Ammo calibres for Russian Army rifles

[quote="GarryB"]Errmm Bollocks.

There is a cost associated with introducing a new calibre, but when you are buying armata based tank divisions where every vehicle is a tank based vehicle the fuel bill alone... and a fifth gen fighter is not cheap either.

The fact is that the 6 x 49mm would be cheaper to produce than the 7.62 x 54mm in time... they have already introduced a range of new calibres into their armoury... they introduced teh 338 Lapua Magnum round, they are introducing a new 12.7 x 55mm catridge, and they are developing and producing new sniper ammo in a range of calibres including 12.7 x 108mm.

They are already looking at replacing their AKs with either the AK12 or AEK or both... so now is actually the perfect time to introduce a new calibre that will stack better in magazines and can be pushed through a metal link belt instead of having to be withdrawn and then pushed into the chamber like on the PK and PKP.

The purpose behind the new round is all about retaining energy rather than just blowing it out the muzzle of the rifle faster.

The Armata tank divisions have a totally different use than an Individual firearm. Producing a fully new round would impact all the tools around it. Be those the Fixed capital for its production or the tools of the trade (sighting devices, magazines) down to very tactics allowed by the new round which would require a far more deep approach than simply your rifle now hits up to 600m- success.

Chances are that the round is indeed very good, but no one wants to deal with the logistics and economics of it, since the Armed Forces of Russia are also a big cash cow. Some expenses are budgetized and the said change would simply make that spending post explode. It's not something that the USSR wouldn't do, they already did when the scaled the AK mechanism to 5.45. But the 6x49 is a different beast.

The AK's replaced are not going to suddenly become some exotic chambered boom sticks. The 6.5x39 was already in the cards since forever. What was the 5.6x39 was already a proven shooter's round. Scaling it a little bit proved very interesting hence the copy from the Murricans. 7.62x39 and the famous 5.6x39...The Unified round was something different.

You would get much better velocities and retention of velocity with flechettes but you lose lethality and effect on target.

They have already been down that path:



From what I have read the 6 x 49mm was never intended as a replacement for the 5.45mm round, which is intended as a long range SMG cartridge. The 6x49mm round is specifically to replace the old 7.62 x 54mm round with a modern rimless cartridge that has a longer effective range, is lighter and more compact, and more accurate.

All they have to do is produce the SVD, VS-121, PKP, PKM, and SV-98 in the new cartridge and start producing it.

If they can't afford to produce it, how can they afford to produce the 6.5mm grendel they are planning to make civilian rifles in?

Civillians rifles are paid for in a totally different scheme. It's like saying why don't the Italian armed forces roll in Ferraris, since Fiat can afford to build them and the Italian's LMV.

there was talk of their next generation weapon family being multi calibre... so it would just be a case of the right chamber, the right barrel and the right mag feed/mag design.

The West germans couldn't afford to produce a new caseless round for their G11, but that was a rather different situation all together.

The H&K couldn't afford to further develop the caseless round, because the Germans wouldn't want to pay on G11 the price of a surplus M151 or G-wagen rolling train. That's how budget rolls.

Like said by KoteMore, that is not just some simple introduction of one further calibre but a REPLACEMENT of one new calibre of replacing two other calibres that are not just among the most used calibres in Russia/Soviet Union but in the entire world. That would mean all existing rifles AK-47/AK-103, SKS, PKM,PKT, SVD and any rifles in that calibres. Russia/Soviet Union itself had hundred millions of such Assault Rifles along with MG's, not to mention when Soviet Union/Russia would decommission and stop producing their 7.62x39mm and 7.62x54mm R they would lose an entire market which would than be completley over taken by Romania, Czech, Poland and China for production of such ammunition, while no one would take the burden and pain of dealing of introduction of new calibre and with it new rifles for that calibre, they never had the budget nor could feasible afford it in decades.

The talks but did not just remain of unifiying ammunition for AK and PK guns of 7.62mm but also unifying over long term for higher lethality and performance of Assault Rifles with 5.45x39mm, which maybe or maybe was not considered, however such an replacement of a totaly new ammunition in a world with already established rifles in hundreds of millions in entire world which were praised and constantly used, would not give any realistic chances of making money on export, while AK/PKM's till this date are used and purchased like hot cakes. An introduction of a new calibre for an isolated or specialized weapons for one or some branches of military would be no problem since that is what happened several times just like your example with Lapua .338, but the Lapua was never intented to replace all sniper rifle calibres to unify it, that would bring to much costs and logistics and would hinder the forces full combat capability untill all units and logistics have been unified that is a rather gigantic job to do, not just some simply introduction of an additional calibre for choice for soldiers or specs.

The purpose behind the new round is all about retaining energy rather than just blowing it out the muzzle of the rifle faster.

The Russian government has made it clear that they intend to completely reequip the Russian military... they can't do that with a 120 year old rifle cartridge.

this is not an attempt to find some super bullet that can replace all other ammo... it is merely updating the rifle/MG cartridge of the Russian military.

The Armata tank divisions have a totally different use than an Individual firearm. Producing a fully new round would impact all the tools around it.

The new cartridge is not super new technology... it is not a laser, it is not a flechette, it is not even a caseless round or a plastic round.

Of course there are costs involved in setting up production, but we are not talking trillions and it does not need to happen over night.

the new round which would require a far more deep approach than simply your rifle now hits up to 600m- success.

Most of the weapons that currently fire 7.62 x 54mm cartridges could easily be altered to use the newer smaller calibre ammo... in fact for the PK and PKP a new barrel, slightly modified belt feed and a new bolt face would probably do it.

They are planning to introduce several new weapons into service... now would be the ideal time to change calibre.

It's not something that the USSR wouldn't do, they already did when the scaled the AK mechanism to 5.45. But the 6x49 is a different beast.

I disagree... I think the smaller lighter ammo will actually be cheaper to make and lighter and much more effective to use.

They could scale in its introduction with elite units getting 6mm calibre sniper rifles and MGs first and AK12s in 5.45 or AEKs in 5.45 too.

Then distribution could be expanded to eventually include all units.

The H&K couldn't afford to further develop the caseless round, because the Germans wouldn't want to pay on G11 the price of a surplus M151 or G-wagen rolling train. That's how budget rolls.

the Germans couldn't afford to change to a new round only they used... the advantage of NATO is that if you are short of ammo you can get an ally to produce some extra ammo for you when you need it fast... with the caseless rounds that couldn't happen.

And regarding the non nato standard stuff... the US managed to get their 45 calibre pistols and SMGs through unnoticed in an org that has standardised 9mm.

Like said by KoteMore, that is not just some simple introduction of one further calibre but a REPLACEMENT of one new calibre of replacing two other calibres that are not just among the most used calibres in Russia/Soviet Union but in the entire world.

You are not listening... the 6mm round is intended to replace the MGs and sniper rifle calibre 7.62 x 54mm. The Russian military is happy with the 5.45mm and has no reason to replace it.

the 7.62 x 54mm is a rimmed cartridge and while powerful enough to do the job is big and heavy and not modern in design... the rim is no problem for belt feed but in a mag it is a pain.

That would mean all existing rifles AK-47/AK-103, SKS, PKM,PKT, SVD and any rifles in that calibres.

The SKS is only ceremonial... for guard duty and marching.

The 6 x 49mm is not intended to replace the 7.62 x 39mm... the 5.45mm already did that. the fact that some survive in service in some places show that having multiple calibres is not that much of a problem.

Russia/Soviet Union itself had hundred millions of such Assault Rifles along with MG's, not to mention when Soviet Union/Russia would decommission and stop producing their 7.62x39mm and 7.62x54mm R they would lose an entire market which would than be completley over taken by Romania, Czech, Poland and China for production of such ammunition, while no one would take the burden and pain of dealing of introduction of new calibre and with it new rifles for that calibre, they never had the budget nor could feasible afford it in decades.

The Russian ammo industry produces 30-06 ammo that it does not use itself... I am sure even when Russia replaces the 7.62 x 54mm cartridge in service the ammo companies will still find markets for them and keep them in production. The 303 is still in production too.

The Lapua magnum rounds were introduced because they were designed to be effective up to 1,500m... in many ways this new 6 x49mm round achieves the same performance in terms of accuracy with a much smaller round with much less recoil... what is not to like?

I will repeat there is no need to replace the 5.45mm round... it still does the job well... and probably has rather more potential than the 5.56mm in longer range engagements with its much longer more efficient bullet shape allowing it to retain energy rather better.

New propellent shared with the new 6mm round could increase muzzle velocity by 30% for the 5.45mm, which should result in a greater effective range too.

GarryB wrote:

The purpose behind the new round is all about retaining energy rather than just blowing it out the muzzle of the rifle faster.

The Russian government has made it clear that they intend to completely reequip the Russian military... they can't do that with a 120 year old rifle cartridge.

this is not an attempt to find some super bullet that can replace all other ammo... it is merely updating the rifle/MG cartridge of the Russian military.

The idea is that they have already a updated round for the Individual rifle with the 6.5x39 and having the 6x49 for the PKM once again would have the same log train issues. You have to deal with the whole lot. Recalibrate the sights in vehicles for instance. Outright buy new sights for the SVD/SVS.

The Armata tank divisions have a totally different use than an Individual firearm. Producing a fully new round would impact all the tools around it.

The new cartridge is not super new technology... it is not a laser, it is not a flechette, it is not even a caseless round or a plastic round.

Of course there are costs involved in setting up production, but we are not talking trillions and it does not need to happen over night.

The idea is that those costs can't be justified. It's too big and will replace weapons that still fulfll their duties quite nicely. The Implications as I said is that you'd need to get rid of a good chunk of the sotcks (especially the SVD's). Adding one more calibre is also less than optimal for the current AF leadership. Well it doesn't need to happen all either so far. Russia is evaluating the perfomance of the current ammunition in Ukraine. It will be a way to validate the need for the new ammunition.

the new round which would require a far more deep approach than simply your rifle now hits up to 600m- success.

Most of the weapons that currently fire 7.62 x 54mm cartridges could easily be altered to use the newer smaller calibre ammo... in fact for the PK and PKP a new barrel, slightly modified belt feed and a new bolt face would probably do it.

Just like the AEK/AK 12 debate, that's simply not true. Because the new MG's, SVD's etc will have to be "modernized". It's like we never had the AK-12/AEK discussion. You're speaking about simple, logical changes with an institution whose whole purpose is to make life miserable to innovators. Add to that design bureau wars and yay...success.

They are planning to introduce several new weapons into service... now would be the ideal time to change calibre.

It's not something that the USSR wouldn't do, they already did when the scaled the AK mechanism to 5.45. But the 6x49 is a different beast.

I disagree... I think the smaller lighter ammo will actually be cheaper to make and lighter and much more effective to use.

They could scale in its introduction with elite units getting 6mm calibre sniper rifles and MGs first and AK12s in 5.45 or AEKs in 5.45 too.

Then distribution could be expanded to eventually include all units.

I don't think you understand what that means. They're already cheap since the round we're talking about is a 30 year old design, but the need of it coupled with the ground up modernization cost and hassle is really in discussion. It was deemed unnecessary back in a time when the Armed Forces could have anything, how do you think the round will fare today with a tighter oversight and generally a bigger competition among services for cash?

The H&K couldn't afford to further develop the caseless round, because the Germans wouldn't want to pay on G11 the price of a surplus M151 or G-wagen rolling train. That's how budget rolls.

the Germans couldn't afford to change to a new round only they used... the advantage of NATO is that if you are short of ammo you can get an ally to produce some extra ammo for you when you need it fast... with the caseless rounds that couldn't happen.

Yet they can use the 4.7 colibri-round and field it's weapon of choice without much cost problems. Although the MP-7 cost was almost as important as the G11. You have to take into account the whole array of reasons on what you spend your money. The G11 was relatively a small program as a weapon, but a huge one as munition was regarded. And it still lives on to this day with the LSAT which licensed the round-technology and yeat has to field the said system (gun+ammo+parts). So ammunition isn't really that easy.

And regarding the non nato standard stuff... the US managed to get their 45 calibre pistols and SMGs through unnoticed in an org that has standardised 9mm.

The US could throw billions in and expect return (or not), that's not the case for Germany's H&K that would have to compete for that in order to have a return on investment. They were ready when the gun wasn't needed. Same for the LSAT it is being tested while the US need for such tools is being put again on the back burner.

The idea is that they have already a updated round for the Individual rifle with the 6.5x39 and having the 6x49 for the PKM once again would have the same log train issues. You have to deal with the whole lot. Recalibrate the sights in vehicles for instance. Outright buy new sights for the SVD/SVS.

They will be upgrading the sights of the SVD anyway... and 6.5 x 39mm? Since when has the Russians decided to adopt a foreign cartridge in the form of the Grendel?

There is no need... out to about 300-400m the 5.45mm is fine... at greater distances use 6x49mm and a weapon with the right optics for the job.

The idea is that those costs can't be justified.

Of course they can... you get better performance for lower material costs... the bullet the 6x49mm round fires is smaller and lighter than the 7.62 x 54mm and it uses less propellent per round. the ammo is lighter so the soldier can carry less weight or more ammo for the same weight.

The improved performance and accuracy should make machine guns and sniper rifles more effective.

It's too big and will replace weapons that still fulfll their duties quite nicely.

If that were a good reason then why replace AK-74s with AEKs and AK12s? Just slap rails on the existing rifles and there is no need for new weapons...

The Implications as I said is that you'd need to get rid of a good chunk of the sotcks (especially the SVD's).

SVDs don't have secret codes on them... I am sure Syria and Iraq would be happy to buy up large numbers of these weapons, along with a good supply of ammo too.

New weapons like the SV-98 and VS-121 could easily be rebarrelled and recalibrated.

The new thermal scopes we have seen details of have ballistic computers and laser range finders so just adding the ballistics of the new round should mean simply selecting the right option in the menu, and firing a zeroing shot and you are good to go.

Most PKs didn't have optics... all SVDs already in 7.62 calibre can keep their optics when they are sold. AFAIK most Russian and Soviet night vision optics had mechanical compensators so when used on different weapons you used a different setting... so the night vision optic could be used on AK-74, AKM, SVD, RPK, RPK-74, PKM, and even RPG-7 with the different attachments for the different projectile trajectories. This new calibre just means adding a new attachment.

Adding one more calibre is also less than optimal for the current AF leadership. Well it doesn't need to happen all either so far. Russia is evaluating the perfomance of the current ammunition in Ukraine. It will be a way to validate the need for the new ammunition.

Well if this new round is all it is cracked up to be it might end up like the SKS/AK... where the AK could do all that an SKS could do, but the SKS was semi auto only and had a limited mag capacity, plus a fixed mag so in the end they just used AK-47s as they were cheaper to make.

If this round is a good combination of recoil and performance then perhaps in time it could replace the 5.45mm in service, but for now it is fine.

Just like the AEK/AK 12 debate, that's simply not true. Because the new MG's, SVD's etc will have to be "modernized". It's like we never had the AK-12/AEK discussion. You're speaking about simple, logical changes with an institution whose whole purpose is to make life miserable to innovators. Add to that design bureau wars and yay...success.

The new weapons they will be introducing are supposed to be modular multi calibre weapons.

The PK and PKP in existing stocks would need a replacement barrel for the smaller calibre, a new bolt face for the different round, and a new leaf iron sight for the different trajectory and a new belt feed.

the mechanism doesn't need to be changed on existing weapons.... dragging the round out the back of the belt and then pushing it forward into the chamber is fine even though it could be replaced by a push straight from the belt into the chamber with the new cartridge design. Using the existing mechanism would be simpler and cheaper, and might add to reliability... it has been said that pulling the round back and then ramming it forward increases reliability by shaking off any dirt the ammo belt might have picked up and shaking it off before it gets to the chamber.

I am sure the MIC will be happy enough with the prospect of producing all the MGs needed to replace every vehicle mounted MG... I suspect in the newer model armoured vehicles the trajectory is calculated via ballistic computer anyway so just new software will be needed to recalibrate the sights... the backup optic sights can simply be recalibrated too.

Now is the best time to make the change as all new vehicles will be entering service soon and new small arms too.

I don't think you understand what that means. They're already cheap since the round we're talking about is a 30 year old design, but the need of it coupled with the ground up modernization cost and hassle is really in discussion. It was deemed unnecessary back in a time when the Armed Forces could have anything, how do you think the round will fare today with a tighter oversight and generally a bigger competition among services for cash?

My information says it was killed because it was developed into the 1990s when there was no cash and no prospect of cash to do it. Now enormous amounts of money are being spent on new armoured vehicles and new small arms... now is the ideal time to make the change.

The more so when you look at the details about the AK12, with the smaller model in assault rifle calibres, and the larger version being described as being in 7.62 x 51mm and no mention of a 7.62 x 54mm version... that suggests to me either they are changing to 6 x 49mm or 7.62 x 51mm... and I really don't see them taking a step backward to introduce such an inferior round.

Yet they can use the 4.7 colibri-round and field it's weapon of choice without much cost problems. Although the MP-7 cost was almost as important as the G11.

That is case in point... the 4.6 x 30mm round for the MP-7 was put forward as the new personal defence weapon calibre for NATO in competition to the 5.7x28mm round used in weapons like the P90, but lost. The PDW was a new weapon category for NATO to replace SMG with a round with low recoil that will reliably penetrate body armour. The 5.7mm round was found to be the superior option, but this was rejected by the Germans who preferred their own cartridge so neither round has been accepted AFAIK.  Note the goal was to find a round to replace the 9 x 19mm which has not happened...

So ammunition isn't really that easy.

I dont think you can compare this with that as the caseless round had rather more issues that were not totally solved and was rather a break from traditional ammo.

the 6x49mm is just a different diameter bullet in a new case shape... they will likely be able to make it in the same lines that make the current ammo.

The US could throw billions in and expect return (or not), that's not the case for Germany's H&K that would have to compete for that in order to have a return on investment. They were ready when the gun wasn't needed. Same for the LSAT it is being tested while the US need for such tools is being put again on the back burner.

the real problem for Germany was that the reintegration of East and west germany was costing them a fortune, while the perceived threat from the Soviet Union was gone so it was not possible to justify replacing G3 rifles with the G11... so they ended up having to develop the g36.... which was not free, and then introduce 556 production which was not free either.[/quote]

GarryB wrote:

The idea is that they have already a updated round for the Individual rifle with the 6.5x39 and having the 6x49 for the PKM once again would have the same log train issues. You have to deal with the whole lot. Recalibrate the sights in vehicles for instance. Outright buy new sights for the SVD/SVS.

They will be upgrading the sights of the SVD anyway... and 6.5 x 39mm? Since when has the Russians decided to adopt a foreign cartridge in the form of the Grendel?

There is no need... out to about 300-400m the 5.45mm is fine... at greater distances use 6x49mm and a weapon with the right optics for the job.

Check the infographics for the Ratnik Program and Ak-12...the exotic calibre section is the 6.5x39 which is said to be Russian, and not the Grendel version; which is simply an iteration of ye olde 0.220 (5.6x39) aka Bars.

The idea is that those costs can't be justified.

Of course they can... you get better performance for lower material costs... the bullet the 6x49mm round fires is smaller and lighter than the 7.62 x 54mm and it uses less propellent per round. the ammo is lighter so the soldier can carry less weight or more ammo for the same weight.

The improved performance and accuracy should make machine guns and sniper rifles more effective.

Only if the improvement is worth the hassle and cost. Which so far it hasn't as the Unified round is still sleeping in some museum box.

It's too big and will replace weapons that still fulfll their duties quite nicely.

If that were a good reason then why replace AK-74s with AEKs and AK12s? Just slap rails on the existing rifles and there is no need for new weapons...

Again you remember our discussion about those two? Once the decision was made to "modernize", there's no going back...Same here, no decision means no will to go through the pain of a new system rollout.

The Implications as I said is that you'd need to get rid of a good chunk of the sotcks (especially the SVD's).

SVDs don't have secret codes on them... I am sure Syria and Iraq would be happy to buy up large numbers of these weapons, along with a good supply of ammo too.

New weapons like the SV-98 and VS-121 could easily be rebarrelled and recalibrated.

The new thermal scopes we have seen details of have ballistic computers and laser range finders so just adding the ballistics of the new round should mean simply selecting the right option in the menu, and firing a zeroing shot and you are good to go.

The idea is that flooding the market again with those might prove counter-productive. A weapon once it's initial theater is done for, travels (with or without its shooter). Proliferation is something Russia takes seriously, in the case of more complex systems this isn't that important since they control those pretty well (bar Ukraine ) but individual weapons are a whole other ballgame. It isn't about secret codes, it's about area of proliferation. If you get rid at a price of your "old" weapons, there's a chance those weapons will bite you back in the rear end. See the Libyan migration of the AK103. Now think about getting rid of roughly a million SVD's. Who's going to sell them, what price, where, to whom? You simply don't want to enable the wild 90's again. As for the new optronic sights I agree. But the price factor is still there.

Most PKs didn't have optics... all SVDs already in 7.62 calibre can keep their optics when they are sold. AFAIK most Russian and Soviet night vision optics had mechanical compensators so when used on different weapons you used a different setting... so the night vision optic could be used on AK-74, AKM, SVD, RPK, RPK-74, PKM, and even RPG-7 with the different attachments for the different projectile trajectories. This new calibre just means adding a new attachment.

Most PKM's in "active" service right now have rails. The PKP too. Because of design decisions you'd have to toss the existing PKP's as a whole. That said I wouldn't mind. They would come handy for Saranda Sunday morning trafic.

Adding one more calibre is also less than optimal for the current AF leadership. Well it doesn't need to happen all either so far. Russia is evaluating the perfomance of the current ammunition in Ukraine. It will be a way to validate the need for the new ammunition.

Well if this new round is all it is cracked up to be it might end up like the SKS/AK... where the AK could do all that an SKS could do, but the SKS was semi auto only and had a limited mag capacity, plus a fixed mag so in the end they just used AK-47s as they were cheaper to make.

If this round is a good combination of recoil and performance then perhaps in time it could replace the 5.45mm in service, but for now it is fine.

I agree fully. And I'm not against the round. I just know how the people in charge think and operate. They will never go beyond that red line of bureaucracy. For all the aforementioned reasons

Just like the AEK/AK 12 debate, that's simply not true. Because the new MG's, SVD's etc will have to be "modernized". It's like we never had the AK-12/AEK discussion. You're speaking about simple, logical changes with an institution whose whole purpose is to make life miserable to innovators. Add to that design bureau wars and yay...success.

The new weapons they will be introducing are supposed to be modular multi calibre weapons.

The PK and PKP in existing stocks would need a replacement barrel for the smaller calibre, a new bolt face for the different round, and a new leaf iron sight for the different trajectory and a new belt feed.

the mechanism doesn't need to be changed on existing weapons.... dragging the round out the back of the belt and then pushing it forward into the chamber is fine even though it could be replaced by a push straight from the belt into the chamber with the new cartridge design. Using the existing mechanism would be simpler and cheaper, and might add to reliability... it has been said that pulling the round back and then ramming it forward increases reliability by shaking off any dirt the ammo belt might have picked up and shaking it off before it gets to the chamber.

I am sure the MIC will be happy enough with the prospect of producing all the MGs needed to replace every vehicle mounted MG... I suspect in the newer model armoured vehicles the trajectory is calculated via ballistic computer anyway so just new software will be needed to recalibrate the sights... the backup optic sights can simply be recalibrated too.

Now is the best time to make the change as all new vehicles will be entering service soon and new small arms too.

Yet the fact is that we're 6 years from the debut of the whole Ratnik program and we still haven't seen light in terms of ONE rifle shooting existing calibres...You get my drift here? The MIC will happily make life hell for the average soldier in order to extend those contracts. Capitalism...

I don't think you understand what that means. They're already cheap since the round we're talking about is a 30 year old design, but the need of it coupled with the ground up modernization cost and hassle is really in discussion. It was deemed unnecessary back in a time when the Armed Forces could have anything, how do you think the round will fare today with a tighter oversight and generally a bigger competition among services for cash?

My information says it was killed because it was developed into the 1990s when there was no cash and no prospect of cash to do it. Now enormous amounts of money are being spent on new armoured vehicles and new small arms... now is the ideal time to make the change.

I concur that indeed it is the ideal time to swap the tip of the spear's tools. Including ammunition. For the rest the Russian Armed forces would have to sort out the Log Train. As we have seen it's not an example of efficiency.

The more so when you look at the details about the AK12, with the smaller model in assault rifle calibres, and the larger version being described as being in 7.62 x 51mm and no mention of a 7.62 x 54mm version... that suggests to me either they are changing to 6 x 49mm or 7.62 x 51mm... and I really don't see them taking a step backward to introduce such an inferior round.

Which is a shitty round when it comes to boot. I'd rather have the Russians repropose the 8mm Mauser than that abomination of a round. Furthermore the m43 can, with a slight redesign be still used at a better capacity 7.62x42-45 (like the Czechs trialed with the VZ.52).

Yet they can use the 4.7 colibri-round and field it's weapon of choice without much cost problems. Although the MP-7 cost was almost as important as the G11.

That is case in point... the 4.6 x 30mm round for the MP-7 was put forward as the new personal defence weapon calibre for NATO in competition to the 5.7x28mm round used in weapons like the P90, but lost. The PDW was a new weapon category for NATO to replace SMG with a round with low recoil that will reliably penetrate body armour. The 5.7mm round was found to be the superior option, but this was rejected by the Germans who preferred their own cartridge so neither round has been accepted AFAIK.  Note the goal was to find a round to replace the 9 x 19mm which has not happened...

If the case in point was the Political choice over cost, then yes you are right. And so am I.

So ammunition isn't really that easy.

I dont think you can compare this with that as the caseless round had rather more issues that were not totally solved and was rather a break from traditional ammo.

Agreed it is a stretch. But once again (like with the AEK case) the HITPD-12/13 caseless was finally reliable and technically sound. It has become less so after the US Americans decided to change the shape of the pack and telescoped a bigger round and added a plastic case. Yay America.

the 6x49mm is just a different diameter bullet in a new case shape... they will likely be able to make it in the same lines that make the current ammo.

The US could throw billions in and expect return (or not), that's not the case for Germany's H&K that would have to compete for that in order to have a return on investment. They were ready when the gun wasn't needed. Same for the LSAT it is being tested while the US need for such tools is being put again on the back burner.

the real problem for Germany was that the reintegration of East and west germany was costing them a fortune, while the perceived threat from the Soviet Union was gone so it was not possible to justify replacing G3 rifles with the G11... so they ended up having to develop the g36.... which was not free, and then introduce 556 production which was not free either.[/quote]
[/quote]

Instead of buying the G41 slapping rails on it and have a rifle last 50 years at least...doesn't this make you think of another such case of "rational spending". Oh and BTW the 90's saw the Russian Army adopt three Ballistic vests, yet there was no money for a new round. Don't try to make sense of these things. As for the reunification, it actually cost Germany Zero monies. Since they made the EMU pay for it (the 180 billion DM's that were the actual transfers from WessiD to OssiD in about half a decade were already gained from 1990 to 1991 through the said Reunificaiton, check GDP numbers. The BundesBank made a huge blunder and imposed a strict fiscal policy that cost Europe half a trillion USD from the trickle down effect. And they got their debt cancelled (about 34 bln of DDR debt to the USSR plus about 12 bln war GFR debt to the USSR). German politicians went full retard. But this time no one had to bomb them for that.

G11 ammunition case is strictly tied to self ignition of the propellant in heated up chamber of the rifle my friends. It may have been good enough for the trials but very dangerous for average guy in the field due to safety reasons. Development just stuck in the dead end but it is way too complex to elaborate on it right now.
As for Armed Forces of Russian Federation I think the major obstacle to change rifle caliber is the old one is good for that matter and possible costs far too great as someone earlier mentioned.

im42 wrote:G11 ammunition case is strictly tied to self ignition of the propellant in heated up chamber of the rifle my friends. It may have been good enough for the trials but very dangerous for average guy in the field due to safety reasons. Development just stuck in the dead end but it is way too complex to elaborate on it right now.
As for Armed Forces of Russian Federation I think the major obstacle to change rifle caliber is the old one is good for that matter and possible costs far too great as someone earlier mentioned.

I think they should introduce weapons chambered in 6x49mm without actually replacing 5.45x39mm or 7.62x54mm chambered weapons.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

im42 wrote:G11 ammunition case is strictly tied to self ignition of the propellant in heated up chamber of the rifle my friends. It may have been good enough for the trials but very dangerous for average guy in the field due to safety reasons. Development just stuck in the dead end but it is way too complex to elaborate on it right now.
As for Armed Forces of Russian Federation I think the major obstacle to change rifle caliber is the old one is good for that matter and possible costs far too great as someone earlier mentioned.

I think they should introduce weapons chambered in 6x49mm without actually replacing 5.45x39mm or 7.62x54mm chambered weapons.

I see that as the only realistic option for this round, despite claimed advantages of this round in accuracy, range and lethality compared with its smaller calibre.

Check the infographics for the Ratnik Program and Ak-12...the exotic calibre section is the 6.5x39 which is said to be Russian, and not the Grendel version; which is simply an iteration of ye olde 0.220 (5.6x39) aka Bars.

Well projectiles for the 5.45mm round have been getting heavier over time... I guess a larger calibre would make even heavier projectiles easier... from memory the subsonic 5.45mm round is something like 80 grain which is only double the average subsonic .22LR round...

Personally I think replacing the rifle and machine gun round makes rather more sense... if it is successful then a lighter loading could be used with assault rifle sized weapons... but I think the 5.45mm should be fine out to 400m or so... anything further away use the SVD equivalent in 6x49mm or the PKP in 6 x 49mm... in fact the latter could be substantially modified as a push through the belt mechanism instead of draw the round back out of the link and forward into the chamber design.

Only if the improvement is worth the hassle and cost. Which so far it hasn't as the Unified round is still sleeping in some museum box.

Improved accuracy, improved effective range, reduced weight and size, for a cartridge that will be less expensive to make as it uses less metal and powder and does not use any exotic materials... what is not to like?

The idea is that flooding the market again with those might prove counter-productive

It is hardly different than if the recipients bought these rifles... the fact that they probably can't afford them and this is more of a good will gesture right now for them that might allow them to continue to be could lead to future purchases when they overcome their existing problems... worse comes to worse you can request that when they win they will destroy excess weapons and then buy new from you.

Guns will always be available... making sure friendly countries have enough is more important than worrying that for a bit you might not be able to sell because no one wants them at full price.

Most PKM's in "active" service right now have rails. The PKP too. Because of design decisions you'd have to toss the existing PKP's as a whole. That said I wouldn't mind. They would come handy for Saranda Sunday morning trafic.

Why should rails matter?

Make brand new replacement parts like barrels that have new rails attached and new reticules for existing scopes. Even the PKP barrel comes off... any armourer worth his salt could remove it and replace it at depot level.

All those extra 7.62mm barrels would be used on existing weapons in service till worn out...

Yet the fact is that we're 6 years from the debut of the whole Ratnik program and we still haven't seen light in terms of ONE rifle shooting existing calibres...You get my drift here? The MIC will happily make life hell for the average soldier in order to extend those contracts. Capitalism...

You make it sound like a weakness... do you really think the Ratnik programme would be improved if it was tied to one rifle type or one calibre? It is a family system and in its versions will have to accommodate a range of weapon types in a range of different calibres and sizes... and that is just the domestic system. Exported models would need to deal with a range of other weapons and systems.

If the case in point was the Political choice over cost, then yes you are right. And so am I.

The difference is that the powerful German oligarchy within NATO refused the superior design because it was not their own... much like the US dragging the rest of NATO into the 7.62 x 51mm calibre instead of something more suitable... the irony is that if they were picking calibres now they would probably go with something like a 6-7mm calibre with a 45-55mm length case for assault rifles and light battle rifles and perhaps a 338 laupa magnum for the MG role and DMR role... and likely replace the 9x19mm with either the 5.7 x 28mm or perhaps the Russian version of the 9x19mm

Agreed it is a stretch. But once again (like with the AEK case) the HITPD-12/13 caseless was finally reliable and technically sound. It has become less so after the US Americans decided to change the shape of the pack and telescoped a bigger round and added a plastic case. Yay America.

It is so often the way that the major problems are solved just as the programme is cancelled...

Instead of buying the G41 slapping rails on it and have a rifle last 50 years at least...doesn't this make you think of another such case of "rational spending".

I suspect the Germans never liked the small calibre assault rifle concept and kept the G3 on purpose.... experience in Afghanistan seems to show they were not wrong...

Oh and BTW the 90's saw the Russian Army adopt three Ballistic vests, yet there was no money for a new round. Don't try to make sense of these things.

Actually that makes perfect sense... the ammo they used was lethal enough... their protective vests could always use improvement and would provide immediate results...

G11 ammunition case is strictly tied to self ignition of the propellant in heated up chamber of the rifle my friends. It may have been good enough for the trials but very dangerous for average guy in the field due to safety reasons. Development just stuck in the dead end but it is way too complex to elaborate on it right now.

The thing the caseless ammo lacks is a case that is heated up by combustion and then thrown hot from the rifle. This allows some heat reduction inside the rifle but not a huge amount. I have seen AKs fired till their front grips catch fire but ammo in the chamber does not cook off from the heat... the shell case wont insulate the propellent from chamber heat... metal is a good conductor of heat.

I believe the problems with the ammo... its fragility... was dealt with simply by using sealed magazines... the ammo is produced at the factory and sealed in magazines and issued in mags to the soldiers who never touch the ammo.

BTW the Russian forces introduced caseless ammo into service more than 25 years ago with the 40mm under barrel VOG grenades... A similar design with a bit of external propellent could be the best overall solution... and a rather smaller calibre... but very long bullets should be aerodynamically efficient for long range shooting... and their lethality when tumbling should be amazing.

I think they should introduce the new 6mm round as a replacement with the new brigades... they are supposed to be self contained mobile units... lighter but more effective MG ammo would be very useful and of course sniper versions might even make the new 338 Lapua rounds redundant...

Of course the other option would be to replace the 7.62 x 54mm round with the 338 lapua magnum round for 1,500m effective shooting range in SVD type weapons and much longer range in MG role... but that ammo would be heavier and more expensive than the 6mm rounds.

Why is there  an obsession with replacing the 9x64mm round with the 338 lapua in Russia? I have an impression that there is an unhealthy amount of worshipping western AMR designs while russian high calibre sniper innovation is ignored or criticized.


This might sound kind of wishful thinking, but it would be great if there is ongoing russian research to completely silence supersonic rounds. This would give much increased combat capability to the specail forces.

Well if they can't afford to replace the 7.62 x 54mm calibre with the 6 x 49mm round then what is this talk of replacing the 5.45mm ammo with 6.5mm ammo?

Wouldn't that be even more expensive and result in less of an improvement considering the 5.45mm is considered adequate for the job?

The 7.62 x 54mm is a standard 30 calibre rifle round that is effective to medium ranges... the 338 magnum round is significantly more powerful with a much heavier bullet able to retain supersonic speed to much greater range and much more energy at extended ranges.

The 7,62 x 54 is effective against point targets to about 800m or so. The 338 magnum rounds are optimised to kill point targets out to 1.5km from rifles.

Of course rifles designed for the 338 round will be heavier and more expensive than a smaller lighter rifle in 7.62mm calibre while the 6mm rifle should be even smaller and lighter and be effective to a range between the two larger calibre weapons.

[quote="GarryB"]

Check the infographics for the Ratnik Program and Ak-12...the exotic calibre section is the 6.5x39 which is said to be Russian, and not the Grendel version; which is simply an iteration of ye olde 0.220 (5.6x39) aka Bars.

Well projectiles for the 5.45mm round have been getting heavier over time... I guess a larger calibre would make even heavier projectiles easier... from memory the subsonic 5.45mm round is something like 80 grain which is only double the average subsonic .22LR round...

Personally I think replacing the rifle and machine gun round makes rather more sense... if it is successful then a lighter loading could be used with assault rifle sized weapons... but I think the 5.45mm should be fine out to 400m or so... anything further away use the SVD equivalent in 6x49mm or the PKP in 6 x 49mm... in fact the latter could be substantially modified as a push through the belt mechanism instead of draw the round back out of the link and forward into the chamber design.

No contest there. We all would like the round to succeed. Same for the AEK/AK-12 debate. I only want what's sounder for Russia when it comes to things that go bang.

Only if the improvement is worth the hassle and cost. Which so far it hasn't as the Unified round is still sleeping in some museum box.

Improved accuracy, improved effective range, reduced weight and size, for a cartridge that will be less expensive to make as it uses less metal and powder and does not use any exotic materials... what is not to like?

Every army dislikes and resists change, because it's a time of revolution, chaos and trial by fire. Add to that the cost for this and no commander right now wants to add yet another spending post and introduction and adaptation scheme to their schedule. That's why the round is at best on trial or more logically in an archive box, being thought about.

The idea is that flooding the market again with those might prove counter-productive

It is hardly different than if the recipients bought these rifles... the fact that they probably can't afford them and this is more of a good will gesture right now for them that might allow them to continue to be could lead to future purchases when they overcome their existing problems... worse comes to worse you can request that when they win they will destroy excess weapons and then buy new from you.

Guns will always be available... making sure friendly countries have enough is more important than worrying that for a bit you might not be able to sell because no one wants them at full price.

I said it again, the current stocks are so high that if the round was to be introduced, Russia would be forced to scrap part of the rifles or simply try and refurbish them for Civilian use. That too adds to the strain. Plus the political side of the proliferation. Selling Syria 100K SVD-S' and probably 200K PK/M's is no plan for that, in long term those weapons will find their way elsewhere you can't control and create tensions. Imagine a small fraction ending up in Kurdistan. There's already an issue taken between Russia and Turkey regarding the fact the latter is hitting Iraqi territory. You just don't want a showdown between those two because the Turks can't keep their weapons in their pants.

Most PKM's in "active" service right now have rails. The PKP too. Because of design decisions you'd have to toss the existing PKP's as a whole. That said I wouldn't mind. They would come handy for Saranda Sunday morning trafic.

Why should rails matter?

Make brand new replacement parts like barrels that have new rails attached and new reticules for existing scopes. Even the PKP barrel comes off... any armourer worth his salt could remove it and replace it at depot level.

All those extra 7.62mm barrels would be used on existing weapons in service till worn out...

Actually the PKP is about to stay at least a decade, and the RPK about to go the way of the Mohicans with the upcoming Tokar (from ZID). Which looks like a Negev externally. Which off course begs the question, why having a brand new weapon without a new round...one that would make a perfect compromise between size and hitting power. A bit like the Belgians up-gunned the Minimi.

Rails? Because they're the cheaper way to extend service life than "ad hoc" mods to introduce a new round. Personally, again, I'd like to see the new ZID MG rather than butchering the current lineup.

Yet the fact is that we're 6 years from the debut of the whole Ratnik program and we still haven't seen light in terms of ONE rifle shooting existing calibres...You get my drift here? The MIC will happily make life hell for the average soldier in order to extend those contracts. Capitalism...

You make it sound like a weakness... do you really think the Ratnik programme would be improved if it was tied to one rifle type or one calibre?  It is a family system and in its versions will have to accommodate a range of weapon types in a range of different calibres and sizes... and that is just the domestic system. Exported models would need to deal with a range of other weapons and systems.

I don't think it's anything but corporate greed and idiocy. I told you that when we discussed the subject. There's nothing about tying Ratnik with one or the other rifle. It's about being sure about choices and having the right MIC people to fulfill them. Which in Russia like everywhere else looks like a fundamental madness.

If the case in point was the Political choice over cost, then yes you are right. And so am I.

The difference is that the powerful German oligarchy within NATO refused the superior design because it was not their own... much like the US dragging the rest of NATO into the 7.62 x 51mm calibre instead of something more suitable... the irony is that if they were picking calibres now they would probably go with something like a 6-7mm calibre with a 45-55mm length case for assault rifles and light battle rifles and perhaps a 338 laupa magnum for the MG role and DMR role... and likely replace the 9x19mm with either the 5.7 x 28mm or perhaps the Russian version of the 9x19mm

We know arms were twisted, sales were aborted and people cried in the dark night over their pillows. Simple. Yet those choices were political and had nothing to do with the actual issue here. The round introduction will cost too much, because the top brass would want NEW to go with NEW.

Agreed it is a stretch. But once again (like with the AEK case) the HITPD-12/13 caseless was finally reliable and technically sound. It has become less so after the US Americans decided to change the shape of the pack and telescoped a bigger round and added a plastic case. Yay America.

It is so often the way that the major problems are solved just as the programme is cancelled...

Ask the US automotive industry...they like axing fundamental projects (like engine downsizing) in crucial times.

Instead of buying the G41 slapping rails on it and have a rifle last 50 years at least...doesn't this make you think of another such case of "rational spending".

I suspect the Germans never liked the small calibre assault rifle concept and kept the G3 on purpose.... experience in Afghanistan seems to show they were not wrong...

Still they went for a more expensive rifle over a rescaled G3...And now they risk going for a rehashed over-engineered piston AR-15. This is madness. This is Politics...

Oh and BTW the 90's saw the Russian Army adopt three Ballistic vests, yet there was no money for a new round. Don't try to make sense of these things.

Actually that makes perfect sense... the ammo they used was lethal enough... their protective vests could always use improvement and would provide immediate results...

Doesn't make sense for the price tag. And doesn't make sense for a cash strapped Russia. But they do for wise businessmen.

[quote]

G11 ammunition case is strictly tied to self ignition of the propellant in heated up chamber of the rifle my friends. It may have been good enough for the trials but very dangerous for average guy in the field due to safety reasons. Development just stuck in the dead end but it is way too complex to elaborate on it right now.

Once again this was true in the initial trials, not so in the latter trials. It went to the point the gun was ready for limited Introduction. It didn't happen because it was not needed. Today the Murricans just added a plastic case and the rounds are mostly safe to fire, until one or to burst...

Every army dislikes and resists change, because it's a time of revolution, chaos and trial by fire. Add to that the cost for this and no commander right now wants to add yet another spending post and introduction and adaptation scheme to their schedule. That's why the round is at best on trial or more logically in an archive box, being thought about.

Of course they do, but if all the information shows an across the board improvement in performance as well as a reduction in manufacturing costs with a new round that could be produced on existing equipment then it just makes sense to at least have some field trials.

Otherwise the Russian Army should still be using Mosin Nagant rifles and Maxium M1910 MGs.

I said it again, the current stocks are so high that if the round was to be introduced, Russia would be forced to scrap part of the rifles or simply try and refurbish them for Civilian use. That too adds to the strain.

Then hang on to them. Or convert them to the new calibre... or both.

Donate them to a potential new client... I am sure Cuba wouldn't say no to 20,000 SVDs adn 50,000 PKMs... hell... I'll take half a dozen of each...

Rails? Because they're the cheaper way to extend service life than "ad hoc" mods to introduce a new round. Personally, again, I'd like to see the new ZID MG rather than butchering the current lineup.

It would certainly make sense to introduce a new design with the new calibre... the rimless case allows pushing the round through the belt instead of having to withdraw it and ram it forward into the chamber...

The round introduction will cost too much, because the top brass would want NEW to go with NEW.

It is totally political... just like all the nice new armour that will be entering service very soon... and because it is political, I think it will be introduced whether it is cheap or expensive.

GarryB wrote:

Every army dislikes and resists change, because it's a time of revolution, chaos and trial by fire. Add to that the cost for this and no commander right now wants to add yet another spending post and introduction and adaptation scheme to their schedule. That's why the round is at best on trial or more logically in an archive box, being thought about.

Of course they do, but if all the information shows an across the board improvement in performance as well as a reduction in manufacturing costs with a new round that could be produced on existing equipment then it just makes sense to at least have some field trials.

Otherwise the Russian Army should still be using Mosin Nagant rifles and Maxium M1910 MGs.

Well they're using the core element, the round...so there ;-).

I said it again, the current stocks are so high that if the round was to be introduced, Russia would be forced to scrap part of the rifles or simply try and refurbish them for Civilian use. That too adds to the strain.

Then hang on to them. Or convert them to the new calibre... or both.

Donate them to a potential new client... I am sure Cuba wouldn't say no to 20,000 SVDs adn 50,000 PKMs... hell... I'll take half a dozen of each...

You should be a re-creditor. You have that in your veins. Indeed there are always solutions for these things. Just that right now, those include a lead of faith and a better Russian MoD, which isn't up to the task yet (AK-12/AEK issue among others) and far more efficient MIC.

Rails? Because they're the cheaper way to extend service life than "ad hoc" mods to introduce a new round. Personally, again, I'd like to see the new ZID MG rather than butchering the current lineup.

It would certainly make sense to introduce a new design with the new calibre... the rimless case allows pushing the round through the belt instead of having to withdraw it and ram it forward into the chamber...

See this is where every time you get me. FFS YES. 100X yes. But then we're back to square 1.

The round introduction will cost too much, because the top brass would want NEW to go with NEW.

It is totally political... just like all the nice new armour that will be entering service very soon... and because it is political, I think it will be introduced whether it is cheap or expensive.

It's more than political. It has indeed a political cost, but not alone.

Speaking of new ammunition, Rostec is talking about new production lines for a new generation of ammunition...could they be vaguely referencing new ammo caliber such as the 6x49mm?

The company "Tehmash" produces ammunition for new technology

Some key points:

1.) The production lines cover at least 50 different 'products'. They scale up from small arms to heavy artillery ammunition.

2.) The new production method produces ammunition that reduces damage and 'wear-and-tear' towards barrels by 2-3 times, while increasing muzzle velocity by 7-8%. The new technology improves ammunition from small arms caliber, all the way to artillery ammunition used by the Army and Navy.

magnumcromagnon wrote:Speaking of new ammunition, Rostec is talking about new production lines for a new generation of ammunition...could they be vaguely referencing new ammo caliber such as the 6x49mm?

The company "Tehmash" produces ammunition for new technology

Some key points:

1.) The production lines cover at least 50 different 'products'. They scale up from small arms to heavy artillery ammunition.

2.) The new production method produces ammunition that reduces damage and 'wear-and-tear' towards barrels by 2-3 times, while increasing muzzle velocity by 7-8%. The new technology improves ammunition from small arms caliber, all the way to artillery ammunition used by the Army and Navy.

So no comments on this sweet new development? GarryB, or KoTeMoRe, any thoughts on this stunning news? A lowering of barrel 'wear-and-tear' by 2-3 times, while simultaneously increasing muzzle velocity by nearly 10% on multiple ammo variants is truly mouth watering!

magnumcromagnon wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:Speaking of new ammunition, Rostec is talking about new production lines for a new generation of ammunition...could they be vaguely referencing new ammo caliber such as the 6x49mm?

The company "Tehmash" produces ammunition for new technology

Some key points:

1.) The production lines cover at least 50 different 'products'. They scale up from small arms to heavy artillery ammunition.

2.) The new production method produces ammunition that reduces damage and 'wear-and-tear' towards barrels by 2-3 times, while increasing muzzle velocity by 7-8%. The new technology improves ammunition from small arms caliber, all the way to artillery ammunition used by the Army and Navy.

So no comments on this sweet new development? GarryB, or KoTeMoRe, any thoughts on this stunning news? A lowering of barrel 'wear-and-tear' by 2-3 times, while simultaneously increasing muzzle velocity by nearly 10% on multiple ammo variants is truly mouth watering!

Less corrosive primer would do some of that. For the rest the powder mix has probably been upgraded. Notice they speak about method, not calibre, but it could be anything.

Less corrosive primer would do some of that. For the rest the powder mix has probably been upgraded. Notice they speak about method, not calibre, but it could be anything.

Primers are not "corrosive" and "not corrosive".

One type of primer attracts water and the other does not, both types contain salts that will corrode a barrel.

The facts are that if you clean your weapon after use then there is no difference... russian weapons having a layer of chrome to protect the barrel and parts makes corrosion even less of a real issue.

But whether you disagree or not the priming has nothing to do with barrel WEAR or muzzle velocity.

As I mentioned on another thread I suspect they have developed plastic driving bands for their ammo... the fact that they are talking about small arms is unusual as driving bands are normally only used on cannon shells due to the hardness of the material the shell cases are made.

Using plastic driving bands in small arms ammo means harder steels can be used for making projectiles.

the reduced drag down the barrel would increase existing muzzle velocities because of the plastic bearing surfaces lower friction, and this would also reduce wear on the rifling within the barrel.

Simple question: should Russian military start thinking about replacing old 7,62x54r ammo with something more modern? This is longest serving cartridge still in active use, and Russia shows no intent in replacing it with something more up to date. Is that a mistake?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62%C3%9754mmR

If yes what should it be replaced with?

I think good choice would be something with similar calibre and ballistic performance as 6,5x47 Lapua, only with modified brass.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.5%C3%9747mm_Lapua

Ballistic advantage would be in reduced ballistic drop ( something like 9,8 mrad at 1000 yards for 7,64x54r to 8 mrad for 6,5x47 at the same distance), reduced flight time to target, longer range before transitioning to subsonic speed, less recoil and increased cross section density allowing for better barrier penetration.

Base Lapua brass cartridge should be modified so that it is more suitable for use of steel cases if fouled chambers. Also to consider is totally replacing traditional metal cases with some partly polymer cases like those:

http://www.defensereview.com/pcp-ammunition-polymer-cased-riflemachine-gun-ammo-for-military-and-civilian-tacticalcommercial-applications-has-the-era-of-superplasticsuperpolymer-cartridge-cases-that-can-take-the-heat/

Or even introduction of completely polymer telescopic cases like those used in LSAT light machine gun program in US:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LSAT_light_machine_gun

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlM8IHij6Hs

Of course with those there should be modification of existing SVD and PKB designs to use new ammo. Absence of rim on new ammo could actually make PKB operation and design significantly simpler.

Is it really necessary to replace?

If they make a dragunov rifle with new rounds, and an Orsis based rifle with the new round, it could bring lots of money to the company in foreign sales. If they start production on the new round, it can also bring lots of money.

Or they can create their own round. But its cheaper, easier to copy the existing rounds as lots of nations are looking to simplify logistics.

T-47 wrote:Is it really necessary to replace?

Do you mean will Russia lose any wars or any significant battles if they don't? Then not, they don't need to.

But of if you mean is there significant improvement possible with new cartage that will increase effectiveness of Russians snipers and general purpose machine-guns then yes, there are significant improvements possible, in terms of accuracy, effective range and armour / obstacle penetration.

On top of that some of the new technologies such as polymer ammo cases prove to be possible / successful it could also result in significant long term savings.

So I would describe it as not absolutely necessary but highly beneficial.

I would like to see a couple of changes...

the 6x49mm round they developed to replace the 7.62x54mm round could be introduced, the 9x21mm round of the SR-1 and SR-2 could be introduced to replace the 9x18mm and 9x19mm rounds used.

I would keep the 5,45mm round as the standard rifle calibre, but would introduce the 9x39mm as the new suppressed weapons from Kalashnikov to replace the AS and VSS in recon units.

I would introduce the RPK-16 in 6x49mm calibre and 5.45mm calibre as a medium and light machine gun... together with a 6x49mm PKP, which could be redesigned with a push through the belt mechanism that is smaller and lighter and more compact.