Russian Sniper Rifles and Units

Werewolf wrote:The funny thing is that such a perception is created that everyone must look at americans and what they do and copy that while americans can't built guns. They repeatadly have contracted foreign companies to make weapons for them or even design from scratch like H&K for M416/417 series, XM25, XM8, Belgian machineguns M249, M240, Austrian Glocks series, German USP, SOCOM issued MK23 that was specially designed for them and other series. Lot of use of Italian Baretta's M92 or Benelli shotguns from law enforcement to civilian market highly demanded. So many guns and even more weapons in atoher catagories.

GarryB wrote:Getting a little bit carried away with the conspiracy theories people.
Very simply the 7.62 x 54mmR round was designed well over 100 years ago... in fact it is approaching 125 years ago... it entered service in 1891 in a bolt action Mosin Nagant rifle.

GarryB wrote:
When it entered service it was a low velocity round using black powder as a propellent and a large 220 grain round nose bullet and it was not a great round for anything but relatively short range because of the black powder propellent and the round nosed heavy projectile.

It was very dirty and needed a lot of cleaning to keep operational.

Of course now it has a pointed boat tail projectile in the 150 to 180 grain range though 203 grain bullets are available. It also uses smokeless powder and has significantly better range performance.

GarryB wrote:
Why does it need replacing... why does the MiG-29 or Su-27 need replacing... they both still do the job.

Fit AESA radars and new AAMs and they should be just fine.

GarryB wrote:
The thing is that money has already been spent on replacing them all and in the case of the round in question the 6x49mm round exceeds the old rounds performance by a significant margin while adding a few very significant advantages. the some of which include that the round is much smaller and lighter and is rather more accurate and with a much larger effective range.

GarryB wrote:
The old rimmed cartridge also effects the design of the weapons it is used in... magazines need to be loaded carefully so the rims do not lock in the mag, and in links the round must be withdrawn to the rear and then thrust forward into the chamber... with rimmless rounds they can be pushed through the link directly into the chamber... easier, smaller and therefore lighter.

Acheron wrote:

GarryB wrote:Getting a little bit carried away with the conspiracy theories people.
Very simply the 7.62 x 54mmR round was designed well over 100 years ago... in fact it is approaching 125 years ago... it entered service in 1891 in a bolt action Mosin Nagant rifle.

And 9x19mm parabellum cartridge entered service a couple of years later and is still extremely popular. Heck, even Russia has moved away from 9x18mm to the parabellum cartridge.
A successful cartridge is judged by its performance and not its age.

GarryB wrote:
When it entered service it was a low velocity round using black powder as a propellent and a large 220 grain round nose bullet and it was not a great round for anything but relatively short range because of the black powder propellent and the round nosed heavy projectile.

It was very dirty and needed a lot of cleaning to keep operational.

Of course now it has a pointed boat tail projectile in the 150 to 180 grain range though 203 grain bullets are available. It also uses smokeless powder and has significantly better range performance.

It matter little how the cartridge started out. It has since been successfully modernized.

GarryB wrote:
Why does it need replacing... why does the MiG-29 or Su-27 need replacing... they both still do the job.

Fit AESA radars and new AAMs and they should be just fine.

Very inaccurate analogy. A better analogy would be for Russia to transition to a completely new aviation fuel type (which current aircraft cannot use) with no readily apparent or insignificant benefit.

GarryB wrote:
The thing is that money has already been spent on replacing them all and in the case of the round in question the 6x49mm round exceeds the old rounds performance by a significant margin while adding a few very significant advantages. the some of which include that the round is much smaller and lighter and is rather more accurate and with a much larger effective range.

Now we are on to something tangible. Although the 6x49mm round looks good on paper, it has several deficiencies (from "Cartridges of the World" book). It did not have the energy retention and barrier/armor penetrating capabilities of competing 6.5mm intermediate cartridges and its high muzzle velocity meant higher chamber pressures and thus higher wear.

GarryB wrote:
The old rimmed cartridge also effects the design of the weapons it is used in... magazines need to be loaded carefully so the rims do not lock in the mag, and in links the round must be withdrawn to the rear and then thrust forward into the chamber... with rimmless rounds they can be pushed through the link directly into the chamber... easier, smaller and therefore lighter.

Yes, I completely agree with you about the following deficiencies of 7.62x54mm: the rimmed design made the mechanism for automatic loading more complicated and magazines needed to be loaded in a more careful manner.
However, the automatic loading/extraction mechanism for the 7.62mmR have had decades to be perfected and are now considered very reliable.
I agree that if one is looking to save some weight in the firearm and to increase possible cycle rates, than a mechanism working on a rimless design would be optimal. But are +/- 100 gram in a GPMG or a faster fire rate really so necessary?

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Acheron wrote:
And 9x19mm parabellum cartridge entered service a couple of years later and is still extremely popular. Heck, even Russia has moved away from 9x18mm to the parabellum cartridge.
A successful cartridge is judged by its performance and not its age.

Apples and oranges. There's almost no developpement for "LEO" rounds in Europe. Almost none. Everyone is happy with the 9mm Luger. And everyone is wrong. Russia had developped a lot of rounds for LEO work, the US as well, two different paradigms get to the same point. One because of medieval state mentality, the other (Russia) because the State needs to do everything and its contrary.

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Acheron wrote:
It matter little how the cartridge started out. It has since been successfully modernized.

The biggest issue is that it hasn't been modernized, it has been adapted. There are a lot of things to do on the cartdrige, it you can have a NEW CASING. Which is the biggest hurdle. It's a case of "too big to fail".

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Acheron wrote:
Now we are on to something tangible. Although the 6x49mm round looks good on paper, it has several deficiencies (from "Cartridges of the World" book). It did not have the energy retention and barrier/armor penetrating capabilities of competing 6.5mm intermediate cartridges and its high muzzle velocity meant higher chamber pressures and thus higher wear.

6.5mmR is a sporting match grade ammo. Off course it would be better. But again, it used a different casing than 7.62/8mmR.

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Acheron wrote:
Yes, I completely agree with you about the following deficiencies of 7.62x54mm: the rimmed design made the mechanism for automatic loading more complicated and magazines needed to be loaded in a more careful manner.
However, the automatic loading/extraction mechanism for the 7.62mmR have had decades to be perfected and are now considered very reliable.
I agree that if one is looking to save some weight in the firearm and to increase possible cycle rates, than a mechanism working on a rimless design would be optimal. But are +/- 100 gram in a GPMG or a faster fire rate really so necessary?

Exactly why, people want a new cartdrige; because it would open to completely new paradigm in firearms. Although the PKM/PKP is the LIGHTEST offer out there for that kind oreliability and lethality. There's a lot to gain, especially since there are projects out there that would get 6.5kg GPMG's (vs 9kg for PKP) with new rounds. New materials will also allow a better design and less ballistic flex on the Weapons. Case in point is the new AK-12 (yeah yeah yeah I know) which is about 40% stiffer and thus more accurate (not 40% more accurate, just more accurate and dependable) than AK74M.

Granted, it isn't exactly divorce material from 7.62R but at some point it would have to be let go.

Acheron wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Acheron wrote:
And 9x19mm parabellum cartridge entered service a couple of years later and is still extremely popular. Heck, even Russia has moved away from 9x18mm to the parabellum cartridge.
A successful cartridge is judged by its performance and not its age.

Apples and oranges. There's almost no developpement for "LEO" rounds in Europe. Almost none. Everyone is happy with the 9mm Luger. And everyone is wrong. Russia had developped a lot of rounds for LEO work, the US as well, two different paradigms get to the same point. One because of medieval state mentality, the other (Russia) because the State needs to do everything and its contrary.

Everyone seems to have converged to the 9mm parabellum as the "bread and butter" PDW and LEO round for a reason. And I don't think it is because everyone just happens to be wrong (although you are free to elucidate further on that idea). More specialized round for LEOs exist and will continue to be developed for obvious reasons, but no one is going to take away the "podium" from the venerable parabellum as the default cartridge.

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Acheron wrote:
It matter little how the cartridge started out. It has since been successfully modernized.

The biggest issue is that it hasn't been modernized, it has been adapted. There are a lot of things to do on the cartdrige, it you can have a NEW CASING. Which is the biggest hurdle. It's a case of "too big to fail".

Throughout its lifetime, the 7.62x54mmR cartridge had absolutely everything altered to suit various needs, with the only immutable thing retained being the dimensions of the cartridge. The thickness of the casing was experimented upon, the bullet was altered to meet certain needs, as well as the propellent. I don't know what problem you see in regards to the material for the casing, but updating the round with new casing should not be too difficult.

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Acheron wrote:
Now we are on to something tangible. Although the 6x49mm round looks good on paper, it has several deficiencies (from "Cartridges of the World" book). It did not have the energy retention and barrier/armor penetrating capabilities of competing 6.5mm intermediate cartridges and its high muzzle velocity meant higher chamber pressures and thus higher wear.

6.5mmR is a sporting match grade ammo. Off course it would be better. But again, it used a different casing than 7.62/8mmR.

To me, the problems with 6x49mm unified cartridge seems to mirror closely the issues found in the experimental US 6x45mm SAW round. The cost per benefit ratio seems to be too prohibitive.

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Acheron wrote:
Yes, I completely agree with you about the following deficiencies of 7.62x54mm: the rimmed design made the mechanism for automatic loading more complicated and magazines needed to be loaded in a more careful manner.
However, the automatic loading/extraction mechanism for the 7.62mmR have had decades to be perfected and are now considered very reliable.
I agree that if one is looking to save some weight in the firearm and to increase possible cycle rates, than a mechanism working on a rimless design would be optimal. But are +/- 100 gram in a GPMG or a faster fire rate really so necessary?

Exactly why, people want a new cartdrige; because it would open to completely new paradigm in firearms. Although the PKM/PKP is the LIGHTEST offer out there for that kind oreliability and lethality. There's a lot to gain, especially since there are projects out there that would get 6.5kg GPMG's (vs 9kg for PKP) with new rounds. New materials will also allow a better design and less ballistic flex on the Weapons. Case in point is the new AK-12 (yeah yeah yeah I know) which is about 40% stiffer and thus more accurate (not 40% more accurate, just more accurate and dependable) than AK74M.

Granted, it isn't exactly divorce material from 7.62R but at some point it would have to be let go.

KoTeMoRe wrote:
The issue with the 9mm, is that it's cheap (the same story with 7.62/8mmR)n bar that the round has a lot of shortcomings. Massive energy bleed, fairly unpredictable wound patterns, prone to squibs, lack of actual lethality (to the point that people find out that cause of death while hit by 9mm Luger is usually a remote consequence of the shooting, not a direct cause of it. Up to 25% of fatalities after being shot by 9mm luger in Belgium, by police have been unrelated to the round actually wounding (10% cardiac arrests ...). It's funny how going "average" is seen as positive in this field. On the other side super hot rounds like the 7.62x25 go completely unoticed (while being arguably a far better offering). Same for 45 ACP, it's a shit round, but hits like a bulldozer, yet US Americans pray sweet Jebus to have it. The Czechs tested with the 9x21(before the Israelis). The Soviet Russians totally moded the round (hipress 7n2X family) to the point it's a different round.

KoTeMoRe wrote:
The current casing thickness, shape and flaring is the same since 1970's. And basically the walls are the same 'in thickness' since the damn Korean war. There have been specialized rounds for accuracy and clean shooting, but none is as spread statistically as the GPMG round. Fact is that it still costs a fortune to have 80's era "accurized" soft-casing rounds. There's also a limitation in the ammount of boom stuff you can cram in that casing. But as I told you, it's a beautiful dinosaur, and dinosaurs are protected species.

KoTeMoRe wrote:
If you check upwards in this thread, this is my original position, the swap will cost a lot for SOME advantages and it's nothing short of a self-inflicted wound. Especially if it is to kill both "foot-mobile" rounds (5..45/7.62 short/7.62R) it will recquire teething and will cost a lot. But this doesn't need to be an all in one.

Acheron wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:
The issue with the 9mm, is that it's cheap (the same story with 7.62/8mmR)n bar that the round has a lot of shortcomings. Massive energy bleed, fairly unpredictable wound patterns, prone to squibs, lack of actual lethality (to the point that people find out that cause of death while hit by 9mm Luger is usually a remote consequence of the shooting, not a direct cause of it. Up to 25% of fatalities after being shot by 9mm luger in Belgium, by police have been unrelated to the round actually wounding (10% cardiac arrests ...). It's funny how going "average" is seen as positive in this field. On the other side super hot rounds like the 7.62x25 go completely unoticed (while being arguably a far better offering). Same for 45 ACP, it's a shit round, but hits like a bulldozer, yet US Americans pray sweet Jebus to have it. The Czechs tested with the 9x21(before the Israelis). The Soviet Russians totally moded the round (hipress 7n2X family) to the point it's a different round.

Well, in terms of lethality, it has already been shown via autopsy that the 9mm parabellum is powerful enough to cause hydrostatic shock and organ hemorrhaging. So lethality is not a problem. The other contentious issue is energy bleed. A quick view of youtube penetrating tests of this round shows that although the accuracy from a pistol degrades significantly beyond 100m, the round goes right through ballistic gel and causes a lethal wound up to 200m if used from a pistol. Heck, if used with an elongated barrel, the round is lethal up to 400m. Hence, energy bleed is not an issue, especially for PDW/LEO requirements. Also, the round is not only affordable, but comes with a large variety of bullets and even has overpressurized cartridges. When it comes to military equipment, there is a certain kind of excellence inherent in something that manages to achieve a perfect balance of parameters and can thus be referred to as "average". AK and T-34 are the first things that come to mind.

1. Along with muscle tear and blunt trauma, but so do the .25/.22/.32
2. FBI test shown that but a fraction of the 9mm Lugers on the market can do that, usually "hot loads". Which tends to nullify the major advantage of the 9mm which is barrel lifespan.
3. Using elongated barrels (like in PDW's/SMG's etc is) already an escalation of force. And no it's not lethal up to 400m (that one I can testify myself, seeing people being shot by MP5A3's in the early 90's when storming the embassy area in Tirana, not a single dead, until the Guard started popping 7.62short on escapists).
4. T-34/AK are good or bad, not average. Generally bad ergonomics, but very good power retention and lethality. T-34 same thing, when it appeared it was OTT for most threats, yet it was also surpassed, yet the solutions it provoked, were a clear proof that the tank was good, not average. It became less lethal with the answers to it.

But here, we're talking cartdriges, which is more like ... fuel ;-).

I have to agree that the venerable 7.62x25mm tokarev round is amazing. However, there must have been a valid reason to dump it in favour of the 9x18mm Mak round, even though it was so widely used in WW2 and there were massive stocks of that ammo. Even though it had better ballistics, muzzle velocity and penetrating power, the tokarev round must have been deemed to have insufficient lethality in comparison to the parabellum/mak one.

It's just an economy of scale...nothing else. 7.62x25 is more lethal than some PDW rounds of late. Penetrates like a rapist on a girls' dorm, retains power easily up to 400m. BUT, costs more in the long run and in a western setup is a clear escalation of force for LEO.

KoTeMoRe wrote:
The current casing thickness, shape and flaring is the same since 1970's. And basically the walls are the same 'in thickness' since the damn Korean war. There have been specialized rounds for accuracy and clean shooting, but none is as spread statistically as the GPMG round. Fact is that it still costs a fortune to have 80's era "accurized" soft-casing rounds. There's also a limitation in the ammount of boom stuff you can cram in that casing. But as I told you, it's a beautiful dinosaur, and dinosaurs are protected species.

What can I say, if there is little demand, there is little supply and higher prices due to lower production runs. Capitalism baby. Also, how is the case capacity of 7.62x54mmR problematic? If I recall correctly, it surpasses the competing 7.62x51 NATO round (another cartridge that is going to be around for a while), so I don't see a problem in that.

Translated in propulsion it doesn't. And then again the 7.62 NATO is going "home alone, keeping only battle rifles for new coming countries and the GPMG family. It's already a strategical failure from that POV.

KoTeMoRe wrote:
If you check upwards in this thread, this is my original position, the swap will cost a lot for SOME advantages and it's nothing short of a self-inflicted wound. Especially if it is to kill both "foot-mobile" rounds (5..45/7.62 short/7.62R) it will recquire teething and will cost a lot. But this doesn't need to be an all in one.

I would go as far as to posit that it would be irresponsible, wasteful and highly inefficient to try to replace the above-mentioned three rounds by a single "unified" round, because the requirements of GPMGs, assault rifles and designated marksmen are vastly different. Heck, modifying the SVD to allow the use of the general purpose MG rounds was a large step at MG/marksmen unification, and it is still debatable whether such a move was successful or not.

KoTeMoRe wrote:
The problem is that the change is happening. LapMag is coming to town, and probably the 7.62R will go with the Mohicans for sniper duty. I suspect that there is the demand for another round at least for the RPK/SAW (RPK "replacement" tested shows configuration that looks ready to handle more than 5.45. So...

Acheron wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:
The problem is that the change is happening. LapMag is coming to town, and probably the 7.62R will go with the Mohicans for sniper duty. I suspect that there is the demand for another round at least for the RPK/SAW (RPK "replacement" tested shows configuration that looks ready to handle more than 5.45. So...

You might be a bit too optimistic and premature in regards to the "change" to LapMag. There is a huge difference b/w NATO militaries and LEOs of various countries. Most recent military sniper rifle developments (at least for NATO) have been utilizing the 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge, while 5.56 still remains popular for the designated marksman role. As long as 5.56/7.62 remain the baseline NATO cartridges required by STANAG, LapMag is not going to make any meaningful inroads into the military market.

KoTeMoRe wrote:
Mhh for sniper duty, the most prevalent choice, so far has been the LapMag. There have been some special calibres (.308 Win/ .300 WinMag)

US has gone LapMag/WinMag (even the last m24A2 systems have been put to rest with the A3, probably the only thing that was accurate in American Sniper).  
UK= LapMag.
France= Again LapMag.
Germans= .338

We can go and check, but as the sniping task is directed more and more above 1000m consistently, the need for a better round is indeed there. The 7.62 NATO is sliding to DMR role (something the Soviets/Russians already had).

NB: Sniper Duty, is a specialized role.

Acheron wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:
Mhh for sniper duty, the most prevalent choice, so far has been the LapMag. There have been some special calibres (.308 Win/ .300 WinMag)

US has gone LapMag/WinMag (even the last m24A2 systems have been put to rest with the A3, probably the only thing that was accurate in American Sniper).  
UK= LapMag.
France= Again LapMag.
Germans= .338

We can go and check, but as the sniping task is directed more and more above 1000m consistently, the need for a better round is indeed there. The 7.62 NATO is sliding to DMR role (something the Soviets/Russians already had).

NB: Sniper Duty, is a specialized role.

Well, it is apparent that there is a capability gap b/w 5.56/7.62 DMRs and the heavier .50 BMG SRs. It can be said that this capability gap is being progressively occupied by a number of rifles chambered for a number of cartridges, including the winmag and lapmag.
However, the vastly more numerous (and arguably with the most battlefield impact) "sniper rifles" in the military are the squad-level DMRs, which for most NATO states are chambered for 5.56x45mm (becoming less popular) or 7.62x51mm (becoming more popular) STANAG cartridges. These are not going to be replaced by rifles firing non-STANAG cartridges any time soon.

KoTeMoRe wrote:Looks like a Molot 308 dressed up for cash...Not bad.



But this is better ...