AK-12 Rifle Discussion

GarryB wrote:The one from the video?

Hard to say as there are a variety of features between all the different rifles and the one in the video had some but lacked others.

The curve of the mag confirms 7.62 x 39mm, while the muzzle and front iron sight suggests one of the latest AK12s shown above, but from the rear looking down the receiver it has the old AK-103 receiver with the old selector and mechanism and looking at the gas system I suspect it does not use the AK-107/108/109 balanced system.

I rather suspect this is intended as a cheapish upgrade option.

For the improved accuracy they will need new barrels/gas systems and new top rails for scopes.

I just hope they take the time to thoroughly test them all and think about performance rather than cheapest and easiest.

I think the AK12 should reduce the weight of the recoiling bolt carrier to the point where a complex balanced recoil mechanism is no longer needed.

For the average soldier I think the AK12 with the normal AK front iron sights and flash hider/muzzle brake should be ideal as long as its problems are dealt with.

For the special forces soldier I would think that a combination of the AK-107, but with the ergonomic controls of the AK12 and the new iron sights to allow over barrel suppressors to be fitted would be best... especially if it allowed the swapping out of barrels and calibres. Ideally what you would want is a domestic AK12 that takes all standard AK mags in 5.45 and 7.62 x 54 and 7.62 x 39mm (and indeed in 9 x 39mm) in the various calibres... so AK-74 mags in 5.45, AKM mags in 7.62 x 39mm, and the heavy AK12 to take Dragunov mags, while the AK12 in 223 should have the capacity to take standard 223 calibre AK mags, but also have an adapter that allows standard NATO M16 mags to be used. This would make them cheaper to use and more flexible.

A special forces soldier would appreciate the balanced recoil design of the AK-107, yet the ergonomics of the AK12 would appeal and the ability to change calibres and barrel lengths and add suppressors without adding too much length would also be appreciated.

The final weapon selected might be totally different of course with a combination of other features the Army has decided are important.

I rather suspect the rifles with the iron sights on the gas systems are the new civilian models for export, but I could be wrong.

Hope can sneak one to me this Xmas...

No, no, my good friend. Not from the video. That one has to be a modified AK-104 of some sort. I was referring to this photo below. It's definitely an AK-12. But, there's a little issue with figuring out what caliber. From what I understand, there's absolutely no working 5.45x39mm drum that looks like the 7.62x39mm model like this. Thus, it would have to be a 7.62mm variant, correct?

I was thinking perhaps they could extend the handguards over the gas block and just have a detachable front sight. Perhaps with an improved 5.45x49 they could make the 7.62x39 redudent. It would be a bit of a headache to have the AK-107 and AK-12 marketed to the military. They only need one I think. It is confirmed that they will be working on a civilian version of the AK-107 along with the AK-12, not sure if they will try to push the AK-107 on the military market, not out of the possibily though.

No, no, my good friend. Not from the video. That one has to be a modified AK-104 of some sort.

In the stills from the video above I would suggest that the curve of the magazine means it must be a 7.62 x 39mm mag.

Regarding:

I was referring to this photo below. It's definitely an AK-12. But, there's a little issue with figuring out what caliber. From what I understand, there's absolutely no working 5.45x39mm drum that looks like the 7.62x39mm model like this. Thus, it would have to be a 7.62mm variant, correct?

Your quite right, that is an AK12, and I have not seen a drum magazine like that in 5.45mm calibre, which is not to say they don't exist, but I would expect the different shape shell case would lead to a different shaped drum, so I would agree this weapon is probably 7.62 x 39mm calibre.

I was thinking perhaps they could extend the handguards over the gas block and just have a detachable front sight.

Detachable would not be very soldier friendly... too easy to lose. Besides a fold down front iron sight at the end of the top mounted pic rail would be most convenient, but I personally think if they are going with a multi calibre system then having a separate iron sight on the barrel makes a lot of sense. Sure it means that if you carry 10 spare barrels you are carrying 10 front iron sights, but with the iron sights on the barrel means you can zero each barrel using its own front sight so you wouldn't need to rezero if you have to swap barrels during a mission.

In comparison the old model M60 machine gun had a fixed front iron sight so you either had to zero the each barrel and remember the rear sight settings before a mission and then try to reset the rear sight when you change between barrels, or just set an average zero and hope for the best.

Of course whether it is on the gas tube or near the muzzle, as long as it is part of the barrel that is swapped for different barrel lengths and calibres it should be fine.

Perhaps with an improved 5.45x49 they could make the 7.62x39 redudent.

Technically... as far as the Russian military is concerned, the 7.62 x 39mm is redundant but it still has its uses. To make it subsonic the 5.45mm round has an 80 grain projectile... so basically it is a .22lr with a double weight projectile (normally 40 grain). In comparison the 7.62 x 39mm has a 193 grain 311 calibre projectile travelling at a similar subsonic speed... which would be far more lethal.

The 5.45mm is designed to be lethally effective because of its velocity, but in certain conditions its light fast projectile can be deflected or simply not reach the target.

I rather suspect the best solution will be heavier bullets for the 5.45mm that retain high velocities due to more powerful propellant.

The new 6 x 49mm cartridge is really designed to replace the 7.62 x 54mm round and probably would not be suited to shorter barrel carbine weapons.

It would be a bit of a headache to have the AK-107 and AK-12 marketed to the military.

Not really. Assuming the AK12 family is pretty complete and includes the small calibre assault rifle and larger calibre assault rifle calibres it could replace a wide range of currently in service weapons... from the Vityaz-SN SMG, AKS-74U assault rifle calibre SMG, AK-105 carbine, AK-74M rifle, RPK-74 LMG, and in a 7.62 x 54mm or 6 x 49mm heavy rifle it could replace the SVDS as a Designated Marksman rifle.

Not only that, but a 9 x 39mm model could replace the AS and VSS weapons used in recon units and a 12 gauge version could be used in urban combat for door breaching.

The AK-107 on the other hand with its balanced recoil mechanism could be used by special forces units in situations where they need lots of rounds on target rapidly and accurately.

Pretty much the AK-107 would be in 5.45mm calibre only, while the AK12 would be in 9 x 19mm for the SMG, 5.45mm for the SMG, Carbine, Rifle, and LMG, while for the SVDS replacement could be in 7.62 x 54mm and perhaps a LMG version of the heavy rifle version in the same calibre. The 12 gauge could be in 3 1/2 inch magnum or 12/89 calibre. The AS and VSS replacements would have integrated suppressors and would come in 9 x 39mm calibre with a 12.7 x 55mm calibre option in the heavy rifle.

To add to that I would have a few pistol types... PYa, Strihz, Gyurza, a few SMG types (as the AK12 model Vityaz-SN is large) say Kashtan, Klin/Kedr, and PP-2000, and a few sniper rifles like the SV-98, SV-99, SV-338, and a few 50 cal and 57 cal sniper rifles and that would be all they needed.

They only need one I think. It is confirmed that they will be working on a civilian version of the AK-107 along with the AK-12, not sure if they will try to push the AK-107 on the military market, not out of the possibily though.

Both would have merits for the military and the civilian market. I would suspect they will push both everywhere... when you don't know exactly what the customer wants then you are best to give them options rather than you picking one yourself and hoping you have guessed right.

The last competition they lost the Nikonov... this time I think they are going to cover all their bases... which means one will be accurate and easy to use, one will be a cheap upgrade of existing types that can be applied to rifles in service, and one will be a little radical and offer the best increase in performance at the likely expense of production costs and increased training.

There is no reason to believe one design will win all... the Russian government customers range from the military to the interior ministry, to the FSB and each will have different wants and needs. I suspect the military might go for a mix of upgrades and new weapons, while other groups might receive large numbers of excess stock from the military.

GarryB wrote:

No, no, my good friend. Not from the video. That one has to be a modified AK-104 of some sort.

In the stills from the video above I would suggest that the curve of the magazine means it must be a 7.62 x 39mm mag.

Regarding:

I was referring to this photo below. It's definitely an AK-12. But, there's a little issue with figuring out what caliber. From what I understand, there's absolutely no working 5.45x39mm drum that looks like the 7.62x39mm model like this. Thus, it would have to be a 7.62mm variant, correct?

Your quite right, that is an AK12, and I have not seen a drum magazine like that in 5.45mm calibre, which is not to say they don't exist, but I would expect the different shape shell case would lead to a different shaped drum, so I would agree this weapon is probably 7.62 x 39mm calibre.

As. The video AK is that of a 7.62x39mm weapon. I say AK-104 because that is the carbine version of the AK-103 (both in 7.62mm), just with a modified front gas block and such.

I did figure that the AK-12 in the photo was a 7.62x39mm variant. I just wanted to make sure. Thanks.

But is it the carbine version or the rifle version with a gas system that makes it look like the carbine version?

GarryB wrote:But is it the carbine version or the rifle version with a gas system that makes it look like the carbine version?

It's an AK-104 Carbine variant for sure. From what I understand about all rifle / carbine differences when it comes to AKs, there are different barrel twist rate's between the two. Like with an AK-74. If you cut down an AK-74 to turn it into an AKS-74U, you screw up the ballistics because the barrel twist rate on the AK-74 rifle is higher than an AKS-74U. So, if you modified and shortened an AK-74 rifle and shoot it, you'll find your bullets coming out and "key-holing" the target. I.E., instead of there being a clean little hole, you'll see a side-slap where the round tumbled into the target (like what happened with the M-16s from 'Nam).



That's the gas block from an AK-104 7.62x39mm Carbine. Very similar design. I think what we're looking at is a Gen-II AK-104. You'll also notice in that one black-and-white photo that the regular AK leaf sight is missing (replaced with a full rail and that effed up holographic sight). They've already made a Generation-2 AK-104, where they just cut out the barrel length between the gas tube and the sight block, but they didn't make the gas tube / sight assembly one unified unit. The Gen-2 AK-103 is seen at the bottom of this photo.



We already know that there was a Generation 2 AK-102 that was put out for testing, so it's a high chance that all the rifle and carbine models are going through various "Westernizational" changes to get them properly tac-fitted for tactical use.



Final deduction? It's either a Generation-2 AK-104. OR, it's a Generation-3 AK-103. BUT, I don't think it's the latter because then wouldn't that AK-103 just really be the Gen-2 AK-104?

"Detachable would not be very soldier friendly... too easy to lose. Besides a fold down front iron sight at the end of the top mounted pic rail would be most convenient, but I personally think if they are going with a multi calibre system then having a separate iron sight on the barrel makes a lot of sense. Sure it means that if you carry 10 spare barrels you are carrying 10 front iron sights, but with the iron sights on the barrel means you can zero each barrel using its own front sight so you wouldn't need to rezero if you have to swap barrels during a mission.

In comparison the old model M60 machine gun had a fixed front iron sight so you either had to zero the each barrel and remember the rear sight settings before a mission and then try to reset the rear sight when you change between barrels, or just set an average zero and hope for the best.

Of course whether it is on the gas tube or near the muzzle, as long as it is part of the barrel that is swapped for different barrel lengths and calibres it should be fine."
As far as being soldier friendly, I'm pretty sure the rear sight is already detachable so having the front sight detachable shouldn't be a problem. Perhaps the biggest issue with the front sight on the handguards is field stripping. Taking gas tube off with front sight attached to the rail on top might cause it to loose zero. They can have the front sight attached to the barrel with the detachable barrel variant.


"Not really. Assuming the AK12 family is pretty complete and includes the small calibre assault rifle and larger calibre assault rifle calibres it could replace a wide range of currently in service weapons... from the Vityaz-SN SMG, AKS-74U assault rifle calibre SMG, AK-105 carbine, AK-74M rifle, RPK-74 LMG, and in a 7.62 x 54mm or 6 x 49mm heavy rifle it could replace the SVDS as a Designated Marksman rifle."
I do find it a bit interesting how the designer of the AK-12 bashed the balanced recoil mechanism saying it wouldn't be practical, and now here they are marketing the AK-107 again. One thing about the AK-107 is that it's a more proven design at the moment than the AK-12. If they figure out the AK-12 is able to do most of what the AK-107 is capable of, they probably won't continue to market the AK-107 to the military. You're right that it's good to have options whether they be redudent or not, as the customer is always right. I wonder why the AK-107 and its 7.62x39 and 5.56x45 variants never saw any success on the world market. Was it because of cost? Or was it because people did not trust it over the more traditional and proven AK-103?

I am not referring to the position of the iron sight, I am referring to the barrel length... I just don't think the barrel in the video is a shortened carbine version of the rifle, which would make it an AK-103 with the iron sight moved.

BTW the twist rate in a barrel is only related to length in terms of muzzle velocity and is more to do with the bullet fired. Long narrow bullets need to be spun very fast to stabilise them in flight... in fact APFSDS rounds for tanks need to be spun so fast they don't bother with rifling and use fins to stabilise them. Shorter fatter rounds need a lower rate of spin to stabilise them.

The AKS-74Us barrel is simply too short for accuracy in that calibre... just like a 2 inch revolvers barrel is too short to get any decent accuracy over extended ranges.

The spin rate of the bullet is a ratio of the twist rate of the barrel and the velocity of the bullet... the rate of twist in a barrel is fixed, but the velocity is not... less velocity from shorter barrels. The easiest way to fix the problems of the AKS-74U is to develop special shorter lighter projectiles to shoot through it.

Well actually the best thing to do is nothing because at 50-100m the AKS-74U is fine... if you want assault rifle performance then get an assault rifle.

Final deduction? It's either a Generation-2 AK-104. OR, it's a Generation-3 AK-103. BUT, I don't think it's the latter because then wouldn't that AK-103 just really be the Gen-2 AK-104?

It should therefore be a generation 3 AK-103... both have their iron sights moved to the top of the gas system, but the real difference is that the shorter carbine model AK-104 only has the muzzle brake and no actual barrel extending beyond the gas system, while the AK-103 does have quite a bit of barrel extending beyond the gas system... as shown in your photo with the suppressor fitted it is to reduce the length of the weapon with suppressors fitted because the muzzle is half way down the suppressor instead of the suppressor starting at the muzzle.

As far as being soldier friendly, I'm pretty sure the rear sight is already detachable so having the front sight detachable shouldn't be a problem.

They probably both are detachable, but normally would not be removed so that iron sights can be used through 1x magnification night vision sights or other optics without zeroing.

Taking gas tube off with front sight attached to the rail on top might cause it to loose zero.

The latch side mounted optics previously used on Russian weapons didn't lose its zero when taken off and put back on. As long as there is no play in its seating it should be fine.

I do find it a bit interesting how the designer of the AK-12 bashed the balanced recoil mechanism saying it wouldn't be practical, and now here they are marketing the AK-107 again.

Balanced recoil mechanisms are not new and have failed every time in the past to get into service. They appear to be more complex than the average AK mechanism and also more expensive to make, and in the past those issues have counted against them.

Of course the AN-94 won the last competition and it was worse.

I wonder why the AK-107 and its 7.62x39 and 5.56x45 variants never saw any success on the world market. Was it because of cost? Or was it because people did not trust it over the more traditional and proven AK-103?

The countries buying the weapons were not looking for extreme accuracy first, they were interested in reliability and simple training and ease of "local" production and support.

The AK-107 was different and was not in service in Russia... a gamble.

I have an ultimak gas tube mount for my AK and they don't really recommend that you remove it for cleaning. I think for the non detachable barrel variants of the AK-12, it is best to have the gas block combined with the FSB. Theoretically speaking, the less things touching barrel prior to firing results in greater mechanical accuracy. The balanced recoil systems failed mostly from an economic and manufacturing standpoint mostly, rather than a technical one I believe. I can't really find much data on whether the AK-107 was just as reliable as the AK-74 or not.

SWAT Pointman wrote:I have an ultimak gas tube mount for my AK and they don't really recommend that you remove it for cleaning. I think for the non detachable barrel variants of the AK-12, it is best to have the gas block combined with the FSB. Theoretically speaking, the less things touching barrel prior to firing results in greater mechanical accuracy. The balanced recoil systems failed mostly from an economic and manufacturing standpoint mostly, rather than a technical one I believe. I can't really find much data on whether the AK-107 was just as reliable as the AK-74 or not.

We might know soon enough. Izhmash is making a "civvie" AK-107 now. We'll see it some time in 2013, I would imagine.

The balanced recoil systems failed mostly from an economic and manufacturing standpoint mostly, rather than a technical one I believe.

Indeed, they will cost more, add complexity... which adds more potential points of failure, and make operating and maintaining the weapon more difficult.

The question is... does it increase accuracy enough to make it worthwhile.

Remember the AK12 lightened the bolt carrier and the piston rod so there is less weight moving back and forth during firing... if a balanced recoil mechanism improved full auto accuracy by 200%, but improvements to the AK12 improved accuracy in full auto by 150% but the balanced recoil mechanism means 150,000 rifles produced a year at $900 each, while the AK12 is 500,000 rifles produced a year at $750 a rifle and they both provide the same level of semi auto accuracy, while the AK12 is easier to use and with a front pistol grip fitted can actually match the AK-107s 200% improvement in full auto accuracy then the decision might be really easy.

The real issue is that there will be half a dozen rifles in this competition just from Izhmash so they will have a lot of things to test... I would love to help with the shooting, but would not want the responsibility of making the final choice.

GarryB wrote:

The balanced recoil systems failed mostly from an economic and manufacturing standpoint mostly, rather than a technical one I believe.

Indeed, they will cost more, add complexity... which adds more potential points of failure, and make operating and maintaining the weapon more difficult.

The question is... does it increase accuracy enough to make it worthwhile.

Remember the AK12 lightened the bolt carrier and the piston rod so there is less weight moving back and forth during firing... if a balanced recoil mechanism improved full auto accuracy by 200%, but improvements to the AK12 improved accuracy in full auto by 150% but the balanced recoil mechanism means 150,000 rifles produced a year at $900 each, while the AK12 is 500,000 rifles produced a year at $750 a rifle and they both provide the same level of semi auto accuracy, while the AK12 is easier to use and with a front pistol grip fitted can actually match the AK-107s 200% improvement in full auto accuracy then the decision might be really easy.

The real issue is that there will be half a dozen rifles in this competition just from Izhmash so they will have a lot of things to test... I would love to help with the shooting, but would not want the responsibility of making the final choice.

With the passing of time and improvement in technology, I imagine it's very possible that a conventional mechanism like the AK-12's could probably could come close or equal the performance of a balanced system. I wonder why they never considered adding a gas regulator to the AK? That would improve performance greatly as the AK uses more gas than necessary to cycle. Perhaps decreased reliability from the added complexity of a gas regulator is a concern.

With the passing of time and improvement in technology, I imagine it's very possible that a conventional mechanism like the AK-12's could probably could come close or equal the performance of a balanced system

The main source of the AKs reliability is the massive weight of the bolt carrier, which when blown back by gas pressure has enormous energy to unlock and then open and close the bolt. A balanced recoil mechanism is just balancing the weight slapping back and forward, so reducing the weight is another viable option too.

I wonder why they never considered adding a gas regulator to the AK?

Rather unnecessary really... I almost never use the gas regulator on my SLR.

That would improve performance greatly as the AK uses more gas than necessary to cycle.

After that first initial impulse of gas the pressure is released to blow out the upper gas tube... reducing the size of the gas cut out in the barrel wouldn't reduce recoil as much as reducing the weight of the bolt carrier slapping back and forth during firing.

Perhaps decreased reliability from the added complexity of a gas regulator is a concern.

It is a point of complication and potentially a point of failure. I remember seeing a photo of an FN MAG GPMG on a pile of shell cases and belt link in the Falklands war that had been abandoned because someone had not set the regulator properly and extended burst fire had blown it off. Result is a manually cocked GPMG.

To be honest I really don't notice the difference in recoil between the lowest setting and the highest setting on my SLR and I really don't think the extra complication would be worth it on a new rifle. One advantage was that you could turn it right up and with a blank firing adapter it probably needed less powder to operate, and you could turn it off if you were launching a rifle grenade, but otherwise it was just something else you had to remember to set.

With the new AK12 being able to fire rifle grenades I would only buy the shoot through variety anyway, so a gas regulator would not be of benefit.

A gas regulator has a lot of benefit. you increase the service life of the rifle by using the minimum amount of gas to cycle. And there should be a decrease in recoil. Almost every new design today has an adjustable regulator, but one could say that just because everybody is doing doesn't mean it's the best or worst decision. Gas regulators have been done in the AK design before like with the M76 sniper rifle. The Russians have used it in many designs. If they haven't already tinkered with a gas regulator, they would have to weigh the pros and cons to having it in the AK-12 design.

I always though the AK-100 series carbines were not very efficient in their overall length. The muzzle booster required on the shorter barrels to insure reliable functioning add considerable length.

A gas regulator has a lot of benefit. you increase the service life of the rifle by using the minimum amount of gas to cycle.

There is nothing wrong with the service lives of AKs AFAIK... adding complication to gain a feature that is of no use suggests it is unnecessary to me.

And there should be a decrease in recoil.

Are you sure?

I have often put my SLR back together wrong after cleaning it... the gas plug will fit the way it is supposed to go in and it will also fit upside down. The difference is that no gas gets through at all if you fit it upside down, so you get no gas and a bolt action manually operated rifle and to be completely honest when firing it without the gas system working I really don't notice the drop in recoil.

Gas regulators have been done in the AK design before like with the M76 sniper rifle.

The M79 sniper rifle is a very bad example as it has the heavy bolt carrier of an AK, compared with an SVD which has a lightened piston rod that is separate from the much lightened bolt carrier. The piston rod only moves a few mms to push the bolt carrier and unlock the bolt, so the only parts moving in an SVD are the bolt carrier and bolt, both of which are much smaller and lighter, yet it has an adjustable gas system to allow increased gas to be used to ensure reliability when the weapon is dirty.

I would suggest the purpose of a gas regulation system would be to allow the balance of the system to be placed closer to the edge... in other words make the weapon much more potentially unreliable, but with the ability to change the setting and get that reliability back. Would suggest that ensuring the weapon got enough gas pressure to cycle properly even when dirty makes rather more sense to me than a gas regulator.

I always though the AK-100 series carbines were not very efficient in their overall length. The muzzle booster required on the shorter barrels to insure reliable functioning add considerable length.

Reducing flash and ensuring reliable action make the minor increase in length well worth it. Unlike the M4 they have folding stocks which allow them to be stored or carried easily in confined places like APCs or IFVs or even helos.

The AK is already much shorter than the M16 even in the standard length barrel model AK-74, while the shorter barrel models are even more compact.

"There is nothing wrong with the service lives of AKs AFAIK... adding complication to gain a feature that is of no use suggests it is unnecessary to me."

But having a weapon that goes longer periods without parts replacement is an advantage.

"I have often put my SLR back together wrong after cleaning it... the gas plug will fit the way it is supposed to go in and it will also fit upside down. The difference is that no gas gets through at all if you fit it upside down, so you get no gas and a bolt action manually operated rifle and to be completely honest when firing it without the gas system working I really don't notice the drop in recoil."

SLR like the L1A1? I have a SVT-40 and I fired a FAL, and I thought there was a decrease in recoil when I set the gas setting lower. I'll have to fire them again some time. It is a good point you illustrated how a gas regulator can add complication.

"M79 sniper rifle is a very bad example as it has the heavy bolt carrier of an AK, compared with an SVD which has a lightened piston rod that is separate from the much lightened bolt carrier. The piston rod only moves a few mms to push the bolt carrier and unlock the bolt, so the only parts moving in an SVD are the bolt carrier and bolt, both of which are much smaller and lighter, yet it has an adjustable gas system to allow increased gas to be used to ensure reliability when the weapon is dirty."
I haven't fired a M76, but I've heard they are just as accurate as a SVD. I think the AK system can be made just as accurate as the SVD with the technology we have today.


"Reducing flash and ensuring reliable action make the minor increase in length well worth it. Unlike the M4 they have folding stocks which allow them to be stored or carried easily in confined places like APCs or IFVs or even helos.

The AK is already much shorter than the M16 even in the standard length barrel model AK-74, while the shorter barrel models are even more compact."
Look at the VZ 58 with an overall length of 33.3 inches versus AK-104 32.4, not a huge difference considering the VZ 58 has a 15.4 inch barrel versus AK-104 with a barrel length of 12.4.

But having a weapon that goes longer periods without parts replacement is an advantage.

That sounds like it should be true, but it isn't. By adding a gas system regulator you are adding more parts and a potential point of failure to make the weapon last longer, yet there is no problem of the life of the weapon... in fact they already have 17 million in storage, so it is actually "lasting" too well already.

SLR like the L1A1? I have a SVT-40 and I fired a FAL, and I thought there was a decrease in recoil when I set the gas setting lower. I'll have to fire them again some time. It is a good point you illustrated how a gas regulator can add complication.

The other aspect is that in combat as the weapon gets dirty you will need to increase the gas by adjusting the regulator to keep the weapon firing properly... you can't see what the weapon looks like on the inside and you really can't guess what sort of quality ammo you might be issued with in combat so your first warning will be not enough gas pressure to properly cycle the weapon... which means the weapon fails to reload properly... after doing this a couple of times (ie failing to reload properly) the soldier will try turning up the gas regulator to solve the problem. The point is that with a fixed gas system there is no need for such stoppages and no need to adjust anything while being shot at.

I think my L1A1 is Australian... I am looking at buying a suppressor for it at some stage, it is a very powerful rifle, but it has a rounded buttstock that is nearly inline with the barrel so firing it results in more of a push than a kick in my opinion... it is very comfortable to fire, though I have never tried it in full auto.

The main problem is that its recoil spring takes up the entire butt stock. The mechanism is very similar to the SKS, though the latter does not have a butt full of recoil spring.

I haven't fired a M76, but I've heard they are just as accurate as a SVD. I think the AK system can be made just as accurate as the SVD with the technology we have today.

...that is my point... the M76 is not inaccurate, and both weapons have significant recoil during firing. The SVD is better when properly held during firing and follow up shots are easier, but the M76 is not a bad rifle in terms of accuracy and is not even heavier than the SVD, which is a very light weapon in that class.

Look at the VZ 58 with an overall length of 33.3 inches versus AK-104 32.4, not a huge difference considering the VZ 58 has a 15.4 inch barrel versus AK-104 with a barrel length of 12.4.

I would suggest your logic is a little flawed. Carbines are shorter handier models of standard rifles likely to be carried by either special forces like paratroops (ie VDV, or naval infantry) of for crew that need a more compact weapon but still need to be able to shoot accurately.

The VZ58 was designed to meet specific requirements so its overall length of 845 mm, that is 635 mm with the stock folded meets their requirements with its 390 mm barrel.

The AK-104 with a length overall of 824mm that is 586mm when folded has a barrel length of 314mm. The 5.45mm cartridge is very much like the 7.62 x 39mm round in that barrel length is not critical to its performance... unlike the 5.56mm round when velocity is everything.

The AK-104 is significantly smaller than the VZ58 when both have their stocks folded, which suggests that assuming the buttstocks are the same length that the difference is in the receiver and barrel lengths.

The requirement for the AK-104/105/102 would be folded size for compact carry where the barrel was long enough to be effective as an assault rifle... they clearly think 314mm is long enough... and I have not read of any complaints... unlike with the AKS-74U, which is actually an assault rifle calibre SMG rather than an assault rifle. At ranges of less than 200m the AKS-74U seems to be OK in terms of accuracy, though its round would be lethal to much greater ranges.

I'm fairly certain a gas regulator will increase the service life of the rifle, the question is whether or not adding a gas regulator to the AK design outweighs the cons or not. The increase in service life might be too small to justify. From a book that I have "As a weapon system, the Type 81 was built to last 20,000 rounds compared to AK copies of 10,000-15,000 rounds. It is built with the same machinery that produces the Type56/AK, and has similar loose tolerances, hence the same level of reliability in adverse conditions"- The World's Assault rifles. I don't know if these are tall claims or not but the Chinese claim that with the Type 81, they achieved a rifle every bit as reliable as the AK, while being 40% more accurate than the AK-47 at 300m's. The Type 81 has a gas regulator by the way.



Shortening the barrel slightly shouldn't be too detrimental to the rounds performance. If you took 1 inch off the barrel of the VZ 58, the overall length would be about the same if not slightly less than the AK-105. Also, an AKM with a 14 inch barrel would be about the same overall length as an AK-105 if not slightly smaller. You could take a pound off a standard AKM if you shortend the barrel by 1 or 2 inches.

SWAT Pointman wrote:I'm fairly certain a gas regulator will increase the service life of the rifle, the question is whether or not adding a gas regulator to the AK design outweighs the cons or not. The increase in service life might be too small to justify. From a book that I have "As a weapon system, the Type 81 was built to last 20,000 rounds compared to AK copies of 10,000-15,000 rounds. It is built with the same machinery that produces the Type56/AK, and has similar loose tolerances, hence the same level of reliability in adverse conditions"- The World's Assault rifles. I don't know if these are tall claims or not but the Chinese claim that with the Type 81, they achieved a rifle every bit as reliable as the AK, while being 40% more accurate than the AK-47 at 300m's. The Type 81 has a gas regulator by the way.



Shortening the barrel slightly shouldn't be too detrimental to the rounds performance. If you took 1 inch off the barrel of the VZ 58, the overall length would be about the same if not slightly less than the AK-105. Also, an AKM with a 14 inch barrel would be about the same overall length as an AK-105 if not slightly smaller. You could take a pound off a standard AKM if you shortend the barrel by 1 or 2 inches.

What seems to be left out, though, is that the both the Type-56 and the Type-81 are made upon thicker receivers, which help with the reliability. It's not just the Type-81 alone. The Type-56 and -81 are the two main AK variants that are supposedly more reliable than the AK-47/AKM variants due to the receivers.

But, then of course, one could argue; "what's more reliable than an AK-47, period?", y'know.

I don't know if these are tall claims or not but the Chinese claim that with the Type 81, they achieved a rifle every bit as reliable as the AK, while being 40% more accurate than the AK-47 at 300m's. The Type 81 has a gas regulator by the way.

Hardly an amazing feat... the AK-103 is probably even more accurate. The Type-81 has a two position regulator... so if it is more accurate with the lower setting, then when it gets dirty it should become less accurate when it is put on the higher setting.

Shortening the barrel slightly shouldn't be too detrimental to the rounds performance. If you took 1 inch off the barrel of the VZ 58, the overall length would be about the same if not slightly less than the AK-105. Also, an AKM with a 14 inch barrel would be about the same overall length as an AK-105 if not slightly smaller. You could take a pound off a standard AKM if you shortend the barrel by 1 or 2 inches.

Muzzle velocity is not hugely important to the 7.62 x 39mm as it derives its effectiveness from projectile mass. For the 5.45mm on the other hand velocity is important... it means flat shooting.

Some Pictures of AK-12 ( via mp.net )

https://i.imgur.com/9ZwQx.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/KD0ly.jpg

Interesting, some versions retain the balanced recoil system. It's a PS job, but it's still a good find.

HAHAHAHAHAHA... that picture you reposted Zivo is mine... I took several pages from that website and used the 30 round mags for scaling and then put the 95 round drum onto the AK12 and then the gas system from the AK-107 model two with pic rails on it together into one image...

EDIT: notice it was before I realised the muzzle device was different (narrower) to allow the launching of rifle grenades so my model has the old standard AK-74 type attachment instead of the newer longer narrower AK12 attachment.

Funny how things go round and round on the internet.

That other photo you have the link to is interesting but I suspect the labels are slightly wrong.

The button identified as a mag release above the lever mag release is actually the bolt hold open device I suspect, while the button above the mag identified as the bolt hold open/release is actually a buffer or spacer the stock folds onto.

I was hoping this had some significance. Oh well, nice job with the image.