AK-12 Rifle Discussion

Very simply the more efficient projectile design means it retains speed and therefore also energy better so it gets to the target faster and hits with more power than the larger slower older bullet in the 7.62 x 54mm.

Of course if they were going to adopt the 6 x 49mm then what is this 6.5 x 39mm round being talked about?

Accuracy is more about consistency than velocity... having something that prints on paper is more important than the fastest bullet... BTW new talk of ammo using plastic driving bands to reduce barrel wear and improving muzzle velocity could be applied to the 6 x 49mm as a further increase in muzzle velocity along with reduce barrel wear would benefit this round significantly.

Keep in mind that Steyr had a flechette round that had a plastic case and what amounted to a small nail with rear fins to stabilise it. The rifle it was fired from had fixed iron sights because it had a muzzle velocity of 1,400m/s and there was no bullet drop out to 800m, so centre of mass aim and pull the trigger and you get hits on target out to 800m.

the two problems were it was not very accurate, and it was not very lethal. On the positive side it was simple to aim with no elevation or deflection compensation needed and it penetrated flak jackets and helmets with ease...

I remember in the 1980s there were sabot rounds for rifle ammo in calibres like 308 winchester and 7.62 x 39mm. Small 50 grain bullets in plastic sabots mounted in standard cartridges... basically converting the rifle into a high velocity varmint rifle over short ranges. Was always meaning to buy some but never got around to it.

GarryB wrote:Very simply the more efficient projectile design means it retains speed and therefore also energy better so it gets to the target faster and hits with more power than the larger slower older bullet in the 7.62 x 54mm.

Of course if they were going to adopt the 6 x 49mm then what is this 6.5 x 39mm round being talked about?

Accuracy is more about consistency than velocity... having something that prints on paper is more important than the fastest bullet... BTW new talk of ammo using plastic driving bands to reduce barrel wear and improving muzzle velocity could be applied to the 6 x 49mm as a further increase in muzzle velocity along with reduce barrel wear would benefit this round significantly.

Keep in mind that Steyr had a flechette round that had a plastic case and what amounted to a small nail with rear fins to stabilise it. The rifle it was fired from had fixed iron sights because it had a muzzle velocity of 1,400m/s and there was no bullet drop out to 800m, so centre of mass aim and pull the trigger and you get hits on target out to 800m.

the two problems were it was not very accurate, and it was not very lethal. On the positive side it was simple to aim with no elevation or deflection compensation needed and it penetrated flak jackets and helmets with ease...

I remember in the 1980s there were sabot rounds for rifle ammo in calibres like 308 winchester and 7.62 x 39mm. Small 50 grain bullets in plastic sabots mounted in standard cartridges... basically converting the rifle into a high velocity varmint rifle over short ranges. Was always meaning to buy some but never got around to it.

Thank you so much for all of this information, Garry. Could the velocity of the 6x49mm round be maintained at 1100m/s in a 14.3 inch barrel? The standard version of the Steyr has a 20 inch barrel, and so that undoubtedly contributed to the incredible muzzle velocity figure that you presented. I think the 6x49mm should be engineered to reliably fragment on impact out of a 14 inch barrel and maintain its velocity out to 600 meters when fired from a carbine. I think the AK-12 should adopt the butt-stock of the Bushmaster ACR which would remove that terrible chasm you see between the butt-stock and the sights section.









Thanks again, mate.

The standard version of the Steyr has a 20 inch barrel, and so that undoubtedly contributed to the incredible muzzle velocity figure that you presented.

Sorry... I wasn't clear... the round in question is very light and very low drag... it is as I said just a nail with rear mounted fins for stability in flight. the nail would have a sabot around it to fit in the shell case much like an APFSDS round from a tank gun does and obviously its reduced weight and low drag means it travels fast and does not slow down rapidly like a normal bullet shape.

Your questions regarding the 6x49mm round are interesting... you do know the main problems with the 5.56mm NATO round don't apply to the 5.45mm or 6mm rounds the Russians use/might use don't you?

The 5.56mm is a short stubby little projectile that gets its effectiveness by fragmenting in the target.

the russian rounds tumble on impact and while they don't fragment they do a lot of damage by tumbling and not coming out where you would expect... ie a curved path through human tissue.

The Russian ammo is not as lethal at close range because it does not fragment, but it rather more lethal at normal and longer ranges because it does tumble... no matter what its barrel length might be.

BTW the 6 x 49mm was not developed as a super replace every calibre round... it was designed to replace the 7.62 x 54mmR round now that it is well over 100 years old.

The 5.45mm is smaller and lighter and effective over the ranges infantry generally shoot at other infantry. There is no urgent need to replace it AFAIK.

I think the AK-12 should adopt the butt-stock of the Bushmaster ACR which would remove that terrible chasm you see between the butt-stock and the sights section.

Not sure what you are talking about....

If you look at the pictures you have provided you can see both stocks are in line with the barrel... the only difference is that the reciver and sights on the AK12 are higher than on the other weapon.

You will however notice that on the western weapon the iron sights are on stalks to raise them to be roughly the same height as the AK12s iron sights... so it seems to me to be 6 on one and half a dozen on the other.

Having your head vertical when looking down the sights of a rifle is actually normal and natural.

When optics are being used then a cheek pad could be raised on the AK12 to align the eyes to the sights.

GarryB wrote:

The standard version of the Steyr has a 20 inch barrel, and so that undoubtedly contributed to the incredible muzzle velocity figure that you presented.

Sorry... I wasn't clear... the round in question is very light and very low drag... it is as I said just a nail with rear mounted fins for stability in flight. the nail would have a sabot around it to fit in the shell case much like an APFSDS round from a tank gun does and obviously its reduced weight and low drag means it travels fast and does not slow down rapidly like a normal bullet shape.

Your questions regarding the 6x49mm round are interesting... you do know the main problems with the 5.56mm NATO round don't apply to the 5.45mm or 6mm rounds the Russians use/might use don't you?

The 5.56mm is a short stubby little projectile that gets its effectiveness by fragmenting in the target.

the russian rounds tumble on impact and while they don't fragment they do a lot of damage by tumbling and not coming out where you would expect... ie a curved path through human tissue.

The Russian ammo is not as lethal at close range because it does not fragment, but it rather more lethal at normal and longer ranges because it does tumble... no matter what its barrel length might be.

BTW the 6 x 49mm was not developed as a super replace every calibre round... it was designed to replace the 7.62 x 54mmR round now that it is well over 100 years old.

The 5.45mm is smaller and lighter and effective over the ranges infantry generally shoot at other infantry. There is no urgent need to replace it AFAIK.

I realise that the 5.45 is more aerodynamic than the 5.56 and that it isn't velocity dependent. I was impressed when I found out that it's still useful in a 10 inch barrel. It's a great round - I'm not disputing that at all. I was just impressed with the 6x49mm round and the logistical benefits it could provide; I figured that if it was useful in a PK machine gun and a Dragunov, it could be effectively used in the AK-12, VS-121 and the Pecheneg machine gun.

You were very clear. I should have looked up what a flechette round is. The blame lies with me.

Garry B wrote:
Not sure what you are talking about....

If you look at the pictures you have provided you can see both stocks are in line with the barrel... the only difference is that the reciver and sights on the AK12 are higher than on the other weapon.

You will however notice that on the western weapon the iron sights are on stalks to raise them to be roughly the same height as the AK12s iron sights... so it seems to me to be 6 on one and half a dozen on the other.

Having your head vertical when looking down the sights of a rifle is actually normal and natural.

When optics are being used then a cheek pad could be raised on the AK12 to align the eyes to the sights

I don't dispute the fact that the AK-12 stock is in line with the barrel. The ACR's butt-stock seems larger and looks as though it's integrated from the base of the barrel all the way to the sight section. Imagine the ACR without the integrated, frontally positioned cheek weld.... it would have the same chasm as the AK-12. The top section of the ACR butt-stock roughly corresponds to the chasm you see in the AK-12; this is why I think the AK-12's sight section seems higher positioned.  It's just an *opinion*, but that's what I see.

There will be a cheek weld on the final product, just like the ACR and SCAR do it.

Kote, I gotta ask since you seem very knowledgable on this stuff - do you orefer Russian mod to simply go for AK-74MR upgrades or would you prefer newer rifles? And if so, which one is most ideal for both price and performance?

sepheronx wrote:Kote, I gotta ask since you seem very knowledgable on this stuff - do you orefer Russian mod to simply go for AK-74MR upgrades or would you prefer newer rifles? And if so, which one is most ideal for both price and performance?

New rifles. The difference in construction quality, ergonomy and also modularity with the two new systems is just a notch above. But the old systems are very good. They're very good military grade life-savers. But I see why the Russian MO would want to keep the 74M's in use. It's a very durable rifle and the bullet is a very interesting compromise. I personally have two Ak-systems in Albania, both Yugoslavian and both on 7.62. They're the only two other things other than my son that I would bet my life on.

I'm not disputing that at all. I was just impressed with the 6x49mm round and the logistical benefits it could provide; I figured that if it was useful in a PK machine gun and a Dragunov, it could be effectively used in the AK-12, VS-121 and the Pecheneg machine gun.

You could probably get away with having it as a universal round but it is a bit larger than current assault rifle rounds... I would expect it would replace 7.62 x 54mm weapons fairly easily... meaning the SVD, PKM, and PKP because it has less recoil and weight and is smaller, yet offers better range and hitting power performance.

With regard to using it in assault rifles and carbines however it is bigger and heavier than standard rounds and while it offers better long range performance, it does so at the cost of heavier larger ammo.

It would certainly be a better solution than using 7.62 x 54mm ammo but in my opinion would create the same problems.

A more minor change like the 6.5 x 39mm round to replace the shorter range ammo allowing heavier projectiles to be used makes sense... but then I think it would make more sense to go with two standard versions of 6 x 49mm rounds... one with a heavier bullet in the 120 to 130 grain weight range for longer range shooting, and one in the 90-100 grain range for shorter range shooting... the lighter bullet would mean less recoil for use in lighter weapons...

I don't dispute the fact that the AK-12 stock is in line with the barrel. The ACR's butt-stock seems larger and looks as though it's integrated from the base of the barrel all the way to the sight section. Imagine the ACR without the integrated, frontally positioned cheek weld.... it would have the same chasm as the AK-12. The top section of the ACR butt-stock roughly corresponds to the chasm you see in the AK-12; this is why I think the AK-12's sight section seems higher positioned. It's just an *opinion*, but that's what I see.

I am looking at the pictures you have posted and I am struggling to work out what your problem is.

When you hold a rifle to your shoulder the stock goes against your cheek below your eye... not to your temple next to your eye.

The AK12 has a raised rear receiver and an iron sight mounted on top... the only time that would be a problem is when optics are fitted when you will need to raise your sighting eye a few cms... that is what cheek pads and raisible cheek pads on the shoulder stock are for.

The western rifle has posts on which iron sights are mounted... why is that better than having iron sights mounted low on a raised receiver?

Garry B wrote:You could probably get away with having it as a universal round but it is a bit larger than current assault rifle rounds... I would expect it would replace 7.62 x 54mm weapons fairly easily... meaning the SVD, PKM, and PKP because it has less recoil and weight and is smaller, yet offers better range and hitting power performance.

With regard to using it in assault rifles and carbines however it is bigger and heavier than standard rounds and while it offers better long range performance, it does so at the cost of heavier larger ammo.

It would certainly be a better solution than using 7.62 x 54mm ammo but in my opinion would create the same problems.

A more minor change like the 6.5 x 39mm round to replace the shorter range ammo allowing heavier projectiles to be used makes sense... but then I think it would make more sense to go with two standard versions of 6 x 49mm rounds... one with a heavier bullet in the 120 to 130 grain weight range for longer range shooting, and one in the 90-100 grain range for shorter range shooting... the lighter bullet would mean less recoil for use in lighter weapons...

I'll admit it, my infatuation with having a powerful universal round was influenced by the ridiculous notion that a bullet needs to able to punch through concrete [just like the 7.62x39mm] while simplifying logistics, but I realise now that if some God awful insurgents are holed up in a building, bullets of any sort simply won't do; we'll have 120 mm mortar shells from a BMPT to do the job far more effectively from a maximum of 7 km in conjunction with ultra modern drones. Technologies are being developed that will allow a modern military to see through walls using Wi-Fi signals; I imagine that this will be fitted onto silent, nearly invisible drones made out of meta materials - operating from many kilometers away. We already have micro drones that can travel 42 km. Drones will be completely invisible when e-camouflage is added into the mix; the surrounding environment will be projected onto the drone.  Imagine launching an 'invisible' drone that is able to see through walls from kilometers away; able to communicate and relay images in real time to 120 mm armed BMPT vehicles and other units. I'd like to see these technologies used against the likes of ISIL.  

You are right -  the 5.45 round serves its purpose and allows the modern war fighter to carry a great deal of ammunition without being saddled with excessive weight. I still think that the Russians should phase out the 7.62x54mm with the 6x49mm for the Pecheneg and VS-121.


Sources:

See through walls using WI-FI: http://www.gizmag.com/x-ray-vision-robots-seeing-through-walls-wifi/33257/

Invisible drones: http://defense-update.com/20150830_metamaterial_cloak.html#.VhezC25syYS

E-camouflage:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8247967/Invisible-tanks-could-be-on-battlefield-within-five-years.html

GarryB wrote:

I don't dispute the fact that the AK-12 stock is in line with the barrel. The ACR's butt-stock seems larger and looks as though it's integrated from the base of the barrel all the way to the sight section. Imagine the ACR without the integrated, frontally positioned cheek weld.... it would have the same chasm as the AK-12. The top section of the ACR butt-stock roughly corresponds to the chasm you see in the AK-12; this is why I think the AK-12's sight section seems higher positioned.  It's just an *opinion*, but that's what I see.

I am looking at the pictures you have posted and I am struggling to work out what your problem is.

When you hold a rifle to your shoulder the stock goes against your cheek below your eye... not to your temple next to your eye.

The AK12 has a raised rear receiver and an iron sight mounted on top... the only time that would be a problem is when optics are fitted when you will need to raise your sighting eye a few cms... that is what cheek pads and raisible cheek pads on the shoulder stock are for.

The western rifle has posts on which iron sights are mounted... why is that better than having iron sights mounted low on a raised receiver?

I've never held a rifle let alone use one, so I don't know much about these things. I prefer the butt-stock of the ACR and so I'll just leave it at that. Don't you think it would be nice if the AK-12 had flip up-fold down front iron sights? I say this because I noticed that the current front sights get in the way of low lying optics like red-dot optics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEuJ-dmpE_A

KoTeMoRe wrote:

sepheronx wrote:Kote, I gotta ask since you seem very knowledgable on this stuff - do you orefer Russian mod to simply go for AK-74MR upgrades or would you prefer newer rifles? And if so, which one is most ideal for both price and performance?

New rifles. The difference in construction quality, ergonomy and also modularity with the two new systems is just a notch above. But the old systems are very good. They're very good military grade life-savers. But I see why the Russian MO would want to keep the 74M's in use. It's a very durable rifle and the bullet is a very interesting compromise. I personally have two Ak-systems in Albania, both Yugoslavian and both on 7.62. They're the only two other things other than my son that I would bet my life on.

I agree with this big time. New rifles are not only ergonomically superior, they can better take advantage of new light-weight materials. We now have materials that are just as strong as steel but as light as aluminum; this makes it possible to make a 14.3 inch carbine version of the AK-12 weigh as little as 2.7 kg when unloaded and 3.4 kg when loaded with a 30 round magazine - which is what it weighs now when empty. This is the future. I would still like to see an M4 type magwell on the AK-12 for the export market, but only if it uses light weight materials. A full length rail would also be nice.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/new-magnesium-alloy-worlds-strongest-lightest-metal-sahit-muja

http://www.sciencealert.com/new-metal-alloy-has-highest-strength-to-weight-ratio-of-any-metal

Cyrus the great wrote:

GarryB wrote:

I don't dispute the fact that the AK-12 stock is in line with the barrel. The ACR's butt-stock seems larger and looks as though it's integrated from the base of the barrel all the way to the sight section. Imagine the ACR without the integrated, frontally positioned cheek weld.... it would have the same chasm as the AK-12. The top section of the ACR butt-stock roughly corresponds to the chasm you see in the AK-12; this is why I think the AK-12's sight section seems higher positioned.  It's just an *opinion*, but that's what I see.

I am looking at the pictures you have posted and I am struggling to work out what your problem is.

When you hold a rifle to your shoulder the stock goes against your cheek below your eye... not to your temple next to your eye.

The AK12 has a raised rear receiver and an iron sight mounted on top... the only time that would be a problem is when optics are fitted when you will need to raise your sighting eye a few cms... that is what cheek pads and raisible cheek pads on the shoulder stock are for.

The western rifle has posts on which iron sights are mounted... why is that better than having iron sights mounted low on a raised receiver?

I've never held a rifle let alone use one, so I don't know much about these things. I prefer the butt-stock of the ACR and so I'll just leave it at that.  Don't you think it would be nice if the AK-12 had flip up-fold down front iron sights? I say this because I noticed that the current front sights get in the way of low lying optics like red-dot optics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEuJ-dmpE_A

That video tells us only one thing, that the camera and holosight were not aligned, you couldn't see the reticle of the holosight but the barrel (gas operating system). Have used rifles and there are barely any rifles with the iron sights visible through Red dot sights and even those who have them do not make it harder to aim, actually it makes easier to acquire the red dot when trying to shoot quickly with lowered weapon. You just have to remember where the red dot is when you see the iron sights which helps you acquiring RD faster.

I'll admit it, my infatuation with having a powerful universal round was influenced by the ridiculous notion that a bullet needs to able to punch through concrete [just like the 7.62x39mm] while simplifying logistics, but I realise now that if some God awful insurgents are holed up in a building, bullets of any sort simply won't do;

The sad reality is that the enemy is not stupid.... even if we have a rifle bullet that punches through two sandbags after they have lost a few battles they will start using three or more sandbags.

Just the same with armoured vehicles.... spend a fortune on super MRAP vehicles that survive 6kgs of HE under the front wheel and after they see your troops walk away from their attacks and they will increase the HE until they don't.

we'll have 120 mm mortar shells from a BMPT to do the job far more effectively from a maximum of 7 km in conjunction with ultra modern drones.

The 100mm rifled gun of the BMP-3 has a range of 7km in its improved round version... the 120mm gun/mortar of the VENA has a range of 7.2km with mortar bombs and 13km with shells...

Technologies are being developed that will allow a modern military to see through walls using Wi-Fi signals; I imagine that this will be fitted onto silent, nearly invisible drones made out of meta materials - operating from many kilometers away. We already have micro drones that can travel 42 km. Drones will be completely invisible when e-camouflage is added into the mix; the surrounding environment will be projected onto the drone. Imagine launching an 'invisible' drone that is able to see through walls from kilometers away; able to communicate and relay images in real time to 120 mm armed BMPT vehicles and other units. I'd like to see these technologies used against the likes of ISIL.

More importantly with photonics replacing electronics they will be immune to EMP weapons...

You are right - the 5.45 round serves its purpose and allows the modern war fighter to carry a great deal of ammunition without being saddled with excessive weight. I still think that the Russians should phase out the 7.62x54mm with the 6x49mm for the Pecheneg and VS-121.

The 54 is a nice round but entered service in 1891 in its 220 grain round nosed black powder form... time for a change methinks.

I've never held a rifle let alone use one, so I don't know much about these things. I prefer the butt-stock of the ACR and so I'll just leave it at that. Don't you think it would be nice if the AK-12 had flip up-fold down front iron sights? I say this because I noticed that the current front sights get in the way of low lying optics like red-dot optics.

Actually the only advantage I can see with fold down iron sights is that they allow optical sights to be mounted so you can use a red dot sight with the red dot turned off and just use the iron sights for aiming through the optics.

Note the whole purpose of the rail system is to allow a day sight to be mounted to the rear and a night vision scope to be mounted in front so you look through the rear day sight using its aiming crosshairs and the night vision optic in the front just makes things visible at night... meaning you don't need to rezero the rifle and for day shots or night shots at a lit target you can take off the front night vision optic.

Having high iron sights means a bigger gap between the line of sight and the line of the muzzle.

Have seen lots of British soldiers firing through windows forgetting how high its scope is and not clearing the muzzle over the window sill and firing a burst directly into the window sill instead of at the target.

This is the future. I would still like to see an M4 type magwell on the AK-12 for the export market, but only if it uses light weight materials. A full length rail would also be nice.

In an aircraft thread they mention heat resistant aluminium has been developed...

Werewolf wrote:

Cyrus the great wrote:

GarryB wrote:

I don't dispute the fact that the AK-12 stock is in line with the barrel. The ACR's butt-stock seems larger and looks as though it's integrated from the base of the barrel all the way to the sight section. Imagine the ACR without the integrated, frontally positioned cheek weld.... it would have the same chasm as the AK-12. The top section of the ACR butt-stock roughly corresponds to the chasm you see in the AK-12; this is why I think the AK-12's sight section seems higher positioned.  It's just an *opinion*, but that's what I see.

I am looking at the pictures you have posted and I am struggling to work out what your problem is.

When you hold a rifle to your shoulder the stock goes against your cheek below your eye... not to your temple next to your eye.

The AK12 has a raised rear receiver and an iron sight mounted on top... the only time that would be a problem is when optics are fitted when you will need to raise your sighting eye a few cms... that is what cheek pads and raisible cheek pads on the shoulder stock are for.

The western rifle has posts on which iron sights are mounted... why is that better than having iron sights mounted low on a raised receiver?

I've never held a rifle let alone use one, so I don't know much about these things. I prefer the butt-stock of the ACR and so I'll just leave it at that.  Don't you think it would be nice if the AK-12 had flip up-fold down front iron sights? I say this because I noticed that the current front sights get in the way of low lying optics like red-dot optics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEuJ-dmpE_A

That video tells us only one thing, that the camera and holosight were not aligned, you couldn't see the reticle of the holosight but the barrel (gas operating system). Have used rifles and there are barely any rifles with the iron sights visible through Red dot sights and even those who have them do not make it harder to aim, actually it makes easier to acquire the red dot when trying to shoot quickly with lowered weapon. You just have to remember where the red dot is when you see the iron sights which helps you acquiring RD faster.

I didn't even consider the point about the alignment of the camera and the holosight. Damn it! Instead of admitting that I'm an idiot, I'll just say that looks can be deceiving. I prefer the AK's front iron sight to the AR-15's front sights. Thanks, Werewolf.

Garry B wrote:

The sad reality is that the enemy is not stupid.... even if we have a rifle bullet that punches through two sandbags after they have lost a few battles they will start using three or more sandbags.

Just the same with armoured vehicles.... spend a fortune on super MRAP vehicles that survive 6kgs of HE under the front wheel and after they see your troops walk away from their attacks and they will increase the HE until they don't.

That's true. I mean if the enemy knows that you have a round that can punch through walls, they'll just adapt to ensure their survival.  A powerful round is almost always a good thing but if it limits how much I can carry, it isn't so hot anymore. I got caught up in how wonderful the 6x49mm is but it does seem that it would be better suited in a Pecheneg machine gun and a VS-121. I love the fact that it is 2x as accurate as the 7.62x54.

Garry B wrote:
The 100mm rifled gun of the BMP-3 has a range of 7km in its improved round version... the 120mm gun/mortar of the VENA has a range of 7.2km with mortar bombs and 13km with shells...

The 2A70 gun is great for destroying bunkers but I think its low velocity is a minus in an urban setting with fast moving insurgents. The 120mm is powerful, can hit targets out to ridiculous ranges and has almost 2x as much velocity as the 2A70. Didn't you say that the Russian military was thinking of creating a BMPT variant with a 120mm gun? That would be incredible. I can't wait to see that beast.  

Garry B wrote:The 54 is a nice round but entered service in 1891 in its 220 grain round nosed black powder form... time for a change methinks.

Oh my God, it's ancient. I'm surprised that it's been in service for that long. The 6x49mm is beyond incredible. I can't believe that it's 2x as accurate as the 7.62x54. Using the 6x49mm in a VS-121 would provide sniper like results.

Garry B wrote:Actually the only advantage I can see with fold down iron sights is that they allow optical sights to be mounted so you can use a red dot sight with the red dot turned off and just use the iron sights for aiming through the optics.

Note the whole purpose of the rail system is to allow a day sight to be mounted to the rear and a night vision scope to be mounted in front so you look through the rear day sight using its aiming crosshairs and the night vision optic in the front just makes things visible at night... meaning you don't need to rezero the rifle and for day shots or night shots at a lit target you can take off the front night vision optic.

Having high iron sights means a bigger gap between the line of sight and the line of the muzzle.

Have seen lots of British soldiers firing through windows forgetting how high its scope is and not clearing the muzzle over the window sill and firing a burst directly into the window sill instead of at the target.

These are the kind of things I presume you picked when you actually handled a rifle. I'll have to get on a range sometime and use an AK-74. Thanks for responding.

Garry B wrote:

In an aircraft thread they mention heat resistant aluminium has been developed...

I'm loving these metallurgical developments. We will soon have self-healing, self-cooling meta-materials as well; this will increase the life of the barrel big time. Accuracy will also be increased because heating reduces the accuracy of the rifle. I just can't wait until an AK variant is made to be as light as 2.7 kg when unloaded.

PS: Thanks for your extensive reply, mate.

You shouldn't underestimate the psychological effect on soldiers of big rounds impacting and creating small debris around them or spewing dust fountains from walls and ground. Soldiers, Terrorists or who ever will immidiatley realize his situation beeing outgunned and outranged by superior calibres. There are many places where soldiers will not have any chances of deploying sandbags in sufficient numbers or at all. Like the patrolls, they do not fortify themselfs somewhere, they are patrolling, big calibre weapos are usefull even against armored jeeps and MRAPS, hell some HMG's can pierce APC's.

Sitting behind a sandwall/brickwall in Afghanistan while enemy is shooting at you will have different impact on your soldiers moral if the rounds do not manage to pierce the wall, but calibre rounds that slowly break big junks out your cover or even pierce right through it has a huge impact on your soldiers moral and factually on his lifespan. Sandbags are all fine, but barely you have them when you need them. Soldiers do not sit in their fortified bases all day long when they are need as an offensive force in the field.

Werewolf wrote:You shouldn't underestimate the psychological effect on soldiers of big rounds impacting and creating small debris around them or spewing dust fountains from walls and ground. Soldiers, Terrorists or who ever will immidiatley realize his situation beeing outgunned and outranged by superior calibres. There are many places where soldiers will not have any chances of deploying sandbags in sufficient or at all. Like the patrolls, they do not fortify themselfs somewhere, they are patrolling, big calibre weapos are usefull even against armored jeeps and MRAPS, hell some HMG's can pierce APC's.

It's funny you should say that because that's precisely the message the Syrian military recently delivered to terrorists.

Warplanes dropped leaflets over Idlib and Latakia, farther north, trying to persuade insurgents to surrender.

“40 types of ammunition … are waiting for you,” one read. “Able to destroy targets (ground-underground-shelters and fortified areas).”

Another read: “O Gunman: It is time for the truth. The world is changing rapidly. The army is coming. Think of yourself.” It added, “Drop your weapon to keep your life and future.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/13/world/middleeast/syria-russia-airstrikes.html

I really love what I've read on the 6x49mm and I can't wait until Russia puts it into service. It's large, powerful, incredibly accurate and has less recoil than the 7.62x54 and so it would be ideal for patrolling. The VS-121 coupled with the 6x49mm would definitely demoralise enemy troops.

That's true. I mean if the enemy knows that you have a round that can punch through walls, they'll just adapt to ensure their survival. A powerful round is almost always a good thing but if it limits how much I can carry, it isn't so hot anymore.

You might have seen videos of Syrian government forces driving along the road getting picked off by TOW.

What was basically happening was the optics and sensors on the old model tanks did not have the range to detect the TOW teams from their launch positions 4km or so away so the first warning of the attack was missiles impacting the tanks.

Having a range advantage over the enemy is ALWAYS a good thing and a rifle cartridge that can hit and kill at 1,000m plus is a huge advantage because it greatly increases the area the enemy need to observe to remain safe. Increasing the radius of a circle by 1/3rd increases the volume of the circle by three times. In other words having a VS-121 that is lethal to 900m instead of an SVD lethal to 600m triples the area the enemy have to search for firing positions...

Increasing penetration reduces the number of natural positions that are cover as well as concealment. Most buildings will stop a 545mm round from 600m as it will be subsonic and fairly light. A still supersonic 6mm round will always do rather better.

I got caught up in how wonderful the 6x49mm is but it does seem that it would be better suited in a Pecheneg machine gun and a VS-121. I love the fact that it is 2x as accurate as the 7.62x54.

I agree... and being lighter and more compact will mean less weight or more ammo... they are looking for ways to reduce the soldiers load with Ratnik... lighter ammo is an easy choice...

The 2A70 gun is great for destroying bunkers but I think its low velocity is a minus in an urban setting with fast moving insurgents.

Most wont know the round is coming... and few could outrun either weapons projectile... I mean to outrun it you need to know where it is going to hit... which you wont know until it explodes.

the low velocity is actually an asset because rounds can be lobbed over frontal cover to land amongst the enemy (UAVs providing aim points).

The 120mm is powerful, can hit targets out to ridiculous ranges and has almost 2x as much velocity as the 2A70.

The 100mm round is all HE and recently has been improved in power. Both weapons are excellent... the lighter 100mm gun would be less effective on target with a more limited range of ammo types but its ammo is also much more compact allowing more ready to use ammo for a given weight.

Didn't you say that the Russian military was thinking of creating a BMPT variant with a 120mm gun? That would be incredible. I can't wait to see that beast.

There was a model in a Russian armour factory showing an armata vehicle with a 120mm rifled gun/mortar as a main gun with what looked like a 23mm 6 barrel gatling and a 40mm or 57mm grenade launcher as support weapons.

Using the 6x49mm in a VS-121 would provide sniper like results.

VS-121 is a sniper rifle... so the 6mm and 7.62mm rounds give sniper like results...

Accuracy will also be increased because heating reduces the accuracy of the rifle.

Heating can effect accuracy because as the metal expands some parts can expand and some can't leading to deforming or bending... imagine an all ceramic barrel that can retain the rifling grooves even when glowing white hot...

I just can't wait until an AK variant is made to be as light as 2.7 kg when unloaded.

The AKS-74U is already lighter than that unloaded.

Of course no matter how light you make a rifle... the user will add optics and extra grips and of course under barrel grenade launchers and suppressors and large capacity magazines etc etc.

Garry B wrote:
You might have seen videos of Syrian government forces driving along the road getting picked off by TOW.

What was basically happening was the optics and sensors on the old model tanks did not have the range to detect the TOW teams from their launch positions 4km or so away so the first warning of the attack was missiles impacting the tanks.

Having a range advantage over the enemy is ALWAYS a good thing and a rifle cartridge that can hit and kill at 1,000m plus is a huge advantage because it greatly increases the area the enemy need to observe to remain safe. Increasing the radius of a circle by 1/3rd increases the volume of the circle by three times. In other words having a VS-121 that is lethal to 900m instead of an SVD lethal to 600m triples the area the enemy have to search for firing positions...

Increasing penetration reduces the number of natural positions that are cover as well as concealment. Most buildings will stop a 545mm round from 600m as it will be subsonic and fairly light. A still supersonic 6mm round will always do rather better.

Yeah, I've seen the videos and I just feel incredibly sorry for the Syrian soldiers because they don't know where the rounds are coming from and don't have any [passive or active] means of defence. I know that the BMPT was made to protect tanks and infantry in urban settings but I think it would be tremendously useful against anti-tank teams; you could create a small UAV that can be fired from a 120mm barrel  -- one that will search out for TOW teams as far out as 17 km, relay the images in real time and provide precise coordinates to the 120mm armed BMPT to pulverize them.

I'm just salivating at the prospect that the Russian military will phase out the 7.62x54 and replace it with the 6x49mm. The fact that is 2x as accurate makes it ideal for the VS-121 and allow this new rifle to reach its fully potential.

Garry B wrote:
Most wont know the round is coming... and few could outrun either weapons projectile... I mean to outrun it you need to know where it is going to hit... which you wont know until it explodes.

the low velocity is actually an asset because rounds can be lobbed over frontal cover to land amongst the enemy (UAVs providing aim points).

I certainly don't think that enemy combatants could possibly outrun any projectile but they may relocate -for whatever reason- before the projectile hits its target. Small drone helicopters should be able to provide targeting information even for relatively fast flying projectiles.

Garry B wrote:
The 100mm round is all HE and recently has been improved in power. Both weapons are excellent... the lighter 100mm gun would be less effective on target with a more limited range of ammo types but its ammo is also much more compact allowing more ready to use ammo for a given weight.

The 2A70 is undoubtedly a great gun but the 120mm gun edges it in both performance and versatility. How many 120mm rounds do you think the new BMPT might carry?

Garry B wrote:
There was a model in a Russian armour factory showing an armata vehicle with a 120mm rifled gun/mortar as a main gun with what looked like a 23mm 6 barrel gatling and a 40mm or 57mm grenade launcher as support weapons.

I can't wait until it's put into service. That's an unbelievable increase in firepower from the old BMPT. A vehicle like that would destroy the terrorists in Syria with ease.

Garry B wrote:
VS-121 is a sniper rifle... so the 6mm and 7.62mm rounds give sniper like results...

I was under the impression that it was going to be the rifle of a squad designated marksman.

Garry B wrote:

The AKS-74U is already lighter than that unloaded.

Of course no matter how light you make a rifle... the user will add optics and extra grips and of course under barrel grenade launchers and suppressors and large capacity magazines etc etc.

Yeah but it has an 8 inch barrel whereas the M4 has a 14.5 inch barrel. AKS-74U seems specifically tailored for CQB operations. New lightweight materials can be used to make a 14.3 inch barrel AK-12 carbine weigh as little as 2.7 kg, making it significantly lighter than the AK-12.

pale Yeah, I've seen the videos and I just feel incredibly sorry for the Syrian soldiers because they don't know where the rounds are coming from and don't have any [passive or active] means of defence. I know that the BMPT was made to protect tanks and infantry in urban settings but I think it would be tremendously useful against anti-tank teams; you could create a small UAV that can be fired from a 120mm barrel -- one that will search out for TOW teams as far out as 17 km, relay the images in real time and provide precise coordinates to the 120mm armed BMPT to pulverize them.

The point is that the BMPT will have powerful day/night all weather optics and likely systems like PPAV to detect enemy optics... a 100mm gun or a 120mm gun mortar would be ideal for smashing a TOW team position from beyond any range the TOW team could respond.

I certainly don't think that enemy combatants could possibly outrun any projectile but they may relocate -for whatever reason- before the projectile hits its target. Small drone helicopters should be able to provide targeting information even for relatively fast flying projectiles.

the thing is that the flight time of the projectile will be rather short so an enemy TOW team hiding in a room wont have time to pick up all their equipment and bug out in the time it takes for a 100mm shell to travel its max range of 7km. If the team is already moving when the shot it fired the round will be heading to where the target will be when the round lands rather than where the target was when the round was fired.

The 2A70 is undoubtedly a great gun but the 120mm gun edges it in both performance and versatility. How many 120mm rounds do you think the new BMPT might carry?

They take up rather more room than the 100mm rounds... in the BMP-3M it has 40 rounds in the turret carosel, but on a BMPT based on a MBT they should have room for maybe twice as much ammo in 100mm calibre. Perhaps 40-50 rounds of 120mm ammo.

The 120mm ammo will be more powerful and have longer range, and IFVs within the unit will already have 100mm and 57mm HE rounds and of course the MBT models in the unit will have 125mm HE rounds so there will be no fire power shortage at all... and that is not including artillery support from tube and rocket platforms.

I was under the impression that it was going to be the rifle of a squad designated marksman.

It may be used in that capacity but the much heavier barrel and improved trigger suggests to me that this will be a rather more accurate weapon for longer range use than the standard SVD.

Yeah but it has an 8 inch barrel whereas the M4 has a 14.5 inch barrel. AKS-74U seems specifically tailored for CQB operations. New lightweight materials can be used to make a 14.3 inch barrel AK-12 carbine weigh as little as 2.7 kg, making it significantly lighter than the AK-12.

The AK-105 has a 315mm barrel already.

Garry B wrote:
The point is that the BMPT will have powerful day/night all weather optics and likely systems like PPAV to detect enemy optics... a 100mm gun or a 120mm gun mortar would be ideal for smashing a TOW team position from beyond any range the TOW team could respond.

I've never heard of the PPAV but I assume it has a range in excess of 5 km - to make it truly effective against anti-tank teams. Couple this system with advanced optics and drones and deploy it in a Syria and those terrorists won't be having any successes against Syrian armour.

Garry B wrote:
the thing is that the flight time of the projectile will be rather short so an enemy TOW team hiding in a room wont have time to pick up all their equipment and bug out in the time it takes for a 100mm shell to travel its max range of 7km. If the team is already moving when the shot it fired the round will be heading to where the target will be when the round lands rather than where the target was when the round was fired.

That's true. Like you said, there is simply no way that they could reliably predict when the rounds are going to hit their positions. I prefer the 120mm for its range and power; I know the terrorists in Syria don't have anti-tank missiles with ranges in excess of 7 km [like the kornet] - but if they did, the 120mm would enable greater standoff ranges.

Garry B wrote:They take up rather more room than the 100mm rounds... in the BMP-3M it has 40 rounds in the turret carosel, but on a BMPT based on a MBT they should have room for maybe twice as much ammo in 100mm calibre. Perhaps 40-50 rounds of 120mm ammo.

The 120mm ammo will be more powerful and have longer range, and IFVs within the unit will already have 100mm and 57mm HE rounds and of course the MBT models in the unit will have 125mm HE rounds so there will be no fire power shortage at all... and that is not including artillery support from tube and rocket platforms.

The more firepower the better. 50 120mm rounds would be a huge increase in firepower for the BMPT. The current BMPT only has 4 thermobaric rounds in addition to its twin 30mm autocannons.  In any case the enemy would absolutely dread being at the receiving end of any BMPT variant, especially if those riding in BMPTs can see through walls from kilometers away using drones.

Garry B wrote:
It may be used in that capacity but the much heavier barrel and improved trigger suggests to me that this will be a rather more accurate weapon for longer range use than the standard SVD.

The VS-121 is a great replacement for the SVD, but it will only reach its full potential when it starts using the 6x49mm.

Garry wrote:
The AK-105 has a 315mm barrel already.

I love it. It weighs only 3 kg flat and would be perfect for urban warfare and paratroopers. The weight of the gun can be further reduced to 2.7 kg with new lightweight -yet strong- materials. It would be absolutely perfect if it came in a 14.3 inch barrel. I wonder if the Russians will make the carbine version of the AK-12 their standard rifle the same way the Americans have now made the M4 carbine their standard rifle.

Damn that is sexy.