AK-12 Rifle Discussion

I think the idea was that in a high stress situation of getting shot at most people would lose much of their fine motor skills and would fumble with the basics.

You put the semi-auto right at the bottom catch since in a sudden contact situation a soldier would slam the fire selector down from safe before returning fire. In most cases the soldier doesn't really have a good aim on his target and is just firing in the general direction of incoming fire so anything beyond semi-auto is just wasting ammo.

Similarly burst fire is there to check against soldiers neglecting proper trigger control and just holding down the trigger as they would when firing at full auto. It doesn't have to put two rounds very close to one another as much as putting two rounds in staccato as well as forcing the shooter to reset.

Real or fake, the body armour held up pretty well, and when you consider that a lot of real-world impacts will occur at significantly longer ranges, involving bullets in the ballpark of 5.56mm, all but out of sufficient penetrating power by the time they reach the vest. It seems adequate.

Added to that that these plates he tested are covered in layers of Kevlar, but also the load carrying equipment would have four 30 shot AK magazines across them too which would also need to be penetrated... neither of which would stop a bullet of course, but would certainly effect its trauma impact on the soldier and would at the very least reduce the penetration into the material in the vest.

They have heated layers in their standard kit so extra layers to reduce the effect of trauma would be implied too.

Not to mention the new materials revealed above that they are continuously working on... I don't think any soldier expects to go to war wearing a suit that will keep them safe from everything the enemy could possibly direct their way.

But, the most irksome comment is about the selector switch. The whole design philosophy of the standard Ak selector switch is that you can't (or it's difficult to) switch it from the safe position to full-auto without first passing single-shot mode. Whether that's for safety reasons, or because they want conscripts to using single-shot in the event that they don't know what they're doing, is anyone's guess; Probably both; but the fact remains. It's intentional, as far as I know.

If you follow the history of Kalashnikov there were enormous numbers if different prototypes that had all sorts of combinations of different features including with the selector switch and cocking handle on the left side and actually easier to reach and use than on most western rifles 20 years before most of these advanced western rifles even existed...

Surprised he didn't complain it was too noisy.

I think the idea was that in a high stress situation of getting shot at most people would lose much of their fine motor skills and would fumble with the basics.

The whole idea of training is muscle memory and unconsciously doing it one way so when you panic that is the way you do it.

The thing is that firing single shot is a western thing... normally in a panic or urgent situation a short burst of fire is more effective against sudden or fleeting targets... so firing a burst is a useful thing when a threat appears up close with no warning... as shown by the ballistic vest being hit multiple times and short range burst of fire is a great way to deal with a short range target and with the AK-74s 5.45mm calibre the bullet spread at short range should result in it hammering through even rather heavy body armour.

Firing single shot makes sense for targets at medium to longer ranges where second and subsequent shots would be wasted in burst fire.

The whole purpose of two round burst is to increase the chances of getting a hit on a fast moving indistinct target. A stationary target should allow two hits, which should improve effect on target... the bullets wont be close enough to matter in penetrating body armour by putting two rounds through the same hole, but unless the target is at extreme range one bullet should hit near the point of aim and the second shot should be about head height... which should make it a very effective follow up shot in a burst.

Part of Ak-74M kit is actually a side mounted scope/optic.

Yeah, something they rarely give credit for. Like on the RPG-7 and the SVD rifle the side mounts for scopes the Soviets used were very clever and allowed the scope to be carried in a case and mounted and dismounted with the flip of a lever with no variation of zero no matter how many times you put it on or took it off.

The new rail mounts means a much wider range of scopes and lights and lasers etc can be mounted and dismounted, and scopes can be mounted to be used together.

It also has the added advantage that Russians scope and device makers can make their scopes compatible with western weapons too which expands their market.

Their mounting for 40mm underbarrel grenade launchers was Amazing and is still amazing... with the US M203 you essentially have to dismantle the front of the M16 rifle to mount it. The Soviet model can be clipped on like a bayonette and swapped between rifles easily and without fuss. Being muzzle loaded it is also faster and easier to use and much simpler in design. The airburst grenade designs are vastly more effective than standard western 40mm grenades... cuts and frag injuries to the head and chest are always more lethal that similar injuries to the legs which western impact grenades achieve normally.

The real irony is that even in the 1980s the Soviet recon forces within an armoured force would be using AS and VSS rifles with excellent armour penetration with 9x39mm ammo with full suppression.

https://tass.com/defense/1329091

This article on TASS regarding the RPL-20 belt fed 5.45mm LMG is part of the Sotnik programme (which is Ratnik III) which is due to enter service about 2025.

It mentions they are starting to test the prototypes now and obviously hope to therefore have it ready for service by 2025.

The current potential solutions of RPK-16 and PKP have advantages and disadvantages... the RPK-16 is reliable and uses a drum magazine, but drum magazines are heavy and are difficult to carry in numbers, and while the PKP is belt fed it is heavy, though the extra range and power of the larger round is useful... the ammo is much heavier than the 5.45mm ammo.

The RPL-20 is a 5kg gun that only fires belt ammo, but belt ammo is much lighter than drum or magazine loaded ammo and a field load of several hundred rounds actually makes the RPL-20 lighter to carry than the RPK-16, with the additional advantage that the belts are easy to sling over anyones shoulders so the rest of the team can carry extra ammo for the support gun.

Note this is rather interesting because the Soviets ended WWII with the DP-27 and later DPM as their standard LMG with a large drum magazine in 7.62x54R calibre, which was initially replaced with the modified RP-46 with a belt feed attachment was adopted, but was replaced with the belt fed RPD LMG in the 7.62 x 39mm calibre round. This was then replaced in time with the RPK and later RPK-74 in smaller calibres normally with enlarged box magazines... 40 rounds for the RPK and 45 rounds for the RPK-74. There were repeated attempts at belt fed alternatives but they never made it to service...

AFAIK the plan is to keep the PKP because of its fire power but to introduce either the RPK-16 or RPL-20. The RPK-16 might be issued to small teams where it will just be used like an RPK-74, but with a 95 round drum.

par far wrote:What will happen to the millions of AK 74M's in storage, when the AK 12 replaces it?...

They stay in storage, they are there for a reason

par far wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

par far wrote:What will happen to the millions of AK 74M's in storage, when the AK 12 replaces it?...

They stay in storage, they are there for a reason

What reason?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War

Pretty much... sometimes an ally is thinking of buying something or you might want to improve the conditions of a deal... in many situations in the past Russia has donated a few tens or even hundreds of thousands of rifles or weapons to a friendly country while selling them something else.

In situations like Syria you can support allies by providing them with a few batches of weapons... producing new ones costs money but giving weapons from storage is free and you can replace those later on with further gun purchases so you have a weapon reserve.

During WWI Russia had a serious shortage of small arms and had to go around the world ordering rifles including the US... it was not ideal... note most other countries had to do the same which meant new rifles were in short supply in most places as production was expanded... I have a Mark 4 Lee Enfield rifle that has an * next to its designation... ie Mk 4* Lee Enfield that was made in the US for the British during WWII.

By WWII Soviet arms production was properly funded so the problems in places with lack of guns had more to do with supply than production, though the initial losses of soldiers and shifting production meant there were local shortages at times.

Exports to the west of Russian firearms is subject to sanctions and unlikely to change any time soon.

AK-12s will be introduced likely to riflemen but lots of soldiers have AK rifles and it will take time for all AK-74s to be replaced completely.

Also not all frontline riflemen have AKs, recon soldiers use AS suppressed 9x39mm rifles which are to be replaced by ASMs... and I suspect there will be a carbine like the AK-105 with a shorter barrel in 5.45mm calibre for soldiers operating from helicopters or vehicles.

I also believe they have put the ADS into full serial production so naval infantry and VDV and special forces might get those instead perhaps.

The Kord 5.45mm rifle was also supposedly accepted and might be used by special forces too.

It would be silly to buy upgraded rifle with mounting systems to allow the easy mounting of various optics and other equipment and then issue them without that equipment... but it is pretty hard to get concrete information about what Russian soldiers are issued with.

Certainly it would vary from region as well, but AFAIK they have fully deployed Ratnik I and have also issued Ratnik II and so Ratnik III which is also called Sotnik is supposed to be introduced in 2025.

AFAIK there is a night vision monocular optic that is issued with Ratnik for use as a hand held viewer that can be attached to a helmet mount or in front of a rifle scope to make it night vision capable too.

Don't know what it is called though.

BTW it is a forum rule for new members to introduce themselves in the forum rules and introductions section.

Please take the time to read other members introductions and also introduce yourself (in you own thread please), and also take the time to read the forum rules as well.

I think the idea was that in a high stress situation of getting shot at most people would lose much of their fine motor skills and would fumble with the basics.

Actually I think the whole idea of teaching shooting is all about muscle memory so when you panic under fire your revert back to basics and training and get it right without having to think about it.

The huge irony is that training has moved enormously since just WWII where often only about ten percent of soldiers would fire their weapons to kill. Many would fire their weapons in the general direction of the enemy, but only a small percentage actually tried to kill the enemy soldiers.

Modern training teaches soldiers to kill and makes them rather more effective, but sadly there have been no advancements in dealing with these people you have essentially broken by turning them into killers. The lack of support afterwards leads to men who have to come to terms with what they did and many choose to end their own lives because of that.

This is pretty much the standard optics for the AK-12 currently issued.

Which looks like a simple red dot sight... easy to use in most light conditions... and good for tracking moving targets.

Some people think the best hunting sight is high magnification, but actually high magnification sights are hard to use because they magnify your movements so it becomes very hard to hold the crosshair on target except in a very good stable shooting position... now obviously a good stable shooting position is the best position to shoot from but if you are moving from cover to core or there is simply not enough time to get into a good position then firing from the shoulder might be your best option.

A red dot sight simply means you place the dot where you want your bullets to go and fire, which is much easier than trying to align iron sights with the target.

The design of the top rail of the AK-12 like the western designs it is based on mean you can have a simple sight mounted at the rear for close in shooting and can mount a magnified optic in front of that for shooting at targets further away... say a x4 or a x6 scope, while for shooting at night you can mount a night vision device in front of your red dot sight to see and shoot in low light levels.

The next new technologies are digital night vision which essentially uses CCD camera chips and processing power to use the low light levels at night... the enormous advantages include expensive chips but cheap compared with II and thermals, and also it can be used day or night, and that the sensor doesn't burn out in 2,000 hours like third gen II sensors do and they are resistant to bright light sources...

Plus of course electronic trigger firearms where the optics have target tracking ability so you can select a target and pull the trigger and when the target is lined up perfectly the gun will fire for the kill...