Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Ammo calibres for Russian Army: Discussion

    Share

    Morpheus Eberhardt
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Ammo calibres for Russian Army: Discussion

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Sat Oct 18, 2014 1:03 am

    Werewolf wrote:
    Mike E wrote:
    DMR = any small caliber rifle that sits between an assault rifle and *actual* sniper rifle. - Can your clear up the rest of the first part? I'm sorry, but it didn't make any sense (to myself).

    Again such classification does not exist in other countries except USA and forcing it upon NATO, but no one else classifies rifles in such catagories and that was the entire point of my first part that if you really go for such calibre then this already existed with 7.62x39mm for Assault Rifle/DMR/Sniper Rifle and LMG.

    The term "DMR" came about due to a lack of understanding about sniping, sniper tactics, and sniper rifles by the "creators" of this term.

    To just touch upon the subject, I should say that sniping is more about sniper tactics than sniper rifles, and it is this fact that makes SVD a better sniper rifle than even the SVDK.

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Ammo calibres for Russian Army: Discussion

    Post  Mike E on Sat Oct 18, 2014 1:11 am

    Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:
    Mike E wrote:
    DMR = any small caliber rifle that sits between an assault rifle and *actual* sniper rifle. - Can your clear up the rest of the first part? I'm sorry, but it didn't make any sense (to myself).

    Again such classification does not exist in other countries except USA and forcing it upon NATO, but no one else classifies rifles in such catagories and that was the entire point of my first part that if you really go for such calibre then this already existed with 7.62x39mm for Assault Rifle/DMR/Sniper Rifle and LMG.

    The term "DMR" came about due to a lack of understanding about sniping, sniper tactics, and sniper rifles by the "creators" of this term.

    To just touch upon the subject, I should say that sniping is more about sniper tactics than sniper rifles, and it is this fact that makes SVD a better sniper rifle than even the SVDK.
    Agreed, but it is convenient to use. 

    DMR =/= Sniper - DMR = longer range semi-auto assault rifle

    Morpheus Eberhardt
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Ammo calibres for Russian Army: Discussion

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Sat Oct 18, 2014 2:00 am

    Mike E wrote:
    Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:
    Mike E wrote:
    DMR = any small caliber rifle that sits between an assault rifle and *actual* sniper rifle. - Can your clear up the rest of the first part? I'm sorry, but it didn't make any sense (to myself).

    Again such classification does not exist in other countries except USA and forcing it upon NATO, but no one else classifies rifles in such catagories and that was the entire point of my first part that if you really go for such calibre then this already existed with 7.62x39mm for Assault Rifle/DMR/Sniper Rifle and LMG.

    The term "DMR" came about due to a lack of understanding about sniping, sniper tactics, and sniper rifles by the "creators" of this term.

    To just touch upon the subject, I should say that sniping is more about sniper tactics than sniper rifles, and it is this fact that makes SVD a better sniper rifle than even the SVDK.
    Agreed, but it is convenient to use. 

    DMR =/= Sniper - DMR = longer range semi-auto assault rifle

    Obviously my two-liner wasn't enough to clarify the point; so here's some clarification.

    * An assault rifle has to have full-auto capability; this is extremely fundamental.

    * SVD is a sniper rifle; actually it is the epitome of sniper rifle conception and design.

    * ORSIS T-5000 is not a sniper rifle, according to the scientific discipline that covers this subject. T-5000 is a specialized rifle for some limited special tasks.

    * PTRD, PTRS, and ... are not sniper rifles either.

    * Russians don't use any form of "DMR".

    * Going through a description of actual tactics used by snipers like Vasilij Zajtsev or Lyudmila Pavlichenko clarifies why snipers use SVDs, and not weapons like T-5000 and PTRS. The reason includes the massive agility and mobility that a sniper requires.

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Ammo calibres for Russian Army: Discussion

    Post  Mike E on Sat Oct 18, 2014 2:49 am

    Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
    Mike E wrote:
    Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:
    Mike E wrote:
    DMR = any small caliber rifle that sits between an assault rifle and *actual* sniper rifle. - Can your clear up the rest of the first part? I'm sorry, but it didn't make any sense (to myself).

    Again such classification does not exist in other countries except USA and forcing it upon NATO, but no one else classifies rifles in such catagories and that was the entire point of my first part that if you really go for such calibre then this already existed with 7.62x39mm for Assault Rifle/DMR/Sniper Rifle and LMG.

    The term "DMR" came about due to a lack of understanding about sniping, sniper tactics, and sniper rifles by the "creators" of this term.

    To just touch upon the subject, I should say that sniping is more about sniper tactics than sniper rifles, and it is this fact that makes SVD a better sniper rifle than even the SVDK.
    Agreed, but it is convenient to use. 

    DMR =/= Sniper - DMR = longer range semi-auto assault rifle

    Obviously my two-liner wasn't enough to clarify the point; so here's some clarification.

    * An assault rifle has to have full-auto capability; this is extremely fundamental.

    * SVD is a sniper rifle; actually it is the epitome of sniper rifle conception and design.

    * ORSIS T-5000 is not a sniper rifle, according to the scientific discipline that covers this subject. T-5000 is a specialized rifle for some limited special tasks.

    * PTRD, PTRS, and ... are not sniper rifles either.

    * Russians don't use any form of "DMR".

    * Going through a description of actual tactics used by snipers like Vasilij Zajtsev or Lyudmila Pavlichenko clarifies why snipers use SVDs, and not weapons like T-5000 and PTRS. The reason includes the massive agility and mobility that a sniper requires.

    * 100% agreed, I wish the liberals here in the US would understand that before they claim semi-auto AR's are "assault weapons".

    * Also agreed, but I meant that it doesn't really sacrifice much for accuracy like a traditional sniper rifle. - As in, it is a flexible semi-auto design, much like a medium-range rifle (I'll call it that for your sake).

    * Why not? It has every aspect of a sniper rifle, except for that is approaches the level of a competition rifle... - 338 isn't quite anti-material.

    * They are technically anti-material rifles.

    * I know, but Russia uses weapons in a role similar to a DMR. - Direct troop support via short or medium ranged sniper rifles. It has a role in every battlefield as far as I'm concerned... 

    * Interesting... I base it off of the rifle itself and how it is used, but that could just be me...

    To Werewolf and GarryB; you may not agree with me, but I'm not going to agree with you either... The Grendel (or similar) should replace current assault rifle rounds.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Ammo calibres for Russian Army: Discussion

    Post  Werewolf on Sat Oct 18, 2014 2:50 am

    The classification, sure, but the idea (?), no... I'd almost be willing to say that the SVD is a large-caliber DMR kind of rifle. - It doesn't really sacrifice practicality for accuracy, much like a DMR. - I've been implying that the 7.62 isn't as good as the 6.5 at those roles... At short-range (assault rifles), the Grendel is more powerful, when it comes to machine-guns; it has less recoil making it more suitable for unmounted firing, and for large rifles; it is much more accurate at all ranges and carries more energy.

    That is wrong. 6.5x39mm you don't need to be an expert to understand that this is BS.
    The 6.5x39mm does not carry more energy, or fly further and sustain high power over distance nor is it as accurate as 7.62x54mmR for Machinegun or Sniper Rifle purposes, the 7.62x54mmR from different versions has around 60-70% higher energy (joules) of almost up to 3.8k joules compared to 2.3k joules with Grendel.



    Have you been reading my replys? The Grendel isn't meant to completely replace the larger calibers, just supplement them... It carries energy better at range than the 7.62x54, thanks to the 6.5 mm bullet. It's a rather powerful round, more so than the AK round. - That plus great energy and velocity retention and it should be rather close to the 7.62x54 at long ranges. To be honest, when it comes to sniper rifles, the x54 isn't really that great anyway. For trying to stretch out, one would need a 338 etc. It is very close in power to the x54, so there's that...

    I've been reading your replies and again there is a very good reason why we are not unifying to one single round specifically for such vital parts of small arms like sniper rifles that need to be effective and using some small calbire that will be absolutley ineffecient as a sniper rifle calibre completley incapable to penetrate body armor or having even on blank flesh enough power on your emphasized ranges of 1000 yards, to be called an effective sniper rifle.

    The 7.62x54mmR is the best 7.62mm round that is out there and it is great for its calibre it will carry far more joules than the little Grendl can achieve even at muzzle V0.
    The Lapua .338 is far more powerful then 7.62x54mmR it has 6500 joules compared to 3800 joules for the best 7.62x54mmR round. The 9.3x64mm is comparable with .338 Lapua, it has roughly 6000 joules.



    Once again, I can't really see what you are getting at...

    Hardly, true, but not so when considering when it is a smaller round with considerably less recoil... I never said it should replace those rounds. but it should replace the 5.x rounds without question. 6.x rounds have the best ballistic properties, that is something you should agree with...

    You want to say 6.5x39mm would be some great round to use on several weapon plattforms not only Assault Rifles but also Machineguns and Sniper rifles.

    I say the 6.5x39mm would be great for Assault rifles but a downgrade for Machineguns and Sniper Rifles that is very easy what i am talking about.

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Ammo calibres for Russian Army: Discussion

    Post  Mike E on Sat Oct 18, 2014 2:56 am

    Werewolf wrote:
    The classification, sure, but the idea (?), no... I'd almost be willing to say that the SVD is a large-caliber DMR kind of rifle. - It doesn't really sacrifice practicality for accuracy, much like a DMR. - I've been implying that the 7.62 isn't as good as the 6.5 at those roles... At short-range (assault rifles), the Grendel is more powerful, when it comes to machine-guns; it has less recoil making it more suitable for unmounted firing, and for large rifles; it is much more accurate at all ranges and carries more energy.

    That is wrong. 6.5x39mm you don't need to be an expert to understand that this is BS.
    The 6.5x39mm does not carry more energy, or fly further and sustain high power over distance nor is it as accurate as 7.62x54mmR for Machinegun or Sniper Rifle purposes, the 7.62x54mmR from different versions has around 60-70% higher energy (joules) of almost up to 3.8k joules compared to 2.3k joules with Grendel.



    Have you been reading my replys? The Grendel isn't meant to completely replace the larger calibers, just supplement them... It carries energy better at range than the 7.62x54, thanks to the 6.5 mm bullet. It's a rather powerful round, more so than the AK round. - That plus great energy and velocity retention and it should be rather close to the 7.62x54 at long ranges. To be honest, when it comes to sniper rifles, the x54 isn't really that great anyway. For trying to stretch out, one would need a 338 etc. It is very close in power to the x54, so there's that...

    I've been reading your replies and again there is a very good reason why we are not unifying to one single round specifically for such vital parts of small arms like sniper rifles that need to be effective and using some small calbire that will be absolutley ineffecient as a sniper rifle calibre completley incapable to penetrate body armor or having even on blank flesh enough power on your emphasized ranges of 1000 yards, to be called an effective sniper rifle.

    The 7.62x54mmR is the best 7.62mm round that is out there and it is great for its calibre it will carry far more joules than the little Grendl can achieve even at muzzle V0.
    The Lapua .338 is far more powerful then 7.62x54mmR it has 6500 joules compared to 3800 joules for the best 7.62x54mmR round. The 9.3x64mm is comparable with .338 Lapua, it has roughly 6000 joules.



    Once again, I can't really see what you are getting at...

    Hardly, true, but not so when considering when it is a smaller round with considerably less recoil... I never said it should replace those rounds. but it should replace the 5.x rounds without question. 6.x rounds have the best ballistic properties, that is something you should agree with...

    You want to say 6.5x39mm would be some great round to use on several weapon plattforms not only Assault Rifles but also Machineguns and Sniper rifles.

    I say the 6.5x39mm would be great for Assault rifles but a downgrade for Machineguns and Sniper Rifles that is very easy what i am talking about.
    Werewolf, for crying out loud... The 6.x rounds have always carried energy better than other caliber-rounds. This is common knowledge, and proof is in the fact that most competition shooters shoot 6.x. The round itself should carry energy better because of this (aero-properties). The 7.62 will obviously fly further, but as I've said before, it won't replace that round... It will supplement it instead. I don't know how this is so hard for you to understand. From what I've seen, the energy difference is closer to 20-30%.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Ammo calibres for Russian Army: Discussion

    Post  Werewolf on Sat Oct 18, 2014 3:08 am

    Mike E wrote:
    Werewolf, for crying out loud... The 6.x rounds have always carried energy better than other caliber-rounds. This is common knowledge, and proof is in the fact that most competition shooters shoot 6.x. The round itself should carry energy better because of this (aero-properties). The 7.62 will obviously fly further, but as I've said before, it won't replace that round... It will supplement it instead. I don't know how this is so hard for you to understand. From what I've seen, the energy difference is closer to 20-30%.

    What sportsmen shoot is completley irrelevant, war is not a stupid shooting range where people start bitching around when the sun shines to bright or little bit of wind here and there, it absolutley does not matter.
    Sports have nothing to do with war period.

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Ammo calibres for Russian Army: Discussion

    Post  Mike E on Sat Oct 18, 2014 3:12 am

    Werewolf wrote:
    Mike E wrote:
    Werewolf, for crying out loud... The 6.x rounds have always carried energy better than other caliber-rounds. This is common knowledge, and proof is in the fact that most competition shooters shoot 6.x. The round itself should carry energy better because of this (aero-properties). The 7.62 will obviously fly further, but as I've said before, it won't replace that round... It will supplement it instead. I don't know how this is so hard for you to understand. From what I've seen, the energy difference is closer to 20-30%.

    What sportsmen shoot is completley irrelevant, war is not  a stupid shooting range where people start bitching around when the sun shines to bright or little bit of wind here and there, it absolutley does not matter.
    Sports have nothing to do with war period.
    It has everything to do with a bullets performance, which is what we've been talking about this whole time. 

    Morpheus Eberhardt
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Ammo calibres for Russian Army: Discussion

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Sat Oct 18, 2014 4:08 am

    Guys,

    A while ago I did an analysis of the Grendel; unfortunately I didn't write it here, and I can't remember the details, but here are a few points that I vaguely remember.

    * The story of its development is, of course, false and just prolefeed, not that it matters much.

    * Barnaul, of Russia, is a large manufacture of the round, if not the largest one or the only one.

    * In comparison to rounds used by Russians, its not a good military round at all; this was related to the main result of my analysis.

    * A lot of the forumsphere chatter about this round is based on the fact that the data related to firing this round from very long barrels is used by the forumsters, among a lot of other erroneous "assumptions" and "data"; you can't just do that.


    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Ammo calibres for Russian Army: Discussion

    Post  Mike E on Sat Oct 18, 2014 5:34 am

    Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:* In comparison to rounds used by Russians, its not a good military round at all; this was related to the main result of my analysis.
    What do you base that off of? Compared to the 5.45, the Grendel has way more power, is more accurate, and doesn't add much recoil...

    This argument is getting tiring, clearly I'm the outlier here.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Ammo calibres for Russian Army: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Sat Oct 18, 2014 9:40 am

    As it will be for any bullet, especially one that has as little powder as a small rifle cartridge.

    Which is why there are no 1,000m sniper rifles in 5.56 or 5.45 or 7.62 x 39mm calibre.

    The idea is that the Grendel is extremely *flexible*, and with modular rifle set ups, it could go from DMR to assault rifle to actual sniper rifle etc. It would also be a great round for "special forces" because of that.

    No it isn't extremely flexible. It was designed to be used in the M16 type family which seriously limits its length and the size of the projectile that can be used with the round.

    Not being able to use the heavier projectiles limits its performance... it could certainly replace the assault rifles and possibly the LMG like the negev and minimi, but not a real machine gun.

    GarryB, you of all people should know that armed forces are moving to modular, caliber-switching rifles increasingly more often.

    The Grendel could replace the 5.56, but not the 7.62 x 51mm... it just can't handle the heavy bullet weights.

    Obviously! A piston round cannot reach those ranges, and won't be able to unless you stuff a friggin' pound of grain in the casing! They have terrible aerodynamic-properties, becuase they are built for close-quarters shooting!

    A 30 cal rifle bullet is subsonic at about 600-800m depending on the particular round... most will travel 3-5km at subsonic speed... what makes you think a pistol round wont travel 600m?


    Those who need it... Oh, I don't know, maybe a DMR or sniper?

    In the Russian Army they already have the SVD... why would they use another cartridge?

    You still don't understand? The idea is that it is an extremely flexible round, and even at shorter ranges it will be more accurate and powerful than a 5.56 or 7.62.

    Which would be important if either of the in use cartridges (5.45 and 5.56 BTW) were not good enough... which is not true.

    That is complete bull GarryB, and you should know it... All it takes is a few minutes of research, and one could find that 6.x rounds are the most accurate naturally, hence their wide-spread use in competition! This is what the pros use for reference;

    At ranges of 1km or less... for longer range shooting calibres like 338 and 416 and 12.7mm are mostly used...

    What cost? All they have to do, is slowly move from their current calibers to the Grendel, it really doesn't get much easier or cheaper! Rifles can easily be chambered for the Grendel.

    I will repeat.. Grendel is not a good replacement for a 7.62 x 51mm... it simply can't take the heavier bullets needed for effective use at longer ranges.

    Don't forget that most DMR's are based off of assault rifles and their round, so a shared accurate round between an AR/AK/whatever and a DMR is a big advantage.

    Most DMRs I know of are 30 cal for extra range. Having the same round for DMR and Assault Rifle is like having the same round for MG as for Assault rifle... that hasn't worked and the Russians have gone to PKP in 30 cal and if the west has any brains it will do the same.

    the extra weight of the PKP is worth the extra power and range.

    The 5.56 (223) has the same problem, except that it has a more aerodynamic bullet.

    No it doesn't.

    The 223 has a stupid short little stubby bullet that has a poor aerodynamic shape.

    the 5,45 has a much longer projectile... just hold them side by side and you can see it.

    DMR = any small caliber rifle that sits between an assault rifle and *actual* sniper rifle. - Can your clear up the rest of the first part? I'm sorry, but it didn't make any sense (to myself).

    DMRs are almost always larger calibre rifles with extended range and power over the calibres of the issued standard rifles (which are generally assault rifles).

    DMRs didn't exist in WWII because they simply weren't needed.

    With the widespread introduction of the assault rifle using a reduced power round however their adoption into the infantry was pioneered by the Soviets. The SVD was a DMR before there was a word for it in the west and was issued to every platoon as well as real snipers in the GRU.

    Plus the Grendel is more powerful. - 300 meters is great, the ability to hit a thousand is even better...

    Soldiers in Afghanistan can't hit targets at 200m WTF are you thinking about 1km shots for?

    You probably couldn't even see a human target at 1km with iron sights... let alone identify them...

    he Grendel could easily replace the 7.62/5.56 and 7.62x54/308 in one cartridge. It combines the power of the AK round, the velocity of 5.56, the long-distance range of the 7.62, and accuracy of any 6.5 round (almost*).

    Wrong. The Grendel needs a very long barrel or very heavy bullets from a shorter barrel to get performance comparable to the 7.62.

    If you do a search on this forum the propellent makers in Russia are working on new propellents to increase muzzle velocities by up to 30%. For the 5.45mm that means the potential for heavier projectiles and higher muzzle velocities and it already has a better aerodynamic shape than the Grendel.

    hen this already existed with 7.62x39mm for Assault Rifle/DMR/Sniper Rifle and LMG.

    The weapon families is something different from a DMR... the latter is just to extend the range of some soldiers in the unit... making them use the light calibre used in assault rifles defeats the purpose of the DMR who is supposed to provide long range accurate fire.

    Going with 6.5mm over 5.56 on Assault Rifles is a good idea, going with 6.5mm over 7.62x51mm for Sniper Rifles is a stupid idea.

    X2

    To be honest, when it comes to sniper rifles, the x54 isn't really that great anyway.

    You mean like the 30 06 and 7.62 x 51mm are rubbish now too?

    For trying to stretch out, one would need a 338 etc.

    If you can't see targets at more than 1,000m then a 338 is bigger, heavier, and vastly more expensive... (6 thousand dollars for an SVD vs 20 thousand dollars for a SV-338).

    * Also agreed, but I meant that it doesn't really sacrifice much for accuracy like a traditional sniper rifle. - As in, it is a flexible semi-auto design, much like a medium-range rifle (I'll call it that for your sake).

    A battle rifle is big, heavy, powerful and long ranged.

    An assault rifle is an attempt to combine the range and power of a battle rifle to ranges on the battlefield where it is needed... ie out to 300m max, while at the same time being light and portable enough and have the capacity to fire full auto to have the close range firepower of a sub machine gun.

    * They are technically anti-material rifles.

    They were anti tank rifles that became anti material rifles when tanks got too hard.

    The Grendel (or similar) should replace current assault rifle rounds.

    The advantages it brings are not relevant to the soldiers... and the political cost of adding a new NATO cartridge is simply not worth it.

    they have two rifle cartridges... if 223 is not good enough use 7.62.

    Grendel can't take the heavier bullet weights it would need to properly replace the 7.62mm rounds except with very long barrels... US soldiers voted with their feet dropping the M16 with its 20 inch barrel for the M4 with a shorter barrel... I doubt they would embrace a 26 inch barrel LMG.

    It has everything to do with a bullets performance, which is what we've been talking about this whole time.

    You are fixating on calibre and ignoring bullet weight... BTW at heavier bullet weights 338 and 416 become the best most aerodynamic calibres...

    Compared to the 5.45, the Grendel has way more power, is more accurate, and doesn't add much recoil...

    More accurate?

    What does that mean?

    there is no such thing as an accurate round... rounds are either consistent or inconsistent.

    Which 5.45mm round specifically are you talking about?

    there are even underwater 5.45mm rounds...


    _________________
    “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

    higurashihougi
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2127
    Points : 2242
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: Ammo calibres for Russian Army: Discussion

    Post  higurashihougi on Sat Oct 18, 2014 3:25 pm

    Again I want to post some content of an article of the Vietnamese Wikipedia. The article talks about the 7.62x39mm M-43.

    Looking at the writing type, this article is probably edited by a man name Huy Phúc Ttvnol. Therefore, this article is very informative and is not being influenced by the propaganda of the lobbyist.

    Some part is too long, I have to cut it short, but I will try my best to not decrease the accuracy.

    Roughly translation from Vietnamese Wikipedia wrote:
    Predeccessor of 7.62mm M-43 bullet part 1: shortcomings of traditional rifles and submachine guns

    The traditional battle rifles like Russian 7.62x54 mmR or German 7.92x57 mm Mauser were not very suitable for combat at that time. The problem is that the guns used that ammo had a damn high recoil, which negatively affect the accuracy, and not suitable for people who are not strong enough to hold the gun. 7.62mm traditional rifles had an excellent range and penetration power, however the range of 1,500-2,000 metres was abundant since a human can only aim at maximum 700 metre without telescope. And with the slow rate of fire and limited ammo capacity, both bolt-action or semi-automatic rifle cannot generate enough "assault" capability for the soldiers to attack into heavily fortifield and complex trenches armed with machine guns.

    The submachine gun and machine pistol have great "assault" capability and great capacity of ammo, but they use pistol bullet with short range, low accuracy, and weak penetration power. Even the PPSh with 7.62x25 mmTT did not satisfy the need of power for Russia.

    Predeccessor of 7.62mm M-43 bullet part 2: The Fedorov Avtomat

    Fedorov Avtomat was one of the first full automatic rifles, and it is one of the model which laid the foundation of modern 7.62mm M-43 and the idea of assault rifle. The Fedorov used a new kind of ammo: 6,5x50 mmSR, which provide lower recoil but still maintain good practical range and penetration power. The lower recoil enabled the soldier to fire and a much higher rate, and the good range and power was much better than the submachine guns. In short, this can be seen as the first assault rifle: good power, good range, and good fire rate.

    Reports from the battlefield testified the effectiveness of the gun and the idea of Fedorov. Unluckily, the old Russian Empire and newly formed USSR did not have enough financial and technological level to massively and rapidly replace all the old guns with Fedorov Avtomat and the 6.5mm bullet. The development of Fedorov Avtomat was tragically stopped and in 2 decades later, Russia continued to use the Mosin-Nagant with traditional 7.62x54 mmR.

    Huy Phúc commented that the reason why Fedorov Avtomat failed was not because it was no good. The Fedorov gun was very good. But it was too novel. The 6.5mm caliber of Fedorov was too novel and conservativeness of people has killed it.

    That was the same reason why TKB-408 and TKB-022 were defeated by AK-47 and AKM. The TKBs had many good advantages, but the bullpup idea was damn novel at that time. (GarryB once said that the Soviet weapon designers used to be quite conservative, is this relevant in this case ?)

    Development of the 7.62x39mm ammo, 1942-1961

    Nonetheless, the existence of 6.5mm Fedorov Avtomat inserted the very first idea of "assault rifle" into Russian weapon designer. From the experience of Fedorov Avtomat and other battlefield experience, Russia began to know what they need in an assault rifle and its ammo: good accuracy in the visible range of a normal human, low recoil and good fire-rate, has multiple firing mode, can have large amount of ammo, low cost, and can be used even in terrible conditions.

    In 1943, the USSR created the 7.62x41mm M43, a mitigation between 6.5mm Fedorov and the traditional 7.62x54mmR. The power and range of M-43 is lower than traditional 7.62, but many times better than pistols and submachine guns. The bullet is designed to mitigate the shortcomings of rifle bullets (unneccessary long range, high recoil, low fire-rate, low ammo capacity) and submachine gun (low accuracy, low power, short range). The USSR expected the bullet will be the standard for all firearms of the soldiers.

    Simonov CKC was one of the first one used 7.62x41mm, which produced good results, and it gradually replaced the old rifles after 1945. Later the TKBs and AKs also used the new kind of ammo. In 1949, the M-43 ammo was modified to be the current 7,62x39mm which had better quality.

    The USSR began to applied many kinds of weapon combination using both the old and new ammo. First was CKC-RP46-PPSh, but was quickly abandoned due to the overcomplexity in kinds of ammo. It was replaced by CKC-RPD, all used the same M-43, and in 1949 was the AK-RPD. But both AK and RPD do not have long-range capability of CKC, therefore in 1961, Kalashinkov intoduced RPK which replaced the RPD. This became a perfect weapon combination in the Red Army.

    7.62x39 mm M43 was gradually replaced by the 5,45x39mm M74 of the AK-74. The M74 is smaller therefore it has lower gunpowder, and weaker penetration power. But small bullets means the soldier can carry more. Both M43 and M74 have its own pros and cons, and therefore no one can replaced each other. Russia uses both kinds of ammo, and the M43 is still used in many countries.

    Roughly translation from Vietnamese Wikipedia wrote:
    Trajectory

    Initial trajetory

    Assault rifles mean the soldier can open fire when he is still moving. Therefore, the maximum kinetic energy of the ammo was restricted at 2000 J to provide low recoil.

    The other problem is the weight, shape, rotating rate and muzzle velocity. Any mistakes can create a failure, just as the German 7,62x33 mm Pistolepatrone 43.

    The 7,62x39 mm has its best capability if the kinetic energy is a bit higher than 2000J for the barrel length of 400-600mm. The highest pressure in such barrel length should be 355,00 MPa. Therefor the USSR created a new kind of two-part gunpowder for the M43: the fast-firing part of powder quickly increase the pressure inside the barrel, and the slow-firing part maintain the velocity of 700m/s at 400mm and 755m/s at 600mm. The pressure then decreases, but very slow as the gunpowder has not been used up yet. The pressure slowly decreases an after a time, it becomes too weak and the bullet continues to fly merely on inertia.

    The very slow decrease of pressure is very important for gas-operated gun like AK. First, it is neccessary to know that if the pistol of the  reloading device is too heavy, the revert air pressure is not enough to fully push it back and the reload device cannot function. If the piston is too light, it will be pushed back very fast and cause the drainage of the air, which negatively affect the force upon the bullet.

    The very slow decrease of pressure of M43 is good for AK. Even when the bullet has escaped the gun, the air pressure inside the gun is still very high and still decreases very slowly. This fact maintaing a good push into the reloading machine, its piston go back and bounce back foward very fast. For the long-stroke piston system like in AKs, the pistol is pushed back right at the time when the bullet just has escaped the gun, therefore it maintains the high pushing force upon the bullet and make good use of the remaining pressure which is still high and decreases very slowly. To maintain the force and pressure, the suitable barrel length for it should be 400-600mm (AK-47/AKM: 415 mm, RPK: 590 mm, SKS: 521 mm.

    Ngoài ra, nòng thiết kế cho thuật phóng áp suất thấp mỏng hơn, nhẹ hơn, bền hơn nòng dành cho thuật phóng áp suất cao chuyên dùng cho súng ngắn và súng ngắn liên thanh nòng ngắn.

    The rifles inside AK-47 and others do not generate a very strong rotation, because the AK-47 is designed to have the range of 300-400 m, and the RPK is 600 m. Rotaiting rate of the bullet is 1:9,45 with the average pitch is 240 mm, this is good for the barrel, and makes sure the bullet is not broken apart if the target is too tough.

    Intermediate trajectory

    There is two issues of the M43's Intermediate trajectory: accurate range and killing range, both create effective range. According to the Soviet doctrine, accurate range of assault guns is 300m, of non-scattered-shot-machine-gun is 600m (súng máy chụm loạt, that means the shot and bullets is not scattered very much, do not know how to say it in English), and killing range should be 600m. The killing range of M43 is more than enough (1000m) therefore the remaining problem is accuracy. Bullet which is faster and better rotation will have better trajectory and can scatter the air resistance.

    M43 used the effect "prop onto the sharp point" (chống trên mũi nhọn) of Russian and German ammo. The warhead has soft copper cover and hard iron core, gravity center is at the posterior part, this generated an aerodynamic pointed anterior part. When the warhead is flying, the soft and lightweight anterior push the aerodynamic centre foward. This "chống trên mũi nhọn" bullet require low-medium rotation rate. If the rotation rate is too high, the effect vanishes and the axis of warhead is fixed, cause more scattering (which scattering ? I do not know.). Therefore the AK-47 barrel cannot have too many rifles, but it cannot have too few either because too few rifles will stripped off the warhead cover. Therefore the AK-47 barrel has 4 rifles positioned in a skewed triangle.

    The anterior point of M43 is a bit blunted, therefore the air hit against it and rebounce will not reach the posterior part of the warhead. In other words, the posterior part of the warhead cannot have contact with air, i.e. it always stays in a vacuum space. In other words, most parts of the warhead do not make contact with the air, and only the anterior point prop against the air in front of it. This significantly reduces the air resistance. The mid-low rotating rate makes the bullet become a gyroscope in the middle air, it does not have a fixed axis but the axis constantly moves around a center area, which reduces scattering.

    M43 has low muzzle velocity therefore the heigh of trajectory is high, people also have more difficulties in managing the range, and less effectiveness in hiting moving target. These shortcomings are fixed in the 5,45x39 mm M74 which has high muzzle velocity.

    The "prop onto the sharp point" effect enables the bullet to bend and reduce air resistance, reduce scattering. When the bullet reach 700m, scattering suddenly rise due to the reduced velocity with reduce the effect. Accuracy of M43 is best in 300-600m range, suits the theory of the Soviet doctrine.

    Final trajectory

    For target with tough surface, 7.62x39 mm M43 used the technology of AP ammo with high density core. The warhead has a soft cover but a very tough core, either steel or volfram aka tungsten. The gravity center is in the posterior part. Therefore, without the aerodynamic anterior, after escaping the barrel, the heavier posterior will go to the front.

    The blunted anterior not only cause "prop onto the sharp point" effect, but also increase the stickyness of the bullet when it hits the target. The blunted anterior point helps increase the surface contact. The soft anterior then deforms, and this further increase the stickiness. Meanwhile, the hard core behind continues to move foward since the soft cover cannot stop it. The core possesses most of the warhead's weight, therefore it is very heavy and has large kinetic energy, which generates great penetration power. The very high density core prevents it from deforming and therefore, maintains the penetrating capability.


    Morpheus Eberhardt
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Ammo calibres for Russian Army: Discussion

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Sun Oct 19, 2014 2:28 am

    Mike E wrote:
    Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:* In comparison to rounds used by Russians, its not a good military round at all; this was related to the main result of my analysis.
    What do you base that off of?

    I have given many clues, that is, if you had "read" my post. Here's more:

    Mike E wrote:Compared to the 5.45, the Grendel has way more power...

    It's not "power"; it's muzzle energy that you are probably talking about.

    Assuming you are referring to muzzle energies, are you "comparing" the two muzzle energies using a 600 mm long barrel for "Gr...l" and a 415 mm barrel for the 5.45 mm X 39 mm?

    Mike E wrote:..., is more accurate ...

    Elaborate!

    Mike E wrote:..., and doesn't add much recoil ...

    ...

    Mike E wrote:This argument is getting tiring, clearly I'm the outlier here.

    Will answer later.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Ammo calibres for Russian Army: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Sun Oct 19, 2014 6:02 am

    The Fedorov used a new kind of ammo: 6,5x50 mmSR, which provide lower recoil but still maintain good practical range and penetration power.

    Actually Federov developed a more powerful cartridge but as it was about the time of WWI and the Russian government hadn't funded arms production properly and had to import enormous amounts of rifles and ammo and had bought a large amount of 6.5 x 50.5mmSR which is actually a Japanese rifle round used in the Arisaka rifle.

    From the short barrel of the Federov Avtomat it had performance similar to the 7.62 x 39mm round.

    Reports from the battlefield testified the effectiveness of the gun and the idea of Fedorov. Unluckily, the old Russian Empire and newly formed USSR did not have enough financial and technological level to massively and rapidly replace all the old guns with Fedorov Avtomat and the 6.5mm bullet.

    They were very conservative and the USSR was not that keen to adopt the ideas and technologies of the old Tsarist Regime.

    Of course the moderate calibre plus Federovs ideas of a family of weapons likely would have resulted in Assault Rifle, Light Machinegun, battle rifle, etc etc.

    The 6.5mm caliber of Fedorov was too novel and conservativeness of people has killed it.

    Arguements would include... they would use up ammo too quickly and they would run out before they could be resupplied. The rifle is too complex for a peasant soldier. They lack the range of the Mosin rifle. etc etc.

    (GarryB once said that the Soviet weapon designers used to be quite conservative, is this relevant in this case ?)

    Very much so... a rifle that was cheap to mass produce could beat a rifle that was more accurate but more expensive to make, or more difficult to train soldiers to use effectively.

    Simonov CKC was one of the first one

    SKS is the correct translation.

    used 7.62x41mm, which produced good results, and it gradually replaced the old rifles after 1945.

    The plan was for the SKS to replace the mosin rifle, the RPD to replace light machine guns like RP-46 and DPM LMGs, and for the AK to replace the 7.62 x 25mm calibre SMGs.

    In practice the SKS was relegated to guard duty and parades, the AK became widely issued and the RPD was eventually replaced with the RPK.

    Later the TKBs and AKs also used the new kind of ammo. In 1949, the M-43 ammo was modified to be the current 7,62x39mm which had better quality.

    The M43 cartridge was a 7.62 x 41mm round as designed.

    the SKS45 and RPD-44 both used the 41mm long round, but in 1948 it was decided that because the RPD was supposed to replace belt fed 7.62 x 54mm R weapons that it needed to be able to penetrate a steel helmet at 1,000m.

    The short flat based projectile of the 7.62 x 41mm round had poor sectional density (ie not aerodynamic) and couldn't do the job.

    A steel core boat tailed bullet was developed to do the job.

    Due to the aerodynamic shape of the bullet and 56mm length limitation that the weapons had already been designed for the case was shortened from 41mm to 38.7mm so the new bullet could be seated in the case properly.

    The neck was shortened and the rest of the dimensions were the same so existing weapons didn't require modification.

    They needed a new powder to generate the velocity needed within the case capacity and volume.

    The 7.62 x 39mm round started production in 1949.

    Russia uses both kinds of ammo, and the M43 is still used in many countries.

    The Russians have standardised on the 5.45... they will likely remove all 7.62 x 39mm from service when they adopt a new weapon. In the situations where they currently use 7.62 x 39mm I suspect they might replace it with 9 x 39mm.

    They have a new 12.7 x 55mm round for quiet use but it also has supersonic projectiles too where being quiet is no longer important. A similar supersonic 9 x 39mm round would be interesting.

    (which scattering ? I do not know.).

    Scattering is spreading things out. Scattered shots on a target means shots all over the target, not clustered together in a grouping... in other words scattered means inaccurate.




    _________________
    “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

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Ammo calibres for Russian Army: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Sun Oct 19, 2014 10:14 am

    I understand the concept of a single round replacing the assault rifle and battle rifle round using high muzzle velocity and heavy projectile with an optimised sectional density to reduce speed loss in flight... the Russians were working on it before WWI.

    Federov developed his own 6.5mm rimless cartridges firing pointed jacketed bullets weighing 8.5 grammes at a muzzle velocity of 860m/s with a muzzle energy of 3140 Joules... the 7.62 x 54mmRimmed cartridge had 3600-4000 joules of energy at the muzzle depending on the round type. This new round was tested in late 1913 reportedly with very good results.

    The round was a real potential replacement for larger calibre rounds because although at the muzzle it wasn't quite as powerful its aerodynamic shape and weight meant it retained its energy much better than the fatter 30 cal cartridges so that at 1,000m and beyond it retained more energy and was therefore able to replace them.

    Problem was that in the time there was no money for weapons, while a year later enormous amounts of money were spent on foreign rifles and ammo... one round bought in large numbers was the Japanese 6.5 x 50.5mmSR... which was close enough, though inferior in many areas.... it was available.

    Instead of focusing on the Grendel, ...a round limited by the magazine length of the AR-15, the Russians should, and likely will adopt the 6 x 49mm round they developed to replace the 7.62 x 54mm Rimmed.

    Go to this page:

    http://world.guns.ru/ammunition/gallery-patrons-e.html

    and right click on the pictures and open them in new tabs... click on the tabs and zoom in and you will see lots of interesting things... like the size of the grendal compared with other rounds... note especially the 6 x 49mm.

    What makes the 6 x 49mm round the Russians developed so impressive is that it has a 140 grain bullet with a muzzle velocity of 1,135m/s... the biggest bullet the grendal can handle is 129 grain because of the length limits for the round.



    _________________
    “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

    im42
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 21
    Points : 27
    Join date : 2014-09-04

    Re: Ammo calibres for Russian Army: Discussion

    Post  im42 on Sun Oct 19, 2014 10:36 am

    GarryB that velocity you mentioned do you happen to know out of how long barrell it was shot ?
    and even better what is the pressure generated by 6x49 ?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Ammo calibres for Russian Army: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Sun Oct 19, 2014 11:03 am

    I don't know but I suspect a very long barrel.

    The only two weapons I have seen related to the 6 x 49mm round are the unified machine gun and a sniper rifle based on the SVD and both appear to have very long barrels.

    The point is however the Russians don't want to turn their assault rifles into long range sniper rifles.

    With the appropriate length mechanism even at 850m/s a 140 grain 6mm projectile would be good enough for an assault rifle cartridge and the same round in long barrel sniper and MG weapons can be used to replace 7.62 x 54mm weapons.

    In fact a new bullpup design like the ADS would allow long barrels to be retained so the extra range performance could be maintained.

    At the end of the day however I think the Russians are happy with the 5.45mm and only intend the 6 x 49mm to replace the almost 120 year old 7.62 x 54mm round.


    _________________
    “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

    higurashihougi
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2127
    Points : 2242
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: Ammo calibres for Russian Army: Discussion

    Post  higurashihougi on Sun Oct 19, 2014 2:57 pm

    GarryB wrote:The Russians have standardised on the 5.45... they will likely remove all 7.62 x 39mm from service when they adopt a new weapon. In the situations where they currently use 7.62 x 39mm I suspect they might replace it with 9 x 39mm.

    My bad, I made a severe mistake in my previous post.

    Russia still manufacture the 7.62 weapons/bullet for exporting to countries (a lot of them) who still use the old M43.

    The structure of M74 is damn complicated and can be produced by quite an advanced manufacture facility. Therefore, many countries who use AK family (my country, for example) do not dare to change to the new 5.45 caliber.

    Russia sells weapons to over the Earth therefore it has to manufacture the M43, M74, and even NATO caliber to satisfy the customers.

    @Garry, Werewolf: May I ask who is the "genius" who want to use a 6.5mm intermediate cartridge for sniper rifle and machine gun ???

    im42
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 21
    Points : 27
    Join date : 2014-09-04

    Re: Ammo calibres for Russian Army: Discussion

    Post  im42 on Sun Oct 19, 2014 6:45 pm

    well to be honest I wouldn't mind sniping or support with fire by using an intermidiate cartridge IF it will have an enough of energy down the distance and will have low trajectory and from what have been wrote so far this "magic" 6.5x39 does provide so where is the real problem here ? :\

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Ammo calibres for Russian Army: Discussion

    Post  Mike E on Sun Oct 19, 2014 8:11 pm

    higurashihougi wrote:
    GarryB wrote:The Russians have standardised on the 5.45... they will likely remove all 7.62 x 39mm from service when they adopt a new weapon. In the situations where they currently use 7.62 x 39mm I suspect they might replace it with 9 x 39mm.
    @Garry, Werewolf: May I ask who is the "genius" who want to use a 6.5mm intermediate cartridge for sniper rifle and machine gun ???
    It is myself, but I don't believe it should replace heavier rounds... It would make a great assault rifle round, or more importantly, the 6.x caliber itself would. Thanks to its caliber and ballistic properties, it could take up the role of a light machine gun (al a M249) and short-range sniper rifle (not many great examples, but you get the idea). This doesn't mean that they should use the Grendel for every type of weapon.... By the way, the 6.5 mm *caliber* is a great caliber that could handle heavier duties.

    I agree with GarryB when it comes to the 7.64x54. It is a great round, but it desperately needs to be replaced due to its age. I'm sure they could produce a similar cartridge that would be far superior. - 30-06 needs to go as well, but that is no longer used by US forces. A great replacement round, or a good contender, is something like an enlarged 6.5x47 Lapua. It doesn't quite have as much energy (stopping power), but an enlarged model could. It isn't particularly amazing in one way (you get the idea), but it still would be adequate. The 6.5 mm Creedmoor has been a show-stopper in modern times, thanks to its' fast velocity (not too fast, which is actually a thing), power levels approaching the x54R, and ridiculous accuracy and precision. Like the Lapua, it would probably would need to be modified to match the x54R's energy, but that is basically all it needs... There are other great contenders such as the .284 etc. On the farther range side of things, the .338 and its relatives like the absolutely ridiculous .300 Hulk Wildcat would be great. There is a reason the .338 is so widely respected by the nations and shooters that use it...

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Ammo calibres for Russian Army: Discussion

    Post  Werewolf on Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:10 pm

    Or Russia could just use its 9.3x64mm like for SVD-K and modify it for a longer slimmer but still heavy bullet that would improve long range capability and it would sustain over long ranges enough energy to be equal or more similiar in power of .338 Lapua rounds, than in its current power. No need to buy foreign rounds when it already has the basis for such rounds, not like .338 Lapua rounds to be old they are also just a rather "recent" invented round.

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Ammo calibres for Russian Army: Discussion

    Post  Mike E on Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:16 pm

    Werewolf wrote:Or Russia could just use its 9.3x64mm like for SVD-K and modify it for a longer slimmer but still heavy bullet that would improve long range capability and it would sustain over long ranges enough energy to be equal or more similiar in power of .338 Lapua rounds, than in its current power. No need to buy foreign rounds when it already has the basis for such rounds, not like .338 Lapua rounds to be old they are also just a rather "recent" invented round.
    True, it could be necked down without much trouble involved.  Not saying that they should buy and use the .338, but rather that they should build an equivalent. This "necked down Brenneke" could be just that. 

    Then, a Creedmoor-like-round could supplement it on the smaller side of things.  

    The SVD-K didn't really have a far range of fire, but an updated round + design might help that out.

     - Maybe this thread should be called "different ammunition" or something like that. This thread has become somewhat off-topic from the title, and the current topics are worth continuing sooo....

    I'd personally like to see sniper troops being issued a standard round, and getting to choose their own rifle/built one themselves. IMHO, a sniper must be "one with the gun" for him to be the as effective as possible. Modular designs like the MSR allow snipers to be 100% fitted to their rifle.

    higurashihougi
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2127
    Points : 2242
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: Ammo calibres for Russian Army: Discussion

    Post  higurashihougi on Mon Oct 20, 2014 9:16 am

    Mike E wrote: - Maybe this thread should be called "different ammunition" or something like that. This thread has become somewhat off-topic from the title, and the current topics are worth continuing sooo....

    I agree. The topic should be change so that we can discuss a wider variation of ammo.

    Mike E wrote:The SVD-K didn't really have a far range of fire, but an updated round + design might help that out.

    What about the SV-98 ?

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Ammo calibres for Russian Army: Discussion

    Post  Mike E on Mon Oct 20, 2014 9:24 am

    higurashihougi wrote:
    Mike E wrote: - Maybe this thread should be called "different ammunition" or something like that. This thread has become somewhat off-topic from the title, and the current topics are worth continuing sooo....

    I agree. The topic should be change so that we can discuss a wider variation of ammo.

    Mike E wrote:The SVD-K didn't really have a far range of fire, but an updated round + design might help that out.

    What about the SV-98 ?
    Yep, it is very interesting to hear so many opinions on a matter such as this one. Par Far, do you mind changing it?

    The SV-98 fires a completely different class of cartridge(s). A version of the 9x64 mm would need a completely different action, barrel, magazine, and maybe even chassis (to help with the added recoil). The SVD-K already fires the standard round, so the only modification would be the barrel which keeps things simple and inexpensive. IMHO, they should build a ground-up bolt-action on a variant of the round. A setup like this, preferably with a chassis, would increase accuracy/precision and further the range compared to the SVD-K.

    higurashihougi
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2127
    Points : 2242
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: Ammo calibres for Russian Army: Discussion

    Post  higurashihougi on Mon Oct 20, 2014 9:37 am

    @Mike E: my bad, I am sorry.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Ammo calibres for Russian Army: Discussion

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 11:23 pm


      Current date/time is Sun Dec 04, 2016 11:23 pm