Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Sniper Rifles and Units

    Share
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10063
    Points : 10553
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Russian Sniper Rifles and Units

    Post  George1 on Wed Nov 04, 2015 1:41 pm

    Preliminary Tests of Russia's Advanced Sniper Rifle to Begin Next Year

    Preliminary testing of the Russian Defense Ministry’s advanced sniper rifle will begin next year, the chief executive of the Central Research Institute of Precision Machine Building (TsNIITochMash) agency said Wednesday.

    KLIMOVSK (Sputnik) – "I expect samples for state testing will be prepared before the end of the year…I think that we will begin preliminary tests of the rifle for the Defense Ministry in 2016," Dmitry Semizorov told RIA Novosti.

    TsNIITochMash, one of five arms manufacturers tasked by the Russian Defense Ministry to conduct experimental and design work to improve precision and accuracy, is responsible for testing the overall sniper weapon system.

    As part of the program, the agency developed new 7.62x51mm and 8.6x69mm rifles. Standard Russian rifle calibers historically range from 7.62x39mm to 7.62x54mm.

    Semizorov said preliminary tests performed for the Federal Guard Service had proved successful.

    TsNIITochMash, a major supplier of weapons and ammunition, as well as state-of-the-art Ratnik infantry combat gear, is part of Russia’s state technologies corporation Rostec.

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20151104/1029565159/new-russian-sniper-rifle-tests.html#ixzz3qWf1KCl6


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5487
    Points : 5532
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Sniper Rifles and Units

    Post  Militarov on Wed Dec 09, 2015 5:35 pm



    Osiris and Sigal Smile
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16172
    Points : 16803
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Sniper Rifles and Units

    Post  GarryB on Fri Dec 11, 2015 9:47 am

    As part of the program, the agency developed new 7.62x51mm and 8.6x69mm rifles. Standard Russian rifle calibers historically range from 7.62x39mm to 7.62x54mm.

    Why waste time with these two calibres?

    The 308 winchester round is foreign and the 8.6 x 68mm is not that remarkable in terms of performance. It hits harder than 7.62 x 54mm with its heavier projectile, but is not a long range round.

    Personally I would drop the 8.6x69mm... or more accurately not adopt it, and would focus on the 6x49mm and 338 lapua magnum. That would result in a useful infantry rifle and machine gun calibre (6x49mm) and a long range sniper round (the lapua magnum).


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5487
    Points : 5532
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Sniper Rifles and Units

    Post  Militarov on Fri Dec 11, 2015 1:27 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    As part of the program, the agency developed new 7.62x51mm and 8.6x69mm rifles. Standard Russian rifle calibers historically range from 7.62x39mm to 7.62x54mm.

    Why waste time with these two calibres?

    The 308 winchester round is foreign and the 8.6 x 68mm is not that remarkable in terms of performance. It hits harder than 7.62 x 54mm with its heavier projectile, but is not a long range round.

    Personally I would drop the 8.6x69mm... or more accurately not adopt it, and would focus on the 6x49mm and 338 lapua magnum. That would result in a useful infantry rifle and machine gun calibre (6x49mm) and a long range sniper round (the lapua magnum).

    7,62x54R is getting old tho, it needs either serious design revision or replacement in future.

    When its about why they offer these two calibers atm is probably for export or some specialised units that would appreciate .308 over 7,62x54R, but most likely main reason is export.
    avatar
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 3905
    Points : 3936
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: Russian Sniper Rifles and Units

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Fri Dec 11, 2015 3:47 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    As part of the program, the agency developed new 7.62x51mm and 8.6x69mm rifles. Standard Russian rifle calibers historically range from 7.62x39mm to 7.62x54mm.

    Why waste time with these two calibres?

    The 308 winchester round is foreign and the 8.6 x 68mm is not that remarkable in terms of performance. It hits harder than 7.62 x 54mm with its heavier projectile, but is not a long range round.

    Personally I would drop the 8.6x69mm... or more accurately not adopt it, and would focus on the 6x49mm and 338 lapua magnum. That would result in a useful infantry rifle and machine gun calibre (6x49mm) and a long range sniper round (the lapua magnum).

    Err, LapMag is 8.6x69. Personally I would resurect thet 8mm mauser, Yugos done wonders with it and the round ironically was kind of revived with the BabyLapMag (7.62x69) the Russians tested.

    There's also a SuperLapMag 8.6x89 for "special purpose" tested by Lobaev some times in the 2010.

    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5487
    Points : 5532
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Sniper Rifles and Units

    Post  Militarov on Fri Dec 11, 2015 3:52 pm

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    GarryB wrote:
    As part of the program, the agency developed new 7.62x51mm and 8.6x69mm rifles. Standard Russian rifle calibers historically range from 7.62x39mm to 7.62x54mm.

    Why waste time with these two calibres?

    The 308 winchester round is foreign and the 8.6 x 68mm is not that remarkable in terms of performance. It hits harder than 7.62 x 54mm with its heavier projectile, but is not a long range round.

    Personally I would drop the 8.6x69mm... or more accurately not adopt it, and would focus on the 6x49mm and 338 lapua magnum. That would result in a useful infantry rifle and machine gun calibre (6x49mm) and a long range sniper round (the lapua magnum).

    Err, LapMag is 8.6x69. Personally I would resurect thet 8mm mauser, Yugos done wonders with it and the round ironically was kind of revived with the BabyLapMag (7.62x69) the Russians tested.

    There's also a SuperLapMag 8.6x89 for "special purpose" tested by Lobaev some times in the 2010.


    "7,9 says HI"

    avatar
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 3905
    Points : 3936
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: Russian Sniper Rifles and Units

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Fri Dec 11, 2015 3:56 pm

    Militarov wrote:
    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    GarryB wrote:
    As part of the program, the agency developed new 7.62x51mm and 8.6x69mm rifles. Standard Russian rifle calibers historically range from 7.62x39mm to 7.62x54mm.

    Why waste time with these two calibres?

    The 308 winchester round is foreign and the 8.6 x 68mm is not that remarkable in terms of performance. It hits harder than 7.62 x 54mm with its heavier projectile, but is not a long range round.

    Personally I would drop the 8.6x69mm... or more accurately not adopt it, and would focus on the 6x49mm and 338 lapua magnum. That would result in a useful infantry rifle and machine gun calibre (6x49mm) and a long range sniper round (the lapua magnum).

    Err, LapMag is 8.6x69. Personally I would resurect thet 8mm mauser, Yugos done wonders with it and the round ironically was kind of revived with the BabyLapMag (7.62x69) the Russians tested.

    There's also a SuperLapMag 8.6x89 for "special purpose" tested by Lobaev some times in the 2010.


    "7,9 says HI"



    Very good in your "sporterized" "hunting rifles". My old boss had one for hunting. Seized by the new regime. M85B (looked like an Enfield, shot like a Mule).
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5487
    Points : 5532
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Sniper Rifles and Units

    Post  Militarov on Fri Dec 11, 2015 4:02 pm

    [quote="KoTeMoRe"]
    Militarov wrote:
    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    GarryB wrote:
    As part of the program, the agency developed new 7.62x51mm and 8.6x69mm rifles. Standard Russian rifle calibers historically range from 7.62x39mm to 7.62x54mm.

    Why waste time with these two calibres?

    The 308 winchester round is foreign and the 8.6 x 68mm is not that remarkable in terms of performance. It hits harder than 7.62 x 54mm with its heavier projectile, but is not a long range round.

    Personally I would drop the 8.6x69mm... or more accurately not adopt it, and would focus on the 6x49mm and 338 lapua magnum. That would result in a useful infantry rifle and machine gun calibre (6x49mm) and a long range sniper round (the lapua magnum).

    Err, LapMag is 8.6x69. Personally I would resurect thet 8mm mauser, Yugos done wonders with it and the round ironically was kind of revived with the BabyLapMag (7.62x69) the Russians tested.

    There's also a SuperLapMag 8.6x89 for "special purpose" tested by Lobaev some times in the 2010.


    "7,9 says HI"


    Very good in your "sporterized" "hunting rifles". My old boss had one for hunting. Seized by the new regime. M85B (looked like an Enfield, shot like a Mule).  

    Those are still available in some shops around, good rifles.

    But production stopped in favor of very similar just modernised rifle, dubbed M2010, available apparently only in .223 and .308

    avatar
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 3905
    Points : 3936
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: Russian Sniper Rifles and Units

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Fri Dec 11, 2015 4:32 pm

    Militarov wrote:
    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    GarryB wrote:
    As part of the program, the agency developed new 7.62x51mm and 8.6x69mm rifles. Standard Russian rifle calibers historically range from 7.62x39mm to 7.62x54mm.

    Why waste time with these two calibres?

    The 308 winchester round is foreign and the 8.6 x 68mm is not that remarkable in terms of performance. It hits harder than 7.62 x 54mm with its heavier projectile, but is not a long range round.

    Personally I would drop the 8.6x69mm... or more accurately not adopt it, and would focus on the 6x49mm and 338 lapua magnum. That would result in a useful infantry rifle and machine gun calibre (6x49mm) and a long range sniper round (the lapua magnum).

    Err, LapMag is 8.6x69. Personally I would resurect thet 8mm mauser, Yugos done wonders with it and the round ironically was kind of revived with the BabyLapMag (7.62x69) the Russians tested.

    There's also a SuperLapMag 8.6x89 for "special purpose" tested by Lobaev some times in the 2010.


    "7,9 says HI"


    Very good in your "sporterized" "hunting rifles". My old boss had one for hunting. Seized by the new regime. M85B (looked like an Enfield, shot like a Mule).  

    Those are still available in some shops around, good rifles.

    But production stopped in favor of very similar just modernised rifle, dubbed M2010, available apparently only in .223 and .308


    That RPK receiver. respekt
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16172
    Points : 16803
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Sniper Rifles and Units

    Post  GarryB on Sat Dec 12, 2015 8:35 am

    That RPK receiver.

    For calibres more powerful that 7.62 x 39mm you want a bit more receiver strength...

    Err, LapMag is 8.6x69

    Ummm.... yes... my eyes saw 8.6x 69 but my brain saw 9.3x62mm... you know that heavy calibre round the made the SVDK in for testing...

    I would prefer they invested in 6x49mm or some viable replacement for the 54R.


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    Acheron

    Posts : 114
    Points : 118
    Join date : 2015-04-22
    Location : Hades

    Re: Russian Sniper Rifles and Units

    Post  Acheron on Sat Dec 12, 2015 11:27 am

    Why is there so much displeasure at the venerable 7.62x54R cartridge in this thread? I hope everyone realizes that it is service weapons that are made according to the available cartridges and not vice versa. Hence, armies do not just introduce new cartridges because of the "new flavour of the day" that happens to come around, unless there is a readily apparent lack in capabilities in the current line up. Can someone tell me what are these glaring deficiencies in the 7.62x54R that seem to necessitate it's lengthy and very costly replacement (money that the military can spend to address more pressing matters)? Most unbiased arms enthusiasts seem to highly praise this cartridge, so I don't see why it couldn't persist as a designated marksman/general purpose MG cartridge for some time.


    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5363
    Points : 5602
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Russian Sniper Rifles and Units

    Post  Werewolf on Sat Dec 12, 2015 11:31 am

    The 7.62x54mmR won't be replaced that easily. Most countries use russian calibres either 7.62x39mm or 7.62x54mmR there are millions weapons that use this calibres and armies aswell. Russia will produce along with others ammunition for them as long they are around and those guns will exceed our lifespan that is beyond doubt.

    We had that discussion before with introduction of a new round it is very complex and very costly aswell you have to either invest money for current guns to be modified to fit a new one which is also very costly or you try to sell all current weapons while introducing new one for that specific cartridge that will leave ammunition manufactorers trying to run up a large scale production for new calibre aswell trying to sustain manpower to produce old calibres which are still the biggest market for ammunition producers for that exact calibres.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5487
    Points : 5532
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Sniper Rifles and Units

    Post  Militarov on Sat Dec 12, 2015 6:06 pm

    Werewolf wrote:The 7.62x54mmR won't be replaced that easily. Most countries use russian calibres either 7.62x39mm or 7.62x54mmR there are millions weapons that use this calibres and armies aswell. Russia will produce along with others ammunition for them as long they are around and those guns will exceed our lifespan that is beyond doubt.

    We had that discussion before with introduction of a new round it is very complex and very costly aswell you have to either invest money for current guns to be modified to fit a new one which is also very costly or you try to sell all current weapons while introducing new one for that specific cartridge that will leave ammunition manufactorers trying to run up a large scale production for new calibre aswell trying to sustain manpower to produce old calibres which are still the biggest market for ammunition producers for that exact calibres.

    Agreed. It wont be replaced easily but it will most likely be replaced in future, not in next 10 years but it will. Or at least the good old R will get revised in some way to increase its performance without need to actually change caliber or weapons.

    And yeah its very costly and complex, but many countries last 20-35 years switched their calibers from .30-06 to .308, 7,62x39 to .223 or 5,45x39 and similar, its has to happen once. Serbia is in process of switching from 7,62 to .223 for like a decade now.
    avatar
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 3905
    Points : 3936
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: Russian Sniper Rifles and Units

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Sun Dec 13, 2015 12:19 pm

    Acheron wrote:Why is there so much displeasure at the venerable 7.62x54R cartridge in this thread? I hope everyone realizes that it is service weapons that are made according to the available cartridges and not vice versa. Hence, armies do not just introduce new cartridges because of the "new flavour of the day" that happens to come around, unless there is a readily apparent lack in capabilities in the current line up. Can someone tell me what are these glaring deficiencies in the 7.62x54R that seem to necessitate it's lengthy and very costly replacement (money that the military can spend to address more pressing matters)? Most unbiased arms enthusiasts seem to highly praise this cartridge, so I don't see why it couldn't persist as a designated marksman/general purpose MG cartridge for some time.



    The displeasure with 8mm Russian, comes from the fact that the round's lineage comes from the Franco-Prussian war.It's and old ammunition that can't be technically evolved anymore. But, granted, it's a puncher, it's a straight shooter, has immense energy and makes horrible wounds.  

    While much of the "public" hate on the 8mmR comes from Americunt ninja malls who can't have triple negative sub moa groups, the guys being at the receiving ends of both the round and the systems being built to fire it, tell a diversely different story. Yet, the Soviets, Russians and even the Chinese have tried to make better rounds out of it. 6,5R (6,5x54R) initially used a 8mmR casing. Still unmatched in sportive shooting.

    However, the problem of the round comes from the rim center-fire design which makes necessary contraptions for feeding and extraction on most weapons it is used in select fire. Those small things complicate Select fire weapons design both in operation and performance. Other than that, it's a fabulous dinosaur.

    Also given how much the Soviets and Russians have tested the similar casings as the LapMag (Mauser Magnum, 8mm Mauser) I wouldn't say it is the "flavour of the day". It's rather the fact Americans have "invented"/started using the damn thing that suddenly it becomes this new hot round everyone must have. Same for the 6,5 Grendel. or the 6,8 SPC. Soviets Been there done that.

    Personally seen how the Unified round was promising and extensively tested, a "new" weapon for it was the only thing needed. And as the Russian designers are making new weapons (Zid Tokar, Whole AK-12SN family, new sport rifles like the Saiga-MK/AK15, plus the bolt actions that need no complex proofing etc etc etc).

    Maybe it was time to try and incorporate something new.

    Also switching from M43, 7N family to .223 is the dumbest thing to do (especially with countries like Finland, done that and gone back to 7N family). The .223 is a dead end.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5363
    Points : 5602
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Russian Sniper Rifles and Units

    Post  Werewolf on Sun Dec 13, 2015 12:35 pm

    The funny thing is that such a perception is created that everyone must look at americans and what they do and copy that while americans can't built guns. They repeatadly have contracted foreign companies to make weapons for them or even design from scratch like H&K for M416/417 series, XM25, XM8, Belgian machineguns M249, M240, Austrian Glocks series, German USP, SOCOM issued MK23 that was specially designed for them and other series. Lot of use of Italian Baretta's M92 or Benelli shotguns from law enforcement to civilian market highly demanded. So many guns and even more weapons in atoher catagories.
    avatar
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 3905
    Points : 3936
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: Russian Sniper Rifles and Units

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Sun Dec 13, 2015 12:53 pm

    Actually the dichotomy is wrong, Americans have had (and still have) very good designers with top of the range pinnacle guys like the Colts, the Brownings etc.

    However what America really is, is a vibrant guns market, as such those who will thrive are not the super innovators, but those who can cash in. You see how the market gets quickly dominated by packages, that albeit not always innovative (AR market makes me want to puke) are very well made and durable.

    In the last 20 years innovation has been more in the form of creating more demand, that creating new demand. The very case in point is the fact that the AR-15's needed roughly 30 years before having a better offer in magazines (with the P-mag series). Compare that with the legacy magazines for the AK-platfoms...

    You even have bakelite 70's magazines that could be used on the newest AK-12 without much of a hassle. That's something americans stopped overlooking. Operational availability of their firearms depends directly on the level of manutention and cleaning input. No cleaning, no bang.

    Compare that with the AK platforms.

    So again, Americans have their own standards, which are always weird. The trigger issue for instance. It makes me laugh how "crisp" the trigger is supposed to be. While that might count in benchrest shooting, for a military grade weapon it is completely unnecessary.

    So make that distinction. Civilian Gun Market vs Military Commission.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5363
    Points : 5602
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Russian Sniper Rifles and Units

    Post  Werewolf on Sun Dec 13, 2015 2:45 pm

    Well i have initially tried to stay on military guns and then divagated to civilian market which is not fair to compare, i aggree.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5487
    Points : 5532
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Sniper Rifles and Units

    Post  Militarov on Sun Dec 13, 2015 3:46 pm

    Werewolf wrote:The funny thing is that such a perception is created that everyone must look at americans and what they do and copy that while americans can't built guns. They repeatadly have contracted foreign companies to make weapons for them or even design from scratch like H&K for M416/417 series, XM25, XM8, Belgian machineguns M249, M240, Austrian Glocks series, German USP, SOCOM issued MK23 that was specially designed for them and other series. Lot of use of Italian Baretta's M92 or Benelli shotguns from law enforcement to civilian market highly demanded. So many guns and even more weapons in atoher catagories.

    Actually even worse thing regarding Americans and their guns is fact that each state issues own guns to the police and partially federal armed agents. They use across US from Beretta 92 variants, SiG226, Glock 17,19,26 to Colt 1911 and HS2000. Probably over 20 various pistol models is used by US State "owned" agencies lets not even go further. Standardisation at the lvl of Middle Ages and their sprear production.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16172
    Points : 16803
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Sniper Rifles and Units

    Post  GarryB on Mon Dec 14, 2015 4:24 am

    Getting a little bit carried away with the conspiracy theories people.

    Very simply the 7.62 x 54mmR round was designed well over 100 years ago... in fact it is approaching 125 years ago... it entered service in 1891 in a bolt action Mosin Nagant rifle.

    When it entered service it was a low velocity round using black powder as a propellent and a large 220 grain round nose bullet and it was not a great round for anything but relatively short range because of the black powder propellent and the round nosed heavy projectile.

    It was very dirty and needed a lot of cleaning to keep operational.

    Of course now it has a pointed boat tail projectile in the 150 to 180 grain range though 203 grain bullets are available. It also uses smokeless powder and has significantly better range performance.

    Why does it need replacing... why does the MiG-29 or Su-27 need replacing... they both still do the job.

    Fit AESA radars and new AAMs and they should be just fine.

    The thing is that money has already been spent on replacing them all and in the case of the round in question the 6x49mm round exceeds the old rounds performance by a significant margin while adding a few very significant advantages. the some of which include that the round is much smaller and lighter and is rather more accurate and with a much larger effective range.

    The old rimmed cartridge also effects the design of the weapons it is used in... magazines need to be loaded carefully so the rims do not lock in the mag, and in links the round must be withdrawn to the rear and then thrust forward into the chamber... with rimmless rounds they can be pushed through the link directly into the chamber... easier, smaller and therefore lighter.


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    Acheron

    Posts : 114
    Points : 118
    Join date : 2015-04-22
    Location : Hades

    Re: Russian Sniper Rifles and Units

    Post  Acheron on Thu Dec 17, 2015 11:22 am

    GarryB wrote:Getting a little bit carried away with the conspiracy theories people.
    Very simply the 7.62 x 54mmR round was designed well over 100 years ago... in fact it is approaching 125 years ago... it entered service in 1891 in a bolt action Mosin Nagant rifle.

    And 9x19mm parabellum cartridge entered service a couple of years later and is still extremely popular. Heck, even Russia has moved away from 9x18mm to the parabellum cartridge.
    A successful cartridge is judged by its performance and not its age.

    GarryB wrote:
    When it entered service it was a low velocity round using black powder as a propellent and a large 220 grain round nose bullet and it was not a great round for anything but relatively short range because of the black powder propellent and the round nosed heavy projectile.

    It was very dirty and needed a lot of cleaning to keep operational.

    Of course now it has a pointed boat tail projectile in the 150 to 180 grain range though 203 grain bullets are available. It also uses smokeless powder and has significantly better range performance.
    It matter little how the cartridge started out. It has since been successfully modernized.

    GarryB wrote:
    Why does it need replacing... why does the MiG-29 or Su-27 need replacing... they both still do the job.

    Fit AESA radars and new AAMs and they should be just fine.
    Very inaccurate analogy. A better analogy would be for Russia to transition to a completely new aviation fuel type (which current aircraft cannot use) with no readily apparent or insignificant benefit.

    GarryB wrote:
    The thing is that money has already been spent on replacing them all and in the case of the round in question the 6x49mm round exceeds the old rounds performance by a significant margin while adding a few very significant advantages. the some of which include that the round is much smaller and lighter and is rather more accurate and with a much larger effective range.
    Now we are on to something tangible. Although the 6x49mm round looks good on paper, it has several deficiencies (from "Cartridges of the World" book). It did not have the energy retention and barrier/armor penetrating capabilities of competing 6.5mm intermediate cartridges and its high muzzle velocity meant higher chamber pressures and thus higher wear.

    GarryB wrote:
    The old rimmed cartridge also effects the design of the weapons it is used in... magazines need to be loaded carefully so the rims do not lock in the mag, and in links the round must be withdrawn to the rear and then thrust forward into the chamber... with rimmless rounds they can be pushed through the link directly into the chamber... easier, smaller and therefore lighter.
    Yes, I completely agree with you about the following deficiencies of 7.62x54mm: the rimmed design made the mechanism for automatic loading more complicated and magazines needed to be loaded in a more careful manner.
    However, the automatic loading/extraction mechanism for the 7.62mmR have had decades to be perfected and are now considered very reliable.
    I agree that if one is looking to save some weight in the firearm and to increase possible cycle rates, than a mechanism working on a rimless design would be optimal. But are +/- 100 gram in a GPMG or a faster fire rate really so necessary?





    avatar
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 3905
    Points : 3936
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: Russian Sniper Rifles and Units

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Thu Dec 17, 2015 3:44 pm

    Acheron wrote:
    GarryB wrote:Getting a little bit carried away with the conspiracy theories people.
    Very simply the 7.62 x 54mmR round was designed well over 100 years ago... in fact it is approaching 125 years ago... it entered service in 1891 in a bolt action Mosin Nagant rifle.

    And 9x19mm parabellum cartridge entered service a couple of years later and is still extremely popular. Heck, even Russia has moved away from 9x18mm to the parabellum cartridge.
    A successful cartridge is judged by its performance and not its age.


    Apples and oranges. There's almost no developpement for "LEO" rounds in Europe. Almost none. Everyone is happy with the 9mm Luger. And everyone is wrong. Russia had developped a lot of rounds for LEO work, the US as well, two different paradigms get to the same point. One because of medieval state mentality, the other (Russia) because the State needs to do everything and its contrary.


    GarryB wrote:
    When it entered service it was a low velocity round using black powder as a propellent and a large 220 grain round nose bullet and it was not a great round for anything but relatively short range because of the black powder propellent and the round nosed heavy projectile.

    It was very dirty and needed a lot of cleaning to keep operational.

    Of course now it has a pointed boat tail projectile in the 150 to 180 grain range though 203 grain bullets are available. It also uses smokeless powder and has significantly better range performance.
    It matter little how the cartridge started out. It has since been successfully modernized.

    The biggest issue is that it hasn't been modernized, it has been adapted. There are a lot of things to do on the cartdrige, it you can have a NEW CASING. Which is the biggest hurdle. It's a case of "too big to fail".

    GarryB wrote:
    Why does it need replacing... why does the MiG-29 or Su-27 need replacing... they both still do the job.

    Fit AESA radars and new AAMs and they should be just fine.
    Very inaccurate analogy. A better analogy would be for Russia to transition to a completely new aviation fuel type (which current aircraft cannot use) with no readily apparent or insignificant benefit.

    Granted, yours is better.

    GarryB wrote:
    The thing is that money has already been spent on replacing them all and in the case of the round in question the 6x49mm round exceeds the old rounds performance by a significant margin while adding a few very significant advantages. the some of which include that the round is much smaller and lighter and is rather more accurate and with a much larger effective range.
    Now we are on to something tangible. Although the 6x49mm round looks good on paper, it has several deficiencies (from "Cartridges of the World" book). It did not have the energy retention and barrier/armor penetrating capabilities of competing 6.5mm intermediate cartridges and its high muzzle velocity meant higher chamber pressures and thus higher wear.

    6.5mmR is a sporting match grade ammo. Off course it would be better. But again, it used a different casing than 7.62/8mmR.

    GarryB wrote:
    The old rimmed cartridge also effects the design of the weapons it is used in... magazines need to be loaded carefully so the rims do not lock in the mag, and in links the round must be withdrawn to the rear and then thrust forward into the chamber... with rimmless rounds they can be pushed through the link directly into the chamber... easier, smaller and therefore lighter.
    Yes, I completely agree with you about the following deficiencies of 7.62x54mm: the rimmed design made the mechanism for automatic loading more complicated and magazines needed to be loaded in a more careful manner.
    However, the automatic loading/extraction mechanism for the 7.62mmR have had decades to be perfected and are now considered very reliable.
    I agree that if one is looking to save some weight in the firearm and to increase possible cycle rates, than a mechanism working on a rimless design would be optimal. But are +/- 100 gram in a GPMG or a faster fire rate really so necessary?

    Exactly why, people want a new cartdrige; because it would open to completely new paradigm in firearms. Although the PKM/PKP is the LIGHTEST offer out there for that kind oreliability and lethality. There's a lot to gain, especially since there are projects out there that would get 6.5kg GPMG's (vs 9kg for PKP) with new rounds. New materials will also allow a better design and less ballistic flex on the Weapons. Case in point is the new AK-12 (yeah yeah yeah I know) which is about 40% stiffer and thus more accurate (not 40% more accurate, just more accurate and dependable) than AK74M.

    Granted, it isn't exactly divorce material from 7.62R but at some point it would have to be let go.




    [/quote]
    avatar
    Acheron

    Posts : 114
    Points : 118
    Join date : 2015-04-22
    Location : Hades

    Re: Russian Sniper Rifles and Units

    Post  Acheron on Fri Dec 18, 2015 12:39 pm

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Acheron wrote:
    And 9x19mm parabellum cartridge entered service a couple of years later and is still extremely popular. Heck, even Russia has moved away from 9x18mm to the parabellum cartridge.
    A successful cartridge is judged by its performance and not its age.
    Apples and oranges. There's almost no developpement for "LEO" rounds in Europe. Almost none. Everyone is happy with the 9mm Luger. And everyone is wrong. Russia had developped a lot of rounds for LEO work, the US as well, two different paradigms get to the same point. One because of medieval state mentality, the other (Russia) because the State needs to do everything and its contrary.

    Everyone seems to have converged to the 9mm parabellum as the "bread and butter" PDW and LEO round for a reason. And I don't think it is because everyone just happens to be wrong (although you are free to elucidate further on that idea). More specialized round for LEOs exist and will continue to be developed for obvious reasons, but no one is going to take away the "podium" from the venerable parabellum as the default cartridge.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Acheron wrote:
    It matter little how the cartridge started out. It has since been successfully modernized.
    The biggest issue is that it hasn't been modernized, it has been adapted. There are a lot of things to do on the cartdrige, it you can have a NEW CASING. Which is the biggest hurdle. It's a case of "too big to fail".

    Throughout its lifetime, the 7.62x54mmR cartridge had absolutely everything altered to suit various needs, with the only immutable thing retained being the dimensions of the cartridge. The thickness of the casing was experimented upon, the bullet was altered to meet certain needs, as well as the propellent. I don't know what problem you see in regards to the material for the casing, but updating the round with new casing should not be too difficult.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Acheron wrote:
    Now we are on to something tangible. Although the 6x49mm round looks good on paper, it has several deficiencies (from "Cartridges of the World" book). It did not have the energy retention and barrier/armor penetrating capabilities of competing 6.5mm intermediate cartridges and its high muzzle velocity meant higher chamber pressures and thus higher wear.
    6.5mmR is a sporting match grade ammo. Off course it would be better. But again, it used a different casing than 7.62/8mmR.

    To me, the problems with 6x49mm unified cartridge seems to mirror closely the issues found in the experimental US 6x45mm SAW round. The cost per benefit ratio seems to be too prohibitive.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Acheron wrote:
    Yes, I completely agree with you about the following deficiencies of 7.62x54mm: the rimmed design made the mechanism for automatic loading more complicated and magazines needed to be loaded in a more careful manner.
    However, the automatic loading/extraction mechanism for the 7.62mmR have had decades to be perfected and are now considered very reliable.
    I agree that if one is looking to save some weight in the firearm and to increase possible cycle rates, than a mechanism working on a rimless design would be optimal. But are +/- 100 gram in a GPMG or a faster fire rate really so necessary?
    Exactly why, people want a new cartdrige; because it would open to completely new paradigm in firearms. Although the PKM/PKP is the LIGHTEST offer out there for that kind oreliability and lethality. There's a lot to gain, especially since there are projects out there that would get 6.5kg GPMG's (vs 9kg for PKP) with new rounds. New materials will also allow a better design and less ballistic flex on the Weapons. Case in point is the new AK-12 (yeah yeah yeah I know) which is about 40% stiffer and thus more accurate (not 40% more accurate, just more accurate and dependable) than AK74M.

    Granted, it isn't exactly divorce material from 7.62R but at some point it would have to be let go.

    I agree with you that eventually, the 7.62x54mmR cartridge will have to be let go in order to progress to something greater. However, I do not see that better alternative currently on the market or in development. In the history of firearms and projectile design in particular there have been many revolutionary breakthroughs that have significantly increased the capability of firearms, from the Minie ball, to self-containing cartridge, smokeless powder, pointed bullets, intermediate cartridge etc... However, I believe I am not the only one to see an obvious stagnation in cartridge design over the last couple of decades. Most of the present debate seems to be centred on finding that optimal +/- 1 mm sweet-spot for cartridge dimensions that produces a single digit percentage improvements in meeting current requirements over the previous design. Such a "caliber hunt" is a potentially endless cycle as the nature of typical military engagements and tactical doctrines constantly evolve necessitating different military requirements. If Russia is going to invest a large amount of funds in order to introduce a cartridge for its armed forces, I would rather prefer it not be just another cycle of this "caliber hunt", but rather a revolutionary new cartridge design which will have significant impact on infantry efficacy, maximize the cost/benefit ratio and set the tone for future developments. Till that time, the 7.62mmR cartridge should remain sufficient.
    avatar
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 3905
    Points : 3936
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: Russian Sniper Rifles and Units

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Fri Dec 18, 2015 1:06 pm

    Acheron wrote:
    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Acheron wrote:
    And 9x19mm parabellum cartridge entered service a couple of years later and is still extremely popular. Heck, even Russia has moved away from 9x18mm to the parabellum cartridge.
    A successful cartridge is judged by its performance and not its age.
    Apples and oranges. There's almost no developpement for "LEO" rounds in Europe. Almost none. Everyone is happy with the 9mm Luger. And everyone is wrong. Russia had developped a lot of rounds for LEO work, the US as well, two different paradigms get to the same point. One because of medieval state mentality, the other (Russia) because the State needs to do everything and its contrary.

    Everyone seems to have converged to the 9mm parabellum as the "bread and butter" PDW and LEO round for a reason. And I don't think it is because everyone just happens to be wrong (although you are free to elucidate further on that idea). More specialized round for LEOs exist and will continue to be developed for obvious reasons, but no one is going to take away the "podium" from the venerable parabellum as the default cartridge.

    The issue with the 9mm, is that it's cheap (the same story with 7.62/8mmR)n bar that the round has a lot of shortcomings. Massive energy bleed, fairly unpredictable wound patterns, prone to squibs, lack of actual lethality (to the point that people find out that cause of death while hit by 9mm Luger is usually a remote consequence of the shooting, not a direct cause of it. Up to 25% of fatalities after being shot by 9mm luger in Belgium, by police have been unrelated to the round actually wounding (10% cardiac arrests ...). It's funny how going "average" is seen as positive in this field. On the other side super hot rounds like the 7.62x25 go completely unoticed (while being arguably a far better offering). Same for 45 ACP, it's a shit round, but hits like a bulldozer, yet US Americans pray sweet Jebus to have it. The Czechs tested with the 9x21(before the Israelis). The Soviet Russians totally moded the round (hipress 7n2X family) to the point it's a different round.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Acheron wrote:
    It matter little how the cartridge started out. It has since been successfully modernized.
    The biggest issue is that it hasn't been modernized, it has been adapted. There are a lot of things to do on the cartdrige, it you can have a NEW CASING. Which is the biggest hurdle. It's a case of "too big to fail".

    Throughout its lifetime, the 7.62x54mmR cartridge had absolutely everything altered to suit various needs, with the only immutable thing retained being the dimensions of the cartridge. The thickness of the casing was experimented upon, the bullet was altered to meet certain needs, as well as the propellent. I don't know what problem you see in regards to the material for the casing, but updating the round with new casing should not be too difficult.

    The current casing thickness, shape and flaring is the same since 1970's. And basically the walls are the same 'in thickness' since the damn Korean war. There have been specialized rounds for accuracy and clean shooting, but none is as spread statistically as the GPMG round. Fact is that it still costs a fortune to have 80's era "accurized" soft-casing rounds. There's also a limitation in the ammount of boom stuff you can cram in that casing. But as I told you, it's a beautiful dinosaur, and dinosaurs are protected species.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Acheron wrote:
    Now we are on to something tangible. Although the 6x49mm round looks good on paper, it has several deficiencies (from "Cartridges of the World" book). It did not have the energy retention and barrier/armor penetrating capabilities of competing 6.5mm intermediate cartridges and its high muzzle velocity meant higher chamber pressures and thus higher wear.
    6.5mmR is a sporting match grade ammo. Off course it would be better. But again, it used a different casing than 7.62/8mmR.

    To me, the problems with 6x49mm unified cartridge seems to mirror closely the issues found in the experimental US 6x45mm SAW round. The cost per benefit ratio seems to be too prohibitive.

    If you check upwards in this thread, this is my original position, the swap will cost a lot for SOME advantages and it's nothing short of a self-inflicted wound. Especially if it is to kill both "foot-mobile" rounds (5..45/7.62 short/7.62R) it will recquire teething and will cost a lot. But this doesn't need to be an all in one.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Acheron wrote:
    Yes, I completely agree with you about the following deficiencies of 7.62x54mm: the rimmed design made the mechanism for automatic loading more complicated and magazines needed to be loaded in a more careful manner.
    However, the automatic loading/extraction mechanism for the 7.62mmR have had decades to be perfected and are now considered very reliable.
    I agree that if one is looking to save some weight in the firearm and to increase possible cycle rates, than a mechanism working on a rimless design would be optimal. But are +/- 100 gram in a GPMG or a faster fire rate really so necessary?
    Exactly why, people want a new cartdrige; because it would open to completely new paradigm in firearms. Although the PKM/PKP is the LIGHTEST offer out there for that kind oreliability and lethality. There's a lot to gain, especially since there are projects out there that would get 6.5kg GPMG's (vs 9kg for PKP) with new rounds. New materials will also allow a better design and less ballistic flex on the Weapons. Case in point is the new AK-12 (yeah yeah yeah I know) which is about 40% stiffer and thus more accurate (not 40% more accurate, just more accurate and dependable) than AK74M.

    Granted, it isn't exactly divorce material from 7.62R but at some point it would have to be let go.

    I agree with you that eventually, the 7.62x54mmR cartridge will have to be let go in order to progress to something greater. However, I do not see that better alternative currently on the market or in development. In the history of firearms and projectile design in particular there have been many revolutionary breakthroughs that have significantly increased the capability of firearms, from the Minie ball, to self-containing cartridge, smokeless powder, pointed bullets, intermediate cartridge etc... However, I believe I am not the only one to see an obvious stagnation in cartridge design over the last couple of decades. Most of the present debate seems to be centred on finding that optimal +/- 1 mm sweet-spot for cartridge dimensions that produces a single digit percentage improvements in meeting current requirements over the previous design. Such a "caliber hunt" is a potentially endless cycle as the nature of typical military engagements and tactical doctrines constantly evolve necessitating different military requirements. If Russia is going to invest a large amount of funds in order to introduce a cartridge for its armed forces, I would rather prefer it not be just another cycle of this "caliber hunt", but rather a revolutionary new cartridge design which will have significant impact on infantry efficacy, maximize the cost/benefit ratio and set the tone for future developments. Till that time, the 7.62mmR cartridge should remain sufficient.[/quote]

    See above, gradually going through a testing process, shouldn't be some kind of self sacrifice. There's already enough calibres the Russians can field with less hassle. The Fins themselves consider the 6.5mmR to be one hell of round, with almost on par interchangeability. Going at 1000m/s and being an Olympic champion should have pushed the good people to get it done....There's also the 9.3x54 (with puff casing that is there too for these things).

    I wouldn't say it's stagnation. It's just not necessary for now. But the MO has the choice.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5487
    Points : 5532
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Sniper Rifles and Units

    Post  Militarov on Fri Dec 18, 2015 5:26 pm

    Since this became 7,62x54R thread of a sort i felt free to post this: http://www.prvipartizan.com/rifle_ammo.php. "First Partisan Užice" is one of the biggest ammunition poducers in the world, and producer with biggest caliber range, they even produce extremly rare and forgotten ammo types like 6,5 Carcano.

    avatar
    Acheron

    Posts : 114
    Points : 118
    Join date : 2015-04-22
    Location : Hades

    Re: Russian Sniper Rifles and Units

    Post  Acheron on Fri Dec 18, 2015 7:38 pm

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    The issue with the 9mm, is that it's cheap (the same story with 7.62/8mmR)n bar that the round has a lot of shortcomings. Massive energy bleed, fairly unpredictable wound patterns, prone to squibs, lack of actual lethality (to the point that people find out that cause of death while hit by 9mm Luger is usually a remote consequence of the shooting, not a direct cause of it. Up to 25% of fatalities after being shot by 9mm luger in Belgium, by police have been unrelated to the round actually wounding (10% cardiac arrests ...). It's funny how going "average" is seen as positive in this field. On the other side super hot rounds like the 7.62x25 go completely unoticed (while being arguably a far better offering). Same for 45 ACP, it's a shit round, but hits like a bulldozer, yet US Americans pray sweet Jebus to have it. The Czechs tested with the 9x21(before the Israelis). The Soviet Russians totally moded the round (hipress 7n2X family) to the point it's a different round.

    Well, in terms of lethality, it has already been shown via autopsy that the 9mm parabellum is powerful enough to cause hydrostatic shock and organ hemorrhaging. So lethality is not a problem. The other contentious issue is energy bleed. A quick view of youtube penetrating tests of this round shows that although the accuracy from a pistol degrades significantly beyond 100m, the round goes right through ballistic gel and causes a lethal wound up to 200m if used from a pistol. Heck, if used with an elongated barrel, the round is lethal up to 400m. Hence, energy bleed is not an issue, especially for PDW/LEO requirements. Also, the round is not only affordable, but comes with a large variety of bullets and even has overpressurized cartridges. When it comes to military equipment, there is a certain kind of excellence inherent in something that manages to achieve a perfect balance of parameters and can thus be referred to as "average". AK and T-34 are the first things that come to mind.

    I have to agree that the venerable 7.62x25mm tokarev round is amazing. However, there must have been a valid reason to dump it in favour of the 9x18mm Mak round, even though it was so widely used in WW2 and there were massive stocks of that ammo. Even though it had better ballistics, muzzle velocity and penetrating power, the tokarev round must have been deemed to have insufficient lethality in comparison to the parabellum/mak one.


    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    The current casing thickness, shape and flaring is the same since 1970's. And basically the walls are the same 'in thickness' since the damn Korean war. There have been specialized rounds for accuracy and clean shooting, but none is as spread statistically as the GPMG round. Fact is that it still costs a fortune to have 80's era "accurized" soft-casing rounds. There's also a limitation in the ammount of boom stuff you can cram in that casing. But as I told you, it's a beautiful dinosaur, and dinosaurs are protected species.
    What can I say, if there is little demand, there is little supply and higher prices due to lower production runs. Capitalism baby. Also, how is the case capacity of 7.62x54mmR problematic? If I recall correctly, it surpasses the competing 7.62x51 NATO round (another cartridge that is going to be around for a while), so I don't see a problem in that.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    If you check upwards in this thread, this is my original position, the swap will cost a lot for SOME advantages and it's nothing short of a self-inflicted wound. Especially if it is to kill both "foot-mobile" rounds (5..45/7.62 short/7.62R) it will recquire teething and will cost a lot. But this doesn't need to be an all in one.
    I would go as far as to posit that it would be irresponsible, wasteful and highly inefficient to try to replace the above-mentioned three rounds by a single "unified" round, because the requirements of GPMGs, assault rifles and designated marksmen are vastly different. Heck, modifying the SVD to allow the use of the general purpose MG rounds was a large step at MG/marksmen unification, and it is still debatable whether such a move was successful or not.




    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Sniper Rifles and Units

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Jul 22, 2017 10:42 pm