-small-arm-to-resistance-symbol/
28. Эволюция автомата Калашникова: АК, АКМ, АК74, АК, АК12, АК47, accessed July 13, 2025, https://kalashnikov.media/gunsmith/
29. Anyone have experience with AR-15/AK-47/AK-74 compensators? I’ve got a question for you. : r/guns – Reddit, accessed July 13, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/e686t/anyone_have_experience_with_ar15ak47ak74/
30. A Soviet Look at Cold War Small Arms Development – Forgotten Weapons, accessed July 13, 2025, https://www.forgottenweapons.com/a-soviet-look-at-cold-war-small-arms-development/
31. SMITH ENTERPRISE SPRINGFIELD M14 MUZZLE BRAKE 30 …, accessed July 13, 2025, https://www.brownells.com/gun-parts/rifle-parts/rifle-muzzle-devices/springfield-m14-muzzle-brake-30-caliber/
32. FN FAL – Wikipedia, accessed July 13, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_FAL
33. HK G3/91 Flash Hiders / Muzzle Brakes | HKPARTS, accessed July 13, 2025, https://hkparts.net/rifle-smg-parts/hk-g3-91-series/hk-g3-91-flash-hiders-muzzle-brakes/
34. Jmac Customs RRD-4 AK-47 Muzzle Brake Review – YouTube, accessed July 13, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QedItZPMj8k
35. Testing various AK 47 Muzzle Devices on a NEDI Chinese Type 56 (Navratil N3 brake), accessed July 13, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O80wrt7XAt4
36. Flash Hider vs Muzzle Brake | Guntology Guides, accessed July 13, 2025, https://guntology.com/firearms/flash-hiders-muzzle-brakes/