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

Cyrus the great wrote:
I've been asking a flurry of questions and so I hope that I'm not annoying people  here, but I have learned a lot from posters on this forum, so please bear with me. I have some more questions:

The AK-12 was able to achieve 1 MOA - which is astonishing... and the AK-400 purpotedly surpasses this -- which would make it a sub MOA rifle. Is this possible in an assault rifle? Am I wrong to assume that the AK-400 should be more reliable than the genuine SIG 550 series in Swiss service?  

It isn't astonishing at all. Firing a lower impulse round and with a flat trajectory helps immensely at 100m. The AK400 doesn't surpass it, it's about 2MOA/2.5MOA a tad better than the AK74M, but it's a compromise and a "modernization".

The AK MA (Dragunov MA) is said to be a MOA gun at 100.

With the right barrel the AK in 7.62 can become a MOA; 1.5MOA gun. The Galil achieves that with a twice the weight of the barrel vs AKM.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/08/19/galil-ace-review/

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Cyrus the great wrote:
I've been asking a flurry of questions and so I hope that I'm not annoying people  here, but I have learned a lot from posters on this forum, so please bear with me. I have some more questions:

The AK-12 was able to achieve 1 MOA - which is astonishing... and the AK-400 purpotedly surpasses this -- which would make it a sub MOA rifle. Is this possible in an assault rifle? Am I wrong to assume that the AK-400 should be more reliable than the genuine SIG 550 series in Swiss service?  

It isn't astonishing at all. Firing a lower impulse round and with a flat trajectory helps immensely at 100m. The AK400 doesn't surpass it, it's about 2MOA/2.5MOA a tad better than the AK74M, but it's a compromise and a "modernization".

The AK MA (Dragunov MA) is said to be a MOA gun at 100.

With the right barrel the AK in 7.62 can become a MOA; 1.5MOA gun. The Galil achieves that with a twice the weight of the barrel vs AKM.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/08/19/galil-ace-review/

Thanks for these answers, mate.

What did Kalashnikov Concern do to the AK-12 that made it more accurate than the AK-400? I was under the impression that a short-stroke piston would significantly reduce recoil and increase accuracy. The AK-400 also has a free float barrel and so this was yet another feature that I perceived to be a plus to accuracy,although it may produce carrier tilt. I understand that the AK-12 has a long-stroke piston with lightened internals but I really am surprised that it could be more accurate than the AK-400. The AK-400 should not be considered a modernization if it achieves less accuracy and inferior ergonomics to the AK-12. What is the difference between a conventional short-stroke piston and a reverse short-stroke piston.

KoTeMoRe wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:So there's been talk about a secretive deep modernization of Pechneg 7.62, I wonder what it could mean. OK KoTeMoRe, have at it:

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fvpk.name%2Fnews%2F174253_sekretnyii_pulemet_rossii.html&edit-text=&act=url

There's nothing secretive about the compromises made to obtain the PKP. And there was no such thing when it comes to the two different weapons shown in the picture.

The biggest of them was the decision to have a fixed barrel, instead of a QCB (Quick change barrel) and have an airflow ventilation through a sleeve instead of relying on swapping barrels.

The problem started when the PKP got out of the platoon Squad automatic weapon role (in lieu of RPK) and became, because of its qualities in this role, a GMPG and started getting mounted on everything. You can see that the first "modernization" is in fact a return to PKM standard with a CQB, an integral M1913 style rail and the possibility to use the PKM for close combat or sweeps by adding a vertical grip. The other huge factor is the muzzle device that should play a role in reducing the felt recoil (inverted deflector principle like the AKS74U).

There are some cons IMO, the integral rail system has forced them to put the iron sights on the front of the top cover, which may be a problem for zero holding as it stands just atop of the feed tray and ammo band. The return to a QCB clearly shows this is a modernization of the PKM rather than the Pecheng.

The second monster is just a Spetznaz toy, it features a dual controls and triggers, completely over the top. But hey, bullpup PKP....

How often are QCBs carried into battle.
I don't recall a single instance where I saw them used in battle.

Lots of toys  


MA:

From: Otvaga2004

Arctic_Fox wrote:Lots of toys  


MA:

From: Otvaga2004

What did we say? MA is going to take the cake. ZID is going to cry once again.

TheArmenian wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:So there's been talk about a secretive deep modernization of Pechneg 7.62, I wonder what it could mean. OK KoTeMoRe, have at it:

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fvpk.name%2Fnews%2F174253_sekretnyii_pulemet_rossii.html&edit-text=&act=url

There's nothing secretive about the compromises made to obtain the PKP. And there was no such thing when it comes to the two different weapons shown in the picture.

The biggest of them was the decision to have a fixed barrel, instead of a QCB (Quick change barrel) and have an airflow ventilation through a sleeve instead of relying on swapping barrels.

The problem started when the PKP got out of the platoon Squad automatic weapon role (in lieu of RPK) and became, because of its qualities in this role, a GMPG and started getting mounted on everything. You can see that the first "modernization" is in fact a return to PKM standard with a CQB, an integral M1913 style rail and the possibility to use the PKM for close combat or sweeps by adding a vertical grip. The other huge factor is the muzzle device that should play a role in reducing the felt recoil (inverted deflector principle like the AKS74U).

There are some cons IMO, the integral rail system has forced them to put the iron sights on the front of the top cover, which may be a problem for zero holding as it stands just atop of the feed tray and ammo band. The return to a QCB clearly shows this is a modernization of the PKM rather than the Pecheng.

The second monster is just a Spetznaz toy, it features a dual controls and triggers, completely over the top. But hey, bullpup PKP....

How often are QCBs carried into battle.
I don't recall a single instance where I saw them used in battle.

As long as I remember I have seen two kits in Donbass in 2014 and a whole flurry of them in 2008. While in Donbass it might have been used for real, in Ossetia it was part of regulation so.

But the issue with the PKP is this, the moment you need sustained fire, you are going to think CQB, it's not if you're going to use it but when.
This doesn't mean the PKP was a mistake, only that some things need to be retained at GPMG level, while the PKP is great, scratch that, outstanding RPK replacement when all things are considered. We know they've been tested in Yemen, we've seen it both.

KoTeMoRe wrote:

TheArmenian wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:So there's been talk about a secretive deep modernization of Pechneg 7.62, I wonder what it could mean. OK KoTeMoRe, have at it:

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fvpk.name%2Fnews%2F174253_sekretnyii_pulemet_rossii.html&edit-text=&act=url

There's nothing secretive about the compromises made to obtain the PKP. And there was no such thing when it comes to the two different weapons shown in the picture.

The biggest of them was the decision to have a fixed barrel, instead of a QCB (Quick change barrel) and have an airflow ventilation through a sleeve instead of relying on swapping barrels.

The problem started when the PKP got out of the platoon Squad automatic weapon role (in lieu of RPK) and became, because of its qualities in this role, a GMPG and started getting mounted on everything. You can see that the first "modernization" is in fact a return to PKM standard with a CQB, an integral M1913 style rail and the possibility to use the PKM for close combat or sweeps by adding a vertical grip. The other huge factor is the muzzle device that should play a role in reducing the felt recoil (inverted deflector principle like the AKS74U).

There are some cons IMO, the integral rail system has forced them to put the iron sights on the front of the top cover, which may be a problem for zero holding as it stands just atop of the feed tray and ammo band. The return to a QCB clearly shows this is a modernization of the PKM rather than the Pecheng.

The second monster is just a Spetznaz toy, it features a dual controls and triggers, completely over the top. But hey, bullpup PKP....

How often are QCBs carried into battle.
I don't recall a single instance where I saw them used in battle.

As long as I remember I have seen two kits in Donbass in 2014 and a whole flurry of them in 2008. While in Donbass it might have been used for real, in Ossetia it was part of regulation so.

But the issue with the PKP is this, the moment you need sustained fire, you are going to think CQB, it's not if you're going to use it but when.
This doesn't mean the PKP was a mistake, only that some things need to be retained at GPMG level, while the PKP is great, scratch that, outstanding RPK replacement when all things are considered. We know they've been tested in Yemen, we've seen it both.

Our M-84s are coming from the factory in crates without replacement bores. However... on the frontline in the 90s you could see them appearing now and then in some weird ass bags in pairs because it was simply needed as sustained fire was regular appearance. And during my NCO school we had spares on shooting range for M-84s.

Question:

If Russia had replaced the 7.62x54 with the 6x49mm, what measures could have made it possible to mitigate the barrel wear from such an incredibly high velocity round?

Cyrus the great wrote:
Question:

If Russia had replaced the 7.62x54 with the 6x49mm, what measures could have it made it possible to mitigate the barrel wear from such an incredibly high velocity round?  

Chrome-lining basically, nothing else on large scale would be suitable from the financial aspect.

Thanks, Militarov

The 6x49mm has a velocity of 3,700ft/s out of a 24 inch barrel and so a chrome lined barrel could mitigate barrel wear to a certain extent. I read that the 6x49mm wored out barrels after just 5, 000 rounds - a third of the lifespan of a 7.62 barrel.

Reducing the velocity to 3, 200 ft/s could also help - with just a slight loss in performance. You could probably achieve 3, 200 ft/s out of a 14 inch barrel with that round. The 6x49mm is only 1 gram heavier than the 5.56 and delivered 3200J of energy and so it's really unfortunate that it was never adopted.

Structure. Treatment. Self-treatment.

Structure: Thicker barrels for integrity.
Treatment: Chroming would be of another world.
Self-treatment: Special polymers to ease scraping and outright self maintenance on the field.

From a cost perspective. 1/2 are a given, 3 very unlikely given the sheer volume.

KoTeMoRe wrote:Structure. Treatment. Self-treatment.

Structure: Thicker barrels for integrity.
Treatment: Chroming would be of another world.
Self-treatment: Special polymers to ease scraping and outright self maintenance on the field.

From a cost perspective. 1/2 are a given, 3 very unlikely given the sheer volume.

Thanks for this informative response, KoTeMoRe.

A heavier barrel would definitely go a long way to strengthening the barrel and dissipating the heat, but what kind of weight would be incurred if a 16.3 inch barrel was made heavier? The AK-400 currently weighs 3 kg flat... so
how much heavier would it become with a heavier barrel?

As you have pointed out, increasing the quality of the chrome lining and structural enhancements of the barrel are the only financially tenable measures that can be undertaken. I maintain that the 6x49mm would still be incredibly effective even if the propellent was reduced -with the attendant decrease in velocity from 3, 700 ft/s to a more reasonable 3, 200 ft/s. Could this kind of velocity be achieved with more advanced propellents and an increase in barrel pressure in a 14 inch barrel?

I would suggest not reducing the muzzle velocity... the point of the round is that higher velocity.

To reduce barrel wear driving rings on the rounds made of the new plastic driving bands they developed for cannon shells and bullets should eliminate barrel wear with no loss of performance...

GarryB wrote:I would suggest not reducing the muzzle velocity... the point of the round is that higher velocity.

To reduce barrel wear driving rings on the rounds made of the new plastic driving bands they developed for cannon shells and bullets should eliminate barrel wear with no loss of performance...

I really do appreciate this response, Garry.

If these plastic driving bands prove durable and cost effective, then they should also be employed in current rounds like the 5.45. The 6x49 seems like an ideal round due to its competitive lightweight design, superb accuracy and its incredible power.

The round is only 1 gram heavier than the 5.56 while producing almost 2x the energy and is undoubtedly more accurate, especially at longer ranges. The 6.5 rounds that have garnered so much attention in recent years are still too heavy but the 6x49 strikes the perfect balance. It could pass through barriers with ease. The air pocket feature of the 5.45 could be incorporated into a future updated version of the 6x49mm.

Unfortunately, the 6x49mm is a victim of the Soviet fall and may never be adopted due to costs.

If these plastic driving bands prove durable and cost effective, then they should also be employed in current rounds like the 5.45.

The issue would conditions.... will it still be effective as a driving band at sub zero temperatures.

Of course if they do work and reduce barrel wear then the use in current calibres would be interesting. Boosting the muzzle velocity of existing rounds by 20-30% would be interesting with the new bands and new powder... of course iron sights would need to be recalibrated...

Unfortunately, the 6x49mm is a victim of the Soviet fall and may never be adopted due to costs.

Since the end of the cold war they have introduced half a dozen new calibres in small arms... both in small scale specialised rounds but also in large numbers too.

The 9x19mm for pistols... the 9 x 21mm that will hopefully replace it (ie Viper pistol (SR-1) and SR-2 SMG both use the 9 x 21mm).

The 12.7 x 55mm specialist round to suppliment the 9 x 39mm quiet round... their 9mm version of the Lapua magnum in their 9.3x69mm round for long range use.

They are developing new families of small arms... now is the time to introduce a new calibre... especially if it can replace older obsolete calibres like 7.62 x 54Rmm.

The huge irony is that before WWI Federov was experimenting with a 6.5mm round for his avtomat... in the end they used a similar calibre in the form of the Japanese 6.5x50.5R rimmed round... whose kinetic performance is very similar to the modern 7.62 x 39mm AK calibre... 120 odd grain bullet at about 650m/s... compared with the AK round with a 122 grain bullet at 710m/s. The smaller calibre round would retain energy over greater ranges so at 300m they would be very similar.

АЕК-971 review by Константин Лазарев (Konstantin Lazarev)