Russian Military Pistols Thread:

You do have to keep in mind though that it was Tula who conducted those tests, aka the manufacturer of the Gsh-18. For all we know they could have been using an old, worn out glock against a freshly made Gsh-18.

But was the test by the marketing department for publicity, or the design department to set a level so they had a level to compare their own product with?

I would suspect the latter, and if they did cheat then they are only cheating themselves.

They could have chosen a less respected model of pistol for the test, the fact that they chose a Glock suggests to me they wanted to set the bar high. Why fudge that by using an old or faulty model as a standard.

Sort of like the Izhmash tests of the AK-74M/AK-12 against the M-16. Brand new AK against a beat up looking M16A1. Of course in a written article describing the testing they wouldn't tell you it was an M16A1.

No, they didn't. If you look at the footage carefully there were two weapons tested at the same shooting grounds, one was an old M16A1 and the other was a standard AK-74. By the looks of what the guy with the M16 was wearing it was a cold weather test, that M16s are notorious for failing anyway. Even US military tests show that Russian Ammo and Russian Small Arms perform better in the extreme cold their their own weapons. The Germans established that in the 1940s too.

The same happened in the U.S army reliability tests of the M4 against newer rifles like the SCAR-H and HK-416. The M4s being used had all fired hundreds of rounds prior to the testing while the other rifles were fresh off the assembly line. The results were purposely skewed to make the other rifles look like some kind of miracle weapon in comparison to the M4.

The point is that the M16 has no chance of replacing the AK-12 and would not be tested with it. They will more likely test the AK-74 with the AK-12 and the AK-12 wont need to be more reliable than the AK-74... it just needs to be as reliable to be acceptable. What the AK-12 needs to be is more accurate, easy to use, and easy to add new equipment to. The M16 doesn't even come in to it.

If they do include the M16 the advantages of the AK-12 will not be in terms of reliability, but the fact that you can cock the AK12 without taking your head away from the stock/sights.

So what I'm saying is maybe take those tests with a grain of salt.

The criticisms of the GSh-18 are that some of the finished edges are sharp and the fit and finish is not as good as with western pistols. There are no criticisms about its poor reliability or poor accuracy. Worst case scenario I'd just wear shooting gloves.

If that were the case then you wouldn't see all these glocks being used by the Law Enforcement and Counter terror units. It's possible that they purchase them with their own money, but if that were the case wouldn't they just buy the Gsh-18 if it were so superior?

Most of those law enforcement/counter terror personal in the west have probably never heard of the GSh-18.
Most of the law enforcement counter terror soldiers I see in Russia have Stechkin machine pistols as the weapon of choice.

If they are cheating with the tests and it is actually rubbish, and expensive rubbish at that, then why are their naval special forces using it? Surely of any units they will have the choice to use any tool they see fit to use?

Equally why include it as part of the super soldier kit?

GarryB wrote:But was the test by the marketing department for publicity, or the design department to set a level so they had a level to compare their own product with?

I would suspect the latter, and if they did cheat then they are only cheating themselves.

They could have chosen a less respected model of pistol for the test, the fact that they chose a Glock suggests to me they wanted to set the bar high. Why fudge that by using an old or faulty model as a standard.

Well for one Glock is often considered the world standard for handguns. If people hear that the Gsh-18 beat the Glock in testing, they're going to be impressed. More importantly, if the people up top hear that the Gsh-18 beat the Glock, they'll likely be impressed.

GarryB wrote:No, they didn't. If you look at the footage carefully there were two weapons tested at the same shooting grounds, one was an old M16A1 and the other was a standard AK-74. By the looks of what the guy with the M16 was wearing it was a cold weather test, that M16s are notorious for failing anyway. Even US military tests show that Russian Ammo and Russian Small Arms perform better in the extreme cold their their own weapons. The Germans established that in the 1940s too.

I'm sorry what? Do we have some kind of misunderstanding here? All I said was that in the test they used an old beat up M16A1 against a healthy AK-74M. The test was skewed to make sure that the M16 would jam up really quickly to make the AK look better. AK is king for reliability, but newer variants of the m16 are fairly reliable as well. They wanted to make sure the M16 jammed so they chose the model that they felt sure would fail. I never once argued that the AK was any less reliable than the AR. My name isn't Mr.M16 . .

The point is that the M16 has no chance of replacing the AK-12 and would not be tested with it. They will more likely test the AK-74 with the AK-12 and the AK-12 wont need to be more reliable than the AK-74... it just needs to be as reliable to be acceptable. What the AK-12 needs to be is more accurate, easy to use, and easy to add new equipment to. The M16 doesn't even come in to it.

PShffWHAT?! Where did I say these things? Of course the M16 isn't going to replace the AK-12. I don't even see how it would considering the AK-12 isn't even in service yet. I only brought up the M16 to show that testing isn't always conclusive. Tests like the one I referred to were skewed to make the AK look good. I prefer the AK but that doesn't change the fact that the test was an obvious attempt to make the AR look bad in comparison to the AK. Here, maybe you're thinking of a different test. This is the one I'm talking about.

[/quote]

Most of those law enforcement/counter terror personal in the west have probably never heard of the GSh-18.
Most of the law enforcement counter terror soldiers I see in Russia have Stechkin machine pistols as the weapon of choice.

I was actually talking about Russian Law Enforcement and Counter terrorism units. Maybe I should be a little more clear. When I say LE I mean mostly OMON units. When I say CT I mean like the guys from FSB. APS is a common choice to be sure, but more often then not you see them carrying around Glocks.









I would go on if it wasn't such a pain to upload images.

If they are cheating with the tests and it is actually rubbish, and expensive rubbish at that, then why are their naval special forces using it? Surely of any units they will have the choice to use any tool they see fit to use?

Because it can fire underwater. That's kind of a big deal for them. Note that I don't think it's rubbish, I just think that for most tasks there are better options.

Equally why include it as part of the super soldier kit?

They also included the AK-107, and the AN-94, weapons that (as far as I'm aware) don't really have too bright of a future).

[Well for one Glock is often considered the world standard for handguns. If people hear that the Gsh-18 beat the Glock in testing, they're going to be impressed. More importantly, if the people up top hear that the Gsh-18 beat the Glock, they'll likely be impressed.

I agree, but think that the design team is not interested in selling the pistol, they are interested in designing a new pistol. They clearly started with ideas they got from the Glock, and while they didn't directly copy the Glock design it was the weapon they wanted to test the weapon they have developed against. The fact that it was revealed they tested it against the Glock is more information rather than advertising in my opinion which would make cheating a self defeating exercise.

I'm sorry what? Do we have some kind of misunderstanding here? All I said was that in the test they used an old beat up M16A1 against a healthy AK-74M. The test was skewed to make sure that the M16 would jam up really quickly to make the AK look better. AK is king for reliability, but newer variants of the m16 are fairly reliable as well. They wanted to make sure the M16 jammed so they chose the model that they felt sure would fail. I never once argued that the AK was any less reliable than the AR. My name isn't Mr.M16 . .

Are you trying to say that every test held in the US on TV like Discovery or the History Channel, as well as by the US military compares brand new M16s with the latest AK-74M model AKs?

Funny because my recollection of the US Media, military and even computer game industry seems to remember new M16s and even M4s being tested against Vietnam era AKs.

The AR earned its reputation for poor reliability with the deaths of thousands of US personel in Vietnam with claims from the marketing department that this weapon was so new and space age that you didn't even have to clean it. To push that point the rifle was not even issued with a cleaning kit. I think we all know what happened next.

If the Russians want to test their weapons against model A M16s then that is their business. BTW the problems with low temperature conditions is a feature of small calibre rifles which don't have piston rods.

The M16A was probably used because the Soviet Union got thousands of them from Vietnam for testing and other uses.

Tests like the one I referred to were skewed to make the AK look good.

Why would they rig the tests to make the AK look bad? The M16A is still relatively widely used around the place... and is as good as any western rifle for a quick comparison.

I prefer the AK but that doesn't change the fact that the test was an obvious attempt to make the AR look bad in comparison to the AK.

WRONG. Like I said... the AR has zero chance of being adopted. It wasn't a case of making the AR look bad, it was a case for emphasising the good features that make the AK good.

This is the one I'm talking about.

That "test" was news TV that covered at least 4 different tests, including a low temperature test with the gun at minus 52 degrees C fired from a vice, as well as fired freehand by two different people in dark room ranges as well as the outside test that showed the M16 and AK-74 tested outside.
Do you really think that footage of the M16A firing a single shot and jamming was part of the AK-12 tests, or do you think it might have been stock footage that news agency digs up every time they have a comparison between the M16 and AK-74?

Are you going to claim western news agencies are better? Here in New Zealand they have a picture of an AK-47 being held up by someone wrapped in towels they showed for every single segment regarding any kind of terrorism including bombings and shootings.

Do you really want to discuss the "fair" depiction of the M16 when in the west the Kalashnikov is associated primarily with terrorism? Really?

I was actually talking about Russian Law Enforcement and Counter terrorism units.

Because they are cops and most of the gear they use is western like corner shot which they bought from Israel and Russian pistols are not always compatible with such gear. Note the Russians are going to make their own version of corner shot to allow their own weapons to be used too.

They also included the AK-107, and the AN-94, weapons that (as far as I'm aware) don't really have too bright of a future).

We don't really know anything about their future, the An-94 was selected to replace the AK-74, and there is a chance that they might upgrade it to keep or even further improve performance and deal with the problems of complexity and cost. If theAK-12 is too much of a change an upgraded AK-107 is still an option too, as is the ADS.

I rather suspect the Gyurzas position is assured because it has no competition in the 9x21mm calibre. The GSh-18 is a more effective pistol than the combination of a Makarov and an SPP-1 for out of the water and under water use respectively, and at less than half a kg empty it is very light as well. The pistols I see struggling will be the PYa and Stritz for the position of general issue pistol.

BTW I have downloaded a huge number of photos from a guy called Karden and most of those show Makarov and Stechkin pistol grips poking out of webbing.



Like this.



And Makarovs like this.



If they have to use 9mm they are probably better off with a Klin/Kedr as seen above to the left as it is not much bigger than a pistol and has a 30 shot mag and burst fire capability.

GarryB wrote:I agree, but think that the design team is not interested in selling the pistol, they are interested in designing a new pistol. They clearly started with ideas they got from the Glock, and while they didn't directly copy the Glock design it was the weapon they wanted to test the weapon they have developed against. The fact that it was revealed they tested it against the Glock is more information rather than advertising in my opinion which would make cheating a self defeating exercise.

Why wouldn't they be interested in selling their pistol? Is designing firearms just a hobby for them or something?
There's no way Tula wouldn't want to advertise this pistol, and what better way to do that than to claim that your handgun beat the best of the best?

In all probability it was probably a combination of both of our theories.

Are you trying to say that every test held in the US on TV like Discovery or the History Channel, as well as by the US military compares brand new M16s with the latest AK-74M model AKs?

Funny because my recollection of the US Media, military and even computer game industry seems to remember new M16s and even M4s being tested against Vietnam era AKs.

The AR earned its reputation for poor reliability with the deaths of thousands of US personel in Vietnam with claims from the marketing department that this weapon was so new and space age that you didn't even have to clean it. To push that point the rifle was not even issued with a cleaning kit. I think we all know what happened next.

If the Russians want to test their weapons against model A M16s then that is their business. BTW the problems with low temperature conditions is a feature of small calibre rifles which don't have piston rods.

The M16A was probably used because the Soviet Union got thousands of them from Vietnam for testing and other uses.

What does the U.S have to do with it? I used the test with the AK-74M and the M16A1 merely as an example of how tests are often poor examples of the actual capabilities of a firearm.

If that rifle really is from the Vietnam era as you say, that would make it around 50 years old, which means the comparison was even less fair than I originally thought.

Why would they rig the tests to make the AK look bad?

That's. .the exact opposite of what I said. .

WRONG. Like I said... the AR has zero chance of being adopted. It wasn't a case of making the AR look bad, it was a case for emphasising the good features that make the AK good.

I think it was more along the lines of "Hey everybody, look how much better the AK is than the M16! The M16 can't even fire two shots in a row without jamming! Clearly the AK is a superior weapons system!"

American TV shows also do the same thing with the AK, except instead of reliability it's accuracy.

This method actually works too. A lot of people see the video and immediately take it as definitive proof of the AKs superiority. Likewise, American viewers see the report on the M4 testing, and now we have a bunch of people running around talking about how the U.S army should spend hundreds of millions to switch to a rifle with barely any advantages over the previous system. (HK-416) All because of one rigged test.

Also, what's this about adoption? I don't get where that came from in the first place. Who said anything at all about the Russians adopting the M16?

Are you going to claim western news agencies are better? Here in New Zealand they have a picture of an AK-47 being held up by someone wrapped in towels they showed for every single segment regarding any kind of terrorism including bombings and shootings.

Do you really want to discuss the "fair" depiction of the M16 when in the west the Kalashnikov is associated primarily with terrorism? Really?

I am not saying the Western media is better in any way. If you read one of my previous posts you'll see that one of my other examples was the U.S army tests with the M4 against newer guns.

As I said, the M4s had all been used almost to the point of being no longer serviceable. The newer firearms, on the other hand, had never fired a round up until the testing. Guess which guns came out on top?

The test was rigged. The M4 never had any sort of chance.

Like I keep trying to tell you, these tests are not good information to go off of. For all we know Tula could have completely rigged those tests, or they might not have. There's no way to know.

However, The fact that you keep seeing the Glock being used by Russian paramilitary units suggests that it is more than reliable enough to do the job.

Because they are cops and most of the gear they use is western like corner shot which they bought from Israel and Russian pistols are not always compatible with such gear. Note the Russians are going to make their own version of corner shot to allow their own weapons to be used too.

Well no arguments there. They have been using a whole lot of Western gear as of late. Is it not possible to use a Russian holster with Western gear?

We don't really know anything about their future, the An-94 was selected to replace the AK-74, and there is a chance that they might upgrade it to keep or even further improve performance and deal with the problems of complexity and cost. If theAK-12 is too much of a change an upgraded AK-107 is still an option too, as is the ADS.

Okay, but honestly, if every rifle that was included in the future soldier kit actually got adopted (along with the AK-12 and possibly ADS) That would mean 3-4 assault rifles in service at once. Does that sound practical to you? More likely than not, being included in the future soldier kit means jack squat.

I rather suspect the Gyurzas position is assured because it has no competition in the 9x21mm calibre.

Stizh comes in a 9x21 variant

The GSh-18 is a more effective pistol than the combination of a Makarov and an SPP-1 for out of the water and under water use respectively, and at less than half a kg empty it is very light as well.

So what you're saying is the Gsh-18 holds a definite advantage for combat divers. I agree.

GarryB wrote:BTW I have downloaded a huge number of photos from a guy called Karden and most of those show Makarov and Stechkin pistol grips poking out of webbing.

Yeah, Kardens unit tends to stick with the Russian made gear, which is always refreshing to see. I really want to get my hands on an APS, they seem like fine handguns

Why wouldn't they be interested in selling their pistol?

They are interested in the weapon getting sold and used, they are not interested in the selling of it, they are the design team and their job is to make the best pistol they can make. They clearly started with what they thought was the best and took ideas and introduced their own solutions to create their new pistol.

Tests to prove it is better than this or that pistol for marketing purposes happen later during sales and marketing drives. The tests they performed were benchmark tests to see what they have to achieve in their design.

Likely they created tests that would break the Glock like extreme cold tests, or extreme hot tests, or bury it in mud for a week and then shoot it type tests to see how much the Glock could handle and then they set higher requirements for their pistol... so if the Glock stopped firing at minus 35 degrees C then their pistol design will need to shoot down to minus 50 degrees C or colder before it is ready... just as an example. They need to look at why the Glock failed and then eliminate any potential issue with their pistol to make sure it passes the test.

Is designing firearms just a hobby for them or something?
There's no way Tula wouldn't want to advertise this pistol, and what better way to do that than to claim that your handgun beat the best of the best?

Designing the pistol is their job, selling pistols is NOT their job. The tests of the Glock will have been the first thing they did... well actually deciding to design a new pistol would be first and then selecting the Glock as the pistol to measure their pistol by would be second, then third after the tests they would have to think about the design and why it failed and why it was so good in the first place and then they would come up with a design that kept the good features and eliminated any problems.

Once they have completed the design and tested them again to make sure they do what they claim on the box then they can perform mock tests where the conclusion is already known (because they already thoroughly tested it themselves... not because they rigged the tests) and use that to prove to potential customers that they did a good job and the pistol is reliable etc etc.

What does the U.S have to do with it?

Do you not think that US news influences world news? Do you not think US infomercials influence advertising around the world?

I used the test with the AK-74M and the M16A1 merely as an example of how tests are often poor examples of the actual capabilities of a firearm.

Dropping a rifle from 1.5m is a perfectly normal test for a firearm... people drop rifles... and the standing height of a person is as good as any height to simulate that. Equally the M16A that failed to fire I would assume was because of the cold weather, but based on the soldiers visible breath it was not colder than minus 15 degrees, so I really don't think that was a harsh test either.
A rifle that wont cycle in minus 15 degrees C is not much use in Russia.

If that rifle really is from the Vietnam era as you say, that would make it around 50 years old, which means the comparison was even less fair than I originally thought.

Why? The main thing that was added to that rifle was a device to allow the soldier to force the chamber closed. Considering the problem was that the round fired but the weapon didn't cycle and eject the empty case and load a new round I don't think that extra feature would make much difference.

Most of the History Channel and Discovery Channel programs that compare the AK with the M16 use Vietnam era 7.62 x 39mm calibre AKs too.

That's. .the exact opposite of what I said. .

No. You are claiming they are trying to make the M16 look bad... they received hundreds of thousands from Vietnam and studied it extensively and did not adopt any of its features, do you think they have a high opinion of it already? You could also say the reverse is true, though the latest 5.56mm round has a steel nose and a lead rear to make it very rear heavy to make it tumble on impact... the same way the 5.45mm round has been doing since before 1974.

I think it was more along the lines of "Hey everybody, look how much better the AK is than the M16! The M16 can't even fire two shots in a row without jamming! Clearly the AK is a superior weapons system!"

More like it can't handle the cold and ours can.

Also, what's this about adoption? I don't get where that came from in the first place. Who said anything at all about the Russians adopting the M16?

They are selling rifles. I rather doubt the Russian military would consider adopting the M16A, so it is a safe weapon to prove the conditions their rifle is working in will stop some NATO rifles in their tracks.

American TV shows also do the same thing with the AK, except instead of reliability it's accuracy.

So there you go. Why wouldn't the Russians do exactly what the Americans do? Or do the rules not apply to one or other state?

When selling Ladas they didn't focus on top speed or style, they focused on low price and a vehicle so simple you could probably fix it yourself with a few tools.

Like I keep trying to tell you, these tests are not good information to go off of. For all we know Tula could have completely rigged those tests, or they might not have. There's no way to know.

So what you are trying to tell me is that we can't 100% trust advertising or news reports about advertising?

Ummm... thanks for that... no really!

However, The fact that you keep seeing the Glock being used by Russian paramilitary units suggests that it is more than reliable enough to do the job.

Well actually what you can deduce by that is that a group that gets its photo taken a lot carries Glocks right now... we know they carry them because they are good pistols for the job, but it might be a case of being told to buy their own pistols, or perhaps the standard issue pistol choice is the Makarov because they have so many in stock and if you want to you can buy your own weapon privately.
Or it could be a case that they are choosing privately bought Glocks over issue GSh-18s at the moment because the GSh-18s are not right yet, or perhaps a few units might have bought a batch of Glocks till the GSh-18 is ready.

We really don't know enough to be sure.

I rather suspect the military forces will largely still be using Makarovs and Stechkins till GSh-18s are ready unless this Strizh is ready quickly.

I remember reading a post by a westerner suggesting that Russian special forces were all using HK MP4s, but when he posted the evidence they were not Russian, they were Latvian or something, so I have a hard time believing foreign weapons are in widespread service use.

Having said that the police units have the choice and as shown in many countries that allow choice there can be quite a variety of tastes including revolvers and automatic pistols.

Well no arguments there. They have been using a whole lot of Western gear as of late. Is it not possible to use a Russian holster with Western gear?

Which Russian holster? The Stechkin and Makarov are very different holsters and of course the latter is very small because the Makarov is compact.

Okay, but honestly, if every rifle that was included in the future soldier kit actually got adopted (along with the AK-12 and possibly ADS) That would mean 3-4 assault rifles in service at once. Does that sound practical to you? More likely than not, being included in the future soldier kit means jack squat.

The future soldier kit is for everyone, not just special forces, so even right now it needs to be used by soldiers using a range of weapons including the AK-74 and the AK-105, and the AKS-74U, and then of course you have the 9mm AK9/AS/VSS/SR-3M type weapons and the 9A91 etc etc... and that is not including the AN-94 which was accepted for service, though not widely deployed...

In fact different pistols would be more of an issue as they need different holsters, the only real issue with rifles is the range of magazine types.

Right now that would cover the silenced pistols like the PSS, the Makarov, the PSM, the Stechkin, and of course the PYa, the Gyurza, and of course the SPP-1 and GSh-18. For rifles add the ADS which seems to have been adopted by the Navy who also use the APS underwater assault rifle.

To be effective the future soldier system needs to incorporate support (ie ammo etc) for every type of weapon a Russian soldier might need to use.

Stizh comes in a 9x21 variant

That is the 9 x 21mm IMI round, not 9 x 21mm Gyurza.

So what you're saying is the Gsh-18 holds a definite advantage for combat divers. I agree.

Not just divers, anyone on port security for shooting into water, though of course the best way to deal with divers is a hand grenade anywhere near them...

I would suspect the 4.5mm high velocity flechettes it fires underwater might actually be effective at penetrating body armour as well...

The primary use for such weapons is not actually for use against other divers... it would most likely be used against dangerous sea life... especially that trained by an opponent to guard a port or area of sea.

I really want to get my hands on an APS, they seem like fine handguns

It is one of my favourite Soviet/Russian weapons, but alas its full auto capability would make it illegal here in NZ.

My fav is the APB suppressed model: http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg/rus/apb-silenced-e.html

GarryB wrote:They are interested in the weapon getting sold and used, they are not interested in the selling of it, they are the design team and their job is to make the best pistol they can make. They clearly started with what they thought was the best and took ideas and introduced their own solutions to create their new pistol.

Tests to prove it is better than this or that pistol for marketing purposes happen later during sales and marketing drives. The tests they performed were benchmark tests to see what they have to achieve in their design.

Likely they created tests that would break the Glock like extreme cold tests, or extreme hot tests, or bury it in mud for a week and then shoot it type tests to see how much the Glock could handle and then they set higher requirements for their pistol... so if the Glock stopped firing at minus 35 degrees C then their pistol design will need to shoot down to minus 50 degrees C or colder before it is ready... just as an example. They need to look at why the Glock failed and then eliminate any potential issue with their pistol to make sure it passes the test.

Designing the pistol is their job, selling pistols is NOT their job. The tests of the Glock will have been the first thing they did... well actually deciding to design a new pistol would be first and then selecting the Glock as the pistol to measure their pistol by would be second, then third after the tests they would have to think about the design and why it failed and why it was so good in the first place and then they would come up with a design that kept the good features and eliminated any problems.

Once they have completed the design and tested them again to make sure they do what they claim on the box then they can perform mock tests where the conclusion is already known (because they already thoroughly tested it themselves... not because they rigged the tests) and use that to prove to potential customers that they did a good job and the pistol is reliable etc etc.

Alright, I see where you're coming from. Very valid point.

Do you not think that US news influences world news? Do you not think US infomercials influence advertising around the world?

What does the US news and infomercial's influence around the globe have to do with anything we're talking about?

Dropping a rifle from 1.5m is a perfectly normal test for a firearm... people drop rifles... and the standing height of a person is as good as any height to simulate that. Equally the M16A that failed to fire I would assume was because of the cold weather, but based on the soldiers visible breath it was not colder than minus 15 degrees, so I really don't think that was a harsh test either.
A rifle that wont cycle in minus 15 degrees C is not much use in Russia.

Garry I don't think you see what I was trying to say when I brought this up in the first place. What I said had nothing to do with the rifles ability to operate in a cold climate (AK obviously) it was about the fact that one rifle was beat up and probably over 50 years old, while the other was a pretty well treated looking AK-74M.

That's not a fair test, regardless of which rifle is actually superior. A fair test would be if both rifles were in the same condition during the test. If the test had been conducted fairly I would have never used it as an example in the first place. I wasn't trying to start an AK vs. AR argument, but that seems to be the way you took it.

Why? The main thing that was added to that rifle was a device to allow the soldier to force the chamber closed. Considering the problem was that the round fired but the weapon didn't cycle and eject the empty case and load a new round I don't think that extra feature would make much difference.

Because it's 50 years old. M16s aren't known for aging all that well. Especially considering that it likely spent a large deal of those years being tested rigorously by the Soviets/Russians.

Most of the History Channel and Discovery Channel programs that compare the AK with the M16 use Vietnam era 7.62 x 39mm calibre AKs too.

And that's not a fair test. Although considering that the Vietnam era AK is the weapon being used by the mass majority of the enemies the U.S is facing right now, I'd say that fairness doesn't really come into the equation there. Who is Russia facing on the battlefield who commonly uses the Vietnam era M16?

No. You are claiming they are trying to make the M16 look bad...

They are though. Both the U.S and the Russians do it constantly. The U.S criticizes the AK for it's accuracy and common use among terrorist groups, while the Russians criticize the M16 for it's poor reliability and durability in combat conditions. both countries are going to claim it's rifle is better, it's only common sense.

More like it can't handle the cold and ours can.

That too.

They are selling rifles. I rather doubt the Russian military would consider adopting the M16A, so it is a safe weapon to prove the conditions their rifle is working in will stop some NATO rifles in their tracks.

Pretty much any conditions will stop an M16A1 in it's tracks. Which is why I believe it was chosen to compare to the AK-74M in Izhmash's presentation. They could have used one of the many M4s captured in the South Ossetia war if they wanted an even slightly fair comparison.

So there you go. Why wouldn't the Russians do exactly what the Americans do? Or do the rules not apply to one or other state?

I don't know, why wouldn't they? Nothing wrong with doing it, it just means that you shouldn't use those tests as conclusive evidence, as there may be something they're not telling you.

So what you are trying to tell me is that we can't 100% trust advertising or news reports about advertising?

Ummm... thanks for that... no really!

I could do without being talked down to.

And no, in some cases you really can't. I'll never fully trust anything from Fox news, nor anything from RT, because just like with the tests we've been discussing, things tend to get left out.

Lets take the situation in Syria for example. Fox will happily talk on and on about how wrong it is for Russia to send repaired helicopters back to Syria, but will somehow forget to mention the military grade weapons being supplied to the rebels on a daily basis.

Likewise, the U.S army failed to mention the condition of the M4s in comparison to the other rifles during their testing.

Well actually what you can deduce by that is that a group that gets its photo taken a lot carries Glocks right now...

By that logic Russia may not actually be using the AK-74M as their standard weapon, it could just be that the groups who carry the AK-74M are the ones getting their picture taken.

we know they carry them because they are good pistols for the job, but it might be a case of being told to buy their own pistols

Well sure, but wouldn't they purchase the Gsh-18 if they felt it was a superior weapon?

Or it could be a case that they are choosing privately bought Glocks over issue GSh-18s at the moment because the GSh-18s are not right yet, or perhaps a few units might have bought a batch of Glocks till the GSh-18 is ready.

Exactly, the Gsh-18 isn't ready. It still has flaws that need to be sorted out before it can be considered as a superior choice to other Western handguns. I'm sure the final version of the Gsh-18 will be a world class weapon.

Which Russian holster?

Gsh-18

The future soldier kit is for everyone, not just special forces, so even right now it needs to be used by soldiers using a range of weapons including the AK-74 and the AK-105, and the AKS-74U, and then of course you have the 9mm AK9/AS/VSS/SR-3M type weapons and the 9A91 etc etc... and that is not including the AN-94 which was accepted for service, though not widely deployed...

I think that more than likely by the time the future soldier kit come out, most of the infantry rifle related roles will be covered by variations of the AK-12, excluding the 9mm specialist weapons, which they need to do something about by the way. There's like 5 of those 9mm rifles and they all do the exact same things.

Right now that would cover the silenced pistols like the PSS, the Makarov, the PSM, the Stechkin, and of course the PYa, the Gyurza, and of course the SPP-1 and GSh-18. For rifles add the ADS which seems to have been adopted by the Navy who also use the APS underwater assault rifle.

Whole lot of pistols, seems like a bit much.

To be effective the future soldier system needs to incorporate support (ie ammo etc) for every type of weapon a Russian soldier might need to use.

How would they go about doing this?

That is the 9 x 21mm IMI round, not 9 x 21mm Gyurza.

Well crap. I was really hoping it would be chambered in 9x21 Russian, oh well.

Not just divers, anyone on port security for shooting into water, though of course the best way to deal with divers is a hand grenade anywhere near them...

Still, it's a bit of a niche role.

My fav is the APB suppressed model: http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg/rus/apb-silenced-e.html

I remember that guy RomanS talking about having fired it. He said it was like firing a mini MP-5. Sounds pretty cool if you ask me

What does the US news and infomercial's influence around the globe have to do with anything we're talking about?

Perhaps it is not a conspirasy to tarnish the name M16A, perhaps it is just blatant ignorant mimicry of what they see in the west?

Garry I don't think you see what I was trying to say when I brought this up in the first place. What I said had nothing to do with the rifles ability to operate in a cold climate (AK obviously) it was about the fact that one rifle was beat up and probably over 50 years old, while the other was a pretty well treated looking AK-74M.

If it was from stocks from Vietnam then it probably wasn't beatup and worn out. Most of the rifles the Soviets got from Vietnam were from enormous warehouses captured in the south still wrapped up and covered in the goop they store them in. I doubt they would buy new weapons or source them from current battlefields for the purposes of a test.

Equally that footage was probably from a test in the mid 1990s and is just brought out when the M16 is mentioned... standard stock footage.

That's not a fair test, regardless of which rifle is actually superior

What has fair got to do with it? The M16 was shown to hit paper targets at 600m on test shooting ranges, which is clearly superior to any AK-47, yet is that fair... how relevant are 600m shots in modern combat? Especially with hand picked shooters that in no way represent the average soldiers shooting performance?

There is little chance of a fair test and even less reason for a fair test... what has fair got to do with war?

Just look at photos of US personnel in Afghanistan with their fancy scopes and body armour and sophisticated armour and air power... and think again what fair has to do with conflict.

A fair test would be if both rifles were in the same condition during the test.

I would say it was a fair test, but weapons looked to me to be in newish condition... the fact that one might have been in a box for 50 years is irrelevant, there was no obvious damage or wear on the weapon that I could see.

I wasn't trying to start an AK vs. AR argument, but that seems to be the way you took it.

Show me a US program that even mentions there are non american alternatives to the item they are talking about and it is likely talking about the M16. The AK gets mentioned... reliable but inaccurate is always the judgement.

Strange that the Israeli special forces and US special forces use inaccurate weapons though that never gets mentioned.

Because it's 50 years old. M16s aren't known for aging all that well. Especially considering that it likely spent a large deal of those years being tested rigorously by the Soviets/Russians.

They got hundreds of thousands of them from Vietnam... they got a few tens of thousands more from Georgia... the vast majority probably stayed in their wrapping while a few were taken out and tested and then disposed of. For a new test just get a new rifle out. There is no reason to believe that rifle was "worn out".

And that's not a fair test. Although considering that the Vietnam era AK is the weapon being used by the mass majority of the enemies the U.S is facing right now, I'd say that fairness doesn't really come into the equation there. Who is Russia facing on the battlefield who commonly uses the Vietnam era M16?

The tests in question are for television and therefore the requirements for accuracy and fairness are fairly low.

For most of the 1990s and early 2000s an M16A was probably a good example of western assault rifles... bearing in mind that the British had the unreliable SA-80A in service and apart from a bolt close feature added the A model wasn't much different from the weapons used in the US. The cold weather problems of most early models of M16s is fairly well known and AFAIK not fully solved even today. On a day shoot as shown in the short video the main problems of the M16A, which revolved around the soldiers not cleaning the weapons properly because they were told not to and were not issued with cleaning kits combined with the change in propellent that resulted in a thick residue that hardened and burned faster increasing the rate of fire leading to components breaking faster and gumming up the mechanism when used in a jungle environment without cleaning doesn't really apply to properly cleaned rifles on a very cold shooting range, so these are not Vietnam problems... these are all new problems with the rifle the US didn't find till they took the weapons to Alaska and Norway for exercises and found a new range of problems.

The U.S criticizes the AK for it's accuracy and common use among terrorist groups, while the Russians criticize the M16 for it's poor reliability and durability in combat conditions. both countries are going to claim it's rifle is better, it's only common sense.

But both countries are right... each weapon suits each countries needs. The US wants accuracy above reliability and Russia wants the weapon to work though its requirements for accuracy are increasing.

BTW the accuracy of a 5.45 AK is not that inferior to the accuracy of an M16 so if you are going to accuse one side of being wrong it would be the US.

Half the terrorist groups around the world that use AKs were supplied them via the US and the west. When you look closely at those weapons you will find they were made in China or eastern europe and paid for by the CIA.

The other thing of course is that the US might call them terrorist groups but they would be called freedom fighters if they suited the US at the time... where do you think the Muj in Afghanistan got all those AKs. The US would like everyone to think they captured them, but who did they capture them from? Neither the Soviet Army, nor the Afghan Army used Aks bought from China or the Middle East where most of their weapons actually came from. The truth is that the Aks flooding into the country came from China and Egypt and lots of other countries captured by Israel or simply bought from China with CIA and Saudi Arabian money.

Pretty much any conditions will stop an M16A1 in it's tracks. Which is why I believe it was chosen to compare to the AK-74M in Izhmash's presentation. They could have used one of the many M4s captured in the South Ossetia war if they wanted an even slightly fair comparison.

That was stock footage... that could have been filmed in the 1990s for all we know. It was likely filmed for another story and kept for when the M16 gets mentioned so they can drag it out and play it.

I don't know, why wouldn't they? Nothing wrong with doing it, it just means that you shouldn't use those tests as conclusive evidence, as there may be something they're not telling you.

They have no reason to promote the M16. The person putting the story about the AK-12 together probably got lots of different stock footage out and the editor cut and pasted it all together.

There might have been a bit of malice there... how often does the US boast about its military prowess? But I think you are reading too much into it.

I could do without being talked down to.

I am sorry if I offended you, but you need to keep this in context. It was a news report from a Russian TV station. A few seconds showing one rifle failing (most of the population not even realising it was an american rifle) and then a good old AK being dropped and it firing under the same cold conditions... Hurrah.

Did you expect more?

News stations are infomercials, the publics right to know the truth has been changed to we need ratings so our news reporters will all look like porn stars and read stuff that was written by B grade stand up comics.

It is what News has evolved into... like it or not.

Fox will happily talk on and on about how wrong it is for Russia to send repaired helicopters back to Syria, but will somehow forget to mention the military grade weapons being supplied to the rebels on a daily basis.

Likewise, the U.S army failed to mention the condition of the M4s in comparison to the other rifles during their testing.

Each "side" has an agenda to push, and you can bet it is all about their bottom line... at the end of the day Fox loves to demonise Russia no matter what, the US Army wanted a replacement weapon for the M4... this is all perfectly normal. The US Navy wanted F35s and Super Hornets so they didn't even bother upgrading the F-14 with AMRAAMs and other minor upgrades that would have improved its performance and risked the enormously expensive replacements.
The German Air force was the same, instead of retiring the Mig-29s it had it could have given them upgrades to SMT standard and retired its ancient F-4 Phantoms. Instead it retired the Migs and kept the F-4s because they didn't want to risk the future purchase of the Typhoons.

By that logic Russia may not actually be using the AK-74M as their standard weapon, it could just be that the groups who carry the AK-74M are the ones getting their picture taken.

Except when you see them deployed in Chechnia or in field exercises they do use AKs...

Well sure, but wouldn't they purchase the Gsh-18 if they felt it was a superior weapon?

We don't know what their availability is, it might be as simple as the Glocks come with rail mounts as standard and the GSh-18s don't.

I think that more than likely by the time the future soldier kit come out, most of the infantry rifle related roles will be covered by variations of the AK-12, excluding the 9mm specialist weapons, which they need to do something about by the way. There's like 5 of those 9mm rifles and they all do the exact same things.

Except the AK9 is not in service and those with money... ie counter terrorist and para military have gone with SR-3M or 9A-91 because they are lighter and more compact than the AS and VSS, while the Army units use the AS and VSS because they are in service and have been for almost 30 years.

Whole lot of pistols, seems like a bit much.

Well in the past there have been false starts where tests have been held and winners announced but nothing really happened.

Now however I think there is the money and the motivation to actually replace stuff in stock so I think after the AK-12 gets properly tested, if successful it will be used as the basis for replacement "standard" weapons, so the 9mm Vityaz with AK-12 controls and components will likely be the 9mm SMG, with a short barrel AK-12 as the AKS-74U replacement and the carbine and rifle model AK12s as the AK-105 and AK-74M, and perhaps a LMG barrel length weapon to replace the RPK-203... of course if they go for a multi calibre weapon then one weapon could fill the role from AKS-74U up to RPK-203 in a light rifle model, plus the heavy model to replace the SVD and perhaps a 12 gauge weapon.

That would mean 3 different model base guns... a light pistol round weapon perhaps in 9 x 19mm and 9 x 21mm Russian, and a medium rifle in assault rifle calibres and and a large frame weapon for heavier rounds... perhaps including a 338 LM rifle.
You would still use other SMG types like the Klin/Kedr, and the Kashtan and the PP-2000, and a full auto version of the Strizh would be useful too.
I personally would drop the PYa and but keep the GSh-18 and Gyurza, with the former used by VDV and Naval Infantry and the latter by special forces where needed.

I guess if the Strizh passes all its tests it could directly replace the Makarov, PYa, and GSh-18, and Stechkin in the full auto model.

How would they go about doing this?

Making it modular. A soldier equipped with SMGs doesn't need 4 large long chest pouches for two 30 round AK mags for instance. Different chest riggings to carry different kit is normal and could be issued with the weapon, so SVDs come with sniper addons etc etc.

Well crap. I was really hoping it would be chambered in 9x21 Russian, oh well.

Likely intended for export, but I would expect that in the future, if it is successful they could make a 9mm Gyurza model.

Still, it's a bit of a niche role.

Very much so but that is the beauty of the GSh-18 and ADS. They compete against standard weapons, yet can be used in specialist roles as well. The penalty is the different ammo adds complication, but considering the poor performance of standard ammo in water it is worth it when needed.

I remember that guy RomanS talking about having fired it. He said it was like firing a mini MP-5. Sounds pretty cool if you ask me

All through the 70s and 80s I read about how it was useless... obsolete... just because the west had seen it as a dead end in terms of small arms.

What they forgot was that a pistol is not a long range weapon and at close ranges a burst of 4-5 rounds don't need to go through the same hole on the target... in fact at such ranges an enormous spread is actually useful because it spreads the damage and multiplies the stopping force.
Over 50m and only the first few rounds will hit the paper, but inside a room less than 5m from the target where most pistol combat takes place a short burst is much much more effective than a single shot or double tap.

I have mentioned above that most of the time a pistol is a token weapon for those who can't carry anything bigger or heavier, and I stand by that. Any SMG is better than a pistol and any Assault Rifle is better than a SMG generally... inside a building a SMG can be better than an Assault rifle because it has the firepower but is easier to point. In very close combat a SMG is still better than a pistol because multiple hits are more lethal and moving targets are hard to hit so spraying 5 or more at the target you greatly increase your chances of a wound or kill.

The Stechkin is a SMG the size of a large pistol.

In the old 70s and 80s weapon books western experts talk about them being inaccurate and heavy, yet they are lighter than many 45 calibre automatics and holds 20 rounds compared to 7. Sure the 45 makes a bigger hole, but if 20 9mm holes are not enough then 7 45 calibre holes will not do any better.

Still used today and several replacements have been developed including the Pernach, and something called the Baksan from memory.

Hopefully this Strizh will fill the role... note new photos on the Max Popinker site with a selective fire model with a suppressor fitted...

http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg/rus/strike_one_pistol-e.html

Found this vid.



A few comments... when he mentions the ammo I thought he was talking about a new 7 x 21mm calibre, but he was just talking about Russian 9 x 19mm ammo designated 7N21.

Also having to rezero the weapon after using foreign ammo is normal, because the different pressures and bullet weights and of course muzzle velocities means the sights need to be adjusted for the different ammo types.

Russia's venture to replace the Makarov is quite confusing. So what happened to the Grach pistol? Personally, I think it's not worth the time and money to replace the Makarov. There are a lot better pistols today than the Makarov, but a pistol is not an important military weapon in the grand scheme of things.

One thing I really appreciate about the Makarov is its simplicity. I do not think there is another military/police pistol that is as simple as the Makarov is.

I think one of the most negative aspects of the Makarov from having fired one is the uncomfortable recoil impulse of blowback operation. It's a weird feeling sensation in your wrist. The next thing is the grip of the pistol. It's not the most ergonomic pistol. Accuracy and reliability is very good though. Some might criticize the round for being underpowered, however, there is really not going to be a huge difference between a 9x18 FMJ and 9x19 NATO FMJ being used by militaries. They both leave roughly the same size hole in you, while the 9x19 NATO penetrates slightly more.

Personally, I think Russia should take the opportunity to adopt a superior caliber to the 9x19. A pistol caliber with some of the wounding mechanisms of a rifle between 6mm and 8mm would be the ideal round.

The Russian military has decided that everything must go... ie all old stuff upgraded or replaced.

I agree the Makarov is a good little pistol.

There is criticism of the 8 shot mag and the mag release located on the bottom of the pistol grip, but when it was designed 8 shots was normal, and in the newer PMM it has 12 shots.

The Mag release was placed at the bottom of the pistol grip because of experience with the TT-33 and soldiers losing magazines while firing because the button to release the mag was right under their thumbs.

When stripped down it is a very simple unlocked blow back weapon consisting of a slide and main recoil spring plus the rest of the gun as one piece... not tiny parts to lose or break.

It would actually make a very good backup pistol.

At the end of the day that is all a pistol is... a backup weapon for people who don't have the space for an assault rifle or even a SMG.

In fact in most cases a small SMG like Klin/Kedr is a better choice than a pistol.

A pistol is an officers sidearm (i.e. standard issue) and for some NCOs too. Another factor is that contract-servicemen and officers alike all get training in it. This isn't the case with micro-SMGs or any of these weapons, which are far more specific, less available and only considered for the use of specialised units.

Maybe you can argue that this should be changed and so on - but until it is; the pistol is a more important and widely used weapon and is more of a priority to replace.

It is a symbol, and symbols are important.

GarryB wrote:The Russian military has decided that everything must go... ie all old stuff upgraded or replaced.

I agree the Makarov is a good little pistol.

There is criticism of the 8 shot mag and the mag release located on the bottom of the pistol grip, but when it was designed 8 shots was normal, and in the newer PMM it has 12 shots.

The Mag release was placed at the bottom of the pistol grip because of experience with the TT-33 and soldiers losing magazines while firing because the button to release the mag was right under their thumbs.

When stripped down it is a very simple unlocked blow back weapon consisting of a slide and main recoil spring plus the rest of the gun as one piece... not tiny parts to lose or break.

It would actually make a very good backup pistol.

At the end of the day that is all a pistol is... a backup weapon for people who don't have the space for an assault rifle or even a SMG.

In fact in most cases a small SMG like Klin/Kedr is a better choice than a pistol.

It's a good thing, but pistols should be the last priority in my opinion as pistol don't win wars. I imagine though their Makarov's might be wearing out because they've been in service for so long and they thought they might as just replace them with a new pistol. While the pistol grip magazine is more awkward to reload with, it's more fool proof. You can't accidently release a magazine on the Makarov.

I suspect pistols are relatively cheap, but I also suspect that with their future soldier program that they actually might be rather more widely deployed than before.

For the weight of a couple of kgs you have something that can save your life if your primary weapon fails.

Certainly special forces and police would find them valuable.

I do find it ironic that the old Makarov has an 8 shot magazine and a heel mag release while all the new pistols have 17 round + magazines and push button mag releases... has war changed so much?

I remember an old guy telling me that if the 6 shots in a revolver are not enough then the extra 7 shots in an automatic wont make much difference (referring to the 13 shot Browning pistol), and I don't think that has changed much.

In fact I think the large capacity magazines for new model pistols might encourage the user to take less care with their shots and therefore actually need more.

I very much object to police forces claiming they need 17 shots from Glocks to over power well armed criminal gangs... it is not the place of police to out shoot the criminals. I would prefer the police exert self control in the bullets they are sending downrange as those things are dangerous well beyond the vision of the shooter... you can't see through walls but your bullets sure can go through walls.

Of course back to the irony... an 8 shot pistol that should require rapid and constant replacement of magazines has a heel based mag catch, while the new pistols with enormous mag capacity has convenient easy to operate mag releases so you can rapidly replace that mag it took so long to empty...

I don't have a huge amount of experience with pistols, which kinda makes them exotic and exciting to me, but they are not the sort of thing that needs to be widely deployed and I don't think they would change the outcome of wars.

In fact I would think the only important pistols of history were the ones that have been used to assassinate major figures like Arch Duke Ferdinand to start WWI and of course the one that killed that American president... that guy Booth.

With all these new pistols it will be interesting to see what succeeds... it seems that the PYa is currently the standard Russian Army pistol, and I have read that the GSh-18 was tested by the Naval Infantry and VDV as a new standard side arm.

Edit:Nevermind

GarryB wrote:If it was from stocks from Vietnam then it probably wasn't beatup and worn out. Most of the rifles the Soviets got from Vietnam were from enormous warehouses captured in the south still wrapped up and covered in the goop they store them in. I doubt they would buy new weapons or source them from current battlefields for the purposes of a test.

Equally that footage was probably from a test in the mid 1990s and is just brought out when the M16 is mentioned... standard stock footage.

Oh okay, I didn't think that argument out very well, forget what I said.

What has fair got to do with it? The M16 was shown to hit paper targets at 600m on test shooting ranges, which is clearly superior to any AK-47, yet is that fair... how relevant are 600m shots in modern combat? Especially with hand picked shooters that in no way represent the average soldiers shooting performance?

There is little chance of a fair test and even less reason for a fair test... what has fair got to do with war?

Just look at photos of US personnel in Afghanistan with their fancy scopes and body armour and sophisticated armour and air power... and think again what fair has to do with conflict.

fair enough

I would say it was a fair test, but weapons looked to me to be in newish condition... the fact that one might have been in a box for 50 years is irrelevant, there was no obvious damage or wear on the weapon that I could see.

I think the whole reason I even brought up the AK vs M16 testing was to give an example of how tests can be made purposefully unfair to make a certain item appear superior to a largely uninformed audience. After reading your arguments I can see it was a very poor example, but I think you understand the general point I was trying to make.

Show me a US program that even mentions there are non american alternatives to the item they are talking about and it is likely talking about the M16. The AK gets mentioned... reliable but inaccurate is always the judgement.

Strange that the Israeli special forces and US special forces use inaccurate weapons though that never gets mentioned.

Very true.

They got hundreds of thousands of them from Vietnam... they got a few tens of thousands more from Georgia... the vast majority probably stayed in their wrapping while a few were taken out and tested and then disposed of. For a new test just get a new rifle out. There is no reason to believe that rifle was "worn out".

Yes, once again true. I'm beginning to feel a bit foolish.

The tests in question are for television and therefore the requirements for accuracy and fairness are fairly low.

For most of the 1990s and early 2000s an M16A was probably a good example of western assault rifles... bearing in mind that the British had the unreliable SA-80A in service and apart from a bolt close feature added the A model wasn't much different from the weapons used in the US. The cold weather problems of most early models of M16s is fairly well known and AFAIK not fully solved even today. On a day shoot as shown in the short video the main problems of the M16A, which revolved around the soldiers not cleaning the weapons properly because they were told not to and were not issued with cleaning kits combined with the change in propellent that resulted in a thick residue that hardened and burned faster increasing the rate of fire leading to components breaking faster and gumming up the mechanism when used in a jungle environment without cleaning doesn't really apply to properly cleaned rifles on a very cold shooting range, so these are not Vietnam problems... these are all new problems with the rifle the US didn't find till they took the weapons to Alaska and Norway for exercises and found a new range of problems.

Very interesting information, thank you.

BTW the accuracy of a 5.45 AK is not that inferior to the accuracy of an M16 so if you are going to accuse one side of being wrong it would be the US.

That I won't argue. I've out shot some pretty experienced AR-15 fanatics using some of my higher end AK variants. When it comes to actual offhand shooting, they're both actually pretty much the same accuracy-wise.

Half the terrorist groups around the world that use AKs were supplied them via the US and the west. When you look closely at those weapons you will find they were made in China or eastern europe and paid for by the CIA.

The other thing of course is that the US might call them terrorist groups but they would be called freedom fighters if they suited the US at the time... where do you think the Muj in Afghanistan got all those AKs. The US would like everyone to think they captured them, but who did they capture them from? Neither the Soviet Army, nor the Afghan Army used Aks bought from China or the Middle East where most of their weapons actually came from. The truth is that the Aks flooding into the country came from China and Egypt and lots of other countries captured by Israel or simply bought from China with CIA and Saudi Arabian money.

I agree with what you're saying but I'm not sure how it ties together with the rest of your argument.

That was stock footage... that could have been filmed in the 1990s for all we know. It was likely filmed for another story and kept for when the M16 gets mentioned so they can drag it out and play it.

Looking at the quality of the footage in question, you're probably right.

There might have been a bit of malice there... how often does the US boast about its military prowess? But I think you are reading too much into it.

Yeah probably.

Except when you see them deployed in Chechnia or in field exercises they do use AKs...

It was an attempt at sarcasm.

We don't know what their availability is, it might be as simple as the Glocks come with rail mounts as standard and the GSh-18s don't.

Alright, that's true. It is also true that that Glocks have an extremely good reputation, which would definitely be something a Special forces operator would take into consideration when choosing a sidearm, which is a factor I failed to consider.

while the Army units use the AS and VSS because they are in service and have been for almost 30 years.

I'm sure the fact that you could probably shoot a guy with it from 50 meters and his buddy 20 meters to his left wouldn't even notice is also a good reason.

I personally would drop the PYa and but keep the GSh-18 and Gyurza, with the former used by VDV and Naval Infantry and the latter by special forces where needed.

Who knows, if the Swift has the capability to fire underwater it could be adopted instead of the Gsh-18. Also, if a version is produced capable of firing Russian 9x21 ammo, the Gyurza would no longer be needed.

Making it modular. A soldier equipped with SMGs doesn't need 4 large long chest pouches for two 30 round AK mags for instance. Different chest riggings to carry different kit is normal and could be issued with the weapon, so SVDs come with sniper addons etc etc.

Thanks for the answer.

Very much so but that is the beauty of the GSh-18 and ADS. They compete against standard weapons, yet can be used in specialist roles as well. The penalty is the different ammo adds complication, but considering the poor performance of standard ammo in water it is worth it when needed.

I suppose so. What do you think the chances are that the swift will be able to be fired underwater?

Wow, I read that post and it read like a naughty schoolboy being told off by teacher...


I apologise for that.

Who knows, if the Swift has the capability to fire underwater it could be adopted instead of the Gsh-18. Also, if a version is produced capable of firing Russian 9x21 ammo, the Gyurza would no longer be needed.

Actually since I posted that answer I have seen a few reports and videos showing the PYa in service, and I suspect that the future standard Russian Army pistol will likely remain the PYa.

I suggested dropping it because the general consensus was that it was bad and it seems not to be the case.

Having said that the Army needs a pistol, but so does the VDV, and the Spetsnaz, and the FSB, and the MVD, as well as a dozen other organisations in Russia. I suspect the VDV and naval infantry will stick with their selection of the GSh-18 for at least now, and the special forces will retain the Gyurza when the extra power is needed.


This new pistol seems to have high up political support, which suggests a bright future. though of course they will need to get it through tests and into production first.

I would suspect the new pistol will fire underwater... most weapons can, it is the special ammo that allows it to fire effectively underwater, so that is it lethal over a useful distance instead of having the projectle land on the river bed a metre in front of you.

If the new pistol passes its tests and proves effective it might start to displace other weapons from service, though its success or failure might have more to do with its political support than any capability it might have.

Russian Army to Replace Markarov Pistol with PYa Yarygin and Serdyukov SPS pistols

The Russian army has refused purchasing a Makarov pistol in favor of gun Yarygin and Serdyukov, said Chief of Land Forces, Colonel General Vladimir Chirkin. "Pistol Makarov not purchased for several years. instead made ​​purchases Yarygin pistol (pictured) and Serdyukov," - said he was reported by RIA Novosti. According to him, in the interest of the Armed Forces on the basis of the Moscow region TSNIITOCHMASH enterprises, including in the development work, "Warrior", tested various types of small arms. The results of these tests will be decided on the immediate availability of these weapons to the troops. According Chirkina among the test samples - gun "Swift" and automatic "AK-12".

(Google translate)

Rest of the article here: http://www.i-mash.ru/news/nov_otrasl/26251-rossijjskaja-armija-otkazalas-ot-pistoleta.html

Does this mean the Gyurza will finally get some love?

I haven't heard anything about them testing the Gsh-18 yet. Does this mean they have found a weapon that can better fulfill it's intended purpose?

Strizh


Interestingly, the strizh will be available for early purchase in the US this winter, official launch is next spring. I'm contemplating getting one. I think I'll let the reviews come in first though, as I'm not so sure about the mag release.

Really? Thanks for the heads up Zivo.



Oh God I want it. .

Yes. Unfortunately it wont have the Cyrillic on it. However as is, it has a lot of goodies you just don't get with a glock, plus it's a freaking Russian handgun. 2012-13 is a unusually good time for Russian imports. Literally two days ago, 1,000 Vepr-12's got off the boat from Russia. It's such a nice shotgun that until now has been impossible to get in the states. I should have mine in a few weeks

Now if only they would bring factory dragunov's here.

I love how what started as a thread for a handgun has turned into a second AK-12 discussion thread. I'm partly to blame though so I'll get us back on topic.

It's a few months old but I don't think it's been posted here yet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=EBHoCdyy3CA&feature=endscreen[/youtube]

Hm, It doesn't want to embed for some reason. .

Awesome new video from Ria Novisti



That SMG model actually looks pretty sweet.