Russian Sniper Rifles and Units

First: the J-20 is not the only non-Us 5 gen plane in service. There are actually more J-20 in service that F-22 and production is at full swing.

Has never entered a combat zone though. Su-57 has been tested in a combat zone... and a combat zone with operational ex Soviet and current HATO air defence systems with HATO C4ISTAR systems trying to find it and kill it... which is something no other 5th gen stealth fighter has ever done before.

I totally disagree with you on the fact that 7,62x54mm is in any need of replacement as for now: modernization and upgrade, that for sure but the ammo in itself has still enough potential for getting them and surely it is not jeopardized by the introduction of new protective vests.

Not suggesting it is not effective, but its design needs updating... The T-90 has proven that the T-72 was a good design but that is no reason not to improve it cheaply (T-72 upgrades) or make new versions that eliminate problems but costs a little more (T-90AM), or from scratch new designs that try to solve fundamental flaws (T-14).

Being a rimmed cartridge creates problems in stacking in magazines and also in using in belt fed weapons.

One might argue that one of the reasons the PK is such a reliable machine gun is because it needs to withdraw the rounds backwards out of the belt and then push it forward into the chamber so dirt and dust often gets shaken off or dislodged before the round is chambered, but it does complicate the design compared with push through links with rimless ammo.

6x49mm would increase performance but it would still need a dedicated squad weapon, not so different from the PKM or PKP for weight and bulk.

If it works as advertised a 6x49mm calibre PKP or SVD could be made simpler and lighter and reach further with lower recoil but better accuracy and performance with smaller lighter ammo that can be carried in greater quantities. Belt ammo can be pushed through the belt straight into the chamber instead of having to be pulled backwards out and then pushed into the chamber. The design of the PKP could be simplified and the magazine of the SVD could be made larger without issues of locking rims.

6x41 seems me instead a golden medium between the 7,6x39mm (heavy bullet but slow) and the 5,45x39,5mm (fast but too light bullet).

It is certainly better than other intermediate cartridges, but would lack effect at distances greater than 1km, while the 6x49mm looks to extend effective range to 1.5km or so, which would be useful for a machine gun and a rifle.

I would treat the 6x49mm as a replacement for the older full calibre rifle round and the 6x41mm as a more powerful intermediate round, but I wonder if the 6x41mm has more recoil but also more performance than the rounds it is to replace perhaps doing the same with the 7.62x54mmR and 6x49mm round would mean going for a 9x70mm 338 Lapua magnum replacement.

I think the real issue is if, as we move forward are they going to add improved optics to things like machine guns... of course new sniper rifles will get them... such things can dramatically improve the effective shooting range of rifles and machine guns... especially with built in laser range finders and thermal or night vision components and ballistic computer elements which would improve the performance of the older weapons, but would make improved ammo even more effective because it allows the soldier to get more benefit from the improved accuracy and effective range.

Naturally, it could be that, in order to get all the potential of such a new calibre, a barrel longer than the actual 415mm would be needed.

It will be interesting to see stats collected from this conflict to see what distances soldiers are firing their weapons from and how effective they are. There has been a lot of footage of trench warfare, and some sniper stuff in built up areas, but actual stats would be interesting.

I think most soldiers wont be too interested in enemy soldiers 1.5km away most of the time, unless they are shooting at you and you want to return fire effectively, but in such cases does it make sense to burden every soldier with an SVD sized rifle?

This new 6x41mm round seems to be good out to about 500m and without optics I really don't think they will be shooting at targets that far... stats from previous wars suggests that 300m is still the benchmark for actually getting hits on enemy and in the article it tests armour penetration at 300m.

With extra barrel length from a LMG or DMR rifle it would probably be useful to 800-900m so a bit of extra range over the 5.45mm with optics.

If you look above at the energy and velocity of the rounds at 300m the 6x41mm stands out... it is just faster than the 5.45mm and in terms of energy it has almost double the energy of the other two rounds, for slightly more recoil, so at normal battlefield ranges it will have better armour penetration and that is what they were looking at in terms of AP performance.

Anyway, don’t think that new calibre is set in stone replacement.

No I don't, but Russia is not HATO and does not need anyones permission to use a special round of ammo... they have 9x21mm and 9x39mm and 12.7x55mm rounds in service as well as a few other specialist suppressed rounds too.

This new round is probably too close to the 5.45 x 39mm round to be widely used but hopefully it is designed to not fit into AK rifles and AK mags... except it would be useful if it did because then you can keep using AK mags, but not fitting into an 5.45mm AKs chamber would prevent problems because the bullet wont fit obviously.

A bit like trying to load 5.6x39mm into a 5.45 x 39mm rifles and mags... it would fit a 7.62x39mm mag I presume, and it probably should fire but would not work properly in an automatic rifle.

The problem with 7,62 is that you can’t doublestack them on mags. Not optimal for DMRs.

In terms of ballistics and performance it is a good round, but the antiquated shell case design lets it down in terms of magazines and belt feeds.

First, allow me to made a correction.
I've made a quick check, that confirmed that the standard magazines of SVD are indeed double-stacked.
They just need a little plus of attention and time during hand loading compared to normal rounds but it is nothing difficult, also because we are talking of a weapon destined to a marksman if not to a sniper, not to an ordinary conscript.

The biggest magazine I have ever seen for 7.62x54mmR is a 15 round mag for a WWII Simonov type rifle. The rims stick out a significant distance which makes large capacity magazines too curved to fit into normal webbing.

In fact it quickly becomes a drum which is what they tended to use for that calibre early on with the 47 and 60 round drums for the DP27/28 and DPM, and vehicle mounted DT and DA LMGs. Drums are noisy and difficult to carry in large volumes and quite heavy compared with stick mags or belts and are more expensive to make.

I would also add that conscripts did get issued with SVDs as they were issued to platoons to extend the effective shooting range of the group with the SVD and PKM and RPKs being used for that purpose.

In case of the Chukavin rifle 15 and 20 rounds magazines are available also, so no big deal here.

That is impressive but not ideal.

Obviously nothing against adopting an eventual batch of 6x49mm sniper rifles for spetznaz's use once they would be available but for standard units the actual SVDM and Chukavin are just ok.

A changeover would be expensive and time consuming and I don't think it would be a good idea to try to do during a conflict unless it was considered necessary... that lack of penetration or accuracy is leading to missed shots or failure to penetrate the targets being hit.

Well you have to first resolve the problem of the excessive wear of the barrel and after it to begun to design a fully new weapon from scratches.

Well the 6x49mm project is not new and they have had several weapons being used to test it based on the PK and SVD... I would say the obvious way to deal with excessive barrel wear in a high velocity rifle or machine gun is the same solution as used in cannons... a plastic driving band on the projectile that engages the rifling and reduces the friction and also the wear and increases the velocity of the projectile. They developed a special plastic for the job in cannons that actually increased muzzle velocity by about 10% because of the reduced friction. I am sure they could do the same with rifle calibre weapons. (note most cannon projectiles are made of relatively hard materials and so often they would use a copper driving band to actually engage the rifling and impart spin on the projectiles).

Another option might be fin stabilised rounds in a smoothbore barrel... not actually flechettes because their terminal performance is not good enough even if they are good for penetration. In fact they could use larger calibres like 7.62x39mm with a sabot round that is the new 6mm low drag projectile in this new round, the 7.62x39mm has quite a good large shell case for its length so plenty of room for extra powder. The 5.45x39mm in comparison is a much slimmer case with less powder room. The 6.004x41mm appears to be a longer 5.45 x 39mm case (2mm) and slightly larger calibre (0.45mm) and it looks slim too rather than fat like an old 7.62x39mm round would. They already mass produce the 7.62x39mm round so a sabot round with a smoothbore weapon with a 100 grain bullet that is 6.004mm calibre leaving the barrel at 800m/s like this new round does might achieve the same or perhaps even better performance using existing magazines. With the new propellant and the extra case capacity they might get 6x49mm performance from this new round.

Maybe a revised calibre allowing for a sabot or plastic banded projectiles, but I would think plastic banded projectiles would be ideal as the calibre has already been selected for low drag shape while combining the mass necessary to retain velocity in flight and also presumably retain terminal effects on target too.

Ironic that a 103 grain bullet is not that far off the 110-120 grain bullet some hunters use in .243 calibre rounds, which is a 7.62x51mm HATO (or 308 Winchester) round necked down to a smaller ~6mm bullet.

A popular light deer cartridge.

Infact , to get the advantages of the new ammo, you could not just adjust the existing MGs to the new caliber as they work in the pull and push loading mode, so basically almost one of the possible reason to prefer the new caliber is gone.

The thing is that the Russians seem to have set themselves the goal of replacing all their cold war stuff with new improved stuff and generally they have done that by applying as many upgrades to existing kit to make it as good as it can possibly be and that creates upgrades that can be applied during overhauls to improve things quickly without having to replace everything all at once... like the T-72 upgrades which are based on improvements applied to the T-90 to make it better, while in the background they are also working on fundamentally new stuff that is intended to eliminate the main flaws of what is being used... for instance eventually the T-14 might come in an unmanned version where no crews have to run the risk of being killed... but in the mean time the T-14 maximises protection and safety for the crew.

I would say a SVDM in the new calibre could be made rather lighter with the different ammo and the PKP could also be made lighter.... but more importantly their performance will improve... range, accuracy, hit probability, less recoil, and much lighter ammo.

The new weapons they are introducing all have rails for optics which will help their soldiers take advantage of the increased effective range.

If you look at the new sniper rifle to replace the SVD the reduced size rifle to fire the 6x41mm round looks quite a bit smaller... but of course a rifle in 6x49mm with presumably the new optimised powder should also be smaller than the 7.62x54mmR rifle and would not need the extra long barrels the original 6x49mm weapons had...

For example this is a folding bullpup 6x49mm sniper rifle based on the SVD:



And here it is folded:



Being a bullpup because it allows a very long barrel for a compact rifle, but even being a bullpup they thought it was still too long so they made it capable of folding.

There was also the normal versions of the SVD and SVDS... the latter to reduce length because of the long barrel:





And of course the PK version which has a built in telescopic sight to take advantage of the extra range and accuracy of the round:



If we put this next to this image of the PKT:



You can see the mechanism of the unified new machine gun using 6x49mm ammo is rather smaller and more compact, though the barrel length is bigger.

Note AFAIK the PKT actually has a longer barrel than the PK family because it was used to replace the SG43 machine gun which had replaced the drum fed DT machine gun. All use the same ammo but the SG43 used belt feed allowing more rounds to be fired before needing a reload, while the PKT was just a more modern machinegun that replaced the SG43.  AFAIK they extended the barrel of the PKT so its ballistics matched the SG43 so they didn't have to replace the optics used for the vehicle mounts.

I suspect modern coaxial mounts in their new vehicles use software based reticules using laser rangefinders and all weather optics with zoom lenses.

Using newer powders to improve the 6mm ammo types should improve performance significantly.

I seem to remember the specs for the 6x49mm were for a 120 grain bullet moving at about 1,250m/s or thereabouts at the muzzle.

So optical mounts would improve hit probability along with reduced recoil, flatter shooting rounds getting to the target faster.

All the work they have been doing on long range sniper rounds and perfecting projectiles shapes aerodynamically they might get further improvements in performance using new projectiles and new propellant.

I do think it is worth having two different rounds... a smaller lighter round for assault rifles and a heavier longer ranged round for a sniper or battle DMR rifle and machine gun. But improvements in bullet design and propellant means both could have longer effective ranges than existing rounds and also be cheaper to make and more effective in the field.

I would think a heavier rifle calibre round and machine gun might be interesting for coaxial weapons that had better reach and more power... perhaps based on the 9x70mm round. A vehicle would have the stabilised supported gun mount and the optics to be able to take advantage of the extended range it could be used over.

And no, I didn't think that a push only MG in 6x49mm, thus capable of a way greater ROF than the PKM, would end up weighting less than its own 7,5 kilos: just look at the weights of the otherwise excellent MG3 and MAG even if they use the less powerful and  more modern (but still lousy IMHO) .308Win.

The unified MG shown above is supposed to weigh 6.5kgs with its bipod and scope included... but every single belt of ammo is also going to be much lighter too so with every belt of ammo you carry for your main support gun is going to be lighter.

Above all it doesn't seem me that such a new weapon would do nothing to resolve the main shortcoming in the actual usage of the PKM/PKP
i.e. that when used as a squad level weapon it need to use a different caliber than the rest of squad.

They found the extra power and extra range of the PKP made it preferred over the RPK box mag fed weapons. As a support weapon it was also easier for other squad members to carry a few extra belts of ammo too... it is easier and lighter than magazines or drums.

Now part of that might be the belt feed which allows more rounds and longer bursts before it is time to reload, and the new RPL-20 will be interesting if they can take that into combat and test its use.... even just for shooting at air targets like drones where firing more than 30 rounds in a burst can make a difference. With a 30 round mag you might catch up to the target and just as you get to start to hit it you need to change mags... whereas with a belt feed you don't stop... or don't stop so often... and belts are lighter than boxes or drums.

Right now they have 5.45x39mm and 7.62x54mmR rounds and a recon unit might have AS and VSS rifles in 9x39mm too.

Having different calibres in a unit is only bad if your supply is compromised or incompetent... or confusing.

Using the right calibre for the job can make a difference.

Western forces are now adding 7.62x51 rifles and MGs to their 5.56mm platoons because experience in Afghanistan is that if you can't shoot a long way the enemy will take advantage of that and shoot from a long way away with PKs and SVDs. They might not be accurate at 900m but they can still get kills, whereas at 900m with 5.56 you are wasting your time no matter what barrel length you are using... and in Afghanistan and elsewhere US soldiers tended to prefer the M4 carbine rifles and the shorter barrels for the FN Minimis which also reduced their effective range. No barrel length would help the round at 800m plus though.

Using the 6x49mm instead of them do nothing on that regard a.t.c. almost in the case of motorized troops it actually make the problem even more severe: BMP and BTR actually carry PKT, so we would have three different calibers in the same squad...

The thing is that when they introduce the 6x49mm it will replace all 7.62x54mm R at once... actually with stabilised gun mounts and optics 6x49mm would probably be more of an improvement for vehicle mounted guns because they will be better able to take advantage of its extended range and increased ammo capacity because of the smaller lighter rounds.

Think instead how would be much more practical instead the idea of adopting the 6x41mm as an unified caliber for both the AK-22s (that would have to adopted anyway given that they consider actual 5,45x39mm to have exhausted its own possibility of further evolution) and TWO RPK for each squad instead of the single PKP+ ammo carrier as it is a.t.m.

I would think for most units that the lighter weapons like the RPL-20 that are belt fed but using the 6x41mm round to extend range and improve lethality... a faster moving bullet that is heavier is going to be more lethal at any range it hits and that a couple of RPL-20s and maybe an RPK-16 with replaceable barrels and 95 round drum mags would be much more potent as would the AK-22 over the AK-12 or AK-15 and RPK-74.

Belt fed machine guns generally distribute belts amongst the entire unit and when you stop you drop all your belts with the machine gunner team and then spread out and the extra fire power of the heavier calibre is useful, but if everyone is firing the same 6x41mm round I would think the fire power of that unit would be significantly increased because essentially everyone with an assault rifle will probably be able to kill enemy forces to 500m at least and possibly out to 800m.

A new sniper rifle in 6x49mm could probably hit group targets at 1.2km+

When the Soviets introduced SMGs in WWII on a large scale it created a serious fire power advantage for them in combat... so much so that the Germans were forced to create intermediate round assault rifles so they could fight from a distance where the effectiveness of the SMG fell away.

Combat didn't suddenly start to only happen at 300m, but 300m didn't fall from the sky either... if you think about it for a second 300m is about the right distance where most full calibre rifles can still hit targets, and assault rifles can do the same, but SMGs are no good and lose their advantage.

This means as a standard weapon you need a battle rifle or an assault rifle because a SMG would leave you vulnerable to someone armed with the other two weapons.

In close combat in a forest or urban area a SMG is just fine as the Soviets learned from the Fins before they started fighting the Germans.

I think 300m is a good rule of thumb because in real combat with iron sights and average ammo and an issued rifle you shouldn't really be firing at anything further away than that... for a start a target that far away is a tiny smudge.

Improved ammo and optical sights would let you hit targets further away, but body armour means you might be wasting your ammo anyway.... and telling him where you are...

The replacement for the 7.62x54mmR is probably more urgent because it focusses on range and power so the new round extends effective range while reducing ammo weight and size and weapon weight and size and also reducing recoil making hits easier.

I have several rifles in 7.62x54mmR and it is a good cartridge that is rather powerful and effective on any game I might hunt in New Zealand.

I have 1938 and 1944 Mosin carbines and I have a few 1891/30 rifles too. I bought an old worn out rusty M44 carbine I was going to use for parts... I paid $65 for it, but when I got it home and cleaned it up it was actually just fine so I had a suppressor put on it and a rifle scope and removed the bolt and put an angled bolt handle on it to allow for the scope mount. You can fire it without air protection but there is still a hint of a muzzle flash when you fire it...

Existing PKM and PKP could be re-utilized on a dedicated mounting on the roof of light vehicles and logistical trucks or in a dedicated MMG sections at battalion level, same as actually happen for the snipers.

When they decide to make the change it will take a while to meet the needs of their military and various police and other government forces and rear area units will likely continue to use these weapons for quite some time to come... they are not bad weapons, but they are due for replacement.

I suspect they are working on weapons of a new design to replace the existing types... it would be useful to test such things against real targets in real combat so special forces might get some of these things, but the key is their ability to supply things.

Of course half way up a mountain in Afghanistan you are hard to resupply if the enemy has stingers, but these days they could use supply drones and if the enemy want to waste stingers on those then they are welcome to...

After deciding they need better anti armour performance and developing this round (6x41mm) they might find they can get almost the same results with the 5.45mm round by changing the shape of the projectile... perhaps making it slightly narrower with a plastic driving band surface and the new propellant leading to increased bullet weight and increased velocity.

Of course if they do change to 6x41mm then they will need an underwater version as well like the underwater version of the 5.45x39mm underwater round used in the ADS rifle... but that is hardly a big problem.

In fact it might be interesting to look at an ADS version too, though it has the same 415mm barrel length as the AK-12 and presumably the AK-22.

The ADS is a very interesting weapon and its ejection port is forward so you can fire left or right handed without adjustment without getting hot brass thrown into your cheek, but as it blows the empty cases forward through a tube I would say it would not be compatible with 7.62x54mmR rounds so a DMR version would not make sense. With the 6x41mm and 6x49mm ammo however I would say it could be developed as a weapon bullpup family together with a belt fed version in both calibres...

Snipers

I mean: plastic bands, fleceettes , smoothbore barrel and so on, all things that could surely work and were actually tried before in some of the various US programs that ended regularly in nothing because the sum of added advantages they seemed to promise would not in any way overcome the huge economical and logistical nightmare of replacing the whole stock of existing ammos and of the weapons that used them.

I appreciate that, but Russia has also taken on the task of replacing Soviet equipment and systems with modern equipment and systems and that includes new firearms which could include new types of ammunition too... they certainly have not stopped working on more exotic ideas.

With the 6x41mm ammo the main driver was to optimise an intermediate round to have rather better armour penetration performance, and I suspect aerodynamic optimisation to extend the effective range of the ammunition.

This is because obviously against a peer enemy with body armour you need better penetrating ammo, but also with new rails and optics engaging targets at greater ranges is becoming possible too where a round with a longer reach becomes more practical.

Now, the point in which all our disagreement seem to reduce itself is the different evaluation of the relative urgence of replacing respectively the 7,62x39 and the 5,45x39mm on individual weapons and of the 7.62x54Rmm on the squad and vehicle's coaxial ones.

The issue is that shifting from one calibre to another is not something to be taken lightly and is expensive and complex and disruptive, but has been done before... after WWII they introduced the M1943 7.62x39mm round and in the mid 1970s they introduced a 5.45x39mm round to replace it.

Right now the military is essentially replacing the 9x18mm with 9x19mm and 9x21mm rounds... the former being SMGs and the latter the Boa pistol.

The 9x18mm was eventually replaced because it was considered to lack power especially as body armour becomes more common, so the solution of a more powerful round... an existing international cartridge (9x19mm) and a new round they developed for themselves (9x21mm) were suggested and both seem to have been adopted but adoption has been messy and haphazard because Makarovs are cheap and simple and available and pistols are not a vital small arm anyway.

When they introduced the 5.45 they didn't eliminate all 7.62x39mm overnight, what I suspect will probably happen is that if they want to introduce new rounds they will need to both produce the new weapons and also set up mass production for the new rounds, which is going to take time and money, but they are on the verge of introducing Ratnik 3 which may include the AK-22 and this new version of the Chukavins, and perhaps also the new belt fed LMGs. They might also introduce a new PKP in 6x49mm calibre but obviously they might need new technology or materials to be developed first.

Plus I would add that if you reject new ideas because the Americans have already tried it and it didn't work, well does the Russian Navy have to return their rocket propelled torpedoes and hypersonic anti ship missiles because the Americans failed to make working models?

America was trying to make super weapons... of course they failed.

Russia wants something with better penetration at combat ranges... look at the information released... the armour penetration stats are from 300m... not the 1,000m the Americans would be wanting them for.

Now, the point in which all our disagreement seem to reduce itself is the different evaluation of the relative urgence of replacing respectively the 7,62x39 and the 5,45x39mm on individual weapons and of the 7.62x54Rmm on the squad and vehicle's coaxial ones.

If there is one thing you should take away from the current conflict in Ukraine is that the Russian military looks at experience and develops solutions and implements those solutions to see if they are effective and if they are they become standard for production items... finding their small arms can see further than they can hit or don't hit hard enough has led to testing new rounds leading to the ideal solution being a 6x41mm round as a replacement for the 5.45x39mm.

This is perhaps a case like the PMM Makarov... the improved round designed with a lighter projectile moving at higher speeds under higher pressures was the solution but the solution could not be applied safely because the new round fitted old pistols and weapons and tended to damage them or not function properly so they kept using the old ammo which is now in the process of being replaced.

The question is, can the new powder be used in existing weapons to improve their performance, because if it is not safe then the risk of new ammo in old guns causing problems means a new calibre is in order that wont fit in the old guns.

Increasing the calibre from 5.45mm to 6mm ensures the new ammo will not chamber in old guns... is that why the calibre increased, or is it part of the aerodynamic optimisation that improves performance too.

The AK-22 has the same barrel length as the AK-12 so the improved acceleration is achieved at normal barrel lengths, would a bullpup or LMG with a longer barrel perform even better or is the round optimised for the barrel length of the AK-22?

to stand almost for another Long Duration Acquisition Programme (I mean with acquisition of new weapons chambered in it: Chukavins and Pechenegs) while I and more relevantly the Russian Armed Forces seems to concord on the fact that all individual weapon cartridges actually in use have exausted their own capability of further improvement.

If you watch the video I posted above you will see the Russian snipers are talking about using 308 winchester... 7.62x51mm HATO calibre ammo.

I would say they could probably introduce the 6x49mm as a new sniper round for use out to 1.2-1.5km... especially with the new propellant, but the superiority of the round over the old calibre should make the transition worth the time and money and effort... assuming they can solve the barrel wear issues... but as teh_beard already mentioned here... when you punch in the numbers for the 6x41mm you can't get the 800m/s performance they claim, so while 800m/s sounds ordinary, it is actually rather high given the other information, so if the 1.2km/s muzzle velocity of the 6x49mm is what they achieved with existing powder and extended barrel lengths shown with the experimental weapons, then perhaps with the new propellant they can achieve the same velocities from normal barrel lengths.

The thing is that the new round deserves new weapons to take advantage of the chances the new calibre introduces... so if you look at the sniper rifle:



If you look at that image, just changing the calibre from 7.62x54mmR to 6x41mm, you would end up with a big heavy rifle for an assault rifle cartridge.

The question is... could you use the more powerful 6x49mm in the smaller rifle... would it work OK in the larger rifle or would you need something in between?

Looking at the modified PK I would say for the machine gun it makes sense to redesign the weapon to take advantage of the new round to make the weapon lighter and simpler, but does that apply to other 7.62x54mmR weapons?

Now, one thing make me wonder is that you have cited all possible cartridges as possible of amelioration EXCEPT the 7,62x54Rmm itself, so what eactly make you so contrary to it?

It is two centuries old. It is heavy and not a modern cartridge... but then of course maybe a plastic cased 6x49mm could be looked at too.

I earnestly consider it a great cartridge instead, way superior to the 7,62 NATO as it is more powerful but weight less (thanks to the rim) and perfectly practical IN THE ROLES AND WITH THE WEAPONS IN WHICH IT IS ACTUALLY USED by russian military i.e. with no any intention of put it, even in a modernized version or the 6x49mm in a battle rifle for line infantry...that's is what the US is actually trying to do mutatis mutandis with its XM-7 program.

It is not perfect and the 6x49mm was developed to replace it with something smaller and lighter and cheaper (eventually) and with higher muzzle velocity flatter shooting greater point blank range, with longer effective shooting range.

Now, the introduction of and the 6x41mm could permit them to reverse such decision with sufficient ease (replacing a single PKM/PKP with two RPL-20 in such caliber and the AK-74 with the AK-22) in a PROGRESSIVE WAY, replacing all the weapon actually in 7,62R at once would instead not resolve the problem of the individual weapons and create instead the feared logistical nightmare.

It depends on what you consider to be wrong with the individual weapons... I would say the introduction of optics and body armour mean existing weapons lack effective armour penetration and effective accurate range so these two modernised rounds optimised low drag bullets to maintain velocity to extended ranges should be ideal.

When they phase in their new Ratnik 3 system would be a good time to also introduce the AK-22 and RPL-22 and also the PKP in 6x49mm calibre.

I would think special forces can try operational testing of the gear and the weapons where the improved performance might be more obvious... new optical sights able to record combat footage for evaluation would be an interesting new testing tool.

Sorry, I have cut your answer to not overcrowd the thread.

Would have just been easier to delete it...

It seems me that we are much more closer now or almost we have explained each one better and found that the disagreement points between us are much less that it would appear initially.

There is simply not enough information available to say I am right and you are wrong or you are right and I am wrong... both of us are bringing up important considerations and factors that are important and matter, but there is information we don't have.

For instance if their new super powder can achieve such amazing performance from existing rifle barrel lengths as we see with the AK-22, then can we assume the same powder applied to the 6x49 might not only improve its performance... say 1.3km/s muzzle velocities with 120 grain bullets... perhaps achieved from existing barrel lengths rather than the extended models shown for the prototype weapons used for the original rounds... and of course other technologies like plastic cased rounds and plastic driving bands.. perhaps even tiny fins on the bullet tips to induce a slow roll for the bullet with smoothbore barrels for higher muzzle velocities... all sorts of technologies.

One video I saw of Flechette testing showed that the sabots were dangerous out to hundreds of metres so firing at targets meant you could not have any friendlies in front of you at all, but modern low density super light sabots that might disintegrate to powder as the round exits the barrel might solve that problem and of course double or triple thickness projectiles so their terminal performance is more like bullets than needles...

I am so looking forward to see what they reveal with Ratnik III, or it might take till Ratnik 4...

Ironically replacing all the Soviet Stuff the 7.62x54mmR rounds are both Rimmed and Russian...

It might be that the new aerodynamics for the bullets and the new propellant can be applied to the 5.45mm round so existing rifles and magazines can be used even if it doesn't quite have the performance of the AK-22 with 6x41mm rounds, but with the 7.62x54mmR the aerodynamic changes would be difficult to achieve with that calibre so even with new propellant boosting speed to much higher levels the aerodynamic shape would mean it would dump that speed rapidly and by about 1km range would probably not be hugely better off than current 7.62mm bullets.

In terms of range for small calibres you need needles to retain speed, and as you increase calibre then you get range from weight better than from reduced calibre... which is why 30mm cannon shells have better range against targets than 23mm cannon shells because the increased weight allows the shell to push through the air more efficiently so it maintains speed for longer than a smaller caliber lighter shell does.

Just one point: some american programs led to faulty weapons but in most case what determined their own downfall was the operational and logistical aspect of the question i.e. the advantages afforded by a new  weapon or caliber were not nearly enough to justify the cost associated with dumping all the old models.

Agree, but equally in the case of the Sheridan and I think the M60A2 with the 152mm main gun and the Shilleighlah (spelling) GLATGM it would have been better if they had cancelled it... they made the mistake of designing the missile first and then designing the gun around the missile leading to a terrible gun with awful ballistics and a missile that has never been successfully used in combat for the several decades and multiple conflicts it has been used in. Cancelling it would have prevented the need to make 152mm shells that no other vehicle uses, and while impressive on paper the missile was super expensive and never really worked and could easily be replaced by an M113 vehicle carrying TOW missiles which are slower but much cheaper and rather more effective in practise if not on paper.

I would add that they made the same mistake again more recently when trying to make a super gun for the navy to replace cruise missiles.

In comparison the Soviets decided they didn't want to make a super tank that relied on missiles (IT-1 and IT-2), what they ended up designing was a missile that could be fired through existing tank calibre barrels, which limited the performance of the missiles but also led to rather more practical missiles that improved over time to offer unique capabilities including anti helicopter use. The west had a fine time claiming they developed the missiles because their guns were inaccurate, but when the target is 5+km away accuracy has nothing to do with it... when you are moving and the target is moving firing at 5km + distances any change in speed by either gun platform or target will mean a miss if your gun is accurate. Ironically if your gun is inaccurate then your miss might accidentally hit the target, so the target gets hit because it is not where the gun was aimed to hit. Only a guided weapon can efficiently hit a moving target that is actively evading getting hit... because any moves after being fired can be compensated for in flight so a hit is still achieved.

Russia is big enough that 5.45mm rifles and machine guns and ammo could continue to be produced... I am sure in Africa and Asia and Central and South America there will be demand for the 5.45mm ammo and the 7.62x54mmR ammo is still effective and cheap.

As I have hinted in my previous post it seems me that they have placed the major hurdle along their own road all by themselves, never accepting the idea that it was perfecty possible to use different ammo calibers almost at platoon if not even at squad level like instead the Soviets have done smoothly with the PKM already at the end of the sixties.

This idea that everyone in the unit uses the same ammo is a misleading goal simply because you will have guys with rifles with full power rounds and guys with a light rifle and an intermediate round and guys with SMGs with a pistol round and of course guys with pistols using pistol rounds.

At the end of WWII the US ruined the potential for assault rifles by demanding conformity to their new 7.62x51mm rifle round and it took them going up against AKs in 7.62x39mm and also their own experience with lighter 5.56x45mm ammo to realise assault rifle calibres make sense too.

All the bullshit that went into that is hilarious with Belgium getting screwed multiple times by different countries...

Now, the 6x41mm fit my taste as it seems me that to solve about all the problems in one leap: individual weapon, marksman rifle, squad or even section automatic weapon, all built by just modifying the caliber of already standard issue weapon (or relying on them like in the case of the mini-Chuka).

That is probably where we disagree, the 6x41mm is not a universal round, and neither is the 6x49mm. The 6x49mm was intended to replace the 7.62x54mmR rounds in rifles and machine guns, so in a 1980s unit in Afghanistan the PK and SVD would be 6x49mm and the AKS-74U, AKS-74, and RPK-74 would remain in 5.45x39mm because most Muj didn't have body armour.

Today they would want to replace both rounds because the 5.45mm is coming up short against body armour and its performance trails off before the new rifles capacity to hit targets trails off with decent optics.

The new 6x41mm round means if you can see it you have a chance of hitting it and killing it, that chart showing energy and muzzle velocity presumably refers to the AK-22, so the RPL-22 and a new DMR rifle in the SVCh rifle. The SVCh is a DMR rifle rather than a sniper rifle... it is a rifle you give to the soldiers in your platoon who really know how to shoot so that will allow them to shoot further and more accurately than they would if they had an AK-12.

To be clear even giving a sniper rifle to your average soldier wont mean he will be a sniper and certainly wont make him a better shot.

In this situation AK-22s and RPL-22s and SVCh-6.41 rifles makes sense because they all have the same ammo type, though the SVCh-6.41 will obviously be issued with selected ammo types... probably including armour piercing incendiary types... now this squad should be able to deal with targets out to 800m, but adding a PKP-6.49 you extend the engagement range considerably to 1.5km plus and he can hit harder too. The burden of carrying two different ammo types is not that excessive, and the PKP-6.49 will not only be 1kg lighter than a PKP, but every belt you carry is going to be rather lighter too.

On the modern battlefield you can have aerial and ground drones delivering more ammo as needed to forward deployed units and logistically they seem to be doing very well considering they ran out of shells and missiles 3 months into this conflict.

Note the SVCh already comes in 7.62x54R and 7.62x51mm HATO, and the SVCh-8.6 is in 338 Lapua Magnum calibre, so for Russian use the 6.49, 7.62.54 and 8.6.70 versions of this rifle can be considered sniper versions while the 6x41mm model can be a DMR to use with troops also using the 6x41mm ammo.

Ammo itself seems me to be a solid choice, made without pushing performances so absurdly high to require the application of "exotic" modifications to the ammo or the weapon itself to made it work like in the case of 6x49mm of even worse the .277 Fury (an ammo more powerful of the .308Win fired from a 330mm barrel...Seriously WTFH????).

The 6x49mm ammo is not new... it has been worked on for a long period of time and it has only been relatively recently that the Russians have really considered very long range sniping calibres... it was something they completely neglected, but have now gotten the bug.

Personally if I wanted to kill someone 8km away I would use a Kornet-EM... at about $5K per missile it probably wouldn't be expensive compared with the cost of training a sniper and of course the cost of the special optics and special rifle and special ammo to shoot at someone quarter that distance... you could get most soldiers to set up and aim a Kornet-EM and launch a missile to hit a vehicle or room your target is in... but then again I do like shooting things at excessive ranges.

It is much cheaper to use a 22lr on a 300-400m range than a $20K rifle with bullets that cost $30 each at 2km or more... the challenge is the same... but it is much cheaper the way I do it.  

So to recap I don't think they can replace both their current calibres with one calibre... the 6x41mm is double the bullet weight of the 5.45mm and 80% the bullet weight of the 7.62x39mm, but it is two thirds the weight of a decent 7.62x54mm round at a lower muzzle velocity.

I think the improvements from the 6x41mm might be able to be transferred to the 5.45mm like bullet shape and construction and powder types which have clearly been massively improved... obviously it wont achieve the same performance as the 6x41mm but it will be better... it is sort of like the T-72BM3 compared with the T-90AM, while the 6x49mm is the T-14... because the T-14 is not going to be their only tank vehicle moving forward because their will be the B-14 and K-14 and Typhoon-14 and the DT-30-14 as well as the Sprut light tracked tank... these other tanks will be lighter and cheaper and more mobile but with the same firepower.

I just looked again at an old article talking about hypersonic bullets and it mentioned that "gun powder" is replaced by chemicals that are rather different to achieve those sorts of velocities... hypersonic being mach 5 and above so they were talking about bullets moving at between 1.5km to 2km per second.

Regarding the bullet performance I would agree that a large part of the 6x41mms performance comes from its aerodynamics where the rate at which is slows down is dramatically slower than more conventional bullets and is probably derived from their work on super long range sniper ammo.

Having said that the initial velocity is rather important... the most aerodynamic shape in the world only improves your ability to maintain speed so the faster you can launch such a projectile the more range it will achieve.

They tested several rounds during the original testing and the 6x41mm worked out best, and the comparison with the 5.45 and 7.62x39mm rounds is used to show the improvement in performance, but really I would say the curves would likely be consistent so if you wanted a more effective 5.45mm round then using that new propellant would certainly boost performance, but using a similar projectile would actually change the curve of the energy/velocity loss which would make the existing rounds more competitive.

The 6x41mm is faster than the 7.62x39mm but also lighter, while the 5.45mm is a lighter bullet and faster muzzle velocity but because of the better shape and weight of the 6mm round at various distances the difference becomes more apparent with the greater the distance the better the 6mm performs compared with the other calibres.

Speed increases drag, so the higher the muzzle velocity the higher the drag... you reduce the effect of drag with a smaller cross section and also with extra mass/weight.

So a smaller calibre round will have a narrower cross section and the longer the bullet the more weight the bullet has the more energy it has to push aside the air in front of it without slowing it down so much.

Now, the 6x41mm fit my taste as it seems me that to solve about all the problems in one leap: individual weapon, marksman rifle, squad or even section automatic weapon, all built by just modifying the caliber of already standard issue weapon (or relying on them like in the case of the mini-Chuka).

The problem might be the propellant which might be rather more exotic and require some investment to get it into production.

Also in a DMR rifle remember this new round does not really replace 7.62x54mm fully.

I would think a platoon armed with AK-22s and RPL-20s in 6x41mm would be a boost in performance, but I think adding Chukas and a PKP in the same new design of the unified machine gun in 6x49mm would boost all round performance to a greater degree.

I suspect all their new ammo will use new more aerodynamic ammo and new powders to achieve higher muzzle velocities without needing long barrels, and I would also think that the new projectiles for the 6x41mm could also be used in the 6x49mm but perhaps slightly longer and slightly heavier.

I think the current 6x41mm round is about 103 grain and the 6x49mm round was about 120 grain.

I suspect they are on the verge of introducing a range of new weapons (including the Chuka and AK-12 and RPL-20 based weapons), so I would think it would be a good opportunity to look at changing calibres at the same time.

Some of the new weapons have changeable barrels so for a LMG like the RPK-16 you can mount a short barrel or a long barrel... how hard would it be to design bolt heads and barrels to allow changing calibres and using rounds specifically designed not to be compatible in a dangerous way.

The 6x49mm seems to have a rather larger propellant case and would not chamber in a 5.45mm or 6x41mm chamber, while the 6x41 and 5,45x39mm rounds would go into the 6x49mm chamber but the firing pin is very unlikely to make contact with the primer because these rounds are too short for the larger chamber of the 6x49mm chamber.

It sounds to me from teh_beard that they don't make (civilian?) small arms propellant in Russia any more and import most of it presumably from China so setting up production of new propellant might free up the military production facilities to make powder for sporting use in Russia while newly made facilities working on new chemical combinations for new military ammo could set up and start mass production... I suspect they will transition over a period of time with special forces and high readiness troops getting the new ammo and weapons first... well troops in the Ukraine conflict already have AK-12s, so that already happens...

The straighter sided magazines are going to be much better for bullpups like the ADS in both calibres...

Or it might be that optimised bullet shape and increased bullet weight with new propellant in existing calibres might be a better solution.

The 5.45 already has a long aerodynamically efficient bullet, but improving it further and boosting muzzle velocity might make it good enough.

Equally they might decide the new propellant could be adapted to be used in a caseless round that is even lighter and cheaper...

It is going to be fun to see what they end up moving forward with.

To be fair the Barrett was designed as an anti material rifle and in 50 cal it was intended to shoot at light vehicles with the intention of stopping them... shooting out tires or engines or both, so it was certainly never intended to be used at 1.5-2km range

The PTRS-41 and PTRD-41 were used in a similar fashion after tank armour got too heavy to expect a rifle calibre weapon to be effective.

They are all intended to be used at short to medium range against vehicles.