AK-12 Rifle Discussion

Ok, so by saying balanced automatics I had BARS in my mind. AN-94 doesn't have it as mentioned by Asf.
'That's because AK-12 don't
have anything new besides
that rail.'
Well it has small changes, especially carabine that was showed to Putin. Nothing revolutionary, nothing that wasn't done by private gunsmiths.
Why common soldier needs modularity? Well contract soldiers usually become master of all trades. Sure conscript doesn't need anything modular, only modularity they need is ability to attach needle bayonet on their mosin. Line between specnaz and  professional soldier gets blury  especially in VDV.
About 9x39, I was under impression that it was widespread not only with internal troops.. Recon attachments and all that.

Panzergrenadiers used medium MGs as SAWs for a good effect. Is there any true reason to use US-style SAW aka Minimi except better munition logistics? Heavier ammunition mass is compensated with an additional man in a squad, heavier recoil isn't that limiting as MG isn't intended to fire wide bursts without a bipod. And 7,62x54 has much more range and power. And Pecheneg is more squad level friendly due to it is supposed to be operated by a single man than, say, MG-3.

Panzer shmanzer, german army is no model to follow anyways. Their weapons are alright, but their army is nothing to follow. And now they finally supplemented themselves with MG4. 
Why US style? Why not Soviet? Soviets were leading in SAWs for a while. RPK was very useful in Astan. Especially in that terrain. Should I go down in the details why it's different than PKP?  But still I've seen RPK used in video not so long ago in Kaliningrad drills.

It was frickin shame that my countries army doesn't have one and idiot brass doesn't see the difference. I still remember when I first attended multinational maneuvers. From three baltic midget armies we were the only ones with no proper designated marksman rifle, no squad automatic weapon and with outdated vanilla battle rifle  Felt like a bomzh in Ostozhenka. Not to mention US troops who were kitted to the balls with then Iraq kit.

This is a bullpub PKP on the picture, isn't it?

Yup, check this https://youtu.be/dDFkUhE8XJU?t=2m23s
It has that street fighterish look of m60e4

Why don't just buy different modification of one rifle as they always did? Why would I pay for number of barrels for every soldier, if VDV prefers only short ones and infantry - long ones? What should I do with the rest barrels an armourer didn't install?

Sorry, I am not making myself clear.

Now that they have developed underwater ammo that is standard 5.45mm and can be fired from standard rifles you might have a Naval Spetsnaz soldier who leaves a submarine and is delivered to shore in a mini sub with a relatively short barrel fitted to his AK12SN with the magazines loaded with underwater 545mm ammo to protect him from enemy divers or trained animals like dolphins etc. When he gets to shore he might swap out the barrel for a longer barrel of the same 5.45mm calibre and leave the short barrel in the mini sub with the underwater ammo. This means instead of carrying around an APS underwater rifle and an AK-74 he just carries one rifle and two barrels. Of course with an ADS he could get away with just one rifle for both jobs too, but if the target is an assassination in a built up area he might take a 7.62mm ported barrel with built in suppressor and subsonic ammo to use on the target and then swap back to 5.45mm for the route back to the mini sub.

Most soldiers don't need that sort of adaptability so once the soldier role within the unit is determined they will be issued with an AK12SN and the appropriate barrel and ammo.

The advantage of having a modular weapon for most soldiers is that having the base weapon for everyone solves compatibility issues... for logistics you don't buy x number of AKS-74U and x number of AK-74M and x number of AK-105s and x number of ASs.

It will be a F-35 in the world of assault rifles - jack of all trades, master of none

An AK12SN with a short barrel should be no different than an AKS-74U, with a slightly longer barrel like an AK-105, and with a standard rifle barrel like an AK-74M except with all the improvements.

I realise they would be rather more useful for Special Forces, or indeed the civilian market (minus the full auto features of course), but the family of weapons concept is already adopted in Russia... why drop it now?

Why should they invent another PKP, but with smaller calibre?

There might be situations where a lighter weight weapon using the same ammo everyone else is using might be useful.

It was only rumors, Izhmash lobby is very strong anyway

Which can't be ignored... the MiG-29S had guided air to ground capability yet it was Flankers the Russian Air Force seemed focussed on for quite a while...

There are organisation charts with weapon given to soldiers. You basically can't just take, say, AK-47 instead of AK-74 to the mission, unless you are some kind of Rambo. Or a quartermaster will commit a suicide trying to fulfill his unit's need in different ammunition. Basically a brigade commander can change organisation charts (say, if his armouries have enough 7,62 subsonic rounds he can allow to use silenced AKMs for recon or change common "metyses" in companies AT squads to "konkurses"). Some elite or task force units has more freedom in using "non-standard" equipment, but it's spetsnas most commonly

I appreciate what you are saying and of course agree... but changes are coming.

With professional snipers high quality 7.62 x 54mm ammo will start to be a real priority and new calibres... 338 lapua magnum weapons and a new mysterious 9mm sniping round is also being developed.

It is possible that an SVD like weapon might be adapted from the AK12, though the VS-121 looks like a better solution to me... whichever the case ammo standardisation makes little sense if all the 7.62 x 54mm is hard to find sniper ammo... it would be blasphemy to put that through PKP... and vice versa.

Why US style? Why not Soviet? Soviets were leading in SAWs for a while. RPK was very useful in Astan. Especially in that terrain. Should I go down in the details why it's different than PKP? Smile But still I've seen RPK used in video not so long ago in Kaliningrad drills.

Valery Shilin had a website on guns and in it he had an article on armour piercing ammo in 5.45mm they were testing. In one of the tests performed at 300m with an RPK-74 from a bench rest he shot three rounds in a group that was 18mm centre to centre... that is pretty darn accurate.

Just comparing the 5.56mm and 5.45mm in AK-74U, AK-105, AK-74M, and RPK-74 and their 5.56mm equivalents you can see that the 5.45mm benefits most from the longer barrel with the 5.56mm having higher velocity in the shorter barrel lengths, but in the RPK-74 having a muzzle velocity advantage... would like to see a bullpup RPK-74 with an even longer barrel for use as a light DMR with optics.

There will be no multicalibre systems in the russian future soldier program

 This means instead of carrying around an APS underwater rifle and an AK-74 he just carries one rifle and two barrels

Why should they change barrels underwater?
BTW AK-12 can't fire underwater even with special ammo, btw, it's a special purpose assault rifle which can.

 for logistics you don't buy x number of AKS-74U and x number of AK-74M and x number of AK-105s and x number of ASs.

They will have to pay extra for those unused barrels. In terms of production cost there is no differense with modular weapon with barrel installed during production (as it is now with AK family) and modular weapons with quick-changeable barrels.
Not to mention quick-changeable barrels is more costly over fixed battels in terms of ammount of material and labour spent for it's production and they can be less reliable.

There might be situations where a lighter weight weapon using the same ammo everyone else is using might be useful.

Any examples?  I know lighter the round means more rounds you can take on mission. But in other case it will have less range, less penetration, ect. The russian army has great experience in small-calibre LMGs, I think they know what they are doing. Things changes though, they can change their minds, of course. Still the US Army, for example, have dedicated MG units armed with 7,62x51 mm GPMGs in addition to their SAWs, and the russian ground forces now don't with GPMGs in every squad. And in the times of RPKs there were MG platoons (6 MGs) per company and (later) GPMG sections (2 MGs) per platoon. This arrangement was deemed ineffective as squads itself didn't have enough firepower with teir RPKs. So it's three GPMGs per platoon now without the need of arranging MG section in platoons transports during road marches

It is possible that an SVD like weapon might be adapted from the AK12, though the VS-121 looks like a better solution to me

You see! It's better to use specially designed weapon rather than jack-of-all-trades rifle with lego-style barrels

Asf wrote:

They will have to pay extra for those unused barrels. In terms of production cost there is no differense with modular weapon with barrel installed during production (as it is now with AK family) and modular weapons with quick-changeable barrels.
Not to mention quick-changeable barrels is more costly over fixed battels in terms of ammount of material and labour spent for it's production and they can be less reliable.

??? forgive me but i feel like my common sense is tingling...

Panzer shmanzer, german army is no model to follow anyways

Actually, the US army adopted WWII panzergrenadier-style squads with two fire teams having one MG per team (but with SAWs instead of GPMGs). Bundeswehr's panzergrenadiers are copying soviet BMP-mouted motorised infantry squad organisation

And now they finally supplemented themselves with MG4. 

US marines adopted RPK-style SAW too, it seems NATO armies steps on a road the Soviet/Russian army has already finished. It's like with M4  and AK-74Us carbines - soviet used AK-74Us first and deemed it a failure to arm an entire unit with carbines. And americans, being too vain to explore someone else experience, arm entire army with M4s which had similar disadvantages over longer barrel M14 as AK-74U did over AK-74. 

Why US style? Why not Soviet? Soviets were leading in SAWs for a while. RPK was very useful in Astan.

Actually, US style is a 5,56 belt-fed SAWs in squads, not that in the Russian army now.
And RPKs wasn't liked in the Army, especially in Afghanistan, foot troops were demanding on more PKMs and Uteses as in mountains maximum range of fire matters a lot, and RPK can't sustain high volume of fire which means bad enemy supression. I can show some special "Afghanistan" unit organisations

But still I've seen RPK used in video not so long ago in Kaliningrad drills. 

You've seen russian marines - they still have old school organisation as they are not a part of reformed ground forces. Or may be a VDV soldier with RPK instead of AK (heard sometimes they use them as more accurate rifles like british guys used their LSWs, never saw though)

??? forgive me but i feel like my common sense is tingling...

What's wrong with it, mr. Deadpool?   

Extra barrels costs extra, which isn't needed you don't use them, and I see no use of them in 90% of the Army units as we have them today. May be if we''ll someday have an army of universal supersoldiers, who would be able to conduct missions in every possible terrain without need of any unit specialisation or different logistics, then may be, but not now. 
And more complex quick-changeable barrels costs extra over less complex fixed barrels.

There will be no multicalibre systems in the russian future soldier program

Fair enough. That is not to say the AK12 will not be part of the future soldier system or that they will not make a modular multicalibre version of the AK12 (multicalibre version is supposed to be called AK12SN).

The Future soldier system is for all soldiers. Special forces might decide multi calibre weapons suit them.

Why should they change barrels underwater?

Because shooting at underwater targets does not require a 60cm barrel... against underwater targets the shortest lightest barrel will be good enough ballistically and in terms of aiming and handiness.

BTW AK-12 can't fire underwater even with special ammo, btw, it's a special purpose assault rifle which can.

Most assault rifles with piston rods can fire underwater including the AK and AK-74.

The ADS combines above water use and below water use.

They will have to pay extra for those unused barrels.

What unused barrels?

If you need 20 AK-74Ms, 3 AKS-74Us, 6 RPK-74s, and 10 AK-105s, then replacing them with AK12SNs means buying 39 AK12SN rifle bodies with 20 x 415mm barrels, 3 x 290mm barrels, 6 x 560mm barrels, and 10 x 315mm barrels. Some replacement bodies and barrels will be kept in case of loss or damage and wear and tear replacements will also be cycled.

Not to mention quick-changeable barrels is more costly over fixed battels in terms of ammount of material and labour spent for it's production and they can be less reliable.

They can also be more flexible and useful... fighting in open territory like mountains you might decide to issue more RPK-74 length barrels to allow longer engagement ranges, or you might decide to drop an entire barrel length completely... you might find the AKS-74U length is of no further use with the combination of the AK-105 length barrel and the 9mm submachine gun version of the AK12 offering better alternatives. Equally the RPK-74 length barrel version might adapt into a designated marksman rifle with less emphasis on unit firepower and more emphasis on accuracy at longer range.

Any examples? Smile I know lighter the round means more rounds you can take on mission. But in other case it will have less range, less penetration, ect.

Perhaps the new 12.7 x 55mm round being used in suppressed weapons could be adapted to a short mechanism light machine gun? Or indeed the 338 Lapua Magnum round could be used for a long range machine gun with a cheaper mass produced round.

Talking to people about LMGs and most westerners think the US Army knows everything... most of them think the FN Minimi is an American development too...

The Soviet Army had a LMG at the end of WWII that used either belt feed or round pan feed in the form of the RP49 and it had a changeable barrel too, though it was in 7.62 x 54mm calibre. They went through the belt fed RPD, box fed RPK, box fed light calibre RPK-74, and now have the PKP.

The thing is that the 7.62 x 54m round is rather old and ready for replacement in both MMGs and sniper rifles. A high velocity 6x49mm round that has a very aerodynamic projectile that retains speed much better could potentially offer the chance to improve Russian sniper rifles and machineguns with a lower recoil longer range round that is easier to store in belts and boxes... you can carry more, it goes further and faster and therefore hits harder, which could make a LMG a viable option again...

You see! It's better to use specially designed weapon rather than jack-of-all-trades rifle with lego-style barrels

In some cases custom designed weapons are better, but every weapon does not need to be unique... weapon families are a good idea... pioneered by Federov in the 1920s and before.

Actually, US style is a 5,56 belt-fed SAWs in squads, not that in the Russian army now.

Russians have been there with RPD.
...lacked range and hitting power... and not especially reliable.

And more complex quick-changeable barrels costs extra over less complex fixed barrels.

Multicalibre version (AK12SN) was described as being for Special Forces and Civilian market... use by general forces is my suggestion... mainly to impliment the family concept... ie AK-105, AK-74M, RPK-74 are pretty much just AKs with different barrel lengths.

If you need 20 AK-74Ms, 3 AKS-74Us, 6 RPK-74s, and 10 AK-105s, then replacing them with AK12SNs means buying 39 AK12SN rifle bodies with 20 x 415mm barrels, 3 x 290mm barrels, 6 x 560mm barrels, and 10 x 315mm barrels

And what's the difference then?  I see not much good effect for armoury warrant-officers to have  4 AK-12SN and 2 short and 2 long barrels over just two 2 AKS-74U and 2 AK-74. There are 3 logistical categories in place of two ones and 8 items over 4. And barrels aren't that expandable to have them more than rifle receivers. And there is no cost reduction for the production, as, say, AKS-74U and AK-74 are already the same rifle with different barrels basically.

Because shooting at underwater targets does not require a 60cm barrel...

I don't know underwater ballistics, only know that underwater ammo is for a special assault rifle only. The differece between AK and tht special AR (forgot it's name) can be only more corrosion protection, for example, but it matters.

Most assault rifles with piston rods can fire underwater including the AK and AK-74.

"Can" and "is designed for" is different things, right?

Asf wrote:
Any examples? I know lighter the round means more rounds you can take on mission. But in other case it will have less range, less penetration, ect. The russian army has great experience in small-calibre LMGs, I think they know what they are doing. Things changes though, they can change their minds, of course. Still the US Army, for example, have dedicated MG units armed with 7,62x51 mm GPMGs in addition to their SAWs, and the russian ground forces now don't with GPMGs in every squad. And in the times of RPKs there were MG platoons (6 MGs) per company and (later) GPMG sections (2 MGs) per platoon. This arrangement was deemed ineffective as squads itself didn't have enough firepower with teir RPKs. So it's three GPMGs per platoon now without the need of arranging MG section in platoons transports during road marches

Do you have anything that confirms the complete elimination of machine gun sections?  Some recent (but spotty) information I've seen still has an MG at the platoon HQ level in the BMP platoon, and a weapons platoon with MGs and ATGMs in the BTR/MT-LB company.

Asf wrote:
US marines adopted RPK-style SAW too, it seems NATO armies steps on a road the Soviet/Russian army has already finished.

This is a change that is likely peculiar to the Marines and recent conflicts.  However, note this does not represent a shift from a 7.62 GPMG at the squad level, so the comparison is not entirely valid.  It represents a shift from a belt-fed 5.56 SAW to a much, much more accurate magazine-fed 5.56 SAW, and is consistent with the Marine ethos that emphasizes accuracy over volume of fire.

It's like with M4  and AK-74Us carbines - soviet used AK-74Us first and deemed it a failure to arm an entire unit with carbines. And americans, being too vain to explore someone else experience, arm entire army with M4s which had similar disadvantages over longer barrel M14 as AK-74U did over AK-74.

I assume you meant M16.  It is not vanity and your comparison is not really relevant.  Over a decade of war experience has confirmed the shift from a full length rifle to a more compact carbine.  Even the Marines who are deeply beholden to their rifles have armed a significant portion of the force with M4s.  This has mainly to do with mounted warfare and MOUT.  AK-74 is really more a carbine than a rifle and achieves the same goals as the M4.  The AKSU falls more into the sub-machine gun realm.

Hopefully a future firearm will maintain the advantages of a rifle's long barrel in the compact form of a carbine, but just as noted here in regards to Russian rifle procurement, US Army is unlikely to completely re-equip the force until they can achieve more than an incremental increase in capability, which will necessitate a major advance in small arms technology.

akd wrote:
I assume you meant M16.  It is not vanity and your comparison is not really relevant.  Over a decade of war experience has confirmed the shift from a full length rifle to a more compact carbine.  Even the Marines who are deeply beholden to their rifles have armed a significant portion of the force with M4s.  This has mainly to do with mounted warfare and MOUT.  AK-74 is really more a carbine than a rifle and achieves the same goals as the M4.  The AKSU falls more into the sub-machine gun realm.

Hopefully a future firearm will maintain the advantages of a rifle's long barrel in the compact form of a carbine, but just as noted here in regards to Russian rifle procurement, US Army is unlikely to completely re-equip the force until they can achieve more than an incremental increase in capability, which will necessitate a major advance in small arms technology.

I would bet to differ. I've served in Luftwaffe and tha annual reports from Afghanistan and all those who have served there do not tell anything good about small calibres and short barreled weapons, neither from German point of view nor from british or american.

The reports are unbaised, black on white, analytical reports from Officers of Supply and Ordnance, are reporting that they have poor manstopping power with the standard G-36K (613mm barrel lentgh) major through the calibre and have better experience with the standard G-36 (758mm barrel lentgh) with a longer barrel.

Not only German forces are switching to Soviet style arming of groups but also British and American units do.

There are today even discussions to bring the G-3 or a modernized version of the G-3 and exchange almost all fighting units with G-3s and bring G-36s out of those units. British have deployed 7.62mm sniper rifles (DMR) and 7.62mm GPMGs and not those 5.56mm LMGs, same goes for US, you see less and less popularity for the M249 Mini and they go more and more for the big brother M240, along with DMRs 7.62mm.

Werewolf wrote:

akd wrote:
I assume you meant M16.  It is not vanity and your comparison is not really relevant.  Over a decade of war experience has confirmed the shift from a full length rifle to a more compact carbine.  Even the Marines who are deeply beholden to their rifles have armed a significant portion of the force with M4s.  This has mainly to do with mounted warfare and MOUT.  AK-74 is really more a carbine than a rifle and achieves the same goals as the M4.  The AKSU falls more into the sub-machine gun realm.

Hopefully a future firearm will maintain the advantages of a rifle's long barrel in the compact form of a carbine, but just as noted here in regards to Russian rifle procurement, US Army is unlikely to completely re-equip the force until they can achieve more than an incremental increase in capability, which will necessitate a major advance in small arms technology.

I would bet to differ. I've served in Luftwaffe and tha annual reports from Afghanistan and all those who have served there do not tell anything good about small calibres and short barreled weapons, neither from German point of view nor from british or american.

The reports are unbaised, black on white, analytical reports from Officers of Supply and Ordnance, are reporting that they have poor manstopping power with the standard G-36K (613mm barrel lentgh) major through the calibre and have better experience with the standard G-36 (758mm barrel lentgh) with a longer barrel.

Not only German forces are switching to Soviet style arming of groups but also British and American units do.

There are today even discussions to bring the G-3 or a modernized version of the G-3 and exchange almost all fighting units with G-3s and bring G-36s out of those units. British have deployed 7.62mm sniper rifles (DMR) and 7.62mm GPMGs and not those 5.56mm LMGs, same goes for US, you see less  and less popularity for the M249 Mini and they go more and more for the big brother M240, along with DMRs 7.62mm.

As the Soviets found, Afghanistan presents a host of particular problems that may not be applicable to conventional warfare or increasingly common MOUT (most strategic forecasts indicate we are more likely to be engaged in cities than mountains in future conflicts).  Despite the long Afghanistan experience, US forces at least have not sought to significantly modify their standard TO&E and instead make modifications as needed for Afghanistan. The exception might be a rumored move toward a 7.62 DMR.

The decisions were not only because of Afghanistan, but overall performance of ordnance has to be increased and like Mikhail Kalaschnikow has said already that the full potential of 7.62x39mm was not reached, he was right. The US is trying to get their 6.5x39mm into service because of 5.56mm poor manstopping power, the british try to get more 7.62mm weapons and not only DMR sniper rifles but AR weapons, germany is going back to G-3 even tho there is big debate about that among Politician idiots who have never hold a weapon in their life. And russians are using, especially in Special units more often AK-47 or AK-103 because of the 7.62x39mm calibre.

It makes a big difference if an AK-74 makes a little hole in the brickwall next to you with little bit dirt coming off or an AK-103 ripping several bricks apart, and i maybe no expert on old sayings but i think that is where the saying "Shit bricks" comes from.

Do you have anything that confirms the complete elimination of machine gun sections?  Some recent (but spotty) information I've seen still has an MG at the platoon HQ level in the BMP platoon, and a weapons platoon with MGs and ATGMs in the BTR/MT-LB company.

I only know leaked typical organisation charts for motorised infantry brigades, but in the soviet/russian brigade and regiment organisation can vary a bit depending on it's command wishes and actual equipment supplied.
In the brigade organisation chart where are no MG sections in platoons (so a platoon is only a 3 squads + CO and 2iC NCO), and ATGM-only squads in companies (for MT-LB/BTR companies only). Actually where were no MG squads in a company since the late 80s, they all were distributed to platoons as sections in both BTR and BMP companies. And those sections seems to be exchanged for GPMG plus an additional man in a squad. It's the same loadout for a BTR/BMP, but there is no need to manage sections and three "normal" MGs over just two in a platoon as long as RPKs were used as a casual AK most of the time.
Marines and VDV do have their own organisation. Marines didn't switch to GPMG in squads as long as I know, staying with an old FOC and VDV did, using a two three-man fire teams per squad now (one of them is armed with GPMG, and other with rifles and single-use RPGs, something similar to french squads). It's a bit vague about current VDV squad organisation, but rumors on that topic are very urgent

This is a change that is likely peculiar to the Marines and recent conflicts.  However, note this does not represent a shift from a 7.62 GPMG at the squad level, so the comparison is not entirely valid.  It represents a shift from a belt-fed 5.56 SAW to a much, much more accurate magazine-fed 5.56 SAW, and is consistent with the Marine ethos that emphasizes accuracy over volume of fire.

I only wanted to say NATO (Bundeswehr, US Marines, some other programs of light magazine-fed SAWs) is following soviet experience. Yes, marines do have a lot of belt-fed machine guns in a company/battalion not to overload their marines in squads with heavy loads for M249

I assume you meant M16.

Yes, of course    

your comparison is not really relevant

Well, you are right, but I wanted to say M4 have similar disadvantages which AKS-74U have - quicker barrel overheating, for example, and lesser accuracy. 5,56 is a bit more powerful than 5,45 (5,56 has more load of more powerful propellant) so this disadvantages seems to take place with a longer weapon barrel. I'm only saying about tendencies, M4 is obviouly better than AKS-74U, but the experience of shortening assault rifle's barrel beyong 400 mm was deemed negative by soviet military experts and AKS-74U isn't in-production as long as I know (there is only an export short-barrel version of AK, which isn't bought nether by the MoD nor by the MoI). And many M4 users choose M16 over it as long as I heard

see not much good effect for armoury warrant-officers to have 4 AK-12SN and 2 short and 2 long barrels over just two 2 AKS-74U and 2 AK-74.

Easier to use, better layed out, and cheaper to bulk buy the base rifles and a standard length 5.45mm barrel and then purchase other barrel lengths as needed.

I don't know underwater ballistics, only know that underwater ammo is for a special assault rifle only. The differece between AK and tht special AR (forgot it's name) can be only more corrosion protection, for example, but it matters.

The custom designed underwater rifle is APS. The new underwater rifle is ADS... which is also being adopted by the VDV apparently. The new ammo is compatible with standard rifles.

"Can" and "is designed for" is different things, right?

Very different of course, but before the Russian Naval Infantry consider AK12SN they will no doubt ensure it is protected from corrosion and able to fire the new ammo underwater without problems.

They have just adopted the ADS so adopting the AK12SN might not be high on their agenda...


BTW will correct myself...

The Soviet Army had a LMG at the end of WWII that used either belt feed or round pan feed in the form of the RP49 and it had a changeable barrel too, though it was in 7.62 x 54mm calibre. They went through the belt fed RPD, box fed RPK, box fed light calibre RPK-74, and now have the PKP.

Obviously meant RP46 instead of RP49.

The custom designed underwater rifle is APS. The new underwater rifle is ADS... 

There is a reason to use special rifle instead of just acommon AK-74, and it's isn't a barrel.

before the Russian Naval Infantry consider AK12SN they will no doubt ensure it is protected from corrosion and able to fire the new ammo underwater 

It won't as it's not a needed feature for 99% of the Army which costs money. That what I want to say: there will be a need in another model of AK12 to use it for naval infantry spetsnaz which isn't what you want it to - to be a rifle for every type of unit in the army

There is a reason to use special rifle instead of just acommon AK-74, and it's isn't a barrel.

The APS was designed because the underwater ammo has a projectile that looks like a 30cm long knitting needle.

New projectiles that still use supercavitation have been developed to fit in the standard 5.45mm round case and can be used in standard rifles and used in standard AK magazines. I would suggest that might make them compatible with standard rifles with a few adjustments to the gas systems of these rifles.

That what I want to say: there will be a need in another model of AK12 to use it for naval infantry spetsnaz which isn't what you want it to - to be a rifle for every type of unit in the army

AFAIK the VDV and Naval Infantry/Spetsnaz have adopted the ADS... we don't know if they have adopted it to replace any APS weapons they had, or if it is to replace all the APS and AK-74 weapons they had. I don't think they will adopt the AK12 now unless the AK12SN can offer to do the things I have been talking about... useful for special forces like them.

Both Ak-12 and AEK have past tests as a part of Ratnik system

Asf wrote:Both Ak-12 and AEK have past tests as a part of Ratnik system

Could someone please provide an actual (non-google) translation?

Preference was given to developments Kovrov only due to the fact that the machines of various calibers Degtyarev plant were created on one platform constructive.

So preference for the Kovrov model was given because they provided their weapon in various calibres????

I would point out that acceptance with Ratnik means little in practical terms... previously the AK-107, An-94, and AK-74M have been cleared for use with Ratnik and its predecessors...


As a universal kit it is good that it is compatible with a range of weapons and a range of weapon families...

So preference for the Kovrov model was given because they provided their weapon in various calibres????

Yep) There were no other calibers for AK-12 at the time of the testing, I think. Or may be it's just an excuse for Kovrov's lobbism

I don't think the difference between folding and adjustable is that clear cut.

Most soldiers wear body armour and no two soldiers are the same size so adapting the length of the stock to suit the individual soldier should make it easier for them to hit their targets and use their rifles for long periods.

Equally plenty of soldiers are delivered by vehicle to the battlefield or elsewhere.

A folding stock means a much more compact weapon when it is of little use as a weapon so again all soldiers would benefit from both features.

Adjustble cheek rests features are also useful when scopes are fitted to help align the eye with the scope position, or iron sights if the soldier is wearing a gas mask...

Asf wrote:Sometimes I wonder how did people fight effectively without all whose "absolutely needed" gear. Civilisation made us weak.Nowadays we loosing wars not because of strategy but because of military budget expences for sport equiment for basic rifles and helicopter nachos delivery right into the trenches.

I saw youtube vids about NATO soldiers in Afghanistan - they just spray bullets into an area because the need of fire suppression or due to panic just like a century ago. Are all those regulated stocks and staff realy that needed or it's just for comfort of contract jarheads who fetishize military gear?

Just call me conservative, but I prefer reliable men with old AKs, a good fire support man and a good plan of advance rather than wannabe machos equipped to the teeth who shoot on sight, get nervous under fire and looses discipline if there are no porn journals and ice cream.

Nowadays we loosing wars not because of strategy but because of military budget expences for sport equiment for basic rifles and helicopter nachos delivery right into the trenches.

And what wars that would be  ?  

I saw youtube vids about NATO soldiers in Afghanistan - they just spray bullets into an area because the need of fire suppression or due to panic just like a century ago. Are all those regulated stocks and staff realy that needed or it's just for comfort of contract jarheads who fetishize military gear?

No, mosin nagant with bayonet is only thing soldier needs. US army soldiers in Astan do some mistakes or either too brave or too cowardly, but they are quite proficient. Still they like to bunch up and totally forget about formations. But I was never been in a firefight. Apparently, it's all instincts. Marines seem to be more professional and better motivated. 
And what's up with gear fetish? Marines aren't the best equipped in the world if we lets say look at their night vision equipment, communications or even weapons. What they have up to standard is good protection systems and optics. 
By the way regulated stock would have helped me with this piece of shit oar I had to carry for long time.
  

Just call me conservative, but I prefer reliable men with old AKs, a good fire support man and a good plan of advance rather than wannabe machos equipped to the teeth who shoot on sight, get nervous under fire and looses discipline if there are no porn journals and ice cream.

Hah  And I thought I was conservative. But I did handle some new weapons. In shooting range bare G36KA4 felt like sleeping victoria secret model when compared to swedish AK-4 and AKM who felt and looked like mother in law..

Would You trust a conscript? What good plan of advance? What is it ?  Do You mean 101 of basic fire maneuver drills? Good look advancing after each time You are getting shot.. and hitting APMs and IEDs.
To be all fair I don't know where You get all porn journals and icecream thing, soldiers are more interested in drugs when they are on deployment. Shrooms are popular among soldiers now as they are hardly detected and easy to get in Astan. There is a big drug problem and ISAF forces are trying to hide it. But what I'm saying my dad hit the pot, hash and jet spirit when in Astan. All men in the squad did. Especially after first dead. Their first batya was always half drunk or with pakhmel even on battle deployment.
When it comes to training US troops are probably the best trained in the world. It doesn't come out of their ass, they invested shitloads of money into it. Russia is way behind when it comes to soldier skills, compare Marines riflemans course with Russian standards for example. 
This kind of pederastism is still very common. 
https://youtu.be/MFSC3nxW50I?t=1m38s WTF??? Tell me what is this?
https://youtu.be/ENa8hPbdXJQ?t=33s Roll... Wtf? Running and shooting. Nice. Look how they storm the building. Look some of them don't have blank firing attachment and use their AKs as Bolt action rifles. 
Why they are running like this? So hastily like high on speed? How do You even call this formation? Who is covering what? I'm watching drills on zvezda news and i'm fricking lost. 
Sorry for the rant

Back from the offtopic
AK-12 brings a lot of changes to the initial design it ought to be considered a "new" rifle comrades.
Things that are positive in my opinion:
- top rail (which isn't the most optimal method of attachment)
- non reicorporating charging handle (seriously such rigid forward assist brings more pain then it takes, plus it isn't reccomended to force cartridge into battery anyway due to safety reasons)
- adjastuble stock (big yay for anyone to has experienced too short or too long stock)
- ability to retain one reciever while have possibilty to swap barrels
- more popular thread on the barrel

Things I don't like:
- things are way different and more complex with identifieying case with safety switch, inspecting the chamber, bolt manipulation ( been one place to check or manipulate now are three, not very idiotproof ... especially under the stress )
- more internal moving parts
- higher cost for a weapon system that is pretty insignificant in the military operation

In other words some things I approve some I don't go figures ;-)
Essentials are adjustable stock - minor low cost modification
Rails - same thing
22 milimiter thread - more costly
Easily changable/ quick changable barrel - very costy considering changes to the reciever and handguards.

What is the status of the AK 12? Is the Russian Army going to get? Will they be importing the Ak 12?