AK-12 Rifle Discussion

GarryB wrote:I have not heard anything about a 7.62 x 54mm AK12, they have only mentioned a 7.62 x 51mm heavy model and a secret one that no one will talk about, but that I have speculated might be a new round to replace the 7.62 x 54mm... perhaps based on the 6 x 49mm round developed for the purpose but shelved because of a lack of money at the time. Well now that they are looking at upgrading all of their small arms, I rather suspect it would be a good time to look at replacing obsolete calibres too.

I suggested a 7.62 x 54mm AK12 as a spotter type weapon to support a sniper armed with a new model SVD, but it could be a 6 x 49mm calibre AK12.

I would expect a heavy AK12 to be comparable to an FN FAL, so accuracy to about 600m or so, while I would expect the new model SVDs to shoot out to 1,000m or so. This makes the new AK12 heavy rifles a good support weapon, but not a replacement weapon for the SVD... but that is just my opinion.

Having said that having your armed forces equipped with a 9 x 19mm AK-12 replacement for the Vityaz-SN SMG, a 5.45 x 39mm AK12 replacement for the AKS-74U rifle calibre SMG, a 5.45 x 39mm SK12 replacement for the AK-105 carbine, and of course the 5.45mm AK12 replacement for the AK-74M, plus a 9 x 39mm AK12 replacement for the AS suppressed recon assault rifle, and a 9 x 39mm AK12 replacement for the VSS suppressed recon sniper rifle, and a 5.45mm AK12 replacement for the RPK-74 LMG, and a 6 x 49mm heavy rifle AK12 replacement for the SVD designated marksman rifle and perhaps a 6 x 49mm heavy AK12 belt fed replacement for the PKP LMG plus a 12.7 x 55mm AK12 replacement for the VSSK 600m range recon suppressed sniper rifle...

All of a sudden you have one main weapon family for most of your military.

Keep a few odd weapons for special use or other branches like the ADS for its underwater performance, but of course there is no reason why the 5.45mm and 9 x 19mm calibre weapons can't use the special under water ammo they have had developed for them too... imagine a 6 x 49mm AK12 LMG firing underwater ammo...

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.

Don't be so impatient... They said they would have trials and they have had some... they have said there were some problems and no doubt they will be given some time to either solve the problems or make the case that the problems are not really problems.

As I have mentioned the lack of a side rail mount could be seen as a problem and a solution might be as simple as redesigning the thumb safety on the left side to allow side rail mounts further forward or further to the rear while lowering and reducing the size of the thumb control.

Or they might simply develop a pic rail mount that attaches to the top of the rail that has a latch system that hangs over the side to allow older scopes and things to be fitted while optics can be fitted on top of it.

Or indeed they might argue that most of the older model scopes that used side rails could easily be adapted to be mounted on pic rails with simple modifications and that most of the stock of rail mounted kit is obsolete anyway and the new stuff would be well worth buying to improve performance now that most of the optics companies have improved their tooling and manufacturing technology.

GarryB wrote:The recoil energy of the AK-74 is already slightly lower than that of the M16 because it fires slightly lighter bullets at slightly lower speeds.

To be honest the best and simplest way to reduce felt recoil with an AK-74 would be to reduce the weight of the bolt carrier and piston.
Having said that when held properly the AK-74 does not actually move around all that much during firing anyway.

To be honest the AK-74 is not a new design and it wouldn't hurt to upgrade a few features as we have seen in the AK12 design.

I doubt the new design is significantly more expensive so it would make sense simply to adopt it.

There is a risk that they will take the cheap road... they have said they want state of the art and new stuff... and such a policy is not compatible with being cheap. Certainly I don't think they should just throw money at all their problems and expect them to go away, but if they want to improve then small arms is one area there is room for improvement... especially if it leads to the introduction of a unified family of weapons.

GarryB wrote:

One of the main reasons they added a hammer retarder to the AKM was to delay the movement of the hammer to reduce shot dispersion, according to the manual.

Which manual?

The hammer delay is because the bolt carrier tends to bounce and if the hammer hit the firing pin while the bolt carrier was bouncing with the bolt unlocked there could be problems. The hammer delay was later replaced with a mechanism to prevent the hammer from hitting the firing pin while the bolt carrier was not fully forward...

The striker enhances accuracy because the weapon is not jarred during the firing cycle by the impact of a hammer falling."

Sorry, but that just sounds very very silly. With no round in the chamber I can pull the trigger on my hammer fired AK and the slamming down of the hammer does not jar the rifle or make it move around at all. How heavy do they think the hammer is?

BTW Max Popenker makes no claims for improved accuracy due to striker fire design in his excellent website: http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sniper-rifles/rus/vss-e.html

The only real benefit I have seen for striker rather than hammer fired weapons is that the striker fired weapons cannot be set off because of a significant blow... the AK having a free firing pin that is not held under spring tension, though the blow would need to be so significant I never really considered it a problem.

GarryB wrote:

"The hammer retarder retards the hammer's forward movement in order to improve accuracy during the conduct of full-automatic fire.

I think you are misreading that section.

It is not meaning the action of the hammer reduces accuracy, and therefore a hammer retarder or hammer delay mechanism has been added to improve accuracy.

What it is saying is that the rate of fire was slightly too high, and the hammer delay reduced the rate of fire which improved accuracy.

Having said that... accuracy in burst fire is not the best goal... the BREN gun was often criticised as a support weapon because it was too accurate as bursts of fire often only hit one or two targets, where a less accurate weapon would have threatened the whole enemy unit. There certainly is something to be said for hitting what you are aiming for.

GarryB wrote:

n defense of the "Kalashnikov" publicly expressed Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin. However, some military experts pointed out that, in spite of the improved design, the automaton has no properties "fifth generation".

There is clearly a communication problem... it seems to me that the military was expecting a new generation weapon, while the arms maker was clearly listening to all the criticisms of the AK-74M and addressing them quickly and relatively cheaply.

To be honest I don't know what the military were expecting and suspect they don't either. They wanted a new super weapon, but I suspect all they really need is an easier to use, more accurate AK-74M... which is what the AK12 is supposed to be.

I suspect the talk of bullets of modified centre of gravity means that they are going back to bullets that are highly unstable and tumble on impact.