Russian Assault Rifles/Carbines/Machine Guns Thread: #1

The thing is though that the Russian forces have rifles capable of full auto and they are trained to not be shy about using burst fire.

Not sure about the US, but the Brits emphasise single shots until the enemy get really close and then they use bursts like SMGs with their rifles.

Russians on the other hand seem to use bursts as suppressive fire at medium range too as well as at short range.

US forces don't have a full auto option except with the M4 and I think perhaps that it part of what US forces like about the M4 is its full auto capacity.

With this in mind Russian forces don't really use RPKs for increasing the firepower of their units, they use them to extend the reach of their units.

The problem with making the RPK-74 belt fed is that you increase its weight to something that approaches the empty weight of a PKM without extending range or increasing fire power that much.

I kinda agree with the Russian approach of replacing the RPK and PKM with Pecheneg as a sort of universal belt fed weapon.

Short range firepower will not be effected because with full auto assault rifles it is already pretty high.

From what I have read I suspect Russian small arms will be getting a patch upgrade with the AK-200 and likely Pecheneg but after 2015 it will likely get more serious attention. Right now the focus seems to be on command and control and computers and communications plus intel and recon (C4IR). There is also a focus on the Navy and Air Force too. I think Russian soldiers are already well equipped regarding small arms anyway... but I think by 2020 they will be even better off.

BTW regarding your toy...
Nice. It has the wooden look of the older first AK-74s but without those awful looking red plastic magazines that the late AKMs and early AK-74s had.
I also prefer the AKS-74U in the wooden stock form, but the new AKS-74M with the black plastic looks cool as do the AK-105 carbines in 5.45mm calibre.

Do you use it for hunting or is it just for the shooting range?

I should add that after lots of western programs to replace their conventional rifles including duplex bullets, plastic cased rounds, flechette rounds, and caseless rounds the only weapon that got close to production was the West German G11 that was pretty much killed by the cost of reunification with East Germany.

None of the other super weapons proved to be better than the existing weapons to a degree that justified the cost of changing to the new weapon/round.

As I have mentioned I think with regard to the Russian forces if they introduce new ammo with new more modern powder either plastic cased or caseless, it makes sense for them to replace the 7.62 x 54mmR rounds first in sniper and machine guns. The benefit of reducing ammo weight by half while improving performance (higher velocities with the same bullet weight) will be greater with a Pecheneg with a 100 round belt than an AK with a 30 round mag... especially if the metallic links can be reduced in weight too.
The choice is then to either go for twice the ammo (200 round belts) or to make the weapon lighter when loaded.

Even if they switch to a rimless plastic case round the initial costs will be a problem, but in the longer term they will save a lot of money because plastic is cheaper than the mild steel they use.

Obviously it is even more worth while for the west as it uses more expensive brass for cartridge cases, but even the Russians will save money even just with plastic cased rounds.

With case less rounds there should also be potential to save weight, volume, and cost in terms of materials.

Even just in the shorter term they can develop new more efficient propellents that improve the performance of existing weapons. Vlad posted a thread a while back about the lack of development over the last few decades and that with investment muzzle velocities could be increased by about 40% or so simply by more sophisticated powder that was designed to burn fully within the barrel lengths of the weapons they were being used in. Increasing the muzzle velocity of the AKM by 40% would make it comparable to the new 6.8mm rounds the US Army are experimenting with without having to issue new weapons.
You could keep existing ammo stores and use them up or even sell them and keep the good stuff for yourself.

Thanks for the pics Austin.

It is a shame there is no close up of that RPG-7 round on the wall display. It seems to have an unusually shaped tip. Like it is a cross between a thermobaric and HEAT warhead.

The Russians have a bewildering array of camo uniforms, some I like better than others but I find it too difficult to keep track of them.

I do like the big heavy jackets they wear and the overall type pants that come with them but the climate here is just too mild to warrant me buying such things.

NZ is surrounded by water which means the coldest is gets here is about minus 1 or 2 degrees Celsius at night in the middle of winter and the hottest it normally gets is the low 30s with an average of about 18 in summer and about 5 in winter.

Despite what people in the north island of NZ think I live in the south island and it very rarely snows down to sea level where I live... maybe one or two days every 2-3 years we will have snow on the ground but if it falls overnight it is usually gone by the afternoon.

Frustrating for me because I love snow... if it is going to be cold it might as well be fun... and pretty.

First of all "rounds" aren't accurate or inaccurate... they are either consistent or inconsistent.

And an M4 is not accurate to 600m and even if it was the lethality of the 5.56mm round is simply not there at 600m for heavy targets like people.

The 7.62 x 39mm round was not considered an accurate round because it was mass produced to a mediocre standard aimed at mass production and not performance. Accuracy was not a performance issue because the troops were mostly trained to fire in bursts anyway to suppress the enemy. Spending money making the ammo accurate was a waste of money if you are then going to train your troops to fire from the hip in the march in short bursts.

First the manufacture standards need to be raised to get consistent weights of various components like powder weights in the rounds to get consistent pressures. Second training needs to focus on single shot aimed fire rather than controlled bursts.

If the 7.62 x 39mm round is so bad why is the 6mm PPC bench rest round to 300m based on it?

I have heard people say it is inaccurate because the bullet drop at 400m is something like 52 inches. I guess the 7.62 x 51mm round must be rubbish too because at 1,000m ranges its bullet drop is something like 32 feet... yet there are plenty of claims for accuracy to that range in that calibre.

The simple fact is that the average soldier is not great at judging ranges accurately and with slower heavier bullets the longer the bullet is in the air the more it is effected by gravity. A lighter faster moving projectile will drop less initially because it covers ground faster and has less time to drop but everything drops at the same rate on Earth and lighter bullets lose velocity faster than heavier bullets and most rifle calibre bullets are subsonic at about 600-1,000m depending on the calibre and initial velocity... the heavier bullets retaining velocity better than lighter ones.

I too find it amusing that the Russians still use AK-47s.

The huge irony is they talk about more sophisticated rifles in the west when most are simply old rifles with Picatinny rails all over them with very few other changes. If the AK-200 has a balanced recoil mechanism then that will be the most advanced rifle in operational service anywhere. Even the latest product from GALIL is an M16 with a real piston rod like an AK.

The only major steps forward in small arms design in the last 30 years has been bullpups and rifles with small scopes mounted on them as standard to replace iron sights.

The 5.56mm desperately needs a 20 inch barrel to be effective and even then it is a 350m rifle at best with regards to effective lethality.

The 5.45mm just needs a barrel longer than an AKS-74U and that is for accuracy and not lethality.

Just some basic question , I was watching some video found on Izhmash website they have some good collection and I was wondering why did Russian choose 5.45x39 bullet round compared to NATO 5.56x45 ?

The 5.56mm round was developed from the .222 hunting round and was adopted by the US unofficially for use in a light carbine rifle that was originally intended for security personal at airfields in Vietnam.

When the locals saw how light the rifle was they ordered some and when the US forces saw how effective the light high velocity round was at close range they wanted them too.

The 5.45mm round was specifically designed to offer the benefits of light high velocity rounds (low recoil, flat trajectory that is more forgiving of range guessing errors, lighter ammo so more rounds could be carried per kg of ammo.)
The 5.45 further adds the projectile design which is long and slim and of excellent aerodynamic shape unlike the short stubby 5.56mm round.
The added benefit of the 5.45mm round is that being hollow tipped the round is very rear heavy and it tumbles pretty much on impact were as most other bullets will penetrate up to 10cm of flesh before they even start to tumble.

The light bullets are easily deflected but the 5.56mm relies on high velocity to fragment as it tumbles.

Most hunters will tell you that light fast bullets often exhibit spectacular performance on light game but on larger animals they are less impressive because often they lack projectile weight to penetrate thick hide or muscle to get to the vital organs.

Light fast bullets can be quite inconsistent too... sometimes the target will look like it exploded and other times it was like it was hit with a .22lr.

Relying on high velocity shorter barrel weapons like the M4 tend to make the latter more common than the former.

Why did the Soviets adopt the 5.45?

Because they developed it especially to replace the 7.62 x 39mm.

It is like asking why they adopted the T-90... there was a competition with competing designs and the one that fit their needs best won.

I believe most of the bullet the world over used in assult rifle are standard NATO rounds , what is the advantage and disadvantage of 5.45x39 rounds over NATO standards ?

Unless it is coming out of a 20 inch barrel the 5.56mm round has mediocre terminal performance.

The Russians already have the 5.45mm in full production and to rechamber all their rifles to 5.56mm would be a rather enormous step back.

The funny thing is that western calibres always seem to be super calibres. The Soviet 12.7mm round is a 12.7 x 108mm round which is clearly larger than the 12.7 x 99mm browning mg calibre yet they are considered comparable. The 9 x 19mm on the other hand is considered to be vastly superior to the 9 x 18mm because it has higher velocity yet the 7.62 x 25mm has even higher velocity yet is not considered better than the 9 x 19mm. The 5.56 x 45mm is considered super accurate and superior to the 5.45 x 39mm but the 7.62 x 54mmR is not better than the 7.62 x 51mm.

When the west round is superior it is because it is higher velocity or more accurate, except when the Soviet/Russian round is superior in velocity or comparable in accuracy and then they are equivalents.

Most of the time the fact that the 5.45mm is every bit as good as the 5.56 in most respects and better in some is obscured by the fact that the 5.45mm clearly doesn't exist and Russia still uses AK-47s... so lets compare M4s with AK-47s.

Second question how does SVD sniper rifle compared with NATO/US sniper rifle in range,performance and ruggedness ?

With the right ammo the SVD would qualify as a NATO standard sniper rifle. It is designed for the 400-600m range, while western snipers seem to spend all their time trying to hit targets at much longer range. Of course the vast majority of SVDs are issued to grunts with a little extra training to use the weapon out to 400-600m.
What the west would actually call snipers operate in special forces on special patrols and they might shoot out to 800m or so but that would not be that common depending on the terrain.

Some Russian units need more accuracy than the SVD provides... much like western snipers might need more accuracy than an M21 provides and go for a bolt action. Currently their bolt action long range rifle options are expensive... SV-98, and Lobaevs custom made rifles would be their two best options in rifle calibres.

Garry , I feel AK-200 will have a balanced recoil mechanism , I think they wont simply drop it when AK-101/102 series has it.

Only the AK-107 and AK-108 have balanced recoil systems.

The main purpose of the AK-100 series was to make AKs of the standard of the AK-74M available in 5.45, 5.56, and 7.62 x 39mm calibre in full length and shortened barrel carbine form... the 5.45mm equivelent of the AK-105 is the AK-74M, whereas the 101-104 are standard length and short length barrel versions in 5.56 and 7.62 x 39mm calibre. The AK-107 and AK-108 are 5.45 and 5.56 with recoil balancers to compete with similar AEK rifles.

Garry what do you think about the INSAS rifle widely used in Indian Army and developed in India ?

It looks good to me. Sensible layout. Of course I have never fired it so I can't say for sure, but it looks like a good rifle.

Found this comment on AK-200 on this blog

Well without a balanced recoil system it is really just an AK-74M with Picatinny rails fitted and a hinged top cover as fitted to the AKS-74U in the early 1980s so why would it take two years to get ready for trials this year?
The only thing really new would be the double stack 60 round mag and that could be tested and fitted to existing rifles.

The only thing I have a problem with is why would they adopt an American calibre cartridge?

The 5.45 is already in widespread service and is an accurate and effective round. It is like all these super weapons trying to replace the M16... none of them had enough of a performance increase to warrant the cost of changing calibre and making a new weapon.
The Russians are in the same boat, the Grendel, the 5.56, even the new Chinese round is not significantly superior to the 5.45mm round to warrant changing.

Regarding NATOs current experience where the 5.56mm round lacks range against the Kalashnikovs... the Soviets didn't have that problem because their 5.45mm rifles outranged the 7.62 x 39mm rifles and their SVDs and PKMs gave them extra reach when needed.
(note the Kalashnikovs they are talking about are the PKMs... so many experts forget what the K in PKM stands for).

I rather doubt they will change calibre... it would just cost too much.

If they are planning to change a calibre it would be the 7.62 x 54mmR with either a plastic cased round or a caseless round simply because it is old and heavy and the weapons that fire it would benefit most from lighter ammo. A 100 round belt including box and link weighs something like 4kgs, so reducing the weight by 75% while slightly improving bullet mass and velocity would make their MGs and rifles much more effective and make the ammo load lighter, or allow more ammo to be carried.
The cost would be the real issue... as to whether it would be worth it.
With plastic cased ammo over time money would be saved through cheaper materials, but caseless ammo would be expensive for a while and would probably require factory sealed magazines to be issued.

Speaking of which... I think I gonna need to get me more Mosin Nagant ammo... Should i get a light ball or heavy ball... or perhaps i should just get a 440rd can of good 'ol surplus ? lol

Depends on what range you shoot your targets at and what sort of targets you want to hit.

Heavy ball is good for hitting larger animals or dropping smaller animals in their tracks. The lighter ball ammo tends to be better for longer range shots as it tends to get there faster with less bullet drop.

I recollect reading the longest sniper hit was achieved in Afghanistan against the Taliban where a Western ( dutch i think ) managed a hit at 2 Km , probably the mountainous terrain aids the range if he was taking shot from top.

I seem to remember reading about shots from 2.6km or so.

The reason such long shots are possible is because of the visibility. On one side of a valley you can see very long distances and there is little tree cover or bush to hide behind.

I think I have mentioned before that Soviet bases there in the 1980s tended to have a heavy weapon with range to match that long visibility range... weapons ranging from the AGS-17 30mm grenade launcher (1.7km) the ZU-23 (2-3km) SGP-9 (2-4km) and heavy machine guns like 12.7mm (2km) and 14.5mm (3km)... these of course being fired at groups and single targets though except for the single shot SPG-9 recoilless rifle mostly shots were taken in bursts to improve hit probability especially with HE ammo.

best shot I made was at about 500m with my mosin nagant... just plain iron sights a target bit smaller than a cow = / at 500m with 7.62x54r adjustment is almost non existent...

There is a youtube vid of some guy firing an 1891/30 rifle at targets at 900m and he hits the target more often than not... you should have a look for it.

I have some 7.62 x 54mmR tracer ammo, but it is a bit dry to be shooting it at the moment...

Sorry, was being sarcastic about the general ignorance in the west.

Any Kalashnikov is an AK-47 in the west no matter what it is really.

The AK-74M is the current standard general issue rifle with the actual AK-47 well out of service replaced a long time ago by the AKM and then the AKS-74M.

The AS is also a general issue rifle that is fairly widely used though it is 9 x 39mm calibre and fires subsonic rounds.

If you watch a Discovery channel program on guns however it will be an AK-47 that is tested against an M4 to prove the M16? is better than an AK.

Largely to prove merican weapons are the best.

Makes things confusing when we hear about the M4 being not so effective in Afghanistan at 800m... or even needing accurate shot placement at 400m to be effective.

Reality is that the Soviets embraced the concept of Assault Rifle much more rapidly than the west did, having experience in 1916 with the Federov Avtomat and in WWII against the German equivelent.

When the west adopted a high velocity light bullet round the Soviets dug up their pre WWII material and started developing their own rounds. It was believed high velocity could be the solution because it made the ammo lighter and easier to control in full auto and also reduced recoil. The faster flatter shooting round meant it was less of an issue if you made a mistake in estimating the range to the target.

It was thought at the time the huge wound channels would be lethal much quicker than slower heavier projectiles, but most of the flesh and skin on a target is very elastic and is undamaged by the extra stretching.

You must be kidding! Its a homemade FAL, from the 1960`s.

If that is what it is then I like it.

The FN FAL was a good solid rifle though there were many attempts to simply convert it into 5.56mm most were failures.

I have an FAL, and an AK in 7.62 x 39mm calibre and find them both fairly easy to use, though the FAL is a bit heavier and I don't think it would be very controllable in burst fire, unlike the AK.

If they have developed an FAL in 5.56mm then they managed to do what most of the British commonwealth failed to do... the Brits now use SA80s, the Aussies and Kiwis use Steyrs, did the Canadians use FN FALs? they now use use Canadian licence made M16s.

Its interesting the US is trying to take back the 7.62 51, and maybe start using the 6.8, which has the same punch but more accurate then the 7.62 39
So what is the russian answer? Short combat distances and well protected soldiers is the issue.

I would suspect the soldiers issued with AS and VSS rifles in 9 x 39mm would be well capable of dealing with targets in vests, but the soldiers with the SVDS and Pechenegs could also deal to them too. AFAIK there have been no complaints about the 5.45mm in combat so far... armour piercing ammo is also available too.

Also if your bullets don't kill the enemy your RPGs with HE warheads and 40mm grenades from under barrel launchers will do the trick.

As far as I know the only experimental Soviet/Russian round was a 6.5x49mm round with a muzzle velocity of something like 1,400m/s... which suggests short barrel life or new barrel technology and new propellent or a very light bullet... the latter rather unlikely as the trend these days seems to be for projectiles to get heavier rather than lighter.

And the FAL is a good weapon, a bit to heavy and clumsy. I have a G3 its very alike.

It is long, I am currently saving up to buy a suppressor for mine which will make it even longer and heavier, but it is a good solid powerful rifle... I suspect the G3 is pretty good too. The only trouble is current laws here require a stupid little short 7 round magazine be used with automatic centrefire rifles. They are too small physically and are a pain to use.

But when we talk about ranges of 200m +, nowadays every Assault rifle have red dot sights. And with these sights all ranges above 200m is not practical to hit field targets.

I agree, I think that while peep iron sights are good at extended ranges that the open Soviet style iron sights are better for shorter ranges. I think the best sighting solution for the new AK would be open sights for backup and short ranges in an emergency, but a low power scope for normal use with a magnifying scope for longer range and a night vision scope for night use too.

It would look strange with a x2 scope as standard plus a x4 scope with no reticule that can be put in front of the standard scope for longer range use without having to rezero. In front of this a night vision scope could be mounted to make it night capable or it could be put in front of the original scope for a x2 mag night view. This is the sort of thing you can do with a picatinny rail system. For Spec Ops you could just fit a Thermal Sight with a fibre optic feed so the rifle can be pointed around corners without exposing your head.

So the wiev that the AK series is not accurate enough is not right. Remember that war doesnt take place on the firing range.
The only reason why Sweden dont use the AK-74 is purely political.

The feedback I have heard from actual users is that the AK-74 is just as accurate as the AR. The criticisms directed at the 5.56 are mainly a lack of lethality because of a lack of velocity in shorter barrel weapons to make the bullet fragment inside the target. The 5.45mm tumbles on impact at any speed so barrel length is not so important for lethality, though in very short barrels like the AKS-74U accuracy becomes an issue. This has led to longer barrelled carbines being developed and issued in the AK-100 series.

Overall, i really cant belive Russia would change Assault rifles, since they have the best ones.

I agree. They are really in the same boat as most of the west, in that they need a weapon that has a performance of generationally better levels to warrant replacing existing types and that is just not an option at the moment... so all they are doing it upgrading existing types with picatinny rails.

The difference is that this new AK if it does have a 60 round mag and a balanced recoil system is not as revolutionary as say the Steyr ACR with its flechette rounds, or a G11 with its caseless ammo, but it is certainly a huge step forward in terms of a conventional assault rifle.

The other rifle I am interested in is the ADS which is a bullpup with forward ejection of cases so it is fully ambidextrous, and is able to fire ammunition designed to be used underwater... which makes it very interesting for Naval Infantry as well as all other forces as it combines a long barrel and good accuracy in a compact weapon that can be used left or right handed and as it uses standard 5.45mm ammo there is no reason why it couldn't use the new 60 round mags too. It has a built in 40mm under barrel grenade launcher and can be fitted with scopes and suppressors etc. I just wonder how it goes compared to the AK-200.