This article, printed in the "Style" Section of the Washington Post, leaves Dolomite feeling uneasy.

On the subject of our beloved AR:
"It looks like a tommy gun designed by Mr. Moto, after reading Dostoyevsky and a favorable history of Peter the Great. The curved magazine is necessary for technical reasons, but it provides an aesthetic: It gives the rifle an Orientalized sensibility. Then there's the peasant thickness of the gas tube over the barrel like a Siberian pipeline, and that wicked high front sight that just keeps on going. It has no elegance whatsoever, and no wit. Its cleverness lies in its contempt for cleverness. It's a tractor of a rifle, a serious piece of work."

[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14195-2001Nov25.html[/url]

You misread.  The author, Stephen Hunter, was describing the AK-47:I have to assume that the writer is also the author of several gun-oriented novels such as [u]Hot Springs[/u] and [u]Master Sniper[/u].  His commentary on the M4 weapons system at the top of the article was pretty good.

Yep, that's the same Stephen Hunter who wrote Point of Impact, Time To Hunt, The Master Sniper, etc.   He is very pro-gun and an active shooter.  Y'all might enjoy his books!  I only wish he'd thought to mention that the Krinkov is loud as hell to fire, less effective ballistically, and not as accurate as the full size AK47/74's, which would further argue his point that Bin Laden is making more of a fashion statement than carrying a weapon chosen because he fully intends to RELY on it.
John