Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian firearms comparison with rest of the world

    Share

    Asf
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 488
    Points : 515
    Join date : 2014-03-27

    Re: Russian firearms comparison with rest of the world

    Post  Asf on Tue Oct 21, 2014 9:49 am

    G36 offers strictly nothing over it, whereas M4 does, it's lighter, and easily modded

    M4... nay, I'd prefer german quality over unreliable carabine prone to overheating. Plus, it has nice in-build scope already. IIRC, it can be replaced with the whole transport grip, don't it?


    Accuracy for non expert shooter is better with CG though

    Why?

    Asf
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 488
    Points : 515
    Join date : 2014-03-27

    Re: Russian firearms comparison with rest of the world

    Post  Asf on Tue Oct 21, 2014 10:32 am

    I don't really understand, can anybody explain this ?

    It's a bit vague. May be he wanted to say turning gas flow blows out gas hole preventing it from choking due to local pressure increase? I don't know for sure if this kind of process actually take place. May be he just telling about gas piston mechanics advantage ovet direct impingement  of M16. 

    Morpheus Eberhardt
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1967
    Points : 2092
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: Russian firearms comparison with rest of the world

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Tue Oct 21, 2014 10:51 am

    AK also use the effect of "turning back of air's kinetic energy", the air flow has to turn back 300 degree when moving with 600m/s, therefore when the bullet escape the barrel, the air has just escape through air hole.(I don't really understand, can anybody explain this ?)

    Should be about 130°, at least initially. Why 300°?

    cracker
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 232
    Points : 273
    Join date : 2014-09-04

    Re: Russian firearms comparison with rest of the world

    Post  cracker on Tue Oct 21, 2014 7:41 pm

    Asf wrote:
    G36 offers strictly nothing over it, whereas M4 does, it's lighter, and easily modded

    M4... nay, I'd prefer german quality over unreliable carabine prone to overheating. Plus, it has nice in-build scope already. IIRC, it can be replaced with the whole transport grip, don't it?


    Accuracy for non expert shooter is better with CG though

    Why?

    M4 is a fine weapon, and more compact and lighter than G36. M4 reliability is fine, but you can't use it like an AK of course. Overall M4 offers high modularity, small size, and decent performance. M16A4 is a fine weapon too, but I prefer M4, more handy. German quality? It's a joke, german quality in firearms is overratted and irrelevant. G36 overheats easily, more than M4. G36 and G36K, service rifles of german army, are not modulable at all, and can't use any other optic. The optics inside were fine in 2000, they are largely outclassed by what you can put yourself on a M4 top: ACOG or Eotech, magnifiers, night vision... I don't like G36, but it's not a shitty weapon, just inferior.

    CG has better and more instinctive accuracy than RPG-7, because the projectiles are simple ballistic shells with high velocity, spin stabilised (CG is rifled). RPG-7 rounds are also spin stabilised, but also fin stabilised, and they are rockets, not ballistic objects, and they are more sensitive to wind. CG is thus more easy for an untrained person, but a highly trained RPG user will touch the target every time inside 300m.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Russian firearms comparison with rest of the world

    Post  Werewolf on Tue Oct 21, 2014 8:47 pm

    cracker wrote:
    Asf wrote:
    G36 offers strictly nothing over it, whereas M4 does, it's lighter, and easily modded

    M4... nay, I'd prefer german quality over unreliable carabine prone to overheating. Plus, it has nice in-build scope already. IIRC, it can be replaced with the whole transport grip, don't it?


    Accuracy for non expert shooter is better with CG though

    Why?

    M4 is a fine weapon, and more compact and lighter than G36. M4 reliability is fine, but you can't use it like an AK of course. Overall M4 offers high modularity, small size, and decent performance. M16A4 is a fine weapon too, but I prefer M4, more handy. German quality? It's a joke, german quality in firearms is overratted and irrelevant. G36 overheats easily, more than M4. G36 and G36K, service rifles of german army, are not modulable at all, and can't use any other optic. The optics inside were fine in 2000, they are largely outclassed by what you can put yourself on a M4 top: ACOG or Eotech, magnifiers, night vision... I don't like G36, but it's not a shitty weapon, just inferior.

    CG has better and more instinctive accuracy than RPG-7, because the projectiles are simple ballistic shells with high velocity, spin stabilised (CG is rifled). RPG-7 rounds are also spin stabilised, but also fin stabilised, and they are rockets, not ballistic objects, and they are more sensitive to wind. CG is thus more easy for an untrained person, but a highly trained RPG user will touch the target every time inside 300m.

    The G-36 is not the best that is for sure but claiming it is inferior to M4/16 is just ignorance. Both have a lot of problems, like bad reciever quality which both are to blame, the one is plastic that can not even handle more than 4 years in service (G-36) and the other is prone of low quality material that is absolutley incapable of handling even slight overpressure without exploding, the M16 reciever and breech are to tight designed reducing its reliability and the biggest flaw no gas piston. I used it on reservists multi national shooting and could compare it with G-36 and Swiss SIG-550 and i must say the quality of M16 is inferior to what i have heared and imagined, the entire rifle rattled like a toy which was very odd due the tight reciever and breech design it overall feld even more like a toy even compared with the G-36 which has a full plastic reciever.
    Ther are also quite lot of disadvantages on G-36 which i know from serving with it for 4 years, it overheats far to fast that is true, it's accuracy is superb due the free floating barrel, but one stupid unwarriness and drop it or clonk it against wall or against any object and the accuracy worsens, not by 0.5-1 MOA but more like 3 MOA.

    The grunt G-36 has only the standard sights that is true, but for Special Forces or for units that are currently in Afghanistan there are also G-36 variants that do not posses the standard sights and have picannaly rail so everyone can add superior sights and scopes.

    Overall due the high amount of flaws on G36 and M16 i rate them barely equally in "quality". Compared with the 30 rounds i could shoot with the SIG-550 i can tell, both will lose under all situations and comperisions in performance against that rifle, which i was told has only one big issue, it is a true bitch to clean even compared to G36 which i can tell is already horrible to clean and can cause even some injuries like cuts and scratches.


    The RPG-7 rotates at a very slow rate and that is important since shaped charges are effected by centrifugal force that takes effect on the copper when it starts to shape to a narrow needle/jet stream and the centrufal force flattens out this needle and makes it more of a bulky peg than a needle, which worsens the penetration capability.

    cracker
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 232
    Points : 273
    Join date : 2014-09-04

    Re: Russian firearms comparison with rest of the world

    Post  cracker on Tue Oct 21, 2014 11:40 pm

    Well you're probably right. But I doubt milspec (US) M4 or M16A4 are shit, definitely not. And again, Hk416 is all you need, besides an AK.

    I think AK5 is a great rifle, it's based off the FNC and made more rugged for use in sweden, I really like this nato rifle, more than any other i think. Sig 550 is quite nice, but heard many problems about short life of some internat components... Sig 551 carbine might be the best bet for a 5.56 rifle. I find the G36 too weird and tall, maybe I would prefer a reworked G36K with flat top and some improvements.

    I studied and learned almost all you can find on internet about RPG-7. Early rockets, PG-7V and PG-7VM, both have a spin rate of 5000-6000 rpm. That's huge. From the very improved PG-7VS, it was reduced to ~2000-3000 rpm. The high spin rates never prevented HEAT from peforating half meters of steel, look performance of HEAT rounds for the T-55, or simply those of the RPG-7. Sure it's even better with no spin, but, it's not that different. The explosion simply negates most of the spin energy, and the jet moves at 15km/s anyway. The important factors are mostly stand off distance, cone shape and material, and type of explosive.

    In carl gustav, spin is created simply by conventional rifling and a driving band on the shell. In RPG-7, it's initiated by a helical butt of the rocket, then continued and accelerated by the shape of the nozzles of the motor. RPG-7 is smoothbore of course.

    85mm PG-7: 260mm RHA pen
    72mm PG-7VS (copied from PG-9): 400mm.



    About rifles, I think you can't beat the slickness and rugged design of this bad boy

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Russian firearms comparison with rest of the world

    Post  Werewolf on Wed Oct 22, 2014 12:57 am

    I think you that you have made some mistake or got a bad source for the spinning rate. The Engine itself lets rotate the warhead but the fins are there for a reason to reduce the spinning rate by airdrag which results in a rather low spinning rate but enough to stabilize the warhead. If it was about such high spinning rates then the fins would be not 90° straight facing away from the body but would be round shaped like on Shturm ATGM to avoid much of airdrag and actualy at 6000 rpm it would not need any fins to stabilize it at all, they would be dead weight and counter productive to such high spinning rates.

    And GarryB has already made a good post about the negative effect on shaped charges from spinning, that is also reason why Apaches M789 HEDP ammunition which are small shaped charges have special lining in the cone to reduce the centrifugal force on the forming jet stream/needle when it sets off.

    http://www.russiadefence.net/t1935p30-shamanov-insists-the-bmd-4m-is-neccesary
    http://www.russiadefence.net/t1852-questions-answers

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Russian firearms comparison with rest of the world

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Wed Oct 22, 2014 3:15 am

    Speaking about Russian Arms, whats your guys thoughts on the AK-74MB?


    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Russian firearms comparison with rest of the world

    Post  Werewolf on Wed Oct 22, 2014 3:50 am

    magnumcromagnon wrote:Speaking about Russian Arms, whats your guys thoughts on the AK-74MB?


    Wierd modification, don't think i would feel comfortable with the forward trigger mechanism firing it scrumbed up like this, feels unatural but still better than M16 or G36.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian firearms comparison with rest of the world

    Post  GarryB on Wed Oct 22, 2014 7:31 am

    The relability of M16 is lower. The weakest point of M16 is its gas-operated reloader. The vessel for gas in M16 is damn small (1mm diameter) and can be easily choked by dust. Meanwhile, gas vessel in AK-47 has a big diameter (2/3 of M16 barrel diameter), it cannot be choked.

    AK also use the effect of "turning back of air's kinetic energy", the air flow has to turn back 300 degree when moving with 600m/s, therefore when the bullet escape the barrel, the air has just escape through air hole

    I think he is talking about the gas system in the M16 compared with the AK.

    The M16 has a very thin tube taking gas directly from barrel to bolt face and is only a few mms in diameter and therefore easily clogged/ blocked.

    CG is thus more easy for an untrained person, but a highly trained RPG user will touch the target every time inside 300m.

    Who cares how easy a weapon is to use for an untrained person?

    Early rockets, PG-7V and PG-7VM, both have a spin rate of 5000-6000 rpm. That's huge. From the very improved PG-7VS, it was reduced to ~2000-3000 rpm. The high spin rates never prevented HEAT from peforating half meters of steel,

    6000 rpm means 100 rotations per second, but the RPG-7 rocket moves at just under 400m/s so that is one rotation ever 4 metres which is nothing.

    A 5.45mm bullet rotates every 25cm or so, so at 900m/s we are talking about a rotation speed of 3600 rotations PER SECOND.

    The explosion simply negates most of the spin energy, and the jet moves at 15km/s anyway. The important factors are mostly stand off distance, cone shape and material, and type of explosive.

    A high rotation speed is bad for HEAT rounds.... and you can't spin APFSDS rounds fast enough to stabilise them... that is why you don't spin javelins or darts (the sports equipment, not the weapons)... and it is also why most main battle tanks have smooth bore barrels.

    The Engine itself lets rotate the warhead but the fins are there for a reason to reduce the spinning rate by airdrag which results in a rather low spinning rate but enough to stabilize the warhead. If it was about such high spinning rates then the fins would be not 90° straight facing away from the body but would be round shaped like on Shturm ATGM to avoid much of airdrag and actualy at 6000 rpm it would not need any fins to stabilize it at all, they would be dead weight and counter productive to such high spinning rates.

    As far as I know the rocket nozzles just propel the grenade and the long fins impart a slow rate of turn... 6,000 rpm is a relatively slow rate of turn.

    There is a piece at the very rear of the rocket that has angled fins the diameter of the tube that might direct the blast of the launching charge and make it impart roll on firing.

    Speaking about Russian Arms, whats your guys thoughts on the AK-74MB?

    Doesn't look like a finished weapon... it looks like a homemade modification...

    I'd prefer the ADS I think.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Russian firearms comparison with rest of the world

    Post  Werewolf on Wed Oct 22, 2014 4:00 pm

    As far as I know the rocket nozzles just propel the grenade and the long fins impart a slow rate of turn... 6,000 rpm is a relatively slow rate of turn. There is a piece at the very rear of the rocket that has angled fins the diameter of the tube that might direct the blast of the launching charge and make it impart roll on firing. wrote:

    I think you are right with the after section fins that they produce the spinning.

    Asf
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 488
    Points : 515
    Join date : 2014-03-27

    Re: Russian firearms comparison with rest of the world

    Post  Asf on Wed Oct 22, 2014 4:30 pm

    Werewolf wrote:

    I think you are right with the after section fins that they produce the spinning.
    Is it a questionable? What's written in the RPG-7's manual

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Russian firearms comparison with rest of the world

    Post  Werewolf on Wed Oct 22, 2014 4:36 pm

    Asf wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:

    I think you are right with the after section fins that they produce the spinning.
    Is it a questionable? What's written in the RPG-7's manual

    I don't have the manual, but i was reading also several sources and among them there were some mentioning that the nozzles were slightly angled of center creating the spin, untill GarryB said the seconds fins are the cause for spinning, which i did not notice before.

    higurashihougi
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2126
    Points : 2241
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: Russian firearms comparison with rest of the world

    Post  higurashihougi on Wed Oct 22, 2014 4:51 pm

    Another writing of the same author.

    Note: sorry if my translation is not good.

    Huy Phúc wrote:The warhead of NATO 7.62mm has the weight of 9,4-5-6 gram, maximum muzzle velocity (practically can never achieve) 860 m/s. The bullet was designed to mimic the Mosin M1908's outer trajectory. But the inner trajectory (means the trajectory of the bullet when it is still inside the barrel) is very different. When the gun powder explodes, NATO 7.62mm generates a very large initial air pressure, but that pressure decreases very fast. Meanwhile Mosin generates a lower initial pressure, and that pressure decrease very slowly. A lower and more stable air pressure is very important for a gun because that increase the life span and conditions for the gun, and people will not have to design a too heavy barrel. Another western copy which is more suitable for long burst firing is FN FAL. FN FAL is one of the most successful assault rifle in that time.

    About Mosin, in the 1930s the bullet was improved, had a more similar trajectory to Mauser, and increased the penetration power (in 1930s people still expected this bullet to penetrate tanks and armoured vehicles). Since 1938 Mosin was also improved, mainly for suiting the shorter gun barrel and the new techs in gun design.

    NATO 7.62mm actually was not designed for assault guns but heavy traditional rifles. Clearly it mimics the outer trajectory of Mosin. Therefore, in order to use NATO 7.62mm, Germany shortened the barrel into 300mm and created the G3 with muzzle velocity of 700 m/s and a reduced recoil, yes this was a real assault rifle. Actually cutting short the barrel reduced the capability of the bullet, but Germany had no choice because at that time it was a prisoner of NATO and it could not use anything different from NATO 7.62mm. Without sufficent velocity, the traditional rifle bullet do not have sufficent penetration and "blasting" power. The adequate velocity will maintain a low-air-pressure area created by the aerodynamic bullet nose, decrease the "posterior of arrow effect", increase the accuracy and the ability of "blasting" the living tissues.

    When hitting the target, NATO bullet turns one round and penetrates 640mm standard tissue. Meanwhile, AK-47's 7.62mm turns 2 rounds, penetrates 740mmm standard tissue. You can see that, when hits, AK-47's bullet not only push the tissue foward, but it also whirls violently and transmits the shockwaves violently to all the sides. The volume of destroyed tissue is much larger than NATO bullet. The NATO bullet is too long and therefore, when hiting and turning inside the human tissue, it suffers heavy resistance from the tissue, which reduces the penetration and the volume of destroyed tissue. To be fair, the destroyed tissue by NATO bullet received a stronger pressure and force than AK-47, but that is not neccessary because lower pressure of AK-47 is more than enough to kill the living cells. In order to kill tissue and human cells, you do not need to grind them into fine powder.

    The penetration and blasting capability of M16 catridges are more or less equal, and all are worse than AK-47. Penetration is only half of AK-47, and the volume of destroyed tissue is only one-third of AK-47. Straight kinetic of AK-47 bullet and M-16 are equal, but whirling kinetic of AK-47 is much better due to the diameter. Furthermore, as M16 bullet has faster velocity, therefore the penetration power of it is terrible. Remember, with the same kinetic energy, bullet with low velocity will have tremendous penetration. And because the rotation axis of M16 is fixed, the blasting capability of it is also terrible. Meanwhile, the rotation axis of AK-47 is oscillating around a center, it will whirl violently inside the human tissue. Later, when M16 switched to the FN SS109, the penetration and blasting capability was increased because the SS109 has very high rotation rate and the bullet cover is stripped out when contacting with the human tissues, and the cover fragments will kill a number of human cells. But when the bullet is still moving inside the gun barrel, that bullet cover also damaged the barrel, too. As a result, life span of M16 barrel became damn low and damn unacceptable.

    Later, people switched to the smaller caliber of 5.xx and used small catridge. In order to produce and make use of smaller bullets, we need more advanced technology. The U.S. did not. For example, the first 5.xx M16 bullet was actually the Mauser/Remington 1925 5.56mm. This is the bullet for duck-hunting, it has very low blasting capability, because a blasted and crumbled duck is not good for a meal. Later, Colt used the gunpowder of 7.62 x 51mm for this duck-hunting bullet. As a results, the new 5.xx of M16A1 and the gun itself had an unscientific and unsuitable design. The M16A1 barrel is not much shorter and tidier than the heavy, long rifle using the same gunpower, and M16A1's diameter is too small.

    Meanwhile, German G11 has a 3-round burst concentrated in a straight line because the main part of the gun can move freely in the 3-round burst and it is not hindered. And the AK-74 5.45mm M74 has hollowed warhead, therefore the outer trajectory and final trajectory of M74 are very excellent. The accuracy is even much better than large caliber bullet. For example, at the distacnce of 250 metre, the 3-round burst of RPK 5.45mm all hit the target. The more modern AKs such as AK-107/108 have recoil stabilzation system, and at the distance of 100 meters the 30-round burst of AK-xx all hit the target.

    In the West people do not have the technology to massively and economically manufacture the hollowed warhead, therefore such kinds of warhead are used mainly for sniper rifles. And the bullshit M16 5.xx bullet has no advanced technology, it is just a f*cking duck-hunting bullet.

    In 1958-1967 when M16 was introduced, Russia also tested new kinds of bullet. The old M43 and Mosin bullets also received a number of improvement thanks to the benefit of newly introduced techs. The successor of M43 in that time was M67 (bullet type 1967), which is still used extensively today. Later when NATO introduced the SS109 into its service (198x), Russia also tested the new AK catridge of 6mm (is this the 6x49mm ?), but unfortunately the USSR collapsed, and Russia's political/financial crisis in that time prevented them from further developing the 6mm bullet. Nonetheless, new techs in the 6mm catridge was applied into the existing 5.45 and 7.62 ones.

    In 3 decades the EU did not have a real assault rifle, but they accepted that and never touch the M16A1. This is one of the most humiliating and shameful defeat of the M16. In 198x, the U.S. accepted the barrel and bullet of Belgium FN SS109 and applied it into M16A2. Switching into SS109 increased the accuracy, but the U.S. insisted to use the old size, therefore people have to abandoned the aerodynamic "prop onto the sharp nose" design and degenrated into 19th century tech with fixed rotation axis and high rotation rate. Meanwhile, Germany disregarded the M16A2 design and created its own G11. Later when the Cold War ended, relationship with Russia was improved, Germany gradually stopped the development of G11.

    Talking about the weight of the gun, AK initially was 4.3kg. AKM (1959) was 3.17kg. AK-74 was 2.97 kg. M16A1 (1967) was 2.89kg, M16A2 (1981) was 3.77kg. About the size, since M16 used the gunpowder of traditional heavy rifles, M16 size is equal to traditional rifle, too. That means the gun was born after AK 2 decades, but was heavier, bigger, more cubersome.

    Talking about history of usage, amongst the assault rifles which are massively produced, no one has such as disgraceful and lowscum history as M16. EU and other U.S. allies such as Japan, Canada, Australia,... did not want to touch M16 and for them not having real assault rifles in 3 decades was much better than using M16A1. Besides from small, weak and dependent countries, only UK and Japan used M16 barrel but they used AR-18 feeding mechanism. Later, the EU accepted SS109 as standard bullet, but they never use feeding mechanism of M16. Countries with advanced techs like Germany decided to design their own gun, for example the G11. UK several times attempted to create its own catridge, for example it cooperated with FN to design the 7x40mm for SM2 and designed the 4.xx mm like G11, but all was not successful due to the dependence on U.S. supply.

    The full writing of one part the previous quote, with minor edits

    Huy Phúc wrote:Need to take notice that AK-47 did not descend from MP44 aka StG44. MP44/StG44 is NOT an assault rifle. MP means "Machine Pistol". St is indeed "assault", but G is "gun". Any gun. Either rifle, submachine, or pistol. When Germany only said "G" without further specification, like G43, G3, or G11, that "G" is the standard type of infantry gun. In the time of G43 and MP44, that was the traditional long rifle. Today, G is assault rifle.

    In fact in 193x Germany had tried to developed a kind of assault rifle named MKb45, used GECO 7.92x40, quite similar to the initial M43. However in 1938 Mauser seperated the "rifle" and "assault" into two distinct gun. Rifle came back to traditional heavy bullet and became G43. Assault gun used its own bullet in 1943 and used the name "Machine Pistol", aka MPxx. MKb42 evolved into MP43, MP43/1 and MP44.

    So it's clear that MP44 aka StG44 is not assault rifle. Assault rifle is not assault gun.

    The MP44 used a different kind of feeder from AK-xx. The machine looked more similar to Russian PTRS-41 and CKC.

    Back to AK-xx and M43 bullet, the M43 was the fruits of researching and improvement the concept of Fedorov Avtomat, a predeccesor of DP machine gun. Fedorov Avtomat used Japanese 6.5mm and was successfuly tested in 1909-1911, and established the very foundation of assault rifle in 1915. In the same year Degtriarev also proposed his own design. Both Fedorov and Degtriarev became the leader of Koborov factories in the USSR. But it is quite unlucky for Fedorov Avtomat because the USSR cannot produced the rifle's ammo, therefore the design was fixed to become a machine gun and use the bigger, more available bullet. Yes, without the small catridge, Fedorov became machine gun DP in 1922.

    The first Russian gun who used M43 was Sudaev AS-44. AS-44 had a much more gradiose design than AK-47, and it had 3 different variations, one for LMG, one for assault rifle, and one for single-shot rifle. The assault rifles was reimproved and redesigned several times, but unluckily Sudaev fell ill in 1945 and died in 1946 without seeing the fruits of his works. The later tests showed that the gun was too heavy, but the concept was a excellent one.

    To the AK-47, the AK-47's bolt shared the ideas of Bulkin-45/46. Bulkin researched the U.S. M1 Garand and took from that the two-line magazines and the design of the bolt. But Bulkin's "shaft" of the bolt has a cylindrical shape, and the bolt is rotating. From 1945 to 1949 both Bulkin and Kalashnicov had developed the typical bolt of AK with the distinctive two big pronged details at the side of the bolt. Most of the hitting force is distributed into these two prongs, thanks to that the shaft does not suffer much, this fact enabled the designer to significantly reduce the size of the receiver. The German FG42, U.S. M1 Garand and M60 have very small prongs and therefore the receivers are very big and cubersome.

    Thanks to the distinctive design, AK's gas-operated feeder is very strong and efficient. The design of AK's feeder actually learned from Czech ZB-26. Unfortunately, ZB-26 designers mistook the calculation therefore the ZB is not very effective.

    In the past, the USSR had a legendary gun named SVT. The idea was born in 1917, but received no support, finally in 192x people began to test it. It was accepted in 1938.

    SVT's gas-operated reloading was very preeminent. It was improved from the DP and it is lightweight. The characteristc of this gas-operated is that the "return shaft" has spring separated from the receiver, the cylinder is attached onto the return shaft (LWRC and AR-18 has a propaganda about "cup-shaped piston" which is bullshit).

    German's G43 copied the SVT gas-operated feeding, and that is the reason why G43 was accepted in the war. Countries like Sweden, Belgium, Switzerland also use similar bolt to Russia. The basic design is the same, but the small details is different because Russia created it by milling and stamping machine, while Western Europe casted the bolt. The distinctive characteristic of the breech is that the two pronged parts at the sides. And the FN FAL, standard assault rifle of EU in the old days of AK 7.62mm also used similar SVT gas-operated feeded, but it has different piston.

    Sweden, due to its neutral stance, decided to create its own gun and it copied the SVT to created  AG-42. But the AG-42 did not use SVT's gas-operated ones. AG's piston was positioned in the reverse order compared to FSA MAS, piston was positioned ontop of the below part of the receiver, and in M16 people called it "carrier key", a f*cking queer name.

    The gas feeder of AG-42 was used in AR-15. But the AR designer at that time were unexperienced. They did not know that the AG-42's feeder is no good. In fact, people had already discovered many shortcomings of AG's gas operated system: uneven heat cause the bending of the barrel, heavy amount of dust is generated inside the feeder... But it was in the time of war and for the sake of selling the propaganda machine went on to cover the AG's weakness. AR-15's design was poisoned by the propaganda, and since AR-15 fires in burst of very high rate, the problem of dust and choking quickly rose in the manner of geometric progression.

    And when Colt purchased AR-15 from Armalite, Colt passed the poisonous propaganda into American tax payers. The lobbyist bla bla bla about anything of AR-15 was all good, all perfect, etc. Colt also recruited Eugene Stoner from Armalite in order to bolster the propaganda effect. Stoner though that in Colt he would have a chance of promotion and have a chane of further improve the AR-15, but later Stone realized that he was fooled, for Colt's AR-15 he was merely a figurehead for advertisement. Frustated, Stone switched to Cadillac Gate and designed Stoner 63.

    When Stone designed the Stoner 63, the remaining team of Armalite designed the AR-18. Both AR-18 and Stoner 63 had a improved and much better feeding mechanism. Especially, the AR-18 re-introduced the feeding mechanism of SVT.

    Today, after the harsh truth about M16 in Iraq, Afganistan,... the gun designers massively revolt against the bullshit in M16. One of the design amongst this is the LWRC, actually this is a modernization of AR-18.

    Meanwhile, M16 is still a permature born child, a freaking fetus of Colt. It can only trembles with fear in front of SVT feeding mechanism.

    For reference, it is said that, when the U.S. officer tried to use Vietcong's AK-47, they said "this is the true weapon !". Today, when AK-47 and M16 are used in the same army against the Taliban and Iraqi terrorists, people have the chance to better compare them. The U.S. tried hard to replace AK-47 the Iraqi and Afghan allies by M16. But failed. Even the U.S. themshelves also prefer to use the AKs. The U.S. had to bought AKs from their allies in Eastern Europe and former USSR. But these countries started to use NATO bullet and reduced the production of AKs. And finally, what should come has finally come: it is said that Washington planned to purchase 70.000 AKs from Russia and a large number of AKs have been delivered.

    Look at the webpage of XM8, LWRC, FN... you can see many things about the freaking, premature born, degenerated feeding machine of M16.

    cracker
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 232
    Points : 273
    Join date : 2014-09-04

    Re: Russian firearms comparison with rest of the world

    Post  cracker on Wed Oct 22, 2014 5:56 pm

    PG-7 nozzles are angled, end of the story... I said already... Initail spin is created by the helical fins at the rear of the projectile, balance and stabilisation achieved by the folding fins which open at the launch, real spin activated at 11m from the launch when engine ignites, and exhausts the gas through 6 angled nozzles, goin up to 6000 rpm or 2000 rpm on modern roquets.

    Just look for a video on youtube, as I did.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian firearms comparison with rest of the world

    Post  GarryB on Thu Oct 23, 2014 7:14 am

    real spin activated at 11m from the launch when engine ignites, and exhausts the gas through 6 angled nozzles, goin up to 6000 rpm or 2000 rpm on modern roquets.

    Why angle the nozzles and the fins?

    Angling the nozzles to create spin would reduce thrust forward and if it had angled rocket thrust nozzles it would not need stabilising fins.

    The rocket nozzles are places close to the centre of gravity... just behind the warhead... if it had angled nozzles to create spin there would be no need to have them there and they could be fitted to the rear of the round.

    BTW I have the 166 page RPG-7 manual, though of course it is in Russian so I can't read it.

    I also have a US manual for the RPG-7 but it is more focused on countermeasures than accurate technical description.



    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    cracker
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 232
    Points : 273
    Join date : 2014-09-04

    Re: Russian firearms comparison with rest of the world

    Post  cracker on Thu Oct 23, 2014 7:35 am

    you can't miss it, starts at 2.15 in the video, it shows that without inclinded nozzles, the rocket would stop to spin, and stop to be stabilized, leading to appaling wind sensitivity and zero accuracy

    Vann7
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3225
    Points : 3349
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: Russian firearms comparison with rest of the world

    Post  Vann7 on Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:16 am

    cracker wrote:
    G36 offers strictly nothing over it, whereas M4 does, it's lighter, and easily modded. In the second place I definitely put US M4 or better, Hk416, certainly not any other assault rifle, G36 would still be behind AK5 (FNC) in my book. AK-74M offers a level of ruggedness unachieved in any other assault rifle. Do you see many soldiers worldwide doing push ups on the magazine of their rifle on a regular basis?


    i Think you miss the point... NATO develops its weapons according to their needs.. NATO armies are developed for easy wars... ones where they will move into a country.. build a base , their cafeterias and air conditioners facilities,
    that is wars like IRAQ where they know they will have air superiority. and the edge in technology..  For such wars you don't need Ruggedness or weapons that can survive a volcano. Neither they expect to get very dirty either...
    NATO design the hardware for easy and clean wars ,against third world nations.. where their technology and air superiority and navy will have no rival. So for such wars.. NATO don't need ultra simple and ultra strong weapons..they are a Big alliance of 28 countries.. and they know Russia will never dare to invade them.. specially
    because Russia depends on their energy business and also NATO have nuclear weapons..

    In the other hand Russia develop its hardware for the worse possible scenario.... That they are invaded again by the west.. (or perhaps by CHINA after a coup by USA ) and that after a civil war they lose control of their nukes.. and most of the army defects. That is a war of attrition. Something like a vietnam war.. So naturally RUssia does not have the strong alliance that NATO have. and is surrounded by Enemies.. so they need to be prepared for the worst possible scenario.. and build its most of its firearms as simple as possible , and easy to maintain as possible and as realliable to dirt and poor weather ..  and as cheap as possible.. so that in case of a major war.. they can very quickly start mass production of any of their military hardware.  So this is why Russia design their military hardware.. so rustic and simple without modern materials etc.. just metal.  So that if a war start ,they could easily
    mass produce their hardware in the cheapest way possible. In pakistan there are many shops ,poor people ,artisans that makes ak-47 by hand...all..using scrap metal, you can't do that with a G36.  

    SO the G36 is perfect for Germany.. that do not expect ever to be invaded and all their wars if ever participate
    in one will be short ones.. and against third world nations. The ak-47 was made for durability and easy to manufacture for long wars ,were they will have to fight bigger armies.. The ak-12 is a bit more ergonomic and bit more modern but without losing its simplicity.

    So NATO design their firearms  for easy wars...with air conditionair and hot showers and cable tv will be available.. and Russia for wars of attrition ,where they are invaded by millions.. and every civilian women and teens in RUssia will have to be trained in no time ,take a weapon and defend their nation..with hardware with strong durability ,cheap and easy to maintain.

    IT is thanks to this Russian dotrine of simplicity and cheap to manufacture ..and repair hardware.. That Syria army have been able to last 4 years with hundreds of thousands Terrorist invasion...They literary repair their T-72 tanks with hammers.. in hours after being hit by a rocket grenades.. and their many hundreds of korean war migs and sukhois without any modern tech have been a success for them because of easy to train any new pilots to operate them..  

    Is an irony that NATO overuse of technology will be their major disadvantage in case of any war with Russia. They depend alot of satellite communications and GPS guided missiles.. and such tools will not be available for them in a war against Russia.. Any weapon with integrated computers will be damaged in Russian winter or after an EMP attack. Their drones will be hacked.. like IRAN did it..

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Russian firearms comparison with rest of the world

    Post  Werewolf on Fri Jan 09, 2015 5:30 am

    I really like this version of buttstock on AK's.

    AK-107


    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Russian firearms comparison with rest of the world

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Fri Jan 09, 2015 5:47 am

    Werewolf wrote:I really like this version of buttstock on AK's.

    AK-107


    But, but only the AEK has the balanced recoil system... Wink

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Russian firearms comparison with rest of the world

    Post  Mike E on Fri Jan 09, 2015 9:58 am

    Yeah... I don't know... I prefer buttstocks to be as rigid as possible, and for some reason that model just doesn't look like it would be... Anything close to a chassis is great, I've been thinking about a custom built bolt action for a while now...

    higurashihougi
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2126
    Points : 2241
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: Russian firearms comparison with rest of the world

    Post  higurashihougi on Fri Jan 09, 2015 10:13 am

    Mike E wrote:Yeah... I don't know... I prefer buttstocks to be as rigid as possible

    Howabout an AK-47 bullpup version ? Bullpup models has a very "rigid" buttstock because the buttstock and the receiver are fused together. tongue

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Russian firearms comparison with rest of the world

    Post  Mike E on Fri Jan 09, 2015 10:16 am

    higurashihougi wrote:
    Mike E wrote:Yeah... I don't know... I prefer buttstocks to be as rigid as possible

    Howabout an AK-47 bullpup version ? Bullpup models has a very "rigid" buttstock because the buttstock and the receiver are fused together. tongue
    That would be very interesting, and because of the huge number of AK modifications floating around, it has probably been done. Bullpups have a very "special" set of problems though, so they aren't the complete answer.

    higurashihougi
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2126
    Points : 2241
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: Russian firearms comparison with rest of the world

    Post  higurashihougi on Fri Jan 09, 2015 11:29 am

    Mike E wrote:
    higurashihougi wrote:
    Mike E wrote:Yeah... I don't know... I prefer buttstocks to be as rigid as possible

    Howabout an AK-47 bullpup version ? Bullpup models has a very "rigid" buttstock because the buttstock and the receiver are fused together. tongue
    That would be very interesting, and because of the huge number of AK modifications floating around, it has probably been done. Bullpups have a very "special" set of problems though, so they aren't the complete answer.

    It was done, that is the AKU-94.

    Ukrainian Verp, Norinco 86S 式, South Africa CR-21, Finnish M82 are also actually AK-xx bullpup.

    Actually the Avtomat Kalashnikov is copied more than we have imagined.

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 852
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: Russian firearms comparison with rest of the world

    Post  victor1985 on Sat Jan 10, 2015 7:16 am

    what about a chamber inside the rifle where a resort take the movement ?

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian firearms comparison with rest of the world

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 11:13 am


      Current date/time is Sun Dec 04, 2016 11:13 am