AK-12 Rifle Discussion

sepheronx wrote:Such as?

Zoom in
Fire selector
Stock
Movable cocking handle for left handers
Monolith upper better suited for optics.
SN has more common with AK-74MR, looks more like squad support weapon than something special forces would carry.

Regular wrote:

sepheronx wrote:Such as?

Zoom in
Fire selector
Stock
Movable cocking handle for left handers
Monolith upper better suited for optics.
SN has more common with AK-74MR, looks more like squad support weapon than something special forces would carry.

No muzzle break which is the main feature to reduce recoil and russian AK muzzle breaks are very good.

Regular wrote:

sepheronx wrote:Such as?

Zoom in
Fire selector
Stock
Movable cocking handle for left handers
Monolith upper better suited for optics.
SN has more common with AK-74MR, looks more like squad support weapon than something special forces would carry.

Once again, yes it is rumoured to be the SN, you can see where the rifle is fundamentally different from previous RPK iterations. The AK12 multicalibre will be not different from the AK 12 visually bar the barrel thickness and magazine housing.

You can't have monolith topcover if you want a quick detach barrel. There's nothing better suited for optics in top position, the side rail was already perfect in that sense. In this case it's only a study rifle for structural strength. If the rifle will serve the SAW role, there's no need for complicated selctors. This package is very good as it stands and gives a very welcome refreshing course from the legacy RPK's/RPK74's.

I have no doubt the SN will be different as an end product (we all saw how the 12 evolved). However unlike the AK-12, this will be a fairly straight forward, KISS rifle better suited IMO than the Tokar it will likely go against.

Look closely here.




There's nothing wrong with the "flash hider". I think you don't understand that the AK12"SN" is the RPK12. The ejection port on the AK-12 we all know can already handle all kinds of calibres.

A patent on an AK-74 Bull-Dad.
In Fresh bulletin "industrial designs", Issued by the federal institute of industrial property, published a patent serpukhovskoy mais "Institute of engineering physics" on their modification of AK-74

Once again, yes it is rumoured to be the SN, you can see where the rifle is fundamentally different from previous RPK iterations. The AK12 multicalibre will be not different from the AK 12 visually bar the barrel thickness and magazine housing.

You can't have monolith topcover if you want a quick detach barrel. There's nothing better suited for optics in top position, the side rail was already perfect in that sense. In this case it's only a study rifle for structural strength. If the rifle will serve the SAW role, there's no need for complicated selctors. This package is very good as it stands and gives a very welcome refreshing course from the legacy RPK's/RPK74's.

I have no doubt the SN will be different as an end product (we all saw how the 12 evolved). However unlike the AK-12, this will be a fairly straight forward, KISS rifle better suited IMO than the Tokar it will likely go against.

But the whole point of the multicalibre system is that they all use the same components except where they can't... so the rifle stock and controls should be the same for the entire family with different mags and barrels and bolts for the different roles... ie short barrel for SMG, then longer for Carbine, longer still for rifle, then longest and heaviest and bipod for LMG.

All of them needing split top rail makes sense and is no big deal... mounting multiple scopes is what it is all about... just space the scope mounts so the gap is not a problem.

The RPK model needs a fancy selector because they will all have the same selector. Allowing a choice as to which side to place the cocking handle and to choose the side the weapon ejects cases on should be a fundamental part of the base design.

With a long heavy barrel and a bipod an efficient muzzle brake is irrelevant... you wont be firing this from the shoulder and you will be firing long bursts and short bursts most of the time so less muzzle blast in your face and those beside you the better.

BTW are you trying to hint this rifle is in 6x49mm calibre?

And @ Project Canada... Yuk!

Compared with the lines of the ADS that bullpup AK modification just looks awful!!!!!!!!!!!!

GarryB wrote:

Once again, yes it is rumoured to be the SN, you can see where the rifle is fundamentally different from previous RPK iterations. The AK12 multicalibre will be not different from the AK 12 visually bar the barrel thickness and magazine housing.

You can't have monolith topcover if you want a quick detach barrel. There's nothing better suited for optics in top position, the side rail was already perfect in that sense. In this case it's only a study rifle for structural strength. If the rifle will serve the SAW role, there's no need for complicated selctors. This package is very good as it stands and gives a very welcome refreshing course from the legacy RPK's/RPK74's.

I have no doubt the SN will be different as an end product (we all saw how the 12 evolved). However unlike the AK-12, this will be a fairly straight forward, KISS rifle better suited IMO than the Tokar it will likely go against.

But the whole point of the multicalibre system is that they all use the same components except where they can't... so the rifle stock and controls should be the same for the entire family with different mags and barrels and bolts for the different roles... ie short barrel for SMG, then longer for Carbine, longer still for rifle, then longest and heaviest and bipod for LMG.

But that's what the AK12 you're seeing from the LV show, will look like. Those rifles will be the same with only small details changing, the AK12SN is the RPK variant and has other things to be sorted out as a priority.

All of them needing split top rail makes sense and is no big deal... mounting multiple scopes is what it is all about... just space the scope mounts so the gap is not a problem.

The RPK model needs a fancy selector because they will all have the same selector. Allowing a choice as to which side to place the cocking handle and to choose the side the weapon ejects cases on should be a fundamental part of the base design.

Actually it doesn't need in absolute, but it will have the same selector, same for ambidextrous controls, they will come, just remember how the whole deal with the AK200 started.

With a long heavy barrel and a bipod an efficient muzzle brake is irrelevant... you wont be firing this from the shoulder and you will be firing long bursts and short bursts most of the time so less muzzle blast in your face and those beside you the better.

That was my point as well.

BTW are you trying to hint this rifle is in 6x49mm calibre?

Saying that it will go against the Tokar (which uses 7.62 sized ammunition box) and we don't see the magazine/Drum...guess why.

Saying that it will go against the Tokar (which uses 7.62 sized ammunition box) and we don't see the magazine/Drum...guess why.

Why such a tease?

So what I take from your replies is that this is the RPK derived AK12 that is being developed separately so it still has old features like selector.

The final versions will be based on a unified design?

I need to be able to hunt rabbits with a 200mm barrel (ie AKS-74U style), but for wallabies and small goats have a 300mm barrel (ie AK-105 style) and for larger animals at longer ranges a 400mm barrel (AK-74M style0. And of course for long range stuff a 600mm barrel (RPK-74).... plus of course a 12 gauge model for the duck shooting season...

GarryB wrote:

Saying that it will go against the Tokar (which uses 7.62 sized ammunition box) and we don't see the magazine/Drum...guess why.

Why such a tease?

Because people in the know are "assholes" and they wouldn't say it cash. But basically this which apperaed around late October has a thicker barrels with "bigger bore".

So what I take from your replies is that this is the RPK derived AK12 that is being developed separately so it still has old features like selector.

Yes, it is a structural strength sample. It's better in anyway than the current RPK line. It's being done "tougher" because they are toying with three calibres so far.

The final versions will be based on a unified design?

That's the plan, if the rifles are both approved.

I need to be able to hunt rabbits with a 200mm barrel (ie AKS-74U style), but for wallabies and small goats have a 300mm barrel (ie AK-105 style) and for larger animals at longer ranges a 400mm barrel (AK-74M style0. And of course for long range stuff a 600mm barrel (RPK-74).... plus of course a 12 gauge model for the duck shooting season...

That's why you have Molot for.

KoTeMoRe wrote:

GarryB wrote:

Saying that it will go against the Tokar (which uses 7.62 sized ammunition box) and we don't see the magazine/Drum...guess why.

Why such a tease?

Because people in the know are "assholes" and they wouldn't say it cash. But basically this which apperaed around late October has a thicker barrels with "bigger bore".

So no talk about one unified round for the whole AK based firearms family anymore? so 7,62x54,7,62x39 and 5,45x39mm remain?


@Garry B.
Yuck? bull pup AK is just a beautie !

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

GarryB wrote:

Saying that it will go against the Tokar (which uses 7.62 sized ammunition box) and we don't see the magazine/Drum...guess why.

Why such a tease?

Because people in the know are "assholes" and they wouldn't say it cash. But basically this which apperaed around late October has a thicker barrels with "bigger bore".

So no talk about one unified round for the whole AK based firearms family anymore? so 7,62x54,7,62x39 and 5,45x39mm remain?


@Garry B.
Yuck? bull pup AK is just a beautie !

The current "RPK-12/AK12N" is not being tested with "full power" ammunition. That much I know. They test the rifles with three different calibres for ballistic rating. There's nothing open about why. It's more than probable that the Unified round is coming back as the barrel is really "traktor tough".

But basically this which apperaed around late October has a thicker barrels with "bigger bore".

Yes... the number of times they have referred to a new calibre... but is it 6x49mm or 6.5x39mm?

I hope the former as the latter would be more of a replacement for the 5.45mm than the 7.62 x 54mm and that is the round that needs to be replaced first...

Yes, it is a structural strength sample. It's better in anyway than the current RPK line. It's being done "tougher" because they are toying with three calibres so far.

I wonder if they will split the family... I mean with armoured vehicles they went for four weight and drive train families... heavy tracked (armata), medium tracked (kurganets) medium wheeled (boomerang) and light wheeled (typhoon).

It makes sense because if you try to make one vehicle family for everything it will be a poor result because if you make it heavy then for light roles it will be overweight and if you make it medium it will still be overweight for light roles and too light for heavy roles and of course make it light and it will be too thin skinned for the medium and heavy roles... though it would likely be cheaper.

With the small arms I think two families would be best... a light with SMG up to assault rifle, and a heavier model for DMR, LMG and heavier calibre assault rifle... there would be overlap with the heavier rifle able to use short barrels but generally in heavier calibres than the light rifle.

I would make the light rifle available in 20 gauge, plus .22lr and 22WMR for training and civilian use, plus 9x21mm 5.45mm,5.56mm, 6.5 x 39mm, 7.62x39 and 9x39mm calibres in barrel lengths from AKS-74U up to AK-74M size.

the heavy rifle I would have in 6x49mm and 7.62 x 54mm and of course 7.62NATO for export in a short barrel DMR rifle and a long barrel semi auto SVD replacement role, plus a LMG version in 5.45mm and the heavier calibres as an alternative to RPK-74 and PKP.... and also in 12 gauge and 10 gauge.... and perhaps 338 LM and 12.7 x 55mm.

Such a weapon would be interesting to a country like India where 7.62 x 39mm could be used in urban areas and 5.56mm in open terrain... though perhaps they might be interested in replacing the 5.56mm with a 6x49mm round.

[qutoe]That's why you have Molot for. [/quote]

That is the problem... I don't.

I would love a multi calibre bolt action in 7.62 x 39mm and 5.45mm and even 5.56mm calibre just for ammo availability.

So no talk about one unified round for the whole AK based firearms family anymore? so 7,62x54,7,62x39 and 5,45x39mm remain?

AFAIK the 6x49mm is intended to replace the 7.62 x 54mm only. The Russian military seem happy with the 5.45mm. The 7.62 x 39mm is no longer standard though it is in use in some places it seems, and can be used by special forces who can choose what they use.

Yuck? bull pup AK is just a beautie !

I think it looks awful... especially compared with this:

The current "RPK-12/AK12N" is not being tested with "full power" ammunition. That much I know. They test the rifles with three different calibres for ballistic rating. There's nothing open about why. It's more than probable that the Unified round is coming back as the barrel is really "traktor tough".

But a unified round for a multi calibre family of weapons is a bit of a contradiction don't you think?

Hopefully they will have for Russian Army servicemen (as opposed to spec ops) just 9x21mm, 5.45mm and 6x49mm versions of the various weapons... this should cover all the requirements in terms of normal fire power... well perhaps a 9 x 39mm for recon units replacing the AS and VSS weapons in that calibre.

Would like to know more about this 6.5 x 39mm calibre they are developing... the larger calibre should allow heavier larger bullets to be used... one of the main problems with the 5.45mm calibre is that its small calibre means heavy bullets are out of the question... the subsonic 5.45mm ammo is only about 80 grain bullets which is only about twice the weight of a subsonic .22lr bullet with a similar velocity.

The 7.62 x 39mm subsonic round with its larger calibre allowed a much heavier 193 grain bullet and if all bullets are subsonic then you get more power with more weight. The 9 x 39mm round has a 250 grain bullet.

I would expect the 6.5 x 39mm round uses a 120 grain bullet as standard with a very long projectile like the 5.45mm round so it retains velocity and hits harder at longer range... if they can manage a 180 grain subsonic bullet then the need for 5.45mm and 7.62 x 39mm and 9 x 39mm goes away and you could get away with just the one calibre for assault rifles.

Of course for a bit more bang and size and weight the 6x49mm would have the case length for heavy bullets too so a subsonic 200 grain bullet might be possible with a very long projectile that will retain energy and velocity out to much greater ranges than the 7.62 x 39mm in 193 grain subsonic versions and the 9 x 39mm in 250 grain bullet versions.

this means that while the 6 x 49mm might fire a lighter 200 grain bullet at the same speed as the 193 grain 7.62 x 39m and 80 grain 5.45 x 39mm and 250 grain 9 x 39mm rounds its much longer projectile of slimmer design than the 7.62 and 6.5mm calibres might retain velocity and be more effective out to much greater ranges with both the heavier and lighter projectiles... making it more efficient with lighter and heavier projectiles to much greater ranges...

GarryB wrote:

But basically this which apperaed around late October has a thicker barrels with "bigger bore".

Yes... the number of times they have referred to a new calibre... but is it 6x49mm or 6.5x39mm?

I was stupid enough to believe "Grendel" or another 6.5 was an option, well it isn't. Nothing explains why that round needs such a strengthened structure (the RPK being already far stronger), by deduction that has to be done for the next more powerful round out there.

I hope the former as the latter would be more of a replacement for the 5.45mm than the 7.62 x 54mm and that is the round that needs to be replaced first...

See above.

Yes, it is a structural strength sample. It's better in anyway than the current RPK line. It's being done "tougher" because they are toying with three calibres so far.

I wonder if they will split the family... I mean with armoured vehicles they went for four weight and drive train families... heavy tracked (armata), medium tracked (kurganets) medium wheeled (boomerang) and light wheeled (typhoon).

It makes sense because if you try to make one vehicle family for everything it will be a poor result because if you make it heavy then for light roles it will be overweight and if you make it medium it will still be overweight for light roles and too light for heavy roles and of course make it light and it will be too thin skinned for the medium and heavy roles... though it would likely be cheaper.

Probably because the RPK will go places and will do things the AK-12 isn't supposed to do (at least not on a regular basis).

With the small arms I think two families would be best... a light with SMG up to assault rifle, and a heavier model for DMR, LMG and heavier calibre assault rifle... there would be overlap with the heavier rifle able to use short barrels but generally in heavier calibres than the light rifle.

I think the current bet is on two families of weapons by manufacturer with the classical three calibres (so ZID vs CK). The Unified round is being revived because indeed the 54R is a dinosaur, but I don't know more about it/

I would make the light rifle available in 20 gauge, plus .22lr and 22WMR  for training and civilian use, plus 9x21mm 5.45mm,5.56mm, 6.5 x 39mm, 7.62x39 and 9x39mm calibres in barrel lengths from AKS-74U up to AK-74M size.

the heavy rifle I would have in 6x49mm and 7.62 x 54mm and of course 7.62NATO for export in a short barrel DMR rifle and a long barrel semi auto SVD replacement role, plus a LMG version in 5.45mm and the heavier calibres as an alternative to RPK-74 and PKP.... and also in 12 gauge and 10 gauge.... and perhaps 338 LM and 12.7 x 55mm.

9x39 is a SP round, the new "modern" shooters rounds be that the 6x49 or 6,5xXX are still curiosities although the 6x49 has been studied long enough

Such a weapon would be interesting to a country like India where 7.62 x 39mm could be used in urban areas and 5.56mm in open terrain... though perhaps they might be interested in replacing the 5.56mm with a 6x49mm round.

With all due respect to the Indian MOD, they can't decide which way they need to take a dump, let alone decide what is useful for their security needs. It's amazing they managed to f°ck up a simple contract with ANY of the guys building and AK or AK clone. I mean FFS even the Iraqis had it good with the M21's they bought in Serbia. But th eIndians needed to show how deeply incompetent they are in assessing a basic situation.

[qutoe]That's why you have Molot for. [/quote]

That is the problem... I don't.

I would love a multi calibre bolt action in 7.62 x 39mm and 5.45mm and even 5.56mm calibre just for ammo availability.
[/quote]

... I'm sorry for your loss

So no talk about one unified round for the whole AK based firearms family anymore? so 7,62x54,7,62x39 and 5,45x39mm remain?

AFAIK the 6x49mm is intended to replace the 7.62 x 54mm only. The Russian military seem happy with the 5.45mm. The 7.62 x 39mm is no longer standard though it is in use in some places it seems, and can be used by special forces who can choose what they use.

Yuck? bull pup AK is just a beautie !

I think it looks awful... especially compared with this:

The current "RPK-12/AK12N" is not being tested with "full power" ammunition. That much I know. They test the rifles with three different calibres for ballistic rating. There's nothing open about why. It's more than probable that the Unified round is coming back as the barrel is really "traktor tough".

But a unified round for a multi calibre family of weapons is a bit of a contradiction don't you think?

Hopefully they will have for Russian Army servicemen (as opposed to spec ops) just 9x21mm, 5.45mm and 6x49mm versions of the various weapons... this should cover all the requirements in terms of normal fire power... well perhaps a 9 x 39mm for recon units replacing the AS and VSS weapons in that calibre.

Would like to know more about this 6.5 x 39mm calibre they are developing... the larger calibre should allow heavier larger bullets to be used... one of the main problems with the 5.45mm calibre is that its small calibre means heavy bullets are out of the question... the subsonic 5.45mm ammo is only about 80 grain bullets which is only about twice the weight of a subsonic .22lr bullet with a similar velocity.

I was stupid enough to believe that Russia would go all the way and start doing what I didn't need to do, well there's no logic in going for a new round, they're not saying anything about a 6,5, maybe it's just typical Russian secrecy, and maybe the delay for both rifles IS because of a third "intermediate calibre", but so far nothing indicates it.

The 7.62 x 39mm subsonic round with its larger calibre allowed a much heavier 193 grain bullet and if all bullets are subsonic then you get more power with more weight. The 9 x 39mm round has a 250 grain bullet.

I would expect the 6.5 x 39mm round uses a 120 grain bullet as standard with a very long projectile like the 5.45mm round so it retains velocity and hits harder at longer range... if they can manage a 180 grain subsonic bullet then the need for 5.45mm and 7.62 x 39mm and 9 x 39mm goes away and you could get away with just the one calibre for assault rifles.

Of course for a  bit more bang and size and weight the 6x49mm would have the case length for heavy bullets too so a subsonic 200 grain bullet might be possible with a very long projectile that will retain energy and velocity out to much greater ranges than the 7.62 x 39mm in 193 grain subsonic versions and the 9 x 39mm in 250 grain bullet versions.

this means that while the 6 x 49mm might fire a lighter 200 grain bullet at the same speed as the 193 grain 7.62 x 39m and 80 grain 5.45 x 39mm and 250 grain 9 x 39mm rounds its much longer projectile of slimmer design than the 7.62 and 6.5mm calibres might retain velocity and be more effective out to much greater ranges with both the heavier and lighter projectiles... making it more efficient with lighter and heavier projectiles to much greater ranges...

One thing is sure, the 54R is going through Perestroika times.

Sorry, but this is best Russian bullpup, well apart from crazy OTs-14

Don't know what your people have a problem with Groza it is very well designed and functioning reliable a good solid design.

I was stupid enough to believe "Grendel" or another 6.5 was an option, well it isn't. Nothing explains why that round needs such a strengthened structure (the RPK being already far stronger), by deduction that has to be done for the next more powerful round out there.

The rifle and MG in the 6x49mm calibre had very long barrels... perhaps they are going to go for much higher pressures to accelerate the projectiles faster so they don't need such long barrels?

that would mean heavier barrels and structure but shorter weapons...

6x49 or 6,5xXX are still curiosities although the 6x49 has been studied long enough

The underwater cartridge based on the 5.45mm case from memory required more powerful propellent because the enlarged projectile fills most of the case capacity... perhaps they have new high power propellent for all their ammo. there was mention of such things a few years ago where they mentioned muzzle velocities increased by 30% across the board to extend range and improve performance.

This would likely require heavier build weapons too.

But th eIndians needed to show how deeply incompetent they are in assessing a basic situation.

They have stated a requirement for multi calibre potential... if CK let them manufacture them in India I don't see any problems...

Sorry, but this is best Russian bullpup, well apart from crazy OTs-14

I have heard it was a rushed design and not very reliable, but I agree it still looks good, while the Groza looks like an excellent weapon to me. Its modular design does not really include multi calibre performance so I would either make it fully multi calibre in 9x39mm, 7.62x39mm and 5.45x39mm to make a really versatile, or I would make it less modular and simpler... either way i like it.

Don't know what your people have a problem with Groza it is very well designed and functioning reliable a good solid design.

My favourite video game weapon in the first two Stalker games... it is tiny.

That modification of the AK-74 looks broken... bent... yuk.

GarryB wrote:

I was stupid enough to believe "Grendel" or another 6.5 was an option, well it isn't. Nothing explains why that round needs such a strengthened structure (the RPK being already far stronger), by deduction that has to be done for the next more powerful round out there.

The rifle and MG in the 6x49mm calibre had very long barrels... perhaps they are going to go for much higher pressures to accelerate the projectiles faster so they don't need such long barrels?

that would mean heavier barrels and structure but shorter weapons...

6x49 or 6,5xXX are still curiosities although the 6x49 has been studied long enough

The underwater cartridge based on the 5.45mm case from memory required more powerful propellent because the enlarged projectile fills most of the case capacity... perhaps they have new high power propellent for all their ammo. there was mention of such things a few years ago where they mentioned muzzle velocities increased by 30% across the board to extend range and improve performance.

This would likely require heavier build weapons too.

But th eIndians needed to show how deeply incompetent they are in assessing a basic situation.

They have stated a requirement for multi calibre potential... if CK let them manufacture them in India I don't see any problems...

Sorry, but this is best Russian bullpup, well apart from crazy OTs-14

I have heard it was a rushed design and not very reliable, but I agree it still looks good, while the Groza looks like an excellent weapon to me. Its modular design does not really include multi calibre performance so I would either make it fully multi calibre in 9x39mm, 7.62x39mm and 5.45x39mm to make a really versatile, or I would make it less modular and simpler... either way i like it.

Don't know what your people have a problem with Groza it is very well designed and functioning reliable a good solid design.

My favourite video game weapon in the first two Stalker games... it is tiny.

That modification of the AK-74 looks broken... bent... yuk.

The Indians have repeatedly asked for something and the contrary to be put in the same item. When CK offered a new rifle (AK 101 in 223) they said no, Arsenal was cheaper (Although Arsenal was offering a M43/7,62 rifle), then after only a handful of rifles (about 1000 or so) they said the INSAS was going to be built, then when the INSAS failed on many aspect, INSAS v 2.0 got approved, then it failed again, then they acquired TAvors for the SF, then they started another compact bullpup concept in 223, then adopted a third Indian design FAL/AK abomination, and now they're in talks with CK again, for a rifle in...7,62. Meanwhile the Saudis, for all their ineptitude bought 50K + AK 103 rifles with sights and customization parts and they're done in 8 months.

Ok guys rumour has it that the AK-12 mass program has been finalized. There's going to be only few, minor, changes from now on, mostly on rail system and cover. The MO as it stands wants that the AK-12 can be used in conjunction with recent MR kits. Ergo, MR kits could be fitted on the AK-12 if needed. The barrels have been proofed for zero at 18000 rounds at about 120% of the pressure of an AK74M/101(which is the 5.56 equivalent).

There's also joint rumour that there hasn't been any more "testing" for A545 since October (but that there's no indication that the rifle is "bad". And only small batch of 80 rifles has been ordered. So basically this means A545 is back at square 1.

I hope to be wrong, but obviously the rifle would have to be Service purchased and will only be "approved" for service use, but not (mass) fielded. So they're basically back in the early 2000. The rifle is good, but probably price to get it done is higher per unit. And also the big weakness of the ZID small arms; they're a bit tighter and their assembly gets "longer" (this means it costs a bit more).

If true, this means the MO doesn't want to jump into the BARS yet (budget is also an issue). And all pistols shown, were rejected (not on performance grounds).

Thanks KoTeMoRe, really appreciate Your info here.
Can't wait to see finalized AK-12.

Did anyone see this video yet?



It's interesting because "fatty" Vickers gets to fire both the AK-107  and the AK-12.
So, I have a question: Why wasn't the AK-107 chosen as the basis for the new general-issue rifle for the RuAF? It has a balanced-recoil mechanism like the the AN-94, but simpler, so it should be cheaper to make, easier to maintain, etc. Couldn't they have reformulated it so it could be customized with whatever tactical doodads a fella might need? Given it a modern, adjustable stock, etc? Well, they're not doing it, so there must be some reason why.

BKP wrote:Did anyone see this video yet?



It's interesting because "fatty" Vickers gets to fire both the AK-107  and the AK-12.
So, I have a question: Why wasn't the AK-107 chosen as the basis for the new general-issue rifle for the RuAF? It has a balanced-recoil mechanism like the the AN-94, but simpler, so it should be cheaper to make, easier to maintain, etc. Couldn't they have reformulated it so it could be customized with whatever tactical doodads a fella might need? Given it a modern, adjustable stock, etc? Well, they're not doing it, so there must be some reason why.

Yeah it was posted already somewhere on forum in multimedia i belive. Well AEK is participating with balanced recoil mechanism in state trials and no point for AK to participate with two designs, but seems Russian army is not interested in fielding such gun in numbers. Chance is that AEK might end up in hands of special purpose units tho while conventional AK12 will be issued to rest of the units.

^I hear you. Well, I was wondering why the AK-107 didn't become the basis of the AK-12, really. I mean, the near-0 recoil does strike me as pretty juicy. I have to figure there's still some trade-off there that was considered unacceptable, like expense or maintenance requirements. Maybe Izhmash didn't make the right friends?

BKP wrote:^I hear you. Well, I was wondering why the AK-107 didn't become the basis of the AK-12, really. I mean, the near-0 recoil does strike me as pretty juicy. I have to figure there's still some trade-off there that was considered unacceptable, like expense or maintenance requirements. Maybe Izhmash didn't make the right friends?

Its still fairly complicated, more moving parts - the worse. More complex design always means more expencive production, more spare parts in future and harder maintenance and cleaning. Plus even its almost always more prone to jamming and simlar issues.

I'll say that in comparison to what is being tested as the "next" step, the complication/moving part issue is already less problematic. The main drawback of the Nikonov was that it would change deeply two aspects of military routine.

Cleaning (up to 4times the basic cleaning about 16 minutes with some areas unreachable without further breakdon), about 30 minutes more for 1000 rounds maintenance.
Clearing (although the stoppages were not an issue rated at least at 2000 MRBS according to literature) was also an issue since in some cases (not withstanding the Larry Vickers issue) you had to pop out the hand-guards, disconnect the pulleys and that's NOT something you want to do in the middle of a firefight.