Russia selects new assault rifles

Now you only need to infiltrate that sniper team 10-20 clicks inside enemy territory ) Oh wait, you don't even know the location in a damn fields where the MRL will stop for 20 minutes to fire a barrage from.

Small dirty wars are the only wars that matter. Because only these wars happen left and right. And big shiny modern tech war with sure victory in a day is a phantom. Was Iraq a modern tech war? To walk in, maybe, next 10 years, not so much. Afganistan was modern tech war? Vietnam maybe? Korea? Any of them would have a different outcome if one side had plasma blasters for small arms?

Yes small arms matter, but quality of rations makes way more difference than MOA of rifles.

PS
This happens now, would magic AK-12 be any different you think?
 
r34skyline said:
As for the T72 I think we have seen more than once in the middle east what happens when one of those get anywhere near an abrams leopard 2, or a challenger 2.
Click to expand...

While I agree that the T72 loves to brew up, all of those tanks were low grade export models with nothing but rolled and cast homogeneous steel armor, their gunnery systems were base line and their export ammunition was sub par as well, hell saddams forces were using AP ammunition with some only having half the charge in them that they should of had. They only had Steel and Tungsten penetrator's as well, unlike the DU flying at them. Russia on the Other hand keeps the best upgrades for themselves and also uses Uranium. A 125mm Smooth bore firing DU is going to cut through the frontal armour of any western MBT with ease just like the 105's did during friendly fire in the first gulf war.

On the contrary, in some instances oldies like Iraqi improvised upgraded T-54/55 enigmas with nothing more than steel boxes welded onto them and filled with concrete were surviving direct hits with Guided AT rockets ect. Having more than just pure steel for protection goes a long way on armored vehicles, outdated or not.
 
Last edited:
RRCo. said:
Well friend, I've noticed that the Russians don't build a lot of "junk". They made it through WWII facing the best of the German stuff as you may recall. I think they could have built more complex, more nicely finished equipment, but time is money, or life and death in some cases, and they knew their own market. Germans tinkered around with all kinds of stuff even when the Russians were rolling through East Prussia. Now who had the more realistic outlook? I respect craftsmanship, I appreciate good quality as much as anyone, but in war what matters is combat effectiveness. If your weapons are overly complex, slow to manufacture, unreliable or hard to maintain you are doing something wrong.

I can see what the author of that article was trying to say about the selection process and I'm sure other people can too. Who knows if he's right or not, but probably he knows more about it than you or I do.
Click to expand...

You do realize germany was fighting on two fronts and was grossly outnumbered right? Do they build junk. Depends what you compare it to, it's not on par with german quality. It is rugged, and functional to a degree, but when push comes to shove they don't perform on par. On a side note, either this was just someone blowing smoke up my a$$ or maybe it was true, but I heard the ruskie snipers loved to pick up k98 from dead german snipers and run those instead of their mosins. I could be wrong, history buffs please correct me if I am.

I do have a massive soft spot for sukhoi flankers. And do find curious how much the ruskies are into aerospace, but if you compare su30 to f15c again you will see where the quality differs.

On a sidenote doing further research on the choice, between those two the ak12 is the more practical option being lighter and less complicated.

Tyockell18 said:
While I agree that the T72 loves to brew up, all of those tanks were low grade export models with nothing but rolled and cast homogeneous steel armor, their gunnery systems were base line and their export ammunition was sub par as well, hell saddams forces were using AP ammunition with some only having half the charge in them that they should of had. They only had Steel and Tungsten penetrator's as well, unlike the DU flying at them. Russia on the Other hand keeps the best upgrades for themselves and also uses Uranium. A 125mm Smooth bore firing DU is going to cut through the frontal armour of any western MBT with ease just like the 105's did during friendly fire in the first gulf war.

On the contrary, in some instances oldies like Iraqi improvised upgraded T-54/55 enigmas with nothing more than steel boxes welded onto them and filled with concrete were surviving direct hits with Guided AT rockets ect. Having more than just pure steel for protection goes a long way on armored vehicles, outdated or not.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the wonderful world of reactive armour that is coming on to the western tank. IIRC the biggest problems the T72 was facing talking to a member of the cf armoured division was that they were simply getting outranged, they couldn't close the distance quick enough to get the western mbts within firing range before getting picked off. Not that I am disagreeing with you, at times desperation leads to some amazing ingenuity like you mentioned with the T45/55 with the concrete filled boxes.
 
Let's go back to AK12 discussion, and no more side tracking on Russian economy and engineering ability/quality of tanks. That can go to OT.
 
The AK is the way it is because its receiver is a bended U-shape box for ease of production, and the barrel is mounted on the box.

Unless they toss this away, which means it won't be an AK anymore, it will always run into problems of mounting optic on the receiver cover. Also, as long as they stick with an AK box receiver, the ergonomic will always suck because it is a box with a pistol grip in a nut shell.

FN, Beretta and Swiss Arms has shown us what should have been done in the 70's and 80's, and we are even moving away from that now to build plastic guns.
 
bah small arms and tanks dont really mean squat when 2 f35 come in and obliterate the battlefield.
I dont care about politics and propaganda against those jets, I've been to California and Texas for the tests, I know the effectiveness of those things, I build them.
 
greentips said:
Let's go back to AK12 discussion
Click to expand...

Well, AK-12 has the following features:

- Receiver has been changed. Top now pivots up and forward, way more ridged than original dust cover to allow full pic rail.

- Rear sight is now ghost ring diopter, moved back to end of the receiver, mounts on pic rail and can be removed.

- Safety and fire mode selector changed to ambidextrous thumb switch. Positions are: safe, single, 3 burst, full auto

- Stock - collapsible and folding to a side. Adjustable cheek piece height and length of pull.

- Reciprocating charging handle is moved forward and up, attaches to the gas piston rod. Can be switched from left to right side. Together with the new fire mode selector this removes the slit between the top cover and receiver. The action is now fully closed.

- Bolt catch has been added, locks on empty now

Inside everything is more or less the same, outside, like rails and stuff you can see for yourself.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure it's a good rifle, I just like the look of the AKM and AK-74 much more but that is just my personal preference and only deals with appearance.

The old aks-74u also holds a spot in my heart, it will be interesting to see the new short carbine they have coming.
 
Last edited:
owlowl said:
Yes, it is still missing forward assist!!!!
Click to expand...

Are you serious???

cant tell anymore on here, forward assist seems to be important for a lot of people here on cgn! Would be facking retarded on an ak, that bolt has a whole lot of force moving into battery.
 
I think I'd prefer an A-545 or A-762 to the AK-12, but the AK-12 seems serviceable enough.

And if it indeed costs only 25% more than the AK-74M, it should come out at roughly only $300 from the factory.

I wish they'd done away with rock-and-lock loading though, that's my biggest complaint about AKs and similar rifles. Even a small magwell would have probably helped considerably.
 
870P said:
I wish they'd done away with rock-and-lock loading though, that's my biggest complaint about AKs and similar rifles. Even a small magwell would have probably helped considerably.
Click to expand...

Don't hold you breath. Russian military considers magwells to be inferior design to rock and lock. Sudarev smg had magwell during WWII as well as captured MP39, MKb.42, lend lease thomsons and so on. Extensive testing before and during the trials which lead to what we know as AK 47 showed, that magwell is harder to clear if mud or sand gets in. It is significantly more prone to jamming if a magazine is dropped in a mud before inserting. Moreover, magwell increases manufacturing cost and weight of a receiver.

All the contenders during 1946 trials had rock and lock magazines.

Bulkin AB-46:

attachment.php



Tokarev 7.62x41:

5232541885_d31e364b62.jpg



Korobov TKB-408:

korobovtkb-408-1.jpg


Dementiev KB-P-410
de001.jpg
 
owlowl said:
Don't hold you breath. Russian military considers magwells to be inferior design to rock and lock. Sudarev smg had magwell during WWII as well as captured MP39, MKb.42, lend lease thomsons and so on. Extensive testing before and during the trials which lead to what we know as AK 47 showed, that magwell is harder to clear if mud or sand gets in. It is significantly more prone to jamming if a magazine is dropped in a mud before inserting. Moreover, magwell increases manufacturing cost and weight of a receiver.
Click to expand...

I'm aware of their reasoning, but OTOH they're significantly more difficult to load quickly and/or when moving, especially with the deeply curved 7.62x39 mags.

Even well trained shooters can fumble a fast mag insertion if they're not careful.

Maybe facilitating a fast reload wasn't a big concern back when the principal opposition was mostly using low capacity stripper and en-bloc clips, but that's hardly the case now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom