AK-12 Rifle Discussion

The balanced recoil systems failed mostly from an economic and manufacturing standpoint mostly, rather than a technical one I believe.

Indeed, they will cost more, add complexity... which adds more potential points of failure, and make operating and maintaining the weapon more difficult.

The question is... does it increase accuracy enough to make it worthwhile.

Remember the AK12 lightened the bolt carrier and the piston rod so there is less weight moving back and forth during firing... if a balanced recoil mechanism improved full auto accuracy by 200%, but improvements to the AK12 improved accuracy in full auto by 150% but the balanced recoil mechanism means 150,000 rifles produced a year at $900 each, while the AK12 is 500,000 rifles produced a year at $750 a rifle and they both provide the same level of semi auto accuracy, while the AK12 is easier to use and with a front pistol grip fitted can actually match the AK-107s 200% improvement in full auto accuracy then the decision might be really easy.

The real issue is that there will be half a dozen rifles in this competition just from Izhmash so they will have a lot of things to test... I would love to help with the shooting, but would not want the responsibility of making the final choice.

GarryB wrote:

The balanced recoil systems failed mostly from an economic and manufacturing standpoint mostly, rather than a technical one I believe.

Indeed, they will cost more, add complexity... which adds more potential points of failure, and make operating and maintaining the weapon more difficult.

The question is... does it increase accuracy enough to make it worthwhile.

Remember the AK12 lightened the bolt carrier and the piston rod so there is less weight moving back and forth during firing... if a balanced recoil mechanism improved full auto accuracy by 200%, but improvements to the AK12 improved accuracy in full auto by 150% but the balanced recoil mechanism means 150,000 rifles produced a year at $900 each, while the AK12 is 500,000 rifles produced a year at $750 a rifle and they both provide the same level of semi auto accuracy, while the AK12 is easier to use and with a front pistol grip fitted can actually match the AK-107s 200% improvement in full auto accuracy then the decision might be really easy.

The real issue is that there will be half a dozen rifles in this competition just from Izhmash so they will have a lot of things to test... I would love to help with the shooting, but would not want the responsibility of making the final choice.

With the passing of time and improvement in technology, I imagine it's very possible that a conventional mechanism like the AK-12's could probably could come close or equal the performance of a balanced system. I wonder why they never considered adding a gas regulator to the AK? That would improve performance greatly as the AK uses more gas than necessary to cycle. Perhaps decreased reliability from the added complexity of a gas regulator is a concern.

With the passing of time and improvement in technology, I imagine it's very possible that a conventional mechanism like the AK-12's could probably could come close or equal the performance of a balanced system

The main source of the AKs reliability is the massive weight of the bolt carrier, which when blown back by gas pressure has enormous energy to unlock and then open and close the bolt. A balanced recoil mechanism is just balancing the weight slapping back and forward, so reducing the weight is another viable option too.

I wonder why they never considered adding a gas regulator to the AK?

Rather unnecessary really... I almost never use the gas regulator on my SLR.

That would improve performance greatly as the AK uses more gas than necessary to cycle.

After that first initial impulse of gas the pressure is released to blow out the upper gas tube... reducing the size of the gas cut out in the barrel wouldn't reduce recoil as much as reducing the weight of the bolt carrier slapping back and forth during firing.

Perhaps decreased reliability from the added complexity of a gas regulator is a concern.

It is a point of complication and potentially a point of failure. I remember seeing a photo of an FN MAG GPMG on a pile of shell cases and belt link in the Falklands war that had been abandoned because someone had not set the regulator properly and extended burst fire had blown it off. Result is a manually cocked GPMG.

To be honest I really don't notice the difference in recoil between the lowest setting and the highest setting on my SLR and I really don't think the extra complication would be worth it on a new rifle. One advantage was that you could turn it right up and with a blank firing adapter it probably needed less powder to operate, and you could turn it off if you were launching a rifle grenade, but otherwise it was just something else you had to remember to set.

With the new AK12 being able to fire rifle grenades I would only buy the shoot through variety anyway, so a gas regulator would not be of benefit.

A gas regulator has a lot of benefit. you increase the service life of the rifle by using the minimum amount of gas to cycle. And there should be a decrease in recoil. Almost every new design today has an adjustable regulator, but one could say that just because everybody is doing doesn't mean it's the best or worst decision. Gas regulators have been done in the AK design before like with the M76 sniper rifle. The Russians have used it in many designs. If they haven't already tinkered with a gas regulator, they would have to weigh the pros and cons to having it in the AK-12 design.

I always though the AK-100 series carbines were not very efficient in their overall length. The muzzle booster required on the shorter barrels to insure reliable functioning add considerable length.

A gas regulator has a lot of benefit. you increase the service life of the rifle by using the minimum amount of gas to cycle.

There is nothing wrong with the service lives of AKs AFAIK... adding complication to gain a feature that is of no use suggests it is unnecessary to me.

And there should be a decrease in recoil.

Are you sure?

I have often put my SLR back together wrong after cleaning it... the gas plug will fit the way it is supposed to go in and it will also fit upside down. The difference is that no gas gets through at all if you fit it upside down, so you get no gas and a bolt action manually operated rifle and to be completely honest when firing it without the gas system working I really don't notice the drop in recoil.

Gas regulators have been done in the AK design before like with the M76 sniper rifle.

The M79 sniper rifle is a very bad example as it has the heavy bolt carrier of an AK, compared with an SVD which has a lightened piston rod that is separate from the much lightened bolt carrier. The piston rod only moves a few mms to push the bolt carrier and unlock the bolt, so the only parts moving in an SVD are the bolt carrier and bolt, both of which are much smaller and lighter, yet it has an adjustable gas system to allow increased gas to be used to ensure reliability when the weapon is dirty.

I would suggest the purpose of a gas regulation system would be to allow the balance of the system to be placed closer to the edge... in other words make the weapon much more potentially unreliable, but with the ability to change the setting and get that reliability back. Would suggest that ensuring the weapon got enough gas pressure to cycle properly even when dirty makes rather more sense to me than a gas regulator.

I always though the AK-100 series carbines were not very efficient in their overall length. The muzzle booster required on the shorter barrels to insure reliable functioning add considerable length.

Reducing flash and ensuring reliable action make the minor increase in length well worth it. Unlike the M4 they have folding stocks which allow them to be stored or carried easily in confined places like APCs or IFVs or even helos.

The AK is already much shorter than the M16 even in the standard length barrel model AK-74, while the shorter barrel models are even more compact.

"There is nothing wrong with the service lives of AKs AFAIK... adding complication to gain a feature that is of no use suggests it is unnecessary to me."

But having a weapon that goes longer periods without parts replacement is an advantage.

"I have often put my SLR back together wrong after cleaning it... the gas plug will fit the way it is supposed to go in and it will also fit upside down. The difference is that no gas gets through at all if you fit it upside down, so you get no gas and a bolt action manually operated rifle and to be completely honest when firing it without the gas system working I really don't notice the drop in recoil."

SLR like the L1A1? I have a SVT-40 and I fired a FAL, and I thought there was a decrease in recoil when I set the gas setting lower. I'll have to fire them again some time. It is a good point you illustrated how a gas regulator can add complication.

"M79 sniper rifle is a very bad example as it has the heavy bolt carrier of an AK, compared with an SVD which has a lightened piston rod that is separate from the much lightened bolt carrier. The piston rod only moves a few mms to push the bolt carrier and unlock the bolt, so the only parts moving in an SVD are the bolt carrier and bolt, both of which are much smaller and lighter, yet it has an adjustable gas system to allow increased gas to be used to ensure reliability when the weapon is dirty."
I haven't fired a M76, but I've heard they are just as accurate as a SVD. I think the AK system can be made just as accurate as the SVD with the technology we have today.


"Reducing flash and ensuring reliable action make the minor increase in length well worth it. Unlike the M4 they have folding stocks which allow them to be stored or carried easily in confined places like APCs or IFVs or even helos.

The AK is already much shorter than the M16 even in the standard length barrel model AK-74, while the shorter barrel models are even more compact."
Look at the VZ 58 with an overall length of 33.3 inches versus AK-104 32.4, not a huge difference considering the VZ 58 has a 15.4 inch barrel versus AK-104 with a barrel length of 12.4.

But having a weapon that goes longer periods without parts replacement is an advantage.

That sounds like it should be true, but it isn't. By adding a gas system regulator you are adding more parts and a potential point of failure to make the weapon last longer, yet there is no problem of the life of the weapon... in fact they already have 17 million in storage, so it is actually "lasting" too well already.

SLR like the L1A1? I have a SVT-40 and I fired a FAL, and I thought there was a decrease in recoil when I set the gas setting lower. I'll have to fire them again some time. It is a good point you illustrated how a gas regulator can add complication.

The other aspect is that in combat as the weapon gets dirty you will need to increase the gas by adjusting the regulator to keep the weapon firing properly... you can't see what the weapon looks like on the inside and you really can't guess what sort of quality ammo you might be issued with in combat so your first warning will be not enough gas pressure to properly cycle the weapon... which means the weapon fails to reload properly... after doing this a couple of times (ie failing to reload properly) the soldier will try turning up the gas regulator to solve the problem. The point is that with a fixed gas system there is no need for such stoppages and no need to adjust anything while being shot at.

I think my L1A1 is Australian... I am looking at buying a suppressor for it at some stage, it is a very powerful rifle, but it has a rounded buttstock that is nearly inline with the barrel so firing it results in more of a push than a kick in my opinion... it is very comfortable to fire, though I have never tried it in full auto.

The main problem is that its recoil spring takes up the entire butt stock. The mechanism is very similar to the SKS, though the latter does not have a butt full of recoil spring.

I haven't fired a M76, but I've heard they are just as accurate as a SVD. I think the AK system can be made just as accurate as the SVD with the technology we have today.

...that is my point... the M76 is not inaccurate, and both weapons have significant recoil during firing. The SVD is better when properly held during firing and follow up shots are easier, but the M76 is not a bad rifle in terms of accuracy and is not even heavier than the SVD, which is a very light weapon in that class.

Look at the VZ 58 with an overall length of 33.3 inches versus AK-104 32.4, not a huge difference considering the VZ 58 has a 15.4 inch barrel versus AK-104 with a barrel length of 12.4.

I would suggest your logic is a little flawed. Carbines are shorter handier models of standard rifles likely to be carried by either special forces like paratroops (ie VDV, or naval infantry) of for crew that need a more compact weapon but still need to be able to shoot accurately.

The VZ58 was designed to meet specific requirements so its overall length of 845 mm, that is 635 mm with the stock folded meets their requirements with its 390 mm barrel.

The AK-104 with a length overall of 824mm that is 586mm when folded has a barrel length of 314mm. The 5.45mm cartridge is very much like the 7.62 x 39mm round in that barrel length is not critical to its performance... unlike the 5.56mm round when velocity is everything.

The AK-104 is significantly smaller than the VZ58 when both have their stocks folded, which suggests that assuming the buttstocks are the same length that the difference is in the receiver and barrel lengths.

The requirement for the AK-104/105/102 would be folded size for compact carry where the barrel was long enough to be effective as an assault rifle... they clearly think 314mm is long enough... and I have not read of any complaints... unlike with the AKS-74U, which is actually an assault rifle calibre SMG rather than an assault rifle. At ranges of less than 200m the AKS-74U seems to be OK in terms of accuracy, though its round would be lethal to much greater ranges.

I'm fairly certain a gas regulator will increase the service life of the rifle, the question is whether or not adding a gas regulator to the AK design outweighs the cons or not. The increase in service life might be too small to justify. From a book that I have "As a weapon system, the Type 81 was built to last 20,000 rounds compared to AK copies of 10,000-15,000 rounds. It is built with the same machinery that produces the Type56/AK, and has similar loose tolerances, hence the same level of reliability in adverse conditions"- The World's Assault rifles. I don't know if these are tall claims or not but the Chinese claim that with the Type 81, they achieved a rifle every bit as reliable as the AK, while being 40% more accurate than the AK-47 at 300m's. The Type 81 has a gas regulator by the way.



Shortening the barrel slightly shouldn't be too detrimental to the rounds performance. If you took 1 inch off the barrel of the VZ 58, the overall length would be about the same if not slightly less than the AK-105. Also, an AKM with a 14 inch barrel would be about the same overall length as an AK-105 if not slightly smaller. You could take a pound off a standard AKM if you shortend the barrel by 1 or 2 inches.

SWAT Pointman wrote:I'm fairly certain a gas regulator will increase the service life of the rifle, the question is whether or not adding a gas regulator to the AK design outweighs the cons or not. The increase in service life might be too small to justify. From a book that I have "As a weapon system, the Type 81 was built to last 20,000 rounds compared to AK copies of 10,000-15,000 rounds. It is built with the same machinery that produces the Type56/AK, and has similar loose tolerances, hence the same level of reliability in adverse conditions"- The World's Assault rifles. I don't know if these are tall claims or not but the Chinese claim that with the Type 81, they achieved a rifle every bit as reliable as the AK, while being 40% more accurate than the AK-47 at 300m's. The Type 81 has a gas regulator by the way.



Shortening the barrel slightly shouldn't be too detrimental to the rounds performance. If you took 1 inch off the barrel of the VZ 58, the overall length would be about the same if not slightly less than the AK-105. Also, an AKM with a 14 inch barrel would be about the same overall length as an AK-105 if not slightly smaller. You could take a pound off a standard AKM if you shortend the barrel by 1 or 2 inches.

What seems to be left out, though, is that the both the Type-56 and the Type-81 are made upon thicker receivers, which help with the reliability. It's not just the Type-81 alone. The Type-56 and -81 are the two main AK variants that are supposedly more reliable than the AK-47/AKM variants due to the receivers.

But, then of course, one could argue; "what's more reliable than an AK-47, period?", y'know.

I don't know if these are tall claims or not but the Chinese claim that with the Type 81, they achieved a rifle every bit as reliable as the AK, while being 40% more accurate than the AK-47 at 300m's. The Type 81 has a gas regulator by the way.

Hardly an amazing feat... the AK-103 is probably even more accurate. The Type-81 has a two position regulator... so if it is more accurate with the lower setting, then when it gets dirty it should become less accurate when it is put on the higher setting.

Shortening the barrel slightly shouldn't be too detrimental to the rounds performance. If you took 1 inch off the barrel of the VZ 58, the overall length would be about the same if not slightly less than the AK-105. Also, an AKM with a 14 inch barrel would be about the same overall length as an AK-105 if not slightly smaller. You could take a pound off a standard AKM if you shortend the barrel by 1 or 2 inches.

Muzzle velocity is not hugely important to the 7.62 x 39mm as it derives its effectiveness from projectile mass. For the 5.45mm on the other hand velocity is important... it means flat shooting.

Some Pictures of AK-12 ( via mp.net )

https://i.imgur.com/9ZwQx.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/KD0ly.jpg

Interesting, some versions retain the balanced recoil system. It's a PS job, but it's still a good find.

HAHAHAHAHAHA... that picture you reposted Zivo is mine... I took several pages from that website and used the 30 round mags for scaling and then put the 95 round drum onto the AK12 and then the gas system from the AK-107 model two with pic rails on it together into one image...

EDIT: notice it was before I realised the muzzle device was different (narrower) to allow the launching of rifle grenades so my model has the old standard AK-74 type attachment instead of the newer longer narrower AK12 attachment.

Funny how things go round and round on the internet.

That other photo you have the link to is interesting but I suspect the labels are slightly wrong.

The button identified as a mag release above the lever mag release is actually the bolt hold open device I suspect, while the button above the mag identified as the bolt hold open/release is actually a buffer or spacer the stock folds onto.

I was hoping this had some significance. Oh well, nice job with the image.

I was thinking that with the Russian military version, they could save some cost and weight if they didn't have a rail on the cover, but instead had just some holes in the cover for mounting certain optics. The export version could retain the rails.

Rails are not the expensive. Plus the rail and cover is one solid piece, they don't appear to be riveted on.

Zivo wrote:Rails are not the expensive. Plus the rail and cover is one solid piece, they don't appear to be riveted on.

They aren't nearly as expensive as other parts of the gun, but it isn't free to machine a solid piece of aluminum or steel.

Nothing is free.

I'm more concerned about the price of the optic's they'll be putting on the rails.

Part of their future soldier kit includes a monocular that can be used as a night vision goggle, a telescopic sight, and a hand held night vision device. It can be attached to another monocular to make NVGs or night vision binoculars.

There will likely be a standard issue cheap and simple day optical sight... there is no point spending money on the rifles to make them more accurate and then more money on the rifles to make sighting equipment easier to fit, and even more money to upgrade the munitions factories and propellent production facilities to improve the accuracy of Russian ammo if you are going to skimp on the cost of a basic standard sight.

AFAIK the NVG does not have crosshairs so would be mounted in front of a standard day optic sight or the soldier might use iron sights through the optics.

GarryB wrote:Part of their future soldier kit includes a monocular that can be used as a night vision goggle, a telescopic sight, and a hand held night vision device. It can be attached to another monocular to make NVGs or night vision binoculars.

There will likely be a standard issue cheap and simple day optical sight... there is no point spending money on the rifles to make them more accurate and then more money on the rifles to make sighting equipment easier to fit, and even more money to upgrade the munitions factories and propellent production facilities to improve the accuracy of Russian ammo if you are going to skimp on the cost of a basic standard sight.

AFAIK the NVG does not have crosshairs so would be mounted in front of a standard day optic sight or the soldier might use iron sights through the optics.

I think it is almost imperative that every frontline soldier be issued an optical red dot sight. It improves the way somebody can shoot significantly over iron sights. Optional magnification would help too.

Whatever they choose... whether it is AK12s or simply upgraded AK-74s I am pretty sure they will have rail mounts for optics.

It was one of the demands that optics be able to be mounted more easily.

I am begining to suspect that one of the faults of the AK12 was that because there is now a thumb level selector on both sides of the receiver that the old latch mounts will not be able to be fitted so existing scopes will not fit the new rifles.

It is not really a fault, but would be considered a problem if you have a significant inventory of optical sights that don't fit your new rifles.

For most soldiers an optical sight will make shooting easier and a low magnification red dot sight would be very useful in simplifying shooting over shorter ranges.

The main problem would be batteries, but then some sort of system that uses ambient light to illuminate the reticle during the day together with solar powered rechargable batteries to illuminate them at night could be a solution too. Extra tubes to increase magnification for longer range shooting would be useful too... especially if both are designed so that if the battery fails for some reason that the iron sights can be used through the optics.

The magnification would effect the zero of course so different iron sight settings would need to be used.

Optics make shooting easier because you are placing an in focus crosshair or aiming mark on an in focus and perhaps magnified target, whereas shooting with iron sights you are lining up a fuzzy rear sight with an in focus front sight and placing the focussed front sight on a fuzzy target.

(you focus on the front sight because that is where the bullets are going)

For longer range targets... this is the Russian Army... the guy with the SVDS model 3 with the fancy thermal sight and ballistics computer can take the shot...

GarryB wrote:Whatever they choose... whether it is AK12s or simply upgraded AK-74s I am pretty sure they will have rail mounts for optics.

It was one of the demands that optics be able to be mounted more easily.

I am begining to suspect that one of the faults of the AK12 was that because there is now a thumb level selector on both sides of the receiver that the old latch mounts will not be able to be fitted so existing scopes will not fit the new rifles.

It is not really a fault, but would be considered a problem if you have a significant inventory of optical sights that don't fit your new rifles.

For most soldiers an optical sight will make shooting easier and a low magnification red dot sight would be very useful in simplifying shooting over shorter ranges.

The main problem would be batteries, but then some sort of system that uses ambient light to illuminate the reticle during the day together with solar powered rechargable batteries to illuminate them at night could be a solution too. Extra tubes to increase magnification for longer range shooting would be useful too... especially if both are designed so that if the battery fails for some reason that the iron sights can be used through the optics.

The magnification would effect the zero of course so different iron sight settings would need to be used.

Optics make shooting easier because you are placing an in focus crosshair or aiming mark on an in focus and perhaps magnified target, whereas shooting with iron sights you are lining up a fuzzy rear sight with an in focus front sight and placing the focussed front sight on a fuzzy target.

(you focus on the front sight because that is where the bullets are going)

For longer range targets... this is the Russian Army... the guy with the SVDS model 3 with the fancy thermal sight and ballistics computer can take the shot...

I don't believe they ever used optics very much on the AK-74 anyways. While the side plates are very functional from my experience, they are antiquated and need to go. It is unfortunate that many existing optics won't be compatible, but they can use that opportunity to buy newer and better optics. Magnification could be optional on such an optic. In the US, they make some redots that dual purpose short range and long range. Not every soldier would need an optic in the Russian military, but they are front line and best trained soldiers should definetely have an optic. I read that in the Akaban trials, it was a military requirement that the next rifle should have optical sights, but at the time, they found optics to not be rugged enough for the common soldier.

I rather suspect they will develop a simple straight forward sight of fairly low magnification for use as a standard rifle sight.

For the newer SVDs they have a 3-9 power scope based on the PSO-1, but for standard infantry a 1-4 fixed power scope would probably suffice.

By doing away with the side rail mount and using a top rail that allows sights to be used together I would suspect a standard x1 magnification scope should be possible to develop for less than $100 that can be made rugged and soldier proof enough to be widely issued. Fitting a night vision monocular in front of that and you have a night scope that is already zeroed. For longer range shooting a x4 or more magnification scope could be issued to mount in front of the standard issue scope, and other specialised scope can be issued as needed... like the Shahin thermal scope with ballistic computer for calculating trajectory/impact points could be used on the 7.62 x 54mm AK12 for use with the spotter in a sniper unit where the sniper has an SV-98 or SVDS-3.

The SA80 has a scope on almost every rifle, and the scope is actually quite expensive from memory (something like 800 pounds in the 1980s). The Steyr AUG also had a low powered scope fitted as standard as does the G-36.

It wouldn't be that radical.

Telescopic sights make shooting much easier.

Scopes on the AK-74 were fairly rare... mainly special force use really.

One of the criticisms of the AK design was optics and the requirement for adaptors etc, so I suspect the low issue rates of optics is about to change.

Russian focus on night fighting also means night vision equipment will likely be more widely issued too.

Yeah, a low powered optic seems to be the best solution. I wonder will they even bother making a replacement for the SVD like the AK-12 in 7.62x54R? They were suppose to make a decision whether they will upgrade the AK-74's or not, but that looks like it's dead in the water now.