Firearms comparison: Russia with rest of the world

Asf wrote:

Werewolf wrote:

I think you are right with the after section fins that they produce the spinning.

Is it a questionable? What's written in the RPG-7's manual

Huy Phúc wrote:The warhead of NATO 7.62mm has the weight of 9,4-5-6 gram, maximum muzzle velocity (practically can never achieve) 860 m/s. The bullet was designed to mimic the Mosin M1908's outer trajectory. But the inner trajectory (means the trajectory of the bullet when it is still inside the barrel) is very different. When the gun powder explodes, NATO 7.62mm generates a very large initial air pressure, but that pressure decreases very fast. Meanwhile Mosin generates a lower initial pressure, and that pressure decrease very slowly. A lower and more stable air pressure is very important for a gun because that increase the life span and conditions for the gun, and people will not have to design a too heavy barrel. Another western copy which is more suitable for long burst firing is FN FAL. FN FAL is one of the most successful assault rifle in that time.

About Mosin, in the 1930s the bullet was improved, had a more similar trajectory to Mauser, and increased the penetration power (in 1930s people still expected this bullet to penetrate tanks and armoured vehicles). Since 1938 Mosin was also improved, mainly for suiting the shorter gun barrel and the new techs in gun design.

NATO 7.62mm actually was not designed for assault guns but heavy traditional rifles. Clearly it mimics the outer trajectory of Mosin. Therefore, in order to use NATO 7.62mm, Germany shortened the barrel into 300mm and created the G3 with muzzle velocity of 700 m/s and a reduced recoil, yes this was a real assault rifle. Actually cutting short the barrel reduced the capability of the bullet, but Germany had no choice because at that time it was a prisoner of NATO and it could not use anything different from NATO 7.62mm. Without sufficent velocity, the traditional rifle bullet do not have sufficent penetration and "blasting" power. The adequate velocity will maintain a low-air-pressure area created by the aerodynamic bullet nose, decrease the "posterior of arrow effect", increase the accuracy and the ability of "blasting" the living tissues.

When hitting the target, NATO bullet turns one round and penetrates 640mm standard tissue. Meanwhile, AK-47's 7.62mm turns 2 rounds, penetrates 740mmm standard tissue. You can see that, when hits, AK-47's bullet not only push the tissue foward, but it also whirls violently and transmits the shockwaves violently to all the sides. The volume of destroyed tissue is much larger than NATO bullet. The NATO bullet is too long and therefore, when hiting and turning inside the human tissue, it suffers heavy resistance from the tissue, which reduces the penetration and the volume of destroyed tissue. To be fair, the destroyed tissue by NATO bullet received a stronger pressure and force than AK-47, but that is not neccessary because lower pressure of AK-47 is more than enough to kill the living cells. In order to kill tissue and human cells, you do not need to grind them into fine powder.

The penetration and blasting capability of M16 catridges are more or less equal, and all are worse than AK-47. Penetration is only half of AK-47, and the volume of destroyed tissue is only one-third of AK-47. Straight kinetic of AK-47 bullet and M-16 are equal, but whirling kinetic of AK-47 is much better due to the diameter. Furthermore, as M16 bullet has faster velocity, therefore the penetration power of it is terrible. Remember, with the same kinetic energy, bullet with low velocity will have tremendous penetration. And because the rotation axis of M16 is fixed, the blasting capability of it is also terrible. Meanwhile, the rotation axis of AK-47 is oscillating around a center, it will whirl violently inside the human tissue. Later, when M16 switched to the FN SS109, the penetration and blasting capability was increased because the SS109 has very high rotation rate and the bullet cover is stripped out when contacting with the human tissues, and the cover fragments will kill a number of human cells. But when the bullet is still moving inside the gun barrel, that bullet cover also damaged the barrel, too. As a result, life span of M16 barrel became damn low and damn unacceptable.

Later, people switched to the smaller caliber of 5.xx and used small catridge. In order to produce and make use of smaller bullets, we need more advanced technology. The U.S. did not. For example, the first 5.xx M16 bullet was actually the Mauser/Remington 1925 5.56mm. This is the bullet for duck-hunting, it has very low blasting capability, because a blasted and crumbled duck is not good for a meal. Later, Colt used the gunpowder of 7.62 x 51mm for this duck-hunting bullet. As a results, the new 5.xx of M16A1 and the gun itself had an unscientific and unsuitable design. The M16A1 barrel is not much shorter and tidier than the heavy, long rifle using the same gunpower, and M16A1's diameter is too small.

Meanwhile, German G11 has a 3-round burst concentrated in a straight line because the main part of the gun can move freely in the 3-round burst and it is not hindered. And the AK-74 5.45mm M74 has hollowed warhead, therefore the outer trajectory and final trajectory of M74 are very excellent. The accuracy is even much better than large caliber bullet. For example, at the distacnce of 250 metre, the 3-round burst of RPK 5.45mm all hit the target. The more modern AKs such as AK-107/108 have recoil stabilzation system, and at the distance of 100 meters the 30-round burst of AK-xx all hit the target.

In the West people do not have the technology to massively and economically manufacture the hollowed warhead, therefore such kinds of warhead are used mainly for sniper rifles. And the bullshit M16 5.xx bullet has no advanced technology, it is just a f*cking duck-hunting bullet.

In 1958-1967 when M16 was introduced, Russia also tested new kinds of bullet. The old M43 and Mosin bullets also received a number of improvement thanks to the benefit of newly introduced techs. The successor of M43 in that time was M67 (bullet type 1967), which is still used extensively today. Later when NATO introduced the SS109 into its service (198x), Russia also tested the new AK catridge of 6mm (is this the 6x49mm ?), but unfortunately the USSR collapsed, and Russia's political/financial crisis in that time prevented them from further developing the 6mm bullet. Nonetheless, new techs in the 6mm catridge was applied into the existing 5.45 and 7.62 ones.

In 3 decades the EU did not have a real assault rifle, but they accepted that and never touch the M16A1. This is one of the most humiliating and shameful defeat of the M16. In 198x, the U.S. accepted the barrel and bullet of Belgium FN SS109 and applied it into M16A2. Switching into SS109 increased the accuracy, but the U.S. insisted to use the old size, therefore people have to abandoned the aerodynamic "prop onto the sharp nose" design and degenrated into 19th century tech with fixed rotation axis and high rotation rate. Meanwhile, Germany disregarded the M16A2 design and created its own G11. Later when the Cold War ended, relationship with Russia was improved, Germany gradually stopped the development of G11.

Talking about the weight of the gun, AK initially was 4.3kg. AKM (1959) was 3.17kg. AK-74 was 2.97 kg. M16A1 (1967) was 2.89kg, M16A2 (1981) was 3.77kg. About the size, since M16 used the gunpowder of traditional heavy rifles, M16 size is equal to traditional rifle, too. That means the gun was born after AK 2 decades, but was heavier, bigger, more cubersome.

Talking about history of usage, amongst the assault rifles which are massively produced, no one has such as disgraceful and lowscum history as M16. EU and other U.S. allies such as Japan, Canada, Australia,... did not want to touch M16 and for them not having real assault rifles in 3 decades was much better than using M16A1. Besides from small, weak and dependent countries, only UK and Japan used M16 barrel but they used AR-18 feeding mechanism. Later, the EU accepted SS109 as standard bullet, but they never use feeding mechanism of M16. Countries with advanced techs like Germany decided to design their own gun, for example the G11. UK several times attempted to create its own catridge, for example it cooperated with FN to design the 7x40mm for SM2 and designed the 4.xx mm like G11, but all was not successful due to the dependence on U.S. supply.

Huy Phúc wrote:Need to take notice that AK-47 did not descend from MP44 aka StG44. MP44/StG44 is NOT an assault rifle. MP means "Machine Pistol". St is indeed "assault", but G is "gun". Any gun. Either rifle, submachine, or pistol. When Germany only said "G" without further specification, like G43, G3, or G11, that "G" is the standard type of infantry gun. In the time of G43 and MP44, that was the traditional long rifle. Today, G is assault rifle.

In fact in 193x Germany had tried to developed a kind of assault rifle named MKb45, used GECO 7.92x40, quite similar to the initial M43. However in 1938 Mauser seperated the "rifle" and "assault" into two distinct gun. Rifle came back to traditional heavy bullet and became G43. Assault gun used its own bullet in 1943 and used the name "Machine Pistol", aka MPxx. MKb42 evolved into MP43, MP43/1 and MP44.

So it's clear that MP44 aka StG44 is not assault rifle. Assault rifle is not assault gun.

The MP44 used a different kind of feeder from AK-xx. The machine looked more similar to Russian PTRS-41 and CKC.

Back to AK-xx and M43 bullet, the M43 was the fruits of researching and improvement the concept of Fedorov Avtomat, a predeccesor of DP machine gun. Fedorov Avtomat used Japanese 6.5mm and was successfuly tested in 1909-1911, and established the very foundation of assault rifle in 1915. In the same year Degtriarev also proposed his own design. Both Fedorov and Degtriarev became the leader of Koborov factories in the USSR. But it is quite unlucky for Fedorov Avtomat because the USSR cannot produced the rifle's ammo, therefore the design was fixed to become a machine gun and use the bigger, more available bullet. Yes, without the small catridge, Fedorov became machine gun DP in 1922.

The first Russian gun who used M43 was Sudaev AS-44. AS-44 had a much more gradiose design than AK-47, and it had 3 different variations, one for LMG, one for assault rifle, and one for single-shot rifle. The assault rifles was reimproved and redesigned several times, but unluckily Sudaev fell ill in 1945 and died in 1946 without seeing the fruits of his works. The later tests showed that the gun was too heavy, but the concept was a excellent one.

To the AK-47, the AK-47's bolt shared the ideas of Bulkin-45/46. Bulkin researched the U.S. M1 Garand and took from that the two-line magazines and the design of the bolt. But Bulkin's "shaft" of the bolt has a cylindrical shape, and the bolt is rotating. From 1945 to 1949 both Bulkin and Kalashnicov had developed the typical bolt of AK with the distinctive two big pronged details at the side of the bolt. Most of the hitting force is distributed into these two prongs, thanks to that the shaft does not suffer much, this fact enabled the designer to significantly reduce the size of the receiver. The German FG42, U.S. M1 Garand and M60 have very small prongs and therefore the receivers are very big and cubersome.

Thanks to the distinctive design, AK's gas-operated feeder is very strong and efficient. The design of AK's feeder actually learned from Czech ZB-26. Unfortunately, ZB-26 designers mistook the calculation therefore the ZB is not very effective.

In the past, the USSR had a legendary gun named SVT. The idea was born in 1917, but received no support, finally in 192x people began to test it. It was accepted in 1938.

SVT's gas-operated reloading was very preeminent. It was improved from the DP and it is lightweight. The characteristc of this gas-operated is that the "return shaft" has spring separated from the receiver, the cylinder is attached onto the return shaft (LWRC and AR-18 has a propaganda about "cup-shaped piston" which is bullshit).

German's G43 copied the SVT gas-operated feeding, and that is the reason why G43 was accepted in the war. Countries like Sweden, Belgium, Switzerland also use similar bolt to Russia. The basic design is the same, but the small details is different because Russia created it by milling and stamping machine, while Western Europe casted the bolt. The distinctive characteristic of the breech is that the two pronged parts at the sides. And the FN FAL, standard assault rifle of EU in the old days of AK 7.62mm also used similar SVT gas-operated feeded, but it has different piston.

Sweden, due to its neutral stance, decided to create its own gun and it copied the SVT to created  AG-42. But the AG-42 did not use SVT's gas-operated ones. AG's piston was positioned in the reverse order compared to FSA MAS, piston was positioned ontop of the below part of the receiver, and in M16 people called it "carrier key", a f*cking queer name.

The gas feeder of AG-42 was used in AR-15. But the AR designer at that time were unexperienced. They did not know that the AG-42's feeder is no good. In fact, people had already discovered many shortcomings of AG's gas operated system: uneven heat cause the bending of the barrel, heavy amount of dust is generated inside the feeder... But it was in the time of war and for the sake of selling the propaganda machine went on to cover the AG's weakness. AR-15's design was poisoned by the propaganda, and since AR-15 fires in burst of very high rate, the problem of dust and choking quickly rose in the manner of geometric progression.

And when Colt purchased AR-15 from Armalite, Colt passed the poisonous propaganda into American tax payers. The lobbyist bla bla bla about anything of AR-15 was all good, all perfect, etc. Colt also recruited Eugene Stoner from Armalite in order to bolster the propaganda effect. Stoner though that in Colt he would have a chance of promotion and have a chane of further improve the AR-15, but later Stone realized that he was fooled, for Colt's AR-15 he was merely a figurehead for advertisement. Frustated, Stone switched to Cadillac Gate and designed Stoner 63.

When Stone designed the Stoner 63, the remaining team of Armalite designed the AR-18. Both AR-18 and Stoner 63 had a improved and much better feeding mechanism. Especially, the AR-18 re-introduced the feeding mechanism of SVT.

Today, after the harsh truth about M16 in Iraq, Afganistan,... the gun designers massively revolt against the bullshit in M16. One of the design amongst this is the LWRC, actually this is a modernization of AR-18.

Meanwhile, M16 is still a permature born child, a freaking fetus of Colt. It can only trembles with fear in front of SVT feeding mechanism.

For reference, it is said that, when the U.S. officer tried to use Vietcong's AK-47, they said "this is the true weapon !". Today, when AK-47 and M16 are used in the same army against the Taliban and Iraqi terrorists, people have the chance to better compare them. The U.S. tried hard to replace AK-47 the Iraqi and Afghan allies by M16. But failed. Even the U.S. themshelves also prefer to use the AKs. The U.S. had to bought AKs from their allies in Eastern Europe and former USSR. But these countries started to use NATO bullet and reduced the production of AKs. And finally, what should come has finally come: it is said that Washington planned to purchase 70.000 AKs from Russia and a large number of AKs have been delivered.

Look at the webpage of XM8, LWRC, FN... you can see many things about the freaking, premature born, degenerated feeding machine of M16.

real spin activated at 11m from the launch when engine ignites, and exhausts the gas through 6 angled nozzles, goin up to 6000 rpm or 2000 rpm on modern roquets.

cracker wrote:
G36 offers strictly nothing over it, whereas M4 does, it's lighter, and easily modded. In the second place I definitely put US M4 or better, Hk416, certainly not any other assault rifle, G36 would still be behind AK5 (FNC) in my book. AK-74M offers a level of ruggedness unachieved in any other assault rifle. Do you see many soldiers worldwide doing push ups on the magazine of their rifle on a regular basis?

Werewolf wrote:I really like this version of buttstock on AK's.

AK-107

Mike E wrote:Yeah... I don't know... I prefer buttstocks to be as rigid as possible

higurashihougi wrote:

Mike E wrote:Yeah... I don't know... I prefer buttstocks to be as rigid as possible

Howabout an AK-47 bullpup version ? Bullpup models has a very "rigid" buttstock because the buttstock and the receiver are fused together.

Mike E wrote:

higurashihougi wrote:

Mike E wrote:Yeah... I don't know... I prefer buttstocks to be as rigid as possible

Howabout an AK-47 bullpup version ? Bullpup models has a very "rigid" buttstock because the buttstock and the receiver are fused together.

That would be very interesting, and because of the huge number of AK modifications floating around, it has probably been done. Bullpups have a very "special" set of problems though, so they aren't the complete answer.

max steel wrote:I might sound as a tinfoil hatter . But no one here ever discussed about Margav Technology ?


This is some serous tech, you can down load the 1.6 gig torrent with tall the specs and vids for energy production and how the tech works here.  Wierd how the Iranians are giving away the tech if it works.  Also weird how Obama banned it via executive order. http://kickass.to/keshe-foundation-usb-files-t8884597.html




The aircraft carriers of the US will become nothing but floating bathtubs if our Magrav’s technology is used effectively, and the runways full of F16s and 18s and so on will be nothing but runway museums of iron birds, as these craft will not be able to fly if their electronic systems are once touched by Magrav’s space technology. These crafts and battleships would have to be rewired from A to Z before they could ever operate again.


http://www.stankovuniversallaw.com/2015/03/how-the-new-iranian-russian-technology-magrav-checkmate-the-us-navy/

Obama executive order : https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/04/23/executive-order-blocking-property-and-suspending-entry-united-states-cer

Doctor explains why he would rather be shot with an AK-47 than an M4

Admittedly, I’d rather not be shot with either, but if I had to choose, I’d take a round from the AK-47 over the M4 any day of the week. To add a caveat to that statement, I’m talking from relatively close range here—say up to 150-200 meters.
To understand why, it’s important to first take a very basic look at the physics behind terminal ballistics.

In this case, consider the science of what happens when a penetrating missile enters a human body.

The first place to start is the following kinetic-energy equation:

KE = ½ M (V1-V2)2

Breaking this equation down into its components, we have kinetic energy (KE) influenced by the mass (M) of the penetrating missile, as well as the velocity (V) of the missile.

This makes sense; it is logical that a heavier, faster missile is going to do more damage than a lighter, slower missile. What is important to understand is the relative influence that mass and velocity have on kinetic energy, as this is key to understanding why I’d rather be shot with an AK than with an M4.

You’ll notice that the mass component of the KE equation is halved, whereas the velocity component is squared. For this reason, it is the velocity of the projectile that has far more bearing on the energy that it delivers into the target than the mass.

AK-47
Flickr/Carsten Lorentzen
An AK-47.

The V1-V2 component of the equation takes into consideration that the projectile might actually pass straight through the target, rather than coming to rest in the target.

In this instance, the change in the velocity of the projectile as it passes through the target (V1 being its velocity as it enters, and V2 being velocity on exit) is the factor that is considered when calculating how much energy the missile delivered into the target.

Naturally, if the projectile comes to rest in the target (ie: no exit wound), then V2 equals zero and the projectile’s velocity as it entered (V1) is used to calculate the KE.

That’s enough physics for now, but you get the concept that the optimum projectile to shoot someone with is one that has a decent mass; is very, very fast; and is guaranteed to come to rest in your target so as to dissipate as much energy as possible into them, and hence do maximal damage.

The next concept to grasp is that of permanent cavitation versus temporary cavitation. Permanent cavitation is the hole left in a target from a projectile punching through it. You can think of it simply like a sharp stick being pushed through a target and leaving a hole the diameter of the stick.

7.62x39 FMJ
Malis via Wikimedia Commons
An AK-47 bullet.

The permanent cavity left by a bullet is proportionate to the surface area of the bullet as it passes through the tissue.
For instance, if an AK-47 round of 7.62mm diameter at its widest point passes cleanly through a target, it will leave a round, 7.62mm permanent cavity.

If this hole goes through a vital structure in the body, then the wound can be fatal.

However, if the bullet passes through soft tissues only, the permanent cavity can be relatively benign.

Below is a slow-motion video by Brass Fetcher of a 5.56x45mm round (same as what the M4 fires) hitting ballistic gelatin in slow motion.

After watching, the medical provider can begin to appreciate the damage done to tissues by the pressure wave of the temporary cavitation.


Having had the chance to treat dozens of high-velocity missile wounds over my years in the military, I’ve seen firsthand the effect that various rifle calibers can have at various distances, hitting various body parts. Naturally there are a multitude of variables that come into play when someone gets shot, and no two gunshot wounds are ever going to be the same.

The purpose of this article is not to draw any academic conclusions about the ballistics of the AK-47 versus the M4, or argue the merits of one ammo over another, it is to introduce the concepts of the different wounding profiles of permanent and temporary cavities using a couple of case studies.

Below are two examples I was involved with that illustrate somewhat of a comparative study of an AK-47 round and an M4 round striking approximately the same anatomical location, and from roughly the same range (in these cases, 150-200 meters).

gunshot wound
TacMed Australia

This series of photos you can see a particularly nasty M4 gunshot wound, with a small entrance wound in the right lower buttock, and a massive exit wound in the right lateral thigh.

The X-ray in the last image shows that the projectile struck the upper femur and demolished the bone, sending secondary bone fragments flying through the tissues and accounting for the majority of the exit wound.

The damage done by the pressure wave of the temporary cavity can be appreciated in the first image, with deep bruising extending up the buttock and into the casualty’s lower back. This bruising resulted from the energy dissipated through the tissues pulverizing small blood vessels in its path (think back to the ballistic gelatin video to imagine what went on in the tissues).

gunshot wound
TacMed Australia
Don't worry, he's okay.

The granular material in the middle of the thigh wound seen on the X-ray is an older-generation QuikClot advanced clotting sponge (ACS), which was inserted at the point of injury for hemorrhage control to excellent effect. The bright white fragments on the X-ray are small pieces of the bullet, which had disintegrated on impact with the tissue and bone. This is another characteristic of the M4 round that makes it all the more unappealing to be shot with—the tendency for the bullet to disintegrate if it strikes tissue at a decent velocity.

Despite being a jacketed round, because it’s smaller, lighter, and faster than an AK-47 projectile, the 5.56mm tends to yaw faster once it hits tissue. The shearing forces on the bullet once it is traveling at 90° through the tissue often tears the bullet into pieces, thus creating multiple smaller projectiles and increasing the chances of all of the bullet parts remaining in the target, and hence dissipating more energy.

The AK-47 round, being slightly heavier and slower than the M4 round, has a tendency to remain intact as it strikes tissue, and although it will penetrate deeper, it tends to remain intact and not yaw until it has penetrated much deeper than the M4.

Here’s a video from The Ammo Channel of the AK-47’s 7.62x39mm projectile being fired into ballistic gelatin for comparison to the video above of the 5.56x45mm (M4) round. Although the video shows a soft-point round being used, which theoretically should be more destructive than its full metal jacket counterpart, the video still illustrates nicely the significant penetration of the AK-47 round without it yawing significantly or disintegrating.

I once saw a good case study illustrating this point, where a casualty had sustained an AK-47 gunshot wound to the right lateral thigh and we recovered the intact bullet from the inside of his left upper abdominal wall. It had passed through approximately one metre of his tissues and shredded his small bowel, but the projectile hadn’t fragmented at all, and the temporary cavitation hadn’t done enough damage to be lethal. The casualty required a laparotomy to remove multiple sections of small intestine, but he made a good recovery. That one is a story for another time.


The following photo is of a good friend of mine who was shot by an AK-47 from approximately 200 meters while standing right next to me!

Fortunately the bullet passed cleanly through, and after a surgical clean-out the afternoon of the injury, he turned up ready for work the very next day. They breed them tough where he is from!

The image was taken a few days after the injury and the bruising from the temporary cavity of the projectile can be seen along the path of the bullet.

gunshot wound
TacMed Australia
Don't worry, he's okay too.

The entrance wound is at the top of the left buttock, with the exit being down on the left upper thigh. Although an unpleasant injury to have, the fact that the AK-47 round was traveling slower than an M4’s round at the same range would have been, coupled with the fact that the projectile remained intact and didn’t yaw significantly as it passed through him, meant the wound was nowhere near as devastating as the above-mentioned M4 injury in the same area.

It must be noted, however, that the comparison is far from perfect given that the M4 injury involved the bone, with the one immediately above passing solely through soft tissues.

So there it is. All things being equal, when all is said and done, I’d rather be shot with an AK-47 than a M4 on any day of the week. Naturally, as medical responders, it is always important to treat the wound and not the rifle that inflicted it, and I have certainly seen some horrendous AK-47 wounds over the years and some relatively minor ones from M4s. It all depends.

The main take-home points for first responders and medicos are: Be aware of the magnitude of damage that can be caused by the temporary cavitation resulting from high-velocity missile wounds, and if you find an entrance wound, there’s no telling where in the body the projectile might have ended up!

Dr Dan Pronk completed his medical schooling on an Australian Army scholarship and served the majority of his military career with Special Operations Units, including four tours of Afghanistan and over 100 combat missions.

Read the original article on SOFREP. SOFREP is an apolitical news site run by former military special ops and intelligence professionals. Copyright 2015.

nemrod wrote:
I don't know where to post this video. Feel free to move it where you want.



I often wonder why did Russia not replace its PKM by Minigun ?

Werewolf wrote:I do not know how reliable a minigun is certainly not unreliable but once it needs maintenance i do not think that you can fix and maintain it without special training, while you can maintain a MG especially older generations of MG's which are quite simple but effecient.

GarryB wrote:It would be stupid to compare a minigun with a GPMG... they are very different things designed for very different roles.

cracker wrote:
Also please compare PKM with M60 or M240, and then see who wins. Hint, it's not the M60 or M240.

cracker wrote:
I'd take Arbalet KORD RCWS on tiger over any M134 on any NATO wheeled deathtrap.