Tag Archives: Zastava

History of Zastava Arms – A Summary of 170 Years

Zastava Arms, or Zastava oružje (Застава оружје) as it is known in its native Serbia, stands as a monumental testament to the nation’s industrial and military history. With origins stretching back to the mid-19th century, this Kragujevac-based manufacturer has not only equipped generations of soldiers but has also been a significant contributor to Serbia’s (and formerly Yugoslavia’s) defense industry and a notable exporter on the global stage.1 Its story is one of resilience, adaptation, and an enduring role in the complex tapestry of Balkan and European history.

A Tale of Two Zastavas: Arms and Automobiles

It is crucial at the outset to distinguish Zastava Arms from its erstwhile sibling, Zastava Automobiles (Zastava Automobili / Застава Аутомобили). While both giants of Serbian industry sprang from the same foundational industrial complex in Kragujevac (Крагујевац), their paths diverged. Zastava Arms remained true to its martial origins, focusing on ordnance and firearms, whereas Zastava Automobiles carved its niche in vehicle manufacturing.1 The original cannon-casting plant, established in 1853, is the direct progenitor of the Zastava Arms we know today.1 Although an automobile section was inaugurated within the broader Zastava enterprise in 1904, and the entire complex was later known as Zavodi Crvena Zastava (Заводи Црвена Застава, Red Flag Factories) after World War II, a pivotal decision in 1953 saw a significant portion of the Zastava plant dedicate itself exclusively to automobile production. This bifurcation led to the emergence of Zastava Automobiles and Zastava Arms as distinct, specialized entities.1 This report will navigate the rich history of Zastava Arms.

The parallel development and eventual separation of Zastava’s arms and automotive divisions reflect a broader pattern in state-led industrialization efforts, particularly in nations striving for self-sufficiency. Military requirements often served as the initial catalyst for heavy industry, with civilian applications and diversification emerging as secondary, albeit significant, outcomes. The foundational enterprise was a cannon foundry, driven by the Principality of Serbia’s defense needs.1 Early automotive activities also had military links, such as assembling Ford and Chevrolet trucks for the Yugoslav Army.8 This trajectory suggests that national security imperatives often paved the way for broader industrial capabilities. The eventual split signifies that both sectors achieved a scale and specialization warranting independent operation, but their shared genesis underscores a strategic, state-influenced approach to building national industrial capacity.

The remarkable longevity of Zastava Arms, enduring through multiple state formations, devastating wars, international sanctions, and profound political transformations, highlights not only its intrinsic resilience but also its perceived indispensability to the Serbian state throughout its various iterations. The company’s existence spans the Principality of Serbia, the Kingdom of Serbia, the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY), the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro, and the modern Republic of Serbia.4 It has weathered the storms of World War I, World War II (during which it sustained heavy damage), the turbulent dissolution of Yugoslavia, crippling UN sanctions, and direct NATO bombardment.4 Such persistence through extreme adversity implies a consistent level of state support, a deep-rooted institutional adaptability, and a continuous demand for its products, underscoring its strategic importance.

Table 1: Key Milestones in Zastava Arms History

YearMilestone
1851Decision rendered to relocate the Gun Foundry from Belgrade to Kragujevac (Крагујевац).3
1853 (Oct 27)First cannon barrels cast in Kragujevac; official founding of Zastava Arms, initially as the Topolivnica (Тополивница, Cannon Foundry).1 The broader institution was also known as the Vojno-Tehnički Zavod (Војно-технички завод, Military Technical Institute).8
1880Major Kosta Milovanović designs the Mauzer Milovanović M.1880 repeating rifle, popularly known as the Kokinka (Кокинка).10
1889The Gun Foundry wins several medals at the Large World Fair in Paris.3
c. 1924-1928Ministry of the Interior signs contracts with FN Herstal (Belgium) for licensed production of M24 series Mauser bolt-action rifles; new factory for rifle and ammunition production established.4
Post-WWIIThe factory complex is renamed Zavodi Crvena Zastava (Заводи Црвена Застава, Red Flag Factories).1
1948Production of the M48 bolt-action rifle, based on the Mauser design, commences.3
1953Significant portion of Zastava plant pivots to automobile production, leading to separation of Zastava Arms and Zastava Automobiles. Zastava Arms begins production of the M53 Šarac (Шарац) machine gun.1
1964-1970Development of indigenous Kalashnikov-pattern assault rifle begins, culminating in adoption of Zastava M70 by Yugoslav People’s Army (JNA) in 1970.4
1990sUnited Nations imposes economic sanctions on FR Yugoslavia due to Yugoslav Wars, impacting production and exports.4
1999Zastava factory complex in Kragujevac sustains damage during NATO bombing.5
2005Significant restructuring commences; Memorandum of Understanding signed with Remington Arms (USA) for export.4
2019Zastava Arms USA established as exclusive importer for US market.4

Forging an Arsenal: From Topolivnica to the Great War (1851 – 1918)

The Birth of Serbian Arms Industry in Kragujevac

The genesis of Zastava Arms lies in a strategic decision made in 1851 by the Principality of Serbia to relocate its Gun Foundry from Belgrade to the more centrally located city of Kragujevac.3 This move was a clear statement of intent: to establish an indigenous capability for arms production, thereby reducing reliance on foreign powers. On October 27, 1853, this ambition materialized with the casting of the first cannon barrels at the new facility.1 This date is not merely a historical footnote; it is celebrated as the official founding day of Zastava Arms and marks the dawn of Serbia’s domestic arms industry. The initial output consisted of four four-pound cannons and two short howitzers.4

The foundry was initially known as the Topolivnica (Тополивница, Cannon Foundry).1 The critical task of organizing these early operations and training the first generation of Serbian arms craftsmen fell to a French engineer, Charles Loubry (referred to as Lubry in some Serbian sources), who oversaw the casting of a battery of six-pounder cannons. After Loubry’s departure in 1854, Milutin Jovanović assumed leadership, progressing to the production of twelve-pounder cannons.14

The Kragujevac Cannon Foundry in its working days, originally built in 1856. The drawing is from Wikimedia – the exact date and author are unknown. It was contributed to Wikimedia by SimonKTemplar

The establishment and early development of Zastava Arms were direct consequences of Serbia’s pressing need for military self-reliance in a volatile geopolitical neighborhood. This drive for sovereignty in defense procurement shaped its initial trajectory and institutional character, with the choice of Kragujevac being a deliberate strategic move for a national arsenal. The official narrative emphasizes the goal of achieving Serbia’s “own production of arms and equipment” 3, breaking dependence on foreign suppliers. The era was marked by frequent regional conflicts and the overarching influence of larger European powers, making an independent arms source vital for the Principality, and later Kingdom, of Serbia.

Institutional Framework and Early Technological Prowess

The Topolivnica was intrinsically linked to, and indeed formed the core of, the Vojno-Tehnički Zavod (Војно-технички завод, Military Technical Institute or VTZ) in Kragujevac.8 The VTZ itself was established by a decision of the Serbian government in 1850, with construction spanning from 1851 to 1853.14

The Kragujevac facility rapidly became a beacon of technological advancement in 19th-century Serbia. It housed the nation’s first steam engines, witnessed the first electric light (the first electric bulb in Serbia was illuminated in the Čaurnica / Чаурница, Cartridge Casing Plant, a building within the VTZ complex, in 1884), established the first formal technical school for industrial training, and implemented the first recognized quality control systems.3 This commitment to quality and innovation garnered early international acclaim when the Gun Foundry was awarded several medals at the prestigious Large World Fair in Paris in 1889.3 Between 1856 and 1860, the facilities underwent significant upgrades, enabling the plant to produce weapons with full parts interchangeability, a hallmark of modern manufacturing.4 The Vojno-Tehnički Zavod was more than just an arms factory; it served as a significant catalyst for broader industrial and technological modernization within Serbia. The documented introduction of Serbia’s “first steam engines, first electric light, first technical school, first quality system” at the VTZ 3 highlights its role as an industrial vanguard. The lighting of the first electric bulb in Serbia within the VTZ complex 14 is a symbolic marker of this pioneering status. This indicates that the investment in defense production had spill-over effects, driving technological diffusion and contributing to the overall modernization of the Serbian economy and society.

Pioneering Firearms: From Cannons to the Kokinka Rifle

While cannons were the initial focus, the evolving nature of warfare demanded modern infantry firearms. By 1878, the Serbian military recognized that its existing “Piboduša“ Model 1870 Peabody rifles, with their large 14.9mm caliber, were becoming obsolete, prompting a concerted effort to modernize its armaments.4

Following a research project and competitive tender in 1879, a new rifle design emerged. In 1880, Serbian Major Kosta “Koka” Milovanović, a key figure in Serbian ordnance, developed an updated version of the Mauser Model 1871 bolt-action rifle. This rifle, chambered in a unique 10.15x63mmR Serbian caliber and featuring Milovanović’s innovative “progressive rifling” (where the grooves reduced in diameter from breech to muzzle), became Serbia’s first domestically designed repeating rifle.4

Known officially as the Mauzer Milovanović M.1880, it earned popular monikers such as the “Mauser-Koka” or, more affectionately, the „Kokinka“ (Кокинка).4 While initially manufactured in Germany by Mauser (as the Mauser-Milovanović M1878/80), Zastava Arms is also listed as a manufacturer, suggesting later production or assembly in Kragujevac.15 Approximately 110,000 of these rifles entered the Serbian arsenal and saw their first major combat use in the Serbo-Bulgarian War of 1885.15 The Old Foundry Museum (Muzej Stara Livnica / Музеј Стара Ливница) in Kragujevac prominently features this historic rifle.24 Zastava’s early operational model, characterized by the assimilation of advanced foreign technology (French engineering expertise for cannons, German Mauser rifle designs) coupled with indigenous innovation (Milovanović’s progressive rifling), established a foundational pattern of pragmatic technological development. The engagement of French engineer Charles Loubry for cannon production and training 14 demonstrates an openness to leveraging external expertise. The Mauser-Koka, while based on a German design, incorporated unique Serbian modifications 10, showcasing adaptive innovation. This blend of acquiring proven foreign technologies and adapting them to specific national requirements, while simultaneously nurturing local talent, proved to be a highly effective strategy for a smaller nation seeking to build a credible defense industry.

Arming the Nation: The Balkan Wars and World War I

The Mauser-Koka rifles, including variants converted around 1907 in Kragujevac to fire the 7x57mm Mauser cartridge from a 5-shot magazine (these conversions often referred to as Đurić Mausers / Ђурић-Маузер), were the mainstay of the Serbian infantry during the Balkan Wars (1912-1913) and World War I (1914-1918).15

The Vojno-Tehnički Zavod in Kragujevac served as the primary arsenal, responsible for producing and maintaining weapons for the Serbian army throughout these critical conflicts.3 On the eve of the Great War, Kragujevac, with a population of nearly 17,000, was home to seven industrial enterprises, with the VTZ being by far the most significant.26

During World War I, Serbia faced severe ammunition shortages, a common problem for many belligerents. The crisis was overcome through a combination of factors: crucial aid from Entente allies (primarily France and Russia), ammunition “borrowed” from then-neutral Greece, and, critically, the maximized efforts of domestic production at the Kragujevac works, where ingenuity and intense labor were applied to produce as many shells as possible.28 The Serbian army even had a permanent delegation at the Schneider factory in Creusot, France, to oversee ordnance matters.28 The co-location of a technical school with the foundry 3 points to a far-sighted strategy for developing the human capital necessary to sustain and advance this critical industry.

Interwar Growth and Technological Assimilation (1919 – 1939)

Post-WWI Rejuvenation and Expansion

Following the devastation of World War I and the creation of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (later Yugoslavia), the Vojno-Tehnički Zavod (VTZ) in Kragujevac embarked on a period of significant reconstruction and modernization. The museum guide’s reference to “VTZ između dva rata | Obnova” (VTZ between the two wars | Restoration) underscores this phase of rebuilding and renewed development.3

The factory underwent substantial expansion. By the late 1930s, on the eve of World War II, it had transformed into a veritable “industrial giant,” employing a workforce of nearly twelve thousand individuals and operating approximately ten thousand machines.3 This scale made it one of the largest and most important industrial enterprises in the Balkans. The massive expansion of Zastava’s workforce and machinery during this period cemented its role as a cornerstone of the regional economy in Kragujevac and a significant contributor to national employment and industrial output. Such a large workforce indicates that the factory was a primary economic engine for Kragujevac and the surrounding Šumadija (Шумадија) region. The demand for skilled and semi-skilled labor would have spurred vocational training and created a substantial industrial working class, extending its impact far beyond purely military considerations.

Strategic Alliances: FN Herstal and the Yugoslav Mauser M24

A pivotal development in the interwar period was the establishment of a close partnership with the renowned Belgian arms manufacturer, Fabrique Nationale d’Herstal (FN Herstal). Between 1924 and 1925, the Ministry of the Interior of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia concluded significant contracts with FN Herstal.4

These agreements facilitated the licensed production of the M24 series bolt-action rifles, a Yugoslav variant of the Mauser 98 system, chambered in the standard 7.92x57mm Mauser caliber.4 Yugoslavia became a major adopter and producer of this Mauser pattern, which was a proven and respected military design.11

Yugoslavian M1924 Mauser. Photo obtained from Wikimedia. Author is The Swedish Army Museum.

To accommodate this large-scale production, a new, modern factory dedicated to the manufacture of rifles and infantry ammunition was constructed in Kragujevac. Ammunition production commenced on March 22, 1928, followed by rifle production on October 15, 1928—a date chosen to coincide with the 75th anniversary of the first cannon casting at Kragujevac, symbolizing continuity and progress.4

The M24 rifle became a standard infantry weapon. Notable variants included the Sokolski karabin M.1924 (Соколски карабин М.1924, Sokol carbine M.1924), a slightly shorter version designed for youth paramilitary training and target practice, and the Jurišna puška M.1924 ČK (Јуришна пушка М.1924 ЧК, Assault rifle M.1924 ČK), designed for specialized assault units, featuring a bent bolt handle and additional sling swivels.16 Bayonets produced for these rifles at the Kragujevac arsenal were typically marked “BT3” (VTZ Cyrillic).30

The interwar era was transformative for Zastava, marking its maturation into a large-scale industrial enterprise capable of mass-producing modern weaponry. This was achieved through a deliberate strategy of acquiring proven foreign technologies via licensing agreements. The contracts with FN Herstal for the M24 Mauser rifle were not merely for a design blueprint but involved establishing comprehensive production lines for both rifles and ammunition.4 This implies a significant transfer of manufacturing technology and quality control processes from a leading European arms maker, allowing for rapid modernization of the Yugoslav military’s arsenal.

Diversification through Czechoslovakian Licenses

Beyond the Belgian collaboration, Zastava also looked to other advanced European arms industries for technology. In 1930, the factory secured a license from Czechoslovakia to produce 26 mm M 1929 signal pistols.4

Furthering this relationship, in July 1936, Zastava obtained a license from the prominent Czechoslovakian arms manufacturer Zbrojovka Brno (Збројовка Брно) to manufacture their highly regarded ZB vz. 26 light machine gun. This weapon, chambered in 7.92x57mm Mauser, was designated the M 1937 in Yugoslav service.4 Approximately 5,000 of these light machine guns were produced by Zastava.11 This strategy of “technology assimilation” allowed the Kingdom of Yugoslavia to equip its forces with reliable, contemporary weapons relatively quickly, enhancing its defense posture in an increasingly unstable Europe.

Nascent Automotive Activities

While this report focuses on Zastava Arms, it is pertinent to note that the broader Zastava industrial complex in Kragujevac also began to engage in automotive assembly during this period, primarily for military needs. In 1930, Ford trucks were assembled for the Yugoslav Army, and in 1939, assembly of Chevrolet military trucks commenced.8 These early forays into vehicle production laid the groundwork for what would eventually become the separate entity of Zastava Automobili.

Under Fire: Zastava Arms in World War II (1939 – 1945)

Cessation of Operations under Occupation

The outbreak of World War II and the subsequent Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941 brought a sudden and brutal halt to the burgeoning operations at the Vojno-Tehnički Zavod in Kragujevac. Production ceased as the country was overrun and occupied.8

The city of Kragujevac, home to this vital arsenal, suffered grievously under occupation. A particularly horrific event was the Kragujevac Massacre of October 20-21, 1941, where German occupation forces, as a reprisal for partisan attacks, executed thousands of civilian men and boys from the city and surrounding areas.31 While the sources do not explicitly state that Zastava workers were singled out, the massacre decimated the local male population from which the factory drew its workforce, casting a dark shadow over the city and the plant.

Wartime Damage and Destruction

Throughout the war, Zastava Arms (then VTZ) sustained heavy damage.3 As a key military-industrial asset, it would have been a strategic target for various warring factions.

Liberation and Swift Resumption of Production

The city of Kragujevac was liberated from Axis occupation on October 21, 1944, by Yugoslav Partisan forces.4 Demonstrating its critical importance to the newly emerging Yugoslav authorities, the Zastava weapons factory was rapidly repaired and brought back into working order within a matter of months following liberation.4

Production recommenced almost immediately. The first firearm to be developed and produced in this new post-liberation phase was the 9mm M 1944 B2 submachine gun, a design initiated in the very same year as the liberation, 1944.4 This quick turnaround underscores the urgency of re-establishing arms production.

The alacrity with which the Zastava factory was repaired and production restarted post-liberation, even amidst the widespread chaos and devastation of war’s end, underscores its paramount strategic value to the nascent communist-led Yugoslav state. This urgency was likely driven by the immediate need to arm the victorious Partisan forces, consolidate control, and lay the foundations for national defense in a volatile post-war European landscape. The phrases “repaired to working order within months” and “production began shortly after” 4 signify a high-priority effort. The immediate development of the M 1944 B2 submachine gun 4 points to a clear focus on equipping forces for ongoing or anticipated needs. This mirrors the factory’s original founding principle: the imperative of indigenous arms production for national security.

The wartime experience of occupation, the brutal Kragujevac Massacre, and the extensive damage to the factory likely had a profound psychological and strategic impact, further solidifying Yugoslavia’s post-war commitment to military self-reliance. The trauma of events like the Kragujevac Massacre 31 and the vulnerability exposed by “heavy damage” 4 would have served as powerful motivators to ensure future defense capabilities were domestically controlled. This may have influenced design philosophies towards weapons that were robust, reliable, and suitable for mass production, as seen in some later Zastava products like the M70 rifle, known for its ruggedness.21

The Red Star Rises: Zavodi Crvena Zastava in SFR Yugoslavia (1945 – 1991)

A New Name for a New Era: Zavodi Crvena Zastava

Following World War II and the establishment of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) under Marshal Tito, the Zastava industrial complex in Kragujevac was nationalized and renamed Zavodi Crvena Zastava (Заводи Црвена Застава), meaning “Red Flag Factories”.1 This symbolic renaming, utilizing a potent communist emblem, reflected the new socialist political order and the factory’s integration into the state-controlled economy, emphasizing its role in serving the collective and the Jugoslovenska Narodna Armija (JHA / Југословенска народна армија, ЈНА, Yugoslav People’s Army).4

Iconic Firearms Production

The post-war era saw Zastava produce some of its most iconic and widely recognized firearms, becoming a cornerstone of Yugoslav defense and a significant exporter.

  • M48 Rifle: Building on its Mauser expertise, Zastava began production of the 7.92x57mm Mauser Model 1948 rifle.3 This rifle, based on the earlier M24 and the German Kar98k, became the standard service rifle of the JNA from the early 1950s until it was gradually replaced by the M59/66 semi-automatic rifle.38 Several variants were produced, including the M48 (all machined parts), M48A (incorporating some stamped parts like the magazine floor plate to speed production and lower cost), M48B (additional stamped parts, intended for export), and M48BO (bez oznake / без ознаке, unmarked, for export).11
  • M53 Šarac (Шарац) Machine Gun: In 1954, Zastava commenced production of the 7.9mm M53 Šarac machine gun.4 This weapon was a near-identical copy of the formidable German MG42 general-purpose machine gun from World War II. Yugoslavia utilized captured German machinery and technical data to produce the M53, retaining the original 7.92x57mm Mauser caliber, which remained in widespread Yugoslav service alongside Soviet calibers.12 A key modification was a reduction in the cyclic rate of fire to around 950 rounds per minute, compared to the MG42’s 1,200 RPM, making the M53 more controllable.12 Captured MG42s refurbished to this standard were designated M53/42.39
  • PAP M59 Semi-Automatic Rifle: As infantry doctrine evolved, Zastava began batch production of the 7.62x39mm Poluautomatska puška M59 (Полуаутоматска пушка M59, Semi-automatic rifle M59), commonly known as the PAP M59, in 1964.4 This rifle was a Yugoslav-produced version of the Soviet SKS carbine. A notable variant, the M59/66, incorporated an integral 22mm NATO-standard grenade launcher and a flip-up grenade sight.11
  • M70 Assault Rifle Family: Perhaps Zastava’s most famous product line, the M70 assault rifle family, emerged from Yugoslavia’s independent military development path. Development of an automatic rifle based on the Kalashnikov (AK-47) system began in 1964, initially designated the M67 in 1967.4 The Zastava M70, an unlicensed derivative of the Soviet AK-47 (specifically the Type 3 milled receiver variant), was subsequently developed in the 7.62x39mm caliber.4 Due to political differences between Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, particularly Yugoslavia’s refusal to join the Warsaw Pact, Zastava was unable to obtain official technical specifications and instead reverse-engineered the AK design.17
    The JNA officially adopted the M70 assault rifle into its arsenal in 1970.4 The Yugoslav M70 incorporated several unique features distinguishing it from Soviet AKs, including a grenade launching sight bracket mounted on the gas block (which also functioned as a gas cut-off when raised for grenade launching), a thicker receiver (initially milled, later stamped), and often, teak wood furniture.17 Later versions, such as the M70B1 and M70AB2 (folding stock), featured stamped receivers, with some incorporating heavier RPK-style bulged trunnions for increased durability, especially for grenade launching.17 Zastava also produced derivatives of the M70 chambered in Western bloc ammunition, such as the M77 in 7.62x51mm NATO and models in 5.56x45mm NATO, for export.4
  • Other Military Arms: The factory’s output during this period also included the M56 submachine gun, which bore a close resemblance to the German MP40 and was chambered in 7.62x25mm Tokarev 4; the M49 submachine gun, a design that synthesized elements of the Soviet PPSh-41 and the Italian Beretta Model 38 11; the M57 pistol, a Yugoslav derivative of the Soviet Tokarev TT-33 pistol, also in 7.62x25mm 4; and the M70 pistol (distinct from the rifle), a compact handgun chambered in.32 ACP (7.65mm Browning).4
The M53 Šarac Machine Gun. Image obtained from Wikimedia. The Author is Aleksej fon Grozni.
Afghan Local Police (ALP) candidates practice basic rifle marksmanship at a Coalition Forces site in Arghandab district, Kandahar province, Afghanistan, Oct. 16, 2012. The candidates undergo a three-week course which covers basic marksmanship, patrolling, improvised explosive device recognition and security techniques. The ALP program allows Afghans to provide security for their home villages and districts. Note: These are a variant of the M70 rifle as they do not have the grenade launching sight found on the Yugoslav-era M70B1 rifles. Photo obtained from Wikimedia. The author is Petty Officer 2nd Class Ernesto Hernandez Fonte.

Zastava’s arms production during the SFR Yugoslavia era clearly reflects the country’s unique non-aligned geopolitical stance. The decision to utilize and adapt both Eastern bloc (AK-47, SKS) and Western-influenced (Mauser, MG42 concepts) arms technologies, and even to develop unique hybrids or derivatives, demonstrates a pragmatic approach to defense procurement and industrial development. This strategy allowed Yugoslavia to avoid sole reliance on one superpower bloc, maintaining a degree of military autonomy. The production of the M70 as an unlicensed derivative, born out of political rifts with the USSR 17, particularly underscores Yugoslavia’s independent path. Furthermore, the development of weapon variants in NATO calibers 4 suggests a forward-thinking approach towards export markets or ensuring compatibility beyond Warsaw Pact standards, aligning with its non-aligned status and economic needs.

Development of Hunting and Sporting Arms

Alongside its military production, Zavodi Crvena Zastava significantly developed its line of hunting and sporting firearms. This diversification was likely a strategic move to utilize existing manufacturing capacity more fully, generate vital foreign currency through exports, and cater to a growing civilian market, thereby reducing the factory’s sole dependence on fluctuating military contracts.

Production of air rifles and sporting rifles, often based on the robust M48 Mauser rifle action, began as early as 1953.3 In 1954, Zastava further expanded its civilian offerings to include shotguns and small-bore rifles.3

The LK M70 hunting rifle (Lovački Karabin M70 / Ловачки Карабин М70), typically built on a Mauser 98-pattern action, became a particularly well-known and respected civilian product, offered in a variety of popular hunting calibers.4 Other sporting rifles, such as the M85 (a mini-Mauser action for smaller cartridges), were also developed and found success in domestic and international markets.22 The efficiency of basing many of these civilian arms on existing, proven military actions, like the Mauser, streamlined production and maintained a reputation for reliability. Exports of these hunting and sporting weapons became an increasingly important part of Zastava’s business.3

Technology Transfer

The official Zastava Arms website notes that “Years of experience in the field of development of products, technology and capacities created conditions for the transfer of technology to other countries”.3 While specific examples of Zastava Arms licensing its own designs for production in other countries during the SFRY period are not extensively detailed in the provided materials, the statement implies that such transfers were considered or occurred. The primary mode of technology interaction during this era appears to be Zastava receiving and adapting foreign technologies (e.g., Mauser, SKS, AK-47). However, the experience gained in mass-producing these adapted designs would have built considerable institutional knowledge and capacity, potentially laying the groundwork for later technology exports or licensed production agreements with other nations, particularly within the Non-Aligned Movement or other friendly states.

Weathering the Storm: Dissolution, Sanctions, and Bombing (1991 – 1999)

The Impact of the Yugoslav Wars (1991-1999)

The violent dissolution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, beginning in 1991 and continuing through a series of brutal conflicts until 1999 (and beyond in some aspects), created immense instability that directly and profoundly impacted Zastava’s operations, its traditional markets, and its supply chains.11 As the primary arms manufacturer for the JNA and a supplier to various republican territorial defense forces, Zastava weapons, particularly the ubiquitous M70 assault rifle and its variants, were widely used by all factions involved in the Yugoslav Wars.17 The M53 machine gun also saw widespread use during these conflicts.39 The breakup effectively shattered Zastava’s large, unified domestic market.

UN Sanctions and Their Effect on Operations

In response to the conflicts, the United Nations imposed comprehensive economic sanctions, including an arms embargo, on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), which then consisted of Serbia and Montenegro.4 These sanctions, which were in effect for significant periods during the Yugoslav Wars (notably Resolution 757 in 1992 and subsequent resolutions), severely hampered Zastava’s ability to legally export its products, import necessary raw materials or specialized components, and maintain its international business relationships.4 Production inevitably slowed as a result of these restrictions. The experience of Zastava Automobili, which saw exports halted and parts supply disrupted 8, would have been mirrored, if not amplified, at Zastava Arms due to the direct applicability of the arms embargo.

This period represented an existential threat to Zastava Arms. The combination of losing its primary domestic market (the unified Yugoslav state), severe disruption to supply chains and export capabilities due to international sanctions, and ultimately direct physical destruction from NATO bombing, would have been insurmountable for most industrial enterprises. The fact that Zastava Arms continued to operate, and even managed to develop new products under such dire circumstances, speaks volumes about its deeply embedded strategic importance to the Serbian state and an almost wartime operational footing.

NATO Intervention and Damage to the Kragujevac Facilities (1999)

The Kosovo War, which escalated in 1998-1999, led to direct military intervention by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). From March 24 to June 10, 1999, NATO conducted an extensive aerial bombing campaign against military and strategic targets in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.13

The Zastava factory complex in Kragujevac, being a critical component of Yugoslavia’s defense industry, was specifically targeted and sustained significant damage from NATO airstrikes.4 Reports indicate that the Zastava kovačnica (Застава ковачница, Zastava Forge) was bombed on April 9, 1999.18 The company’s Shotgun Shop was also reportedly destroyed during the bombing and was not subsequently restored.11 The NATO bombing, while aimed at degrading military-industrial capacity, inadvertently created a situation where significant rebuilding and, consequently, opportunities for modernization would become a necessity for Zastava in the post-conflict era.

Continued Product Development (Pre-Bombing/During Early Conflicts)

Despite the immense turmoil of the early and mid-1990s, Zastava Arms managed to continue some level of product development. In 1992, as conflicts were already underway, the factory completed the development and initiated batch production of the 7.62x39mm M92 carbine. This compact weapon was based on the earlier M85 carbine (a 5.56mm AK variant) but chambered in the more common 7.62x39mm round.4

Zastava M92 semi automatic rifle on display at “Partner 2011” military fair. Obtained from Wikimedia. Author is Srđan Popović.

Additionally, leveraging its long experience with Mauser bolt-action mechanisms, Zastava developed the M93 Black Arrow (Crna Strela / Црна Стрела) long-range anti-materiel rifle during this period. This heavy rifle, typically chambered in 12.7x108mm or.50 BMG, was designed for engaging targets at extended distances.4 The development of such specialized weapons even under conditions of conflict and sanctions underscores the factory’s retained engineering capabilities and the ongoing demand from military forces.

Zastava M-93 Black Arrow, 12.7 mm. Obtained from Wikimedia. Author is Marko M.

Rebuilding and Rebranding: Zastava Arms in the 21st Century (2000 – Present)

Restructuring and Modernization Efforts

The dawn of the 21st century found Zastava Arms grappling with the aftermath of wars, sanctions, and bombing. A period of significant restructuring was initiated, formally lasting from 2005 to 2014, aimed at adapting the company to a new political and economic reality.4 The factory, damaged during both World War II and the 1999 NATO air raids, was largely rebuilt with substantial government assistance.19

In a move to integrate it more formally within the national defense framework, Zastava Arms became part of the Defense Industry of Serbia in 2003, a decision by the Ministry of Defense that facilitated state support.7 On March 10, 2005, the Serbian government passed a decision to actively support the company’s restructuring process.7 A significant milestone in its international standing occurred on August 30, 2005, when Zastava Arms was placed on the United Nations list of proven suppliers of arms and military equipment.7

Technologically, the company has sought to modernize its design and production processes. It employs CATIA (Computer-Aided Three-dimensional Interactive Application) software for product design, enabling a more agile response to evolving market demands.3 Furthermore, Zastava Arms applies a Quality Management System (QMS), holding SRPS ISO 9001:2008 and SNO 9000/05 certificates, to ensure product quality and process improvement.3

Current Military Product Lines

Zastava Arms continues to produce a wide array of military firearms. According to its 2019 military catalog and other company information, its current offerings include 4:

  • Assault Rifles: The M21 series chambered in 5.56x45mm NATO (the standard service rifle of the Serbian Armed Forces), the M05E series in 7.62x39mm (upgraded M70 versions), the classic M70 B3/AB3 in 7.62x39mm, and the M90 in 5.56x45mm.
  • Submachine Guns/Carbines: Compact versions of the M21 and the M92 carbine in 7.62x39mm.
  • Light Machine Guns: The M72 RPK-style LMG in 7.62x39mm.
  • Sniper Rifles: The M91 (7.62x54R Dragunov-style), the M07 (bolt-action, various calibers including 7.62x51mm and.308 Winchester), and the M17 (7.62x51mm).
  • Long Range/Anti-Materiel Rifles: The M12 Black Spear (Crno Koplje / Црно Копље) and the M93 Black Arrow (Crna Strela / Црна Стрела), both available in.50 BMG and 12.7x108mm.
  • Machine Guns: The M84 general-purpose machine gun (PKM derivative in 7.62x54R), the M87 heavy machine gun (NSV derivative in 12.7x108mm), and the M02 Coyote heavy machine gun (12.7x108mm).
  • Automatic Grenade Launcher: The M93 (BGA / БГА – Bacač Granata Automatski) in 30mm.
  • Underbarrel Grenade Launchers: The BGP 40x46mm and BGP 40mm (for M70 pattern rifles).
  • Pistols: The CZ 999, EZ 9, and EZ 9 Compact, available in 9mm Parabellum and.40 S&W.
Zastava М21 rifle of Serbian Gendarmerie. Photo obtained from Wikimedia. The author is Boksi.
Zastava M12 Black Spear on display during Partner 2013 arms fair, Belgrade. Photo obtained from Wikimedia. The authors is Proka89.

Civilian Hunting and Sporting Arms

Zastava maintains a strong presence in the civilian firearms market, particularly with its hunting and sporting rifles known for their Mauser-based actions and Kalashnikov-derived semi-automatics 22:

  • Hunting Rifles (Bolt-Action): The flagship LK M70 series (Lovački Karabin M70), based on the Mauser 98 action, is offered in a wide range of calibers (e.g.,.243 Win,.270 Win,.30-06,.308 Win,.300 Win Mag, 7×64, 8×57 JS, 9.3×62,.375 H&H Mag,.458 Win Mag). Other models include the LK M85 (mini-Mauser action for calibers like.223 Rem, 7.62x39mm), M808, and precision-oriented M07 Match and M12 models.
  • Sporting Rifles (Semi-Automatic): The PAP series (Poluautomatska Puška / Полуаутоматска Пушка, Semi-automatic Rifle), derived from the Kalashnikov action, is highly popular. Key models include the ZPAP M70 in 7.62x39mm and the PAP M77 in.308 Winchester/7.62x51mm. The M2010 is another semi-automatic offering. The ZPAP M70, particularly as imported by Zastava Arms USA, is noted for its robust construction, often featuring a heavier 1.5mm thick RPK-style receiver and a bulged front trunnion.21
  • Small Bore Rifles: Models like the MP22 (.22 LR) and MP17 (.17 HMR).
  • Pistols: A range including Tokarev-pattern pistols like the M57A and M70A (chambered in 7.62x25mm and 9mm Para respectively), the compact M88A (9mm Para), and modern double-action designs like the CZ 999 and EZ9/EZ40 series (9mm Para /.40 S&W).

The product line demonstrates a dual strategy: maintaining and updating Kalashnikov-pattern weapons (M70, M05E, ZPAP series) for markets familiar with their robustness and reliability, while also developing more modern, modular systems (like the M19 Modular Rifle mentioned in some catalogs 54, and the M21) and precision long-range rifles (M07, M12, M93) to compete in different segments and meet evolving military and civilian marksmanship requirements. This diversification is crucial for a global exporter.

Table 2: Overview of Current Zastava Arms Product Categories

CategoryExamples
Military Firearms
Assault RiflesM21 series, M05 series, M70B3, M90, M19
Submachine Guns / CarbinesM92, M21 (short barrel variants)
Sniper & Long Range RiflesM91, M07, M93 Black Arrow, M12 Black Spear, M17
Machine GunsM84 (GPMG), M02 Coyote (HMG), M72 (LMG)
PistolsCZ 999, EZ9 / EZ40 series
Grenade LaunchersM93 (Automatic Grenade Launcher), BGP 40mm (Underbarrel)
Civilian Firearms
Hunting Rifles (Bolt-Action)LK M70 series, LK M85 series, M808, M07 Match
Sporting Rifles (Semi-Automatic)ZPAP M70, PAP M77, M2010
Small Bore RiflesMP22, MP17
PistolsM57A, M88A, CZ 999, EZ9 / EZ40 series, M70 (small caliber)

Business Partnerships and Export

Export remains the lifeblood of Zastava Arms, with the company stating that 95% of its product placement is through international sales.7 It exports hunting and sporting weapons to over thirty countries 3 and military products to over forty countries worldwide.4

  • Zastava Arms USA: A pivotal development was the establishment in January 2019 of Zastava Arms USA, based in Des Plaines, Illinois. This subsidiary serves as the exclusive importer and distributor of Zastava Arms products for the lucrative US market, also handling warranty, repair services, and parts.4 This move was partly aimed at exercising greater control over product quality and presentation in the US, addressing issues that had arisen with previous third-party importers who sometimes made modifications that caused reliability concerns.56 The establishment of Zastava Arms USA represents a critical strategic pivot, allowing direct management of its brand and quality in its most significant export market.
  • Yugoimport SDPR: Domestically, Yugoimport SDPR (Југоимпорт СДПР), the Serbian state-owned defense equipment company, is a key partner for Zastava Arms, often facilitating international defense contracts and joint participation in global defense exhibitions like IDEX in the UAE.7
  • International Golden Group (UAE): Zastava Arms lists International Golden Group, based in the United Arab Emirates, as an important international partner, indicative of its reach in the Middle Eastern market.7
  • Past Partnership with Remington Arms: In 2005, a memorandum of understanding was signed with the American company Remington Arms to export Zastava-made hunting and sporting firearms (often Mauser-action rifles) to the United States, Canada, and Mexico.4 However, this cooperation was later discontinued, reportedly at Remington’s initiative due to its own financial difficulties. Zastava then sought new US mediators, such as EA Armory, to maintain its presence in the US market prior to forming Zastava Arms USA.58
  • Key Export Markets and Contracts: Asia, Africa, and the United States are consistently cited as major destinations for Zastava’s products.4 Historically, Zastava rifles like the M48 were exported to countries including Burma, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Syria, Algeria, and Chad.11 More recent specific export deals mentioned in news reports include contracts with Armenia 59 and a large announced contract for hunting and sporting arms to the US valued at $235 million (reported in 2021).60 In a notable instance of military aid, Canada supplied 35,000 Zastava M70 assault rifles to Ukraine in 2022 as part of support efforts during the Russo-Ukrainian War.62

Recent Developments, Financial Status, Achievements, and Challenges

Zastava Arms navigates a complex environment characterized by its strategic importance, historical legacy, financial pressures, and the demands of a competitive global market.

  • Financial Situation and Government Support: The company has faced persistent financial challenges. As far back as 2013, it was reported to owe over 80 million euros in unpaid taxes, the largest debt among Serbian defense industry companies.4 By June 2019, its total debt was estimated at around 145 million euros.4 A 2014 article in Privredni pregled (Привредни преглед, Economic Review) noted that Zastava Oružje was operating with significant losses.63 More recently, the Serbian news outlet Nova Ekonomija (Нова Економија, New Economy) reported in November 2023 that the factory had accumulated losses exceeding seven billion dinars (approximately 60 million euros) over the preceding six years under a controversial supervisory board.64
    Despite these financial burdens, the Serbian government continues to provide support, recognizing Zastava’s strategic role. An investment of 9.7 million euros was made in 2017 for factory modernization to meet defense industry needs.4 The Serbian state remains a major shareholder (the Wikipedia entry from May 2025 lists the Government of Serbia as 48% owner 4, although a 2025 company document regarding a shareholders’ meeting mentions a more complex structure involving social capital shares 66).
  • Production and Sales Performance: Notwithstanding its financial difficulties, Zastava Arms has reported periods of strong production and sales. For instance, firearm production reportedly increased by 20% in 2020, with deals concluded that year valued at $95 million, primarily with buyers from Asia, Africa, and the United States.4 The aforementioned $235 million US export contract announced in 2021 also points to significant market activity.60
  • Controversies and Allegations of Mismanagement: Zastava Arms has not been immune to controversy. Reports from Serbian media, including Nova Ekonomija 64, and discussions on international forums referencing articles from the Serbian weekly NIN (Недељне информативне новине, Weekly Informational Newspaper) 67, have detailed serious allegations of mismanagement by past leadership. These allegations include claims of unfavorable export contracts, particularly with Zastava Arms USA, where fixed prices for firearms were reportedly maintained despite sharply rising material and energy costs, to the detriment of the Kragujevac factory.67 There were also accusations of questionable deals with domestic private companies, resulting in further financial losses for Zastava Arms.67
    The Independent Trade Union at Zastava Arms filed criminal charges against the former president of the supervisory board, Ivica Marjanović, citing abuse of official position and responsibility for the factory’s decline.64 Concerns have also been voiced by users and observers about the condition of some of the factory’s machinery being worn out and an underpaid workforce potentially leading to occasional quality control issues in production, although export samples for the US market are often perceived to be of better finish.68 The entire supervisory board was eventually replaced in late 2023.64
  • Achievements and Ongoing Activities: Despite its challenges, Zastava Arms’ enduring legacy of over 170 years in continuous operation is a significant achievement in itself. It maintains a substantial export reach and continues to develop new products, such as the M19 Modular Rifle 54, to meet contemporary demands. The company remains a cornerstone of the Serbian defense industry.4 Zastava Arms actively participates in major international arms fairs, including SHOT Show in Las Vegas, USA, and IWA OutdoorClassics in Nuremberg, Germany, showcasing its products to a global audience.7 Recent company news includes the reopening of its “Old Gun Foundry” museum in Kragujevac in November 2023, emphasizing its rich heritage 69, and its participation in the “Zastava 2024” military capability display of the Serbian Army in June 2024.70

Zastava Arms appears to operate in a precarious yet persistent balance: it is a strategically vital state-supported defense asset with an remarkable historical lineage, yet it is simultaneously burdened by significant accumulated debt and the shadow of past mismanagement allegations. Its future trajectory will likely depend on a confluence of factors: continued and effective state backing, successful and profitable penetration of competitive export markets (especially the US), and sustained improvements in internal governance and operational efficiency.

Conclusion: Zastava Arms – A Legacy Forged in Steel

The history of Zastava Arms is a compelling narrative of industrial ambition, technological adaptation, and national identity, forged over more than 170 years in the heart of Serbia. From its humble beginnings as the Topolivnica in Kragujevac, casting its first cannons for a nascent Principality of Serbia intent on self-reliance, the factory has evolved into a globally recognized arms manufacturer. Its journey mirrors the tumultuous history of the Balkan region and Serbia itself—a saga of nation-building, devastating wars, profound political transformations from monarchy through socialism to a modern republic, economic booms, and periods of acute crisis including sanctions and foreign bombardment.

Throughout these epochs, Zastava Arms has demonstrated remarkable resilience. It armed Serbian and later Yugoslav forces through the Balkan Wars, two World Wars, and the tragic conflicts accompanying the dissolution of Yugoslavia. It assimilated and adapted technologies from both West and East, reflecting Yugoslavia’s unique non-aligned stance during the Cold War, producing iconic firearms like the Mauser-pattern M48, the MG42-derived M53 Šarac, and the Kalashnikov-based M70 family. This ability to absorb, modify, and mass-produce diverse weaponry underscores a deep-seated engineering capability and a pragmatic approach to fulfilling national defense needs.

In the 21st century, Zastava Arms continues to be a pivotal entity in the Serbian defense industry and a significant exporter. The establishment of Zastava Arms USA signifies a strategic commitment to directly engage with its largest and most demanding civilian market, aiming to enhance its brand presence and profitability. However, the company also contends with substantial challenges. A legacy of financial debt and recent allegations of mismanagement have cast shadows, necessitating ongoing restructuring and a reliance on state support. The competitive nature of the global arms market demands continuous innovation, stringent quality control, and agile business practices.

The story of Zastava Arms is, in many ways, a microcosm of Serbia’s own historical trajectory—a narrative defined by a persistent quest for sovereignty and agency on the world stage, often in the face of formidable external pressures and internal complexities. The inherent tension between its role as a strategically vital, state-influenced national asset and the commercial imperatives of the global arms market—including financial sustainability, technological competitiveness, and the ethical considerations of arms exports—will undoubtedly continue to shape Zastava’s path forward. Its enduring legacy, however, is already forged in steel: a symbol of Serbian industrial heritage and a testament to the enduring human endeavor of arms making.

Image Sources

The main photo is from Wikimedia and here’s how the author described it (translated into English from Serbian): “The SM-1 Zastava NTV drone command vehicle of the Serbian Armed Forces exhibited at the “Colonel Pilot Milenko Pavlović” military airport on the occasion of the “Zastava 2024″ display of the capabilities of the Serbian Armed Forces.” Author is Srdjan Popovic.

The Kragujevac Cannon Foundry in its working days, originally built in 1856. The drawing is from Wikimedia – the exact date and author are unknown. It was contributed to Wikimedia by SimonKTemplar

Yugoslavian M1924 Mauser. Photo obtained from Wikimedia. Author is The Swedish Army Museum.

The M53 Šarac Machine Gun. Image obtained from Wikimedia. The Author is Aleksej fon Grozni.

Afghan Local Police (ALP) candidates practice basic rifle marksmanship at a Coalition Forces site in Arghandab district, Kandahar province, Afghanistan, Oct. 16, 2012. The candidates undergo a three-week course which covers basic marksmanship, patrolling, improvised explosive device recognition and security techniques. The ALP program allows Afghans to provide security for their home villages and districts. Note: These are a variant of the M70 rifle as they do not have the grenade launching sight found on the Yugoslav-era M70B1 rifles. Photo obtained from Wikimedia. The author is Petty Officer 2nd Class Ernesto Hernandez Fonte.

Zastava M92 semi automatic rifle on display at “Partner 2011” military fair. Obtained from Wikimedia. Author is Srđan Popović.

Zastava M-93 Black Arrow, 12.7 mm. Obtained from Wikimedia. Author is Marko M.

Zastava М21 rifle of Serbian Gendarmerie. Photo obtained from Wikimedia. The author is Boksi.

Zastava M12 Black Spear on display during Partner 2013 arms fair, Belgrade. Photo obtained from Wikimedia. The authors is Proka89.

Works cited

  1. Zastava Arms – Internet Movie Firearms Database – Guns in Movies, TV and Video Games, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Zastava_Arms
  2. Zastava Arms – Википедия, accessed May 13, 2025, https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zastava_Arms
  3. About us – Zastava oružje ad, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.zastava-arms.rs/en/about-us/
  4. Zastava Arms – Wikipedia, accessed May 13, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zastava_Arms
  5. Zastava Weapons Factory Kragujevac – TracesOfWar.com, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.tracesofwar.com/sights/148989/Zastava-Weapons-Factory-Kragujevac.htm
  6. History – Zastava Arms USA, accessed May 13, 2025, https://zastavaarmsusa.com/history/
  7. Profile – Zastava oružje ad – zastava-arms.rs, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.zastava-arms.rs/en/profile/
  8. Zastava Automobiles – Wikipedia, accessed May 13, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zastava_Automobiles
  9. History of Yugo, accessed May 13, 2025, http://freeweb.deltha.hu/zastava.in.hu/hist.htm
  10. Zastava Arms – Company – RouteYou, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.routeyou.com/en-yu/location/view/51445771
  11. Zastava Arms, accessed May 13, 2025, https://sadefensejournal.com/zastava-arms/
  12. The Yugoslavian M53 Machine Gun: Historical Lookback – Firearms News, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.firearmsnews.com/editorial/yugo-m53-machine-gun/488581
  13. Kosovo War – Wikipedia, accessed May 13, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War
  14. Војно-технички завод у Крагујевцу — Википедија, accessed May 13, 2025, https://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%BE%D1%98%D0%BD%D0%BE-%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%85%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BA%D0%B8_%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B4_%D1%83_%D0%9A%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B3%D1%83%D1%98%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%86%D1%83
  15. Mauser-Koka – Wikipedia, accessed May 13, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauser-Koka
  16. FN Model 24 and Model 30 – Wikipedia, accessed May 13, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_Model_24_and_Model_30
  17. Zastava M70 assault rifle – Wikipedia, accessed May 13, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zastava_M70_assault_rifle
  18. РТК | Застава ковачница – RTK, accessed May 13, 2025, https://rtk.co.rs/tag/%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0-%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0/
  19. Inside Serbia’s Booming Arms Industry – Radio Free Europe, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.rferl.org/a/24998852.html
  20. Zastava Arms USA – AT3 Tactical, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.at3tactical.com/collections/zastava-arms-usa
  21. Zastava ZPAP M70: An Authentic AK For The U.S. Market | An Official Journal Of The NRA, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/zastava-zpap-m70-an-authentic-ak-for-the-u-s-market/
  22. Застава оружје — Википедија, accessed May 13, 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
  23. Zastava oružje — Википедија, accessed May 13, 2025, https://sr.wikipedia.org/sr-el/%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
  24. Old Gun Foundry Museum – European route of industrial heritage – ERIH, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.erih.net/i-want-to-go-there/site/old-gun-foundry-museum
  25. ВОЈСКА КРАЉЕВИНЕ СРБИЈЕ – ПРВИ СВЕТСКИ РАТ, accessed May 13, 2025, https://mikiprogramer.wordpress.com/%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%98%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0-%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%99%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B5-%D1%81%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1%98%D0%B5/
  26. Industrijalizacija Kragujevca: Od topova do automobila – Far, accessed May 13, 2025, https://far.rs/sr/2018/08/30/industrijalizacija-kragujevca-od-topova-automobila/
  27. Muzej Stara livnica, accessed May 13, 2025, http://www.muzej-topolivnica.rs/
  28. The Serbian Army and its Struggle with the Ammunition Crisis of 1914 – Časopis „Istorija 20. veka“, accessed May 13, 2025, https://istorija20veka.rs/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/2024_1_2_sar_19-44.pdf
  29. Yugoslavian Mauser M24/52-C 8mm Mauser (7.92×57) Rifle – Colorado Gun Sales, accessed May 13, 2025, https://cogunsales.com/product/yugoslavian-mauser-m24-52-c-8mm-mauser-7-92×57-rifle/
  30. WW1 WW2 Kingdom Of Yugoslavia M1924 Serbian Yugoslavian VTZ Bayonet With Scabbard – YuAntiques, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.yuantiques.com/ww1-ww2-kingdom-of-yugoslavia-m1924-serbian-yugoslavian-vtz-bayonet-with-scabbard
  31. The Kragujevac Massacre 1941| A Brutal Nazi Suppression at Yugoslavia – The Kootneeti, accessed May 13, 2025, https://thekootneeti.in/2017/10/20/the-kragujevac-massacre-1941-a-brutal-nazi-suppression-at-yugoslavia/
  32. Kragujevac massacre – Wikipedia, accessed May 13, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kragujevac_massacre
  33. How good is Zavasta : r/ak47 – Reddit, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/ak47/comments/1ajvmg1/how_good_is_zavasta/
  34. TFA][AT] Zastava M70 (Cold War Series) – Steam Community, accessed May 13, 2025, https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3239065979
  35. Zastava Guns for Sale | Black Basin Outdoors, accessed May 13, 2025, https://blackbasin.com/zastava/
  36. Zastava M 98/48 – Wikipedia, accessed May 13, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zastava_M_98/48
  37. ZASTAVA M48 rifle – American Liberator, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.americanliberator.cz/en/gun/opakovaci-puska-crvena-zastava-m48
  38. Zastava M48 – Wikipedia, accessed May 13, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zastava_M48
  39. Zastava M53 | Weaponsystems.net, accessed May 13, 2025, https://weaponsystems.net/system/1673-Zastava%20M53
  40. M53 Machine Gun – The Recordist, accessed May 13, 2025, https://therecordist.com/product/m53-machine-gun/
  41. Застава М53 — Википедија, accessed May 13, 2025, https://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0_%D0%9C53
  42. Yugoslavian M70 Assault Rifle. 7.62 cal – Live Firing – History in the Making, accessed May 13, 2025, https://history-making.com/product/yugoslavian-m72-assault-rifle-7-62-cal-heavy-barrel-live-firing-2/
  43. Застава М70 – Википедија, accessed May 13, 2025, https://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0_%D0%9C70
  44. Zastava M70 (автомат) – Википедия, accessed May 13, 2025, https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zastava_M70_(%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82)
  45. Штык-нож к пистолету-пулемёту М56 «Застава». – militaris, accessed May 13, 2025, http://militaris.ru/index.php/katalog/%D1%8E%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%8F/%D1%88%D1%82%D1%8B%D0%BA-%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B6-%D0%BA-%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%83-%D0%BF%D1%83%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%91%D1%82%D1%83-%D0%BC56-%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0-detail
  46. Застава М70А — Википедија, accessed May 13, 2025, https://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0_%D0%9C70%D0%90
  47. Zastava oružje, accessed May 13, 2025, https://oruzje.net/zastava-oruzje
  48. Hunting and sporting firearms, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.armoran.ch/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Zastava_Arms_Zivil.pdf
  49. Sporting Rifle LK M70 – Zastava Arms USA, accessed May 13, 2025, https://zastavaarmsusa.com/product/sporting-rifle-lk-m70/
  50. Хронологија распада СФР Југославије – Српска енциклопедија, accessed May 13, 2025, http://www.srpskaenciklopedija.org/doku.php?id=%D1%85%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8%D1%98%D0%B0_%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B0_%D1%81%D1%84%D1%80_%D1%98%D1%83%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%98%D0%B5
  51. НАТО бомбардовање Југославије – Википедија, accessed May 13, 2025, https://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D%D0%90%D0%A2%D0%9E_%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B1%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%9A%D0%B5_%D0%88%D1%83%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%98%D0%B5
  52. Югославская автоматическая винтовка «Застава» – боевой и гражданский варианты, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.militaryplatform.ru/10307-jugoslavskaja-avtomaticheskaja-vintovka-zastava-boevoj-i-grazhdanskij-varianty.html
  53. military guns catalogue® – zastava-arms.rs, accessed May 13, 2025, https://zastava-arms.rs/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/military_catalogue_2019_w.pdf
  54. Katalozi – Zastava oružje ad, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.zastava-arms.rs/katalozi/
  55. Успешан наступ фабрике „Застава оружје“ на изложби SHOT Show 2025. у Лас Вегасу, accessed May 13, 2025, https://rtk.co.rs/uspesan-nastup-fabrike-zastava-oruzje-na-izlozbi-shot-show-2025-u-las-vegasu/
  56. Review: Zastava ZPAP M70 Rifle | An Official Journal Of The NRA – Shooting Illustrated, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.shootingillustrated.com/content/review-zastava-zpap-m70-rifle/
  57. Отворен међународни сајам НВО “IDEX 2025”, Абу Даби – УАЕ – Yugoimport, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.yugoimport.com/aktuelnosti/dogadjaji/otvoren-17-medjunarodni-sajam-nvo-idex-2025-abu-dabi-uae
  58. “Zastava Arms” and “Remington” discontinued cooperation due to financial crisis – export to US market through new mediator – eKapija, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.ekapija.com/en/news/204951/where-to-invest/infrastructure%2525252525252525252Findex
  59. Government of Serbia approved export of “Zastava” arms to Armenia, arrangement worth 1.75m USD – eKapija, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.ekapija.com/en/news/86107/infrastructure/real-estate%252Finvestments
  60. „Заставино” оружје иде у Америку за 235 милиона долара – Politika, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.politika.rs/scc/clanak/479359/zastavino-oruzje-ide-u-ameriku-za-235-miliona-dolara
  61. „Застава оружје” уговорила извоз у САД вредан 235 милиона долара – Politika, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.politika.rs/scc/clanak/479728/zastava-oruzje-ugovorila-izvoz-u-sad-vredan-235-miliona-dolara
  62. List of military aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War – Wikipedia, accessed May 13, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_aid_to_Ukraine_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War
  63. Stanje i perspektive ekonomsko-finansijskih odnosa Srbije sa inostranstvom, accessed May 13, 2025, https://ndes.ekof.bg.ac.rs/downloadsakta/zbornik2014deo2.pdf
  64. Smenjeni dosadašnji članovi Nadzornog odbora “Zastava oružje” – Nova Ekonomija, accessed May 13, 2025, https://novaekonomija.rs/vesti-iz-zemlje/smenjeni-dosadasnji-clanovi-nadzornog-odbora-zastava-oruzje
  65. Defense industry of Serbia – Wikipedia, accessed May 13, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_industry_of_Serbia
  66. застава оружје ад надзорни одбор број: 28 – дана: 16.04.2025. године крагујевац – zastava-arms.rs, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.zastava-arms.rs/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Odluka-o-sazivanju-vanredne-sednice-Skupstine-12.05.2025.pdf
  67. Zastava USA: Its not about rifle, it is about factory | AfricaHunting.com, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.africahunting.com/threads/zastava-usa-its-not-about-rifle-it-is-about-factory.79578/
  68. Zastava LK M70 worth the money? | AfricaHunting.com, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.africahunting.com/threads/zastava-lk-m70-worth-the-money.81209/
  69. News – Zastava oružje ad – zastava-arms.rs, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.zastava-arms.rs/en/news/
  70. Вести – Zastava oružje ad, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.zastava-arms.rs/sr/%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8/
  71. Музеј “Стара ливница” – ГТО Крагујевац, accessed May 13, 2025, https://gtokg.org.rs/muzej-stara-livnica/

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.

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

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


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


The Century Zastava PAP M77 in .308 – With Battleworn Furniture

Years ago, I had a Zastava M77 and regretfully sold it back in 2014. It was one of those situations where I had to sell it to fund other projects but I didn’t even get a chance to shoot it. I also had a custom M76 (the 8mm version) for a while but I did sell that one – mainly because it was a primer popper. That is a known issue because the firing pin hole opened up out of spec due to corrosive ammo use and didn’t adequately support the primer as a result but I digress.

I had resisted buying another one until Zastava decided to release what they called the “Battleworn” model (ZR77308W) and I caved. On one hand, it comes with some really nice retro looking Europen beech wood furniture. What really got me was that it was way cheaper than their other models that had optics and/or polymer furniture at that time.

Why the M77?

So, I had wanted to get back into the Zastava designated marksman’s rifle (DMR) game for a while and was just biding my time. The reason I wanted the M77 was due to all of the quality match 7.62×51 and match .308 match ammo that is out there. In comparison, try finding affordable true match grade 8mm ammo for the M76 or match 7.62x54r for the M91. You can find it once in a while but it’s not cheap and choices are limited here in the US. On the other hand, match 7.62×51 and .308 plentiful and affordable.

So, the main reasons were the ammo and the second was the M77 Battleworn model being very affordable in the Late Summer of 2023. As I am writing this, a quick search on GunBroker shows the Battleworn model selling fro $1369 with one 20-rd magazine up to $1,499 with five 20 round mags plus the various models are a lot closer in price. I paid less last summer but you get the idea. (In 2014 I bought a M77 with a thumbhole polymer stock and polymer handguard set for $600 or 700 from Centerfire Systems but that’s the way pricing goes – any vendor will raise prices to what they think the market will bear to try and maximize profits.)

Taking a Closer Look

It’s well packed in an egg foam box. Note the CSSpecs 25 round magazine on the box cover.
Honestly, the wood is really nice. It’s very reminiscent pf the M76 wood with a few minor exceptions – the grip does not have a ferrule, the recoil pad uses allen head screws and the stock bolt is one of their modern commerical shorter ones vs. the long Yugo military 8x1x260mm (about 10.23″ long).
Like many aspects of the original designs, the Yugoslavs modfield their scope rails and how they mount The result is more to the rear and is often refered to as “rear-biased” so they need a scope mount vs. an AKM pattern rail.
Honestly, the wood is cool. It has almost rough hewn look but better finished if that makes sense. The grip reminds me of one that Matt Shuster of Ironwood Designs came up with many years ago before he passed. I think he called it the “mini fat cap” – if someone remembers, please tell me. He made the M76 Fat cap patterned after the original wierd awkward really fat but oddly short M76 grip but without a ferrule. Then he came up with a far more elegant smaller one and this Zastava design reminds me of it. Folks, Matt helped me get started years ago and was a genius with wood. God rest his soul and take care of his family.
It has the mile long 19.7″ cold hammer forged barrel. The silver disc on the gas tube is the three position gas regulator. It has a slant brake on it and 14x1mm left hand threads under it just like any other AK. A M76’s long flash hider is actually part of the front sight assembly but that is not the case with the M77 – you can install whatever you want. Also, note the cleaning rod.
Here’s a view of the rifle looking at the operating side. The chromed bolt jumps right out in contrast.
The M77 uses a bulged trunnion and the oversized AK receiver needs to accomadte it. These bigger 1.5mm thick receivers are beefy. They both hold the various component assemblies in position and the thicker receiver means more steel to compensate for any metalurgical or hardening shortcomings.
Zooming in on just the receiver. Note the notched selector/safety lever and the relatively tall selector stop. In the top right you can see the other side of the operating rod lock.

Opening it up

The locking dust cover was introduced in the M70 Yugo rifles because their doctrine made extensive use of rifle grenades. They didn’t want the cover top pop off so they added a sliding lock that holds the rear recoild spring assembly in place and, thus, the top cover in place. By the way, one of the really nice side benefits is that when you reassemble a rifle with one of these locks, you put the recol spring in front, install the dust cover without fighting the spring, push the button and the recoil rod pops out the back.
Looking at the locking assembl, the plunger button the operator pushes is at the bottom of the photo. The slightly elevated portion under the top lip of the trunnion (top in this photo – right side in real life looking down – is what slides out of the way wehn pressed so the recoil spring assembly can come forward for removal. What you don’t see is the hidden compression spring. If you ever need these parts, CNC Warrior make and sells both the whole assembly.
Looking down at the classic double hook AK trigger and double wound spring. I’ve had guys ask me why did they double these? The answer is fault tolerance. The second hook is there if the first should fail and the second spring winding is there should one of the two fail. In all of my years working on civilian AKs, I’ve never seen a hook fail but I have seen springs fail although very, very rare and usually from a surplus kit build.
Look at those hooks! They are forged and not stamped. The bevels in the front and the back help the bolt carrier pass by.
Here’s a better view of the three position gas regulator disc. Note the vent holes in the gas block itself.
One oversized bolt assembly. Despite what some may tell you, the PSLs and these M76/M77/M91 families of rifles are oversized AKs. The SVD Dragunovs use very different bolt carrier assemblies.
Longer than a normal AK gas pistol and chrome plated to improve corrosion resistance.
View from the side. Some of the machining is crude but effective in places.
Bolt extended in the carrier.
I chuckled when I saw this. There are two numbering systems on some of the parts – crisp machined ones and ones done by hand with an electropencil like you would see on some kits.
You an see the numbers of the key parts and they should all match.
Interesting – more holes to vent propellant gasses.
A better view of the upper and lower handguard assembly,
A view of the grip.
The buttstock has the distinctive grip area like you would see on the M76 military stocks. I have never had the purpose of that grip area explained to me.
It uses a classic Yugo military sized recoil pad. What’s noteworthy is that they have ditched the old slotted screws for allen/head-head screws.

Summary

This gives you an overview of the M77 battleworn model right out of the box. Nothing really surprised me and the quality looked good. Sometimes I buy stuff and regret it but not this time.

If you know me, you also know I could not going to leave it alone and the customizations will be in future posts.

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


Looking at a ZPAP M70 With Polymer Furniture Out Of The Box

In my last review, I provided detailed photos of a M70 with maple furniture [click here for that review]. I bought this M70 at the same time and it came with a Polymer furniture set. In taking the rifle apart, I saw the same extensive tooling marks.

In this post, I’ll provide photos and observations for this rifle. In case you are wondering about the setting, it was 15 degrees outside so I did the review in our kitchen – my shop didn’t suddenly grow appliances 🙂

The stock is a Promag Archangel OPFOR four position stock with an adjustable cheekpiece. It’s solid, well thought out and didn’t rattle when I shook it. The pistol grip is a comfortable Tango Down model. Note the recoil pad on the stock.
The stock is adjustable four positions – here it is fully extended. The stock does not fold by the way.
The cheek piece angles upwards in the front by pushiing the grey button. Note the sling swivel quick connect hole.
Top left, the dust cover doesn’t fit flush with the trunnion. The unique recoil spring assembly locking buttonm is just above the top right edge of the side mount rail. Speaking of which, I really wish someone would make and sell this side rail. Zastava USA doesn’t import it. You can see tooling marks on the back of the mag catch housing. The ZPAPs have tons of tooling marks but function well despite them.
In general, I like Hogue’s products. This handguard with the overmolded rubber feels really good in the hand.

Conclusion

I thought about doing a big blog post with a ton of photos showing all the machining marks but decided against it. The rifle and furniture are solid but the metal working lacks refinement. If you’d like to see the detailed photos from a M70 ZPAP with a maple stock bought at the same time as this one, click here.

Zastava turned out a rifle probably to hit a price point and could have done better but at a higher cost. I didn’t expect to like the polymer stock set but I do – the buttstock, grip and handguard all feel solid and feel good when you shoulder the rifle.


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



Looking at a ZPAP M70 with Maple Furniture Out of The Box

I had a chance to get an up close look at a couple of the new Zastava ZPAP M70 rifles recently. The subject of this post arrived wearing a maple furniture set and quite a bit of heft that one would expect from a larger M70 AK vs. an AKM.

To give a bit of background, the ZPAP rifles are based on the military M70B1 rifle with some changes.

  • A smaller commercial buttstock is used
  • No grenade launcher gas block
  • No night sights
  • A commercial wood grip was used instead of the very ergonomic traditional black polymer model
  • No bayonet mount
  • Semi-auto fire control group
  • A fire control group retaining plate vs. a retaining wire

For whatever reason, when I got “bit” by the AK bug, I really dove into Hungarian, Romanian and Yugo AKs initially. I always liked how the Yugoslavs took the Russian design, made it their own, and turned out some exceptional AK variant rifles. The fit and finish of the Yugo rifles always impressed me.

Well, let’s fast forward to today. I field stripped the rifles, wrote down some notes and took a ton of photos. If there was one general disappointment I found across the rifles it was the abundance of tooling marks. Rather than coming across as a refined AK, the ZPAPs come across as capable bruisers that are rough around the edges.

In terms of cycling, the finish is very smooth and the trigger feels like a typical AK. However, the lack of refinement was disappointing to me. I actually thought about taking it apart and redoing it but don’t have the time.

Now don’t get me entirely wrong – from everything I have read the ZPAP M70s are capable and nothing I saw or felt made me doubt that.

So, let’s get started at the rear and work our way forward on this photo heavy post:

First up is a steel buttpad on the male stock. You can see they are using Torx head screws vs. old school blade or Philips screws. This recoil pad is smaller than the military rubber model found on earlier model rifles – the stock is smaller as well.
Here’s a better view of the Torx screw. You may find it funny that I am making a big deal about their using a Torx screw but it is because I am so fed up with traditional blade and Philips screws on rifle stocks. If the wrong sized screw driver is used then the metal deforms and looks horrible. With a Torx bit, granted it needs to be the right size, but you can really torque on them without deformation.
This model has a maple stock set. Zastava USA offers a number of stock options including sets you buy and swap later. They retained the traditional M70B1 stock attachment method so this opens up a world of surplus and aftermarket stocks including M4 designs.
Here you can see the receiver, the selector lever with a notch cut in it to hold the bolt open, the wood pistol grip and a relatively traditional handguard other than it being made from a ferrule.
The rivets are all over the place in terms of shape and compression. It looks to me like the parts were finished and then assembled. I might be wrong on this but I am trying to figure out why the finish on the rivets looks worn – maybe it was just from rubbing in the box. I’m not sure.
The handguard has a nice pattern from the maple wood in it, They continued the use of a steel ferrule at the rear of the lower handguard to protect the end grain of the wood from the relatively hard and sharp sheet metal receiver.
You can see two very different rivets here. I mentioned earlier that the rivet heads are all over the place in terms of shape and you can see tooling marks even on them.
The dust cover has gaps between it and the trunnion. Ideally, those would not be there.
Peeking inside you can see they have a plate fire control group retaining plate. That’s cool. Note how they use the height of the plate to stop just short of the selector lever hole to keep things in place. That’s a simple and effective idea right there.
They are using a double hook trigger. The disconnector retains the tail from the full auto design. The double wound hammer spring is also very robust..
Interestingly, the selector lever stop is relatively tall on the ZPAP M70s and, unfortunately, you can see tooling marks on it. The selector notches in the receiver are nicely formed.
That’s the side rail for mounting optics and it is unique to Zastava. Nobody else makes this rail so it can be next to impossible to find them unless you buy a ZPAP M70 and use it as a base to build from. The problem with that is you can see all of the clean up required to get rid of the tool marks.
The bolt carrier is flattened with the serial number but there is also an electro-pencil (vibrating etcher) number on the trunnion and other parts – you’ll see them in other photos.
Here’s the electro pencilled serial number on the trunnion. To clarify, I have to assume it was a serial number at least used during assembly.
Here’s another example of the electro pencilled serial number – this time on the rear of the recoil rod assembly. By the way, you can see the operating side of the unique recoil spring assembly lock. Being able to lock the recoil spring part way forward makes installing the dust cover so simple compared to fighting the dust cover into position with the recoil spring assembly having a mind of its own. The lock was originally built in for handling the recoil of rifle grenades but sure makes re-assembly easy as well.
Not too bad. You can see a lot of tooling marks but the notch for the bolt is pretty well done.
Here’s a close up of the groove the bolt’s timing key rides in.
Here’s the bolt in the bolt carrier. The serial numbers are readily apparent on both parts showing they are matching.
Here’s the bolt. They tried to electro pencil the serial number on the hardened steel shaft in the filet shown above but boy, I sure can’t read it.
Machining/tooling marks are everywhere but at the heart is a very robust AK bolt face. You can see a bit of lacquer from the test rounds by the firing pin hole.
Here’s a good view of the chamber end of the barrel and the extractor cut out. Note the slight bevels from about 3pm to 11pm on the barrel face. They would add in reliable feeding no doubt – a cartridge off a but would follow the bevel and go into chamber all things being equal. There is still a riveted bullet guide between the magazine and the barrel.
The fit and finish of the wood overall is very good. The gas tube cover is nicely done.
I wish the metal work was as refined as the woodwork to be honest. The buttstock, grip and handguards are all very well done.
The lower looks good.
A close up of the lower handguard rear ferrule.
This is the lower handguard secured by its retainer. Note the lathe marks on the barrel. I would prefer smooth steel.
Rear sight block
Interestingly, the rear sight leaf is steel colored and the numbers are blackened.
They inscribed the serial number on the elevation adjustment slider.
Handguard retainer and gas block. Note the gas block still has the separate sling ring and no provision for a gas valve that one would see on a military M70 series.
Sling loop and gas block.

In Conclusion

This review dove into details that most AK buyers will not notice. There are tons of reviews and videos of these rifles that show how reliable they operate plus how durable they are by shooting tons of rounds [Click here for Rob’s review at AK Operators Union – he does solid reviews]. I did not have a chance to take this rifle to the range but it felt solid when I function tested it. Honestly, it cycles very smoothly – the tooling marks did not affect function.

The rifle appears solid and has the heft to go with it. While the woodwork was very well done, I honestly found the fit and finish of the metal parts pretty rough. Zastava could turn out a far higher quality weapon if they chose to – I’ve seen it in my military surplus kits. I have to assume they built these rifles with a lower price-point in mind and let the cosmetics issues happen. I hope they choose to turn out a higher end product in the future but in the mean time one of these rifles will give you a big bruiser at a reasonable price.

I hope all the photos give you some food for thought.


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



Trevor’s Cool Zastava ZPAP M70

Trevor sent me a photo of the Zastava M70 that he modified:


He provided the following info on it:

  • The furniture is from ironwood designs – it has a Tabuk-style buttstock with an AK-74 style handguard set
  • The recoil pad and lower handguard ferrule are from us (Ronin’s Grips)
  • The magazine is Serbian
  • The sling is Yugoslavian surplus
  • The brake is a J-Comp from Strike Industries
  • The rifle is a new Zastava ZPAP M70

It looks great Trevor!


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.