AK-12 Rifle Discussion

What kind of vibration control measures has Izhmash put in place for the AK-12 to increase accuracy? How effective would a a revamped gas tube design be if the gas tube was mounted "via a dovetail slide machined on the receiver upper-front block"?

Cyrus the great wrote:
What kind of vibration control measures has Izhmash put in place for the AK-12 to increase accuracy? How effective would a a revamped gas tube design be if the gas tube was mounted "via a dovetail slide machined on the receiver upper-front block"?  

What exactly are you aiming at? Barrel flexing? Or Receiver flexing (two different issues). Most vibration control is done in three areas. Barrel (little thicker), bolt group (lighter shorter (barely) bolt) and cycling of the bolt (better fit and tighter tolerances, no lost momentum).

The gas tube won't be actually that better off. The main problem is not a new gas tube design (cough Sig cough) but the actual cycling after gas flow. Which needs better, tighter parts.

A huge factor is soldier proofing in a firearm.

I love my SLR (L1A1) it is a bit heavy, but it is long and well balanced and recoils nicely despite being a full calibre full power rifle calibre (308 NATO), but the gas plug is tricky and I often get it wrong even now.

Basically after disassembly there are two orientations for putting the plug back in the rifle... it turns about 90 degrees so you can insert it two ways... one way it acts as a gas regulator to ensure the rifle cycles ammo properly during firing... you can turn it up to allow more gas when the weapon is dirty or turn the gas off. the other way it lets no gas through and the rifle becomes a manually cocked rifle.

With balanced recoil rifles you would have to get the mechanism properly aligned and balanced or it likely will either make recoil worse or wont work at all... meaning serious pressure to get it right.

Now I have no idea what combat is like and I am happy about that, but if I can get it wrong half the time without being tired and hungry and with no bullets whipping past my ears, then I think balanced recoil mechanisms are a nice idea and might be useful in some situations... LMGs for instance where full auto will be standard procedure, but for your average grunt training in aiming and shooting single shot makes more sense to me than still firing in bursts.

Now that they have improved the accuracy of the weapons and improved the accuracy of the ammo and are issuing night vision devices to grunts one would expect rifle scopes would also be included... in which case a shift from burst fire to hit moving targets to aimed accuracy would be a good idea.

The balanced recoil systems are not bad per say, but I would think they would be more use on something like an RPK12 or PKP.

Would be interesting if they made a fully modular weapon with an upper and a lower like the SLR.

It is better than the M16 model because the SLR lower is the pistol grip and trigger and rear stock and recoil spring while the upper includes the bolt and barrel as well as the mag well.

This means that unlike the M16, the SLR is not limited in the types of rounds it can use (the M16 is limited to rounds no longer than the 5.56mm x 45 round).

I personally would go for a bullpup design but with the magazine well being part of the upper and not the lower... yeah... tricky i know... but I would design it so it can have a box mag up to Lapua Magnum length and double stack width, but also belt feed... all behind the trigger group and all part of the upper.

The balanced recoil mechanism can be a complete module that can be fitted into the upper to work with the recoil mechanism built into the lower for heavier rounds and for lighter rounds like 9x21mm it can just use the lower recoil mechanism.

You could even have a pump action shotgun modification that uses the recoil mechanism of the lower to assist in pumping forward...

GarryB wrote:A huge factor is soldier proofing in a firearm.

...

With balanced recoil rifles you would have to get the mechanism properly aligned and balanced or it likely will either make recoil worse or wont work at all... meaning serious pressure to get it right.

I was wondering about the same - delicate act of assuring CB action is properly tuned to cancel out the recoil.

But, the design (is/appears to be) is such that it is not required. The piston/bolt assy and CB assy are hard-coupled via gears (rack/pinion ???), so they always cancel recoil just right - no matter the load or condition of the rifle.

On funny note, in the vid, the RU operator still has thumb of his non-shooting arm atop of the barrel, to compensate for weapon climb - even though this new rifle is completely recoil free

r111 wrote:

GarryB wrote:A huge factor is soldier proofing in a firearm.

...

With balanced recoil rifles you would have to get the mechanism properly aligned and balanced or it likely will either make recoil worse or wont work at all... meaning serious pressure to get it right.

I was wondering about the same - delicate act of assuring CB action is properly tuned to cancel out the recoil.

But, the design (is/appears to be) is such that it is not required. The piston/bolt assy and CB assy are hard-coupled via gears (rack/pinion ???), so they always cancel recoil just right - no matter the load or condition of the rifle.

On funny note, in the vid, the RU operator still has thumb of his non-shooting arm atop of the barrel, to compensate for weapon climb - even though this new rifle is completely recoil free

"C-clampish" non-sense. It's made for US audiences, don't forget.

Also the rifle still kicks. Having fired about two mags (20 rounds yeah) in Budapest. There's small lat deviation when you want let the rifle go. Goes right, but you don't notice the rifle moving until you've fired your 8th/9th round.

anyone knows what's up with "Kalashnikov USA" company
in America is selling all Russian arms but manufactured in America and using
more modern materials?  Did they pay royalties kalashnikov in Russia for that?



Can they produce AK-12 made in USA and sell it there without paying a cent
or asking permission to Russia ?  Some of the models looks like AK-12 to me..
Or is "kalashnikov USA" is a franchise of (Kalashnikov Russia) and they pay royalties? or both companies have nothing to do with each other? and simply Americans are stealing/compying/Reverse Engineering what Kalasnikov produce?

i heard somewhere that US companies "have a license" to make kalasnikov
will be interesting to see what Kalasnikov company in Russia says about
Americans companies manufacuring their weapons and selling it.

Vann7 wrote:anyone knows what's up with "Kalashnikov USA" company
in America is selling all Russian arms but manufactured in America and using
more modern materials?  Did they pay royalties kalashnikov in Russia for that?



Can they produce AK-12 made in USA and sell it there without paying a cent
or asking permission to Russia ?  Some of the models looks like AK-12 to me..
Or is "kalashnikov USA" is a franchise of (Kalashnikov Russia) and they pay royalties? or both companies have nothing to do with each other? and simply Americans are stealing/compying/Reverse Engineering what Kalasnikov produce?

i heard somewhere that US companies "have a license" to make kalasnikov
will be interesting to see what Kalasnikov company in Russia says about
Americans companies manufacuring their weapons and selling it.

According to the CEO, Kalashnikov Concern have no relations to Kalashnikov USA.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/04/08/exclusive-alexey-krivoruchko-the-ceo-of-the-kalashnikov-group-has-answered-your-questions/

zepia wrote:

Vann7 wrote:anyone knows what's up with "Kalashnikov USA" company
in America is selling all Russian arms but manufactured in America and using
more modern materials?  Did they pay royalties kalashnikov in Russia for that?



Can they produce AK-12 made in USA and sell it there without paying a cent
or asking permission to Russia ?  Some of the models looks like AK-12 to me..
Or is "kalashnikov USA" is a franchise of (Kalashnikov Russia) and they pay royalties? or both companies have nothing to do with each other? and simply Americans are stealing/compying/Reverse Engineering what Kalasnikov produce?

i heard somewhere that US companies "have a license" to make kalasnikov
will be interesting to see what Kalasnikov company in Russia says about
Americans companies manufacuring their weapons and selling it.

According to the CEO, Kalashnikov Concern have no relations to Kalashnikov USA.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/04/08/exclusive-alexey-krivoruchko-the-ceo-of-the-kalashnikov-group-has-answered-your-questions/

1. AK USA, is the old importer, there's a contract between both regarding AK's in SKD kits. This contract is now suspended because the Sanctions. (as in interview).
2. AK USA isn't "producing" guns, it is buying kits (currently part of them in Israel) and producing parts in the US to be US Compliant (you need a number of parts produced in the US). The actual company behind AK USA is in fact CAA USA (which also the US importer of CAA Tactical from Israel).
3. There' nothing in that booth that looks like an AK-12, nothing at all. The AK Alfa, is in fact a legacy AK dressed up with plastic. It has various solutions which others had applied. It most remarkably employs IWI solutions in terms of materials (ACE family) so basically it's a kit that could easily be adapted to the Galil series.

KoTeMoRe

I didn't mention that particular design to argue in favour of it, but to raise questions on whether or not it actually worked. The ACE series of rifles made that particular modification and so I wondered if it reduced barrel vibrations as they claim.

I really like the 'AK-15' that was shown a couple of pages back. I just wish they found a way to make a free-floating AK - to further increase accuracy. I read somewhere that a free-floated barrel can be up to 2X more accurate. Most engagements are apparently within 80 meters, so I guess this isn't really required when the AK-74 can already accurately lay down fire 500 meters out.

There is an enormous difference between accuracy and battlefield accuracy.

A nice sunny day at the range with a sand bag to lean on and a nice flat unmoving paper target at a specific range is one thing.

Tired, hungry, SCARED... targets dressed in camouflage uniforms that break up their shape and that move erratically from cover to cover and are firing back is not really the same thing.

In the real world an AK has a battle setting of 300.

When set to that distance the bullet will hit the target in the centre of the chest when aiming at the centre of the chest of the target at 300m.

The shape of the trajectory of the bullet means a hit from muzzle to about 400m.

What I mean is that when the bullet leaves the barrel it starts to fall due to gravity.

When you zero the iron sights to three hundred metres that means you angle the sights so the barrel lofts the bullet into the air and by the time it has travelled 300m it has fallen down back into the line of sight to the point of aim.

300m is not some random number... the height the bullet is lofted to hit the chest at 300m is less than the height to a normal persons top of their head, so the bullet rises from the centre chest aim point up to about the centre of their head and then back down to their chest at 300m.

This is called point blank range because the round never goes above the targets head from the muzzle all the way out to the target, so if you estimated the targets range badly you should still get a hit.

More importantly when talking about accuracy you need to keep in mind how the human eye works.

When you place your cheek on the stock of an AK-74 you are aligning three things instinctively. Your eye is one thing, the rear iron sight is the second and the front iron sight is the third.
That position is called a cheek wield and it is something you practise over and over until it becomes automatic.

The human eye is an amazing piece of kit but it cannot focus on more than one thing at one distance.

Without thinking about it you think you can see in a wide field of view but the human eye can only detect high detail within about 4-5 degrees of the centre of its view... the rest is not focussed and does not include a lot of detail.

the field of view vision outside the centre 4-5 degrees is optimised to detect movement... it is actually very good at that so anything that moves draws the centre of your vision to it... you see something to your side move and you automatically turn your eyes to see what it is.

Your brain could not cope with all the detailed information in your entire field of view anyway.

The point is that you can either focus on the rear iron sight, the front iron sight or the target.

To shoot properly you have to position your head so you always look through the rear sight at the front sight.

There is no point in focusing on the target... looking through the rear sight at the front sight tells you where your bullets are going and that is the important thing.

You of course need to look at the target and identify it as a valid target, but to actually shoot the target you focus on your front sight through the rear sight and place the top of the front sight in the centre of mass of the blur that is the target and fire.

Even with a peep iron sight you are still positioning your eye against the rear iron sight and looking at the front iron sight to shoot at the blur that is the target.

Add to that the target is moving and shooting back and you might imagine that it is not the bullet with your name on it you should be worrying about it is those delivered to whom it may concern that are the killers.

Note optics makes shooting vastly easier as they magnify the target and allow the aim point (crosshairs) and the target to be in focus at once making it much easier to shoot accurately and at greater distances.

For stationary targets you can actually aim for a specific part of the target.

note that is the purpose of a bulls eye because even when blurred a small black dot inside a large white circle makes the centre of the target easy to see even when not in focus.

Kalash haters eat crow for the second year in a row, they end the year with net profits:

"Kalashnikov" was released on the net profit: Concern Revenue in 2015 grew by 2.8 times

magnumcromagnon wrote:Kalash haters eat crow for the second year in a row, they end the year with net profits:

"Kalashnikov" was released on the net profit: Concern Revenue in 2015 grew by 2.8 times

I'm an CK hater (Hate the lobby jigamathing), but I can't say I'd be happy with Izhmash or Baikal being in trouble. Also CK having a good export pool, the RUR drop helps them a lot.

GarryB wrote:There is an enormous difference between accuracy and battlefield accuracy.

A nice sunny day at the range with a sand bag to lean on and a nice flat unmoving paper target at a specific range is one thing.

Tired, hungry, SCARED... targets dressed in camouflage uniforms that break up their shape and that move erratically from cover to cover and are firing back is not really the same thing.

In the real world an AK has a battle setting of 300.

When set to that distance the bullet will hit the target in the centre of the chest when aiming at the centre of the chest of the target at 300m.

The shape of the trajectory of the bullet means a hit from muzzle to about 400m.

What I mean is that when the bullet leaves the barrel it starts to fall due to gravity.

When you zero the iron sights to three hundred metres that means you angle the sights so the barrel lofts the bullet into the air and by the time it has travelled 300m it has fallen down back into the line of sight to the point of aim.

300m is not some random number... the height the bullet is lofted to hit the chest at 300m is less than the height to a normal persons top of their head, so the bullet rises from the centre chest aim point up to about the centre of their head and then back down to their chest at 300m.

This is called point blank range because the round never goes above the targets head from the muzzle all the way out to the target, so if you estimated the targets range badly you should still get a hit.

More importantly when talking about accuracy you need to keep in mind how the human eye works.

When you place your cheek on the stock of an AK-74 you are aligning three things instinctively. Your eye is one thing, the rear iron sight is the second and the front iron sight is the third.
That position is called a cheek wield and it is something you practise over and over until it becomes automatic.

The human eye is an amazing piece of kit but it cannot focus on more than one thing at one distance.

Without thinking about it you think you can see in a wide field of view but the human eye can only detect high detail within about 4-5 degrees of the centre of its view... the rest is not focussed and does not include a lot of detail.

the field of view vision outside the centre 4-5 degrees is optimised to detect movement... it is actually very good at that so anything that moves draws the centre of your vision to it... you see something to your side move and you automatically turn your eyes to see what it is.

Your brain could not cope with all the detailed information in your entire field of view anyway.

The point is that you can either focus on the rear iron sight, the front iron sight or the target.

To shoot properly you have to position your head so you always look through the rear sight at the front sight.

There is no point in focusing on the target... looking through the rear sight at the front sight tells you where your bullets are going and that is the important thing.

You of course need to look at the target and identify it as a valid target, but to actually shoot the target you focus on your front sight through the rear sight and place the top of the front sight in the centre of mass of the blur that is the target and fire.

Even with a peep iron sight you are still positioning your eye against the rear iron sight and looking at the front iron sight to shoot at the blur that is the target.

Add to that the target is moving and shooting back and you might imagine that it is not the bullet with your name on it you should be worrying about it is those delivered to whom it may concern that are the killers.

Note optics makes shooting vastly easier as they magnify the target and allow the aim point (crosshairs) and the target to be in focus at once making it much easier to shoot accurately and at greater distances.

For stationary targets you can actually aim for a specific part of the target.

note that is the purpose of a bulls eye because even when blurred a small black dot inside a large white circle makes the centre of the target easy to see even when not in focus.

Thanks,  Garry, that certainly puts everything into perspective.  As I understand it,  the AK-74 is pretty much just as accurate as the M16; the AK-12 has improved on the accuracy,  while being many times more reliable than the AR 15 series of rifles or any other rifle.  Most urban environment engagements take place within 50 m whereas open field engagements occur within 183 m. American and German soldiers still complain about the reliability of their rifles,  so I would much rather take the AK to war. I made a mistake in my other post on average  engagement ranges.

Thanks again,  mate.

Cyrus the great wrote:
I really like the 'AK-15' that was shown a couple of pages back. I just wish they found a way to make a free-floating AK - to further increase accuracy. I read somewhere that a free-floated barrel can be up to 2X more accurate. Most engagements are apparently within 80 meters, so I guess this isn't really required when the AK-74 can already accurately lay down fire 500 meters out.

Floating barrels are only necessary for specialized sniper rifles that require sub-MOA accuracy and are typically utilized at ranges above 1km. Even designated marksmen rifles with a typical engagement radius of 300m-800m typically don't employ floating barrels. For a service rifle like an AK or AR there is no need to implement floating barrels since they are already accurate enough (ie. able to hit man-sized targets) at their typical engagement ranges. In fact, since military science has shown that the number of battle casualties is strongly correlated with the number of rounds released on target, it would be more helpful to implement mechanisms which decrease the recoil from each shot and thereby allow the shooter to more rapidly release rounds on the target.

Thanks, Acheron. I definitely now understand that the AK-74 and onwards can hit a man in the chest from as far as 300 m, which is at the upper reaches of average engagement ranges, so a free floating barrel really isn't necessary. I just wanted to know if a free-floating barrel was possible in an AK platform.

3-D printed AK-12 perhaps?

"Stankoprom" began to publish details of small arms of 3D-printers

magnumcromagnon wrote:3-D printed AK-12 perhaps?

"Stankoprom" began to publish details of small arms of 3D-printers

Nah only part of the handguard and there's a polymer receiver in testing. Russian MOD doesn't want anything to do with it.

3-D printed AK-12 perhaps?

Maybe start with just semi disposable magazines or custom fitting stocks (ie custom to the operator, not the gun).

Still waiting for a decent Russian multicalibre hunting rifle...

This Machine gun has little history compared with others. What bullets are best.

No history because it is new, but it is based on the AK design which has plenty of history.

the best calibre will be 5.45 x 39mm... accurate enough, lethal enough and light and cheap enough...

GarryB wrote:No history because it is new, but it is based on the AK design which has plenty of history.

the best calibre will be 5.45 x 39mm...  accurate enough, lethal enough and light and cheap enough...

Apparently in USSR would not fully agree with you since 6x49mm unified round programme was pretty well. Cancelled due to ammo capabilities but after-Soviet cuts...

Cancelled due to not having to fight WW3 in a pinch anymore, or so they thought.

The 6x49mm calibre is designed for medium to long range use in machine guns and sniper rifles.

It was never intended for assault rifles, for which the Russian military seem rather happy with the 5.45 x 39mm.

There was talk of new propellents increasing muzzle velocity by 30%, which would make the 5.45mm calibre weapon... say 910m/s up to about 1,183m/s muzzle velocity and with its very good sectional density it would greatly extend its effective range, but experience shows actual combat takes place at much shorter range where the 5.45mm ammo is perfectly adequate.

The 6 x 49mm ammo was cancelled because there was no money to spend to get it into service.

Now that they are updating their small arms I rather suspect they will also be considering updating their calibres and ammo types too.