Russian Assault Rifles/Carbines/Machine Guns Thread: #2

What would be really nice is a high efficiency sound loudener for the PTRS and PTRD anti tank rifles or beter yet the gloriously absurd RES with all of its 70mm of armor penetration.

Pistols generally are not much use except for very close in self defence... it is a knife which can outreach any knife.

A pistol is better than a knife, but most people are rather surprised how much more effective a knife is over fists... knives should not be under estimated...

But a SMG is vastly better than a pistol... and an assault rifle means you can kill targets out to about the distance you would probably be able to see them.

A bolt action or semi auto full calibre rifle is probably more powerful than you need normally unless the target is big and heavy in which case pistol bullets and low power assault rifle bullets can't penetrate deep enough to do any serious damage on heavy targets.

The choice of the correct bullet and the correct calibre and firearm can make an enormous difference.

My uncle passed away a few years ago and he left me his mauser action 270... the Swedish company who made it now make Lawn mowers and gardening equipment.

My favourite rifle is probably my 1938 Mosin carbine, but the muzzle blast and muzzle flash is pretty fierce...

I bought a 44 carbine that was in terrible condition for parts that I ended up putting a suppressor on and it is excellent... you can safely fire it without ear protection and it is much more comfortable to fire.

Russian intelligence officers tested silent rifles at a record distance

During the exercise, Russian military intelligence officers tested the Val and Vintorez silent special rifles. They confirmed the effectiveness of the weapon at a distance of over 1 km with a declared firing range of no more than 450 m, said the state corporation "Rostec" on Saturday, November 6.

The Val automatic machine and the Vintorez sniper rifle, developed by TsNIItochmash (part of Rostec), proved the possibility of hitting targets at distances significantly exceeding the parameters set in the tactical and technical characteristics. During the exercise, the servicemen confidently hit targets at a distance of over 1 km, while usually this weapon is used "shortly" - within 450 m, "Rostec experts said in an interview with RIA Novosti .

Integrated large-size silent firing devices and a 9x39 mm cartridge with a subsonic bullet velocity provide twice the advantages of a weapon when firing at long distances in comparison with its counterparts. Special "silencers" of rifles trap most of the powder gases that are formed during firing, so the bullet in flight does not pass the sound barrier and does not create a harsh sound. The volume of a shot in an open space is comparable to a strong hand clap.

“The capabilities of Val and Vintorez really make it possible to successfully hit targets at ranges that are significantly, two times higher than the official tactical and technical characteristics of products,” added Bekkhan Ozdoev, industrial director of the Rostec weapons complex.

https://iz-ru.translate.goog/1245942/2021-11-06/rossiiskie-razvedchiki-ispytali-besshumnye-vintovki-na-rekordnoi-distantcii?_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=nui

They confirmed the effectiveness of the weapon at a distance of over 1 km with a declared firing range of no more than 450 m, said the state corporation "Rostec" on Saturday, November 6.

That is astounding. A subsonic 9mm round that can reach to 400m is not really believed in the west, but over 1km range....

Vladimir Onokoy stated in an article that the reason AK-107 failed the trials and dropped from the ratnik program is a result of "The massive recoil from the GP-25 underbarrel grenade launcher that was too much to handle for the balanced recoil system, the gears and rods would stop dead in their tracks because of the recoil impulse. Consequently, AK-107 was quickly removed from the trials and the time of the AK-12 has come".

The odd thing is that the A-545/762 assault rifle use similar balanced recoil system and yet it was accepted to service in the Russian SF.



Vladimir Onokoy is a Russian defense industry specialist and firearms instructor.

That really does not make sense because the barrel is fixed so the point where the grenade launcher is attached does not recoil independently from the rest of the gun.

The AN-94 has a recoiling barrel and it can use an underbarrel grenade launcher without problems, it does not really make sense that these weapons couldn't.

These balanced recoil weapons are not new and versions were put forward in competitions against the AK-74 and AN-94 so it is not like they wouldn't have been tested using not just under barrel grenade launchers but also muzzle launched grenades too.

Just sounds odd.

Has anyone learned anything more about the new underbarrel grenade launchers and grenades?

Is there any advantage for the Kord 12.7 mm against 14.5 mm HMG?

AJ-47 wrote:Is there any advantage for the Kord 12.7 mm against 14.5 mm HMG?

Kord is lighter & can be carried by soldiers on foot. It doesn't requires fixed mount to shoot as recoil is manageable. Heck you can even fire it from your hip if you are strong  

It is probably also more accurate and lighter.

The Soviets tended to use the 14.5mm as an anti aircraft gun and as a sort of 20mm cannon substitute.

Compared with a 20mm cannon the 14.5mm had better armour penetration with its high velocity, but its projectiles are smaller so its HE rounds are less effective.

There is a South African anti material rifle that uses a 20mm barrel for firing HE rounds to damage soft targets out to about 1.6km and a 14.5mm barrel to penetrate armour out to about 2.5km or so.

Kord seems to be a very good replacement for Uytes, which was made in the Ukraine...

The Russians carry the Kord around as an infantry support weapon, while western countries tend to use their 50 cals on vehicle mounts mostly.

thank you, but if I'll mount it on a tank or IFV is there any advantage for performance?
I think the 14.5 has much better performance but it seems that the Kord is more popular way is that?

Smaller rounds, more rounds, cheaper rounds, more rounds can be found in captured enemy position, more units use that rounds.

14.5 must be rare since it is mounted on some vehicules and you rely on supply to get ammo which may be critical on the front since supplies can't always come asap.

The 14.5mm has twice the muzzle energy of the 12.7mm.... but also more powder and more recoil and more muzzle flash.

Put a bipod on Kord and two men can run around with it with more carrying ammo.

With the 14.5mm you need a towed platform like the ZU-23-2 to make it mobile.

On many targets like humans, both are massive overkill, but shooting at humans behind baracades or inside brick buildings behind a few sand bags where they think they are safe and the 14.5 and 12.7mm can surprise.

Neither round is big enough for a very useful HE projectile but for that sort of thing a grenade launcher 30mm or 40mm makes more sense anyway.

The KPV 14.5mm HMG is about 50kgs, while the Kord is half that weight, making it rather more practical to carry.

I understand the advantage of a lighter gun, but I will use it on IFV and in urban areas and the one that I want to compare it to be the M-197 20mm Gatling gun.
The ROF will be close the effect on the target will be close and I want to use the RCWS called Keskin and I will keep the ammo behind the turret so I don’t need the big box.
I’m flying to Israel soon but when I get there I might translate what I right to English so we can talk more about it.

So if that is the case then can I suggest you also think about the 23 x 115mm round... very similar dimensions (ie compact ammo ), but the 23mm calibre means a wider tube so better HE performance (better than 20mm) and if you want lighter shells you can have high velocity armour piercing even more powerful potentially than the 14.5mm round.

The 23mm round is designed for a heavy and powerful HE round so its muzzle velocity is about 700m/s, but if you put very light weight projectiles like APFSDS darts then you can get higher velocities than western 20mm cannon.

The issue with Soviet and Russian 23mm cannon is that they are belt fed single feed guns so if you load armour piercing and HE in the same belt they have to have the same trajectory otherwise you wont hit anything.

Armour piercing benefits from compact hard and for their size heavy projectiles moving at very high speeds, while HE round benefit from max weight projectiles where velocity is not important at all.

If you mixed light dart penetrators with heavy HE rounds on the same belt one type of ammo will go to point of aim while the other round would always completely miss the target at any range.

Current rounds for the gun are a compromise where the weight of the HE round is matched to the APHE round and they both move at similar velocities so they both go to point of aim.

Being an air to air gun that is fine because aircraft armour is not heavy enough to require serious penetration, and the more HE you can put in the round the more effective it is on aircraft.

For a ground based RCWS I would actually develop a new gun... perhaps based on the 2A42 with dual feed for APFSDS rounds and HE Frag rounds. You might want some already used armour piercing rounds and use them on the same belt feed as the HE Frag rounds, and have the APFSDS rounds on a separate belt for heavy targets like IFVs and tanks from the side.

The 23 x 115mm is a very low recoil gun that was optimised for heavy projectiles and very high rates of fire in twin barrel cannon.

It was intended to be fired in very short bursts to shower the point of aim with lethal bombs like a shotgun firing cluster bomblets... it meant if your aim was not perfect or the target was manouvering hard you still had a good chance of hitting them with something... and the ammo was lighter and smaller and more compact than 30mm ammo.

Thanks for your answer; My main interest is fighting in urban areas, tranches and this kind of fighting, on half of the F.V I will have HMG and the other half I will have the 40mm Balkan. I think the 23X115 will be to powerful and too high ROF.
I like the Balkan, for its powerful HE and I like the 14.5 for is better range and effect on the target than the Kord.

AJ

It really depends on how much "pull" you have but there is a KPVB that fires the 23 x 115mm round... if you had an open chequebook then developing a single barrel KPVB in 23 x 115mm calibre would mean it does not have the ridiculous rate of fire of the twin barrel 23mm gun they use in the current model Hind, but if you make it a dual feed system then you could use existing HE and AP rounds on one belt when firing at soft targets and also soft targets behind light cover, and most unarmoured vehicles, but also develop an APFSDS round for light armoured vehicles.

The 23 x 115mm is bigger than a 14.5mm round... the 14.5mm round has double the energy of the 12.7mm, which means a SLAP round for the 14.5mm would be rather impressive and some sort of slap round for the 23mm round would be even better... the APFSDS round for the US Vulcan gatling on the Phalanx system is a 50 calibre slug of DU from a 20mm barrel so a SLAP round for the 23 x 115mm could be heavier and moving rather faster...

The KPVB is just a KPV in the larger calibre so it is a 600rpm gun.

Interestingly the GSh-23-2 has a very high rate of fire (50-55 rounds per second) but in restricted bursts of 5-10 rounds that means the shells are delivered in clouds rather than a stream, and the shells land like clusterbombs all around the point of aim that is devastating against moving targets and soft targets.

The compact ammo means you could carry a lot more ready to use ammo than with another ammo type like the high velocity 23mm ammo used by anti aircraft guns like Shilka and the ZU-23-2 (23 x 152mm), or the anti armour 30 x 165mm ammo that has been standardised in the Russian military.

I like the Balkan, for its powerful HE and I like the 14.5 for is better range and effect on the target than the Kord.

I have to agree that an automatic grenade launcher is vastly superior to rifle calibre and even heavy calibre machine guns at ranges out to 2.5km... landing grenades amongst the enemy position will lead to casualties with grenades whereas even HE rounds in HMG calibre lack a decent effective radius of damage so you would have to almost hit your target to get good results.

Firing a volley of grenades at a group target 2km away is very effective, where as firing a burst of rifle calibre machine gun fire is literally hit and miss... mostly miss.

The bulk of the ammo counts against it, but I think 300-500 grenades is more useful than 2,000 rounds of rifle calibre ammo.

Having modular mounts where you can replace weapons and weapon feeds as required per mission would probably the best solution I would think... the 23mm light cannon round is certainly attractive as a high velocity low payload grenade launcher.

To a degree I would agree, but the 14.5mm HMG is the Soviet equivalent of the 50 cal browning round with SLAP ammo but with better effect at medium range.

If you were to deploy a decent SLAP round for the 14.5mm round then it would be significantly better than any 50 cal equivalent.

The Europeans made a 15mm calibre anti material rifle which was essentially the 14.5mm necked out to 15.2mm that was a smoothbore I believe and could penetrate 40mm of armour at 1km range using a 300 gramme dart projectile moving at about 1.5km/s... bullet drop at 1km was about 80cm.

It failed because it was a new ammo type, but they could have simply used actual 14.5mm shell cases and use conventional rounds for MG use and these special rounds for AMR use.

Doing the same with a 23 x 115mm round would be interesting too... longer heavier projectile probably moving faster would achieve better results out to greater distances...

After we saw some of the problems that the Russian army has in Ukraine, Israel, that will face those problems too, needs to find solution to those problems and this are my ideas about how to do that. There are 2 problems (there are much more) but those 2 are important to Russia and Israel.

1. The lack of fourth crew member in the tank reduces the ability of the crew in the tank to fight against enemy infantry and also a lack of ability to see the surrounding area and act accordingly.

2. The lack of tanks and BMPs to fight various types of flying objects and in particular attacking drones is a similar problem that Israel has too. Although there are 4 crew members in the Israeli tanks, which is better than three, but in my opinion, more needs to be done, and I have 2 ideas on how to deal with the problems:

1. The partner of the tank is not the APC but the Fighting Vehicle (FV) which is for example an upgraded BMP-3 that will have 3 crew members and there will be no foot soldiers, we will replace its turret with the turret called A.U-220M with a 57 mm cannon and coaxial machine gun.
Behind the turret we will install a Modular Combat Unit that will be operated by Artificial Intelligence (AI) without human help. The MCU consists of a large ammunition box and two autonomous RWS in which each RWS is equipped with a 14.5 mm heavy machine gun and a 7.62 mm machine gun. These RWSs will provide protection for the vehicle for a distance of up to 3 km and will ensure that infantry squads carrying rockets and short-range anti-tank missiles will be destroyed by the MCU, which will be activated automatically and autonomously without human help against any threat to the vehicle. The Artificial Intelligence (AI) will activate means of vision to see in day or night.

2. On the turret of the BMP-3 we will install mini turret similar to the turret called 'Kliver' but unmanned and in it will be installed a 30 mm 2A42 cannon and coaxial machine gun. In addition it will have 4 anti-tank launchers that can be replaced with 70mm rocket launchers guided to a laser spot or 80 mm rockets or thermobaric rockets with a diameter of 90 mm. All these systems can also be installed on Fighting Vehicles, on tanks and on APCs. This is in my opinion in short and tart’s way I have all this questions about the Heavy Machine Gun and about the 40 mm AGL ’Balkan’.

1. The lack of fourth crew member in the tank reduces the ability of the crew in the tank to fight against enemy infantry and also a lack of ability to see the surrounding area and act accordingly.

By definition that is solved with the BMPT a vehicle with tank level protection optimised for engaging enemy infantry. (it is armed a bit like an IFV but with less emphasis on anti armour capability because it will operate with tanks so any enemy IFVs will be taken down by the tanks).

Visibility around the tanks is also solved with the T-14 and the new armour vehicles which incorporate third gen thermal and digital cameras as part of their APS systems together with radar sensors to detect movement should give excellent 360 degree awareness of what is near the tank.

2. The lack of tanks and BMPs to fight various types of flying objects and in particular attacking drones is a similar problem that Israel has too. Although there are 4 crew members in the Israeli tanks, which is better than three, but in my opinion, more needs to be done, and I have 2 ideas on how to deal with the problems:

The new Russian vehicles will have 57mm guns with airburst rounds which should be excellent for hitting enemy drones in flight... 30mm airburst rounds would also be useful in the role because of their elevation and airburst command detonation shells being relatively cheap too.

In addition to this they will also carry Bulat ATGMs which are half the size of Kornet but laser beam riding and optically aimed so RCS and IR signature are not issues for small highly manouverable drones... HE models with frag warheads would be ideal and cheaper than using Kornets due to smaller size and capacity to carry and launch four times more (the Bulat is launched from a launcher similar to the four tube Kornet launcher but holds 8 ready to fire missiles instead of four).

1. The partner of the tank is not the APC but the Fighting Vehicle (FV) which is for example an upgraded BMP-3 that will have 3 crew members and there will be no foot soldiers, we will replace its turret with the turret called A.U-220M with a 57 mm cannon and coaxial machine gun.

Congrats, you just invented the BMPT with the B-19 armament.

The MCU consists of a large ammunition box and two autonomous RWS in which each RWS is equipped with a 14.5 mm heavy machine gun and a 7.62 mm machine gun. These RWSs will provide protection for the vehicle for a distance of up to 3 km and will ensure that infantry squads carrying rockets and short-range anti-tank missiles will be destroyed by the MCU, which will be activated automatically and autonomously without human help against any threat to the vehicle. The Artificial Intelligence (AI) will activate means of vision to see in day or night.

That is interesting but small manouvering targets will be difficult to hit with non air bursting rounds, the Russian solution is a new generation of tiny SAM intended for short range with a 10kg missile with a powerful 3kg warhead and precise ARH guidance for direct hits on targets to set off incoming artillery shells and rocket artillery in volume. These tiny missiles will be carried in their hundreds by specialist vehicles used to protect convoys and armour formations... a bit like TOR but its shorter range might require it to operate within armour formations rather than slightly back from it.

It may use short range MMW radar sensors similar to those used on APS systems.

This is in my opinion in short and tart’s way I have all this questions about the Heavy Machine Gun and about the 40 mm AGL ’Balkan’.

Just to revise an opinion I gave above, the KPVB already seems to exist and is a KPV modified to change its calibre from 14.5 x 114mm HMG which is very much the equivalent to a Browning 50 cal except that it uses full calibre AP rounds comparable to the SLAP round the Browning uses... you could get rather better performance developing a SLAP round for it, but the KPVB uses the 23 x 115mm round which is not a lot bigger than HMG rounds in terms of ammo storage but the HE round is the same as the Shilka uses which is better than the 20mm Vulcan HE round, and if you were going to develop a SLAP round for 14.5mm then a SLAP round for the 23x115mm would be even more potent.

The 23 x 115mm round is normally used in twin barrel cannon with firing rates of 2,500 to 3,500 rpm which is enormous, but the single barrel KPVB would be firing at about 500-600rpm. To make the twin barrel cannon controllable the muzzle velocity was low... about 700m/s to keep recoil down and improve accuracy.

The low recoil low velocity rounds meant the HE round could be very heavy for its calibre which is why it uses the HE projectiles from the 23 x 152mm Shilka round which is much heavier than the HE round from the 20mm vulcan which has a much higher velocity.

The 23mm twin barrel guns and the KPVB use continuous single belt feeds so the AP and the HE rounds have to have the same trajectory so they have similar shell weight and muzzle velocity so the AP round is not amazing and is quite heavy too.

Having separate belt feeds means you could use a small calibre SLAP round of much heavier weight than the round used in the 50 cal browning or could be used in the 14.5mm HMG round but also with the much bigger powder capacity it could be moving much much faster than the 50 cal or 57 cal or the AP in 23mm calibre.

It needs to be a seperate belt feed or the HE rounds and APFSDS rounds will go wildly off aim.

The KPVB already has 23mm calibre barrels and feeds and the 23mm calibre has reasonable anti armour performance and a very good HE round, but neither are high velocity long range rounds... both would be good within about 2km.

A moderate rate of fire and muzzle velocity should mean not wasting lots of ammo like a gatling, and the HE rounds would really hit hard and fairly low vibration when firing with a lot more ammo capacity than most guns like the 30 x 165mm BMP calibres, though they would reach out and touch to greater distances.

The smaller lighter KPVB should be able to be modified to near vertical elevation for grenade dropping drones...

Please note this discussion is very off topic so I will move it sometime to either a more suitable thread or create a thread specially for it.