Russian Sniper Rifles

par far wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

par far wrote:

Werewolf wrote:

par far wrote:Why are Lobaev sniper rifle's not getting any love? They are making great Sniper rifles that match any in the west, why is the Russian army not taking a serious look at Lobaev sniper rifle's?


http://lobaevarms.com/

Freaking high costs, costs as much you get in an entire year, while other sniper rifles cost roughly the half and are still top notch.

How much more does it cost than say Orsis T 5000? I just hope the company would lower the price a little bit, we want the Russian to be one the best, then we have to buy the best.

For civilians the cost with Dedal 5-20 is about 6500 Euros.

That's half the price of an British Lseries rifle in current service. Unit cost for new m24's in US (without scope) varies from 11 thousand to 17 thousand (contracts for the Army were with and without scopes). Lobaev comes really close to those prices and uses generally Hensoldt scopes. Thus it has zero chances for mass production.

That is expensive, hopefully They lower the price.

Why? These aren't SVD's. They're on par with what the Western Armies get and already half the price. Don't forget a Dedal Scope is 3 times cheaper than the closest counterpart. A 4000 euro rifle (scope included) should be the best offer on the market in .338 Lapua.

KoTeMoRe wrote:

par far wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

par far wrote:

Werewolf wrote:

par far wrote:Why are Lobaev sniper rifle's not getting any love? They are making great Sniper rifles that match any in the west, why is the Russian army not taking a serious look at Lobaev sniper rifle's?


http://lobaevarms.com/

Freaking high costs, costs as much you get in an entire year, while other sniper rifles cost roughly the half and are still top notch.

How much more does it cost than say Orsis T 5000? I just hope the company would lower the price a little bit, we want the Russian to be one the best, then we have to buy the best.

For civilians the cost with Dedal 5-20 is about 6500 Euros.

That's half the price of an British Lseries rifle in current service. Unit cost for new m24's in US (without scope) varies from 11 thousand to 17 thousand (contracts for the Army were with and without scopes). Lobaev comes really close to those prices and uses generally Hensoldt scopes. Thus it has zero chances for mass production.

That is expensive, hopefully They lower the price.

Why? These aren't SVD's. They're on par with what the Western Armies get and already half the price. Don't forget a Dedal Scope is 3 times cheaper than the closest counterpart. A 4000 euro rifle (scope included) should be the best offer on the market in .338 Lapua.

I was about Lobaev, hopefully they lower the prices.

par far wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

par far wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

par far wrote:

Werewolf wrote:

par far wrote:Why are Lobaev sniper rifle's not getting any love? They are making great Sniper rifles that match any in the west, why is the Russian army not taking a serious look at Lobaev sniper rifle's?


http://lobaevarms.com/

Freaking high costs, costs as much you get in an entire year, while other sniper rifles cost roughly the half and are still top notch.

How much more does it cost than say Orsis T 5000? I just hope the company would lower the price a little bit, we want the Russian to be one the best, then we have to buy the best.

For civilians the cost with Dedal 5-20 is about 6500 Euros.

That's half the price of an British Lseries rifle in current service. Unit cost for new m24's in US (without scope) varies from 11 thousand to 17 thousand (contracts for the Army were with and without scopes). Lobaev comes really close to those prices and uses generally Hensoldt scopes. Thus it has zero chances for mass production.

That is expensive, hopefully They lower the price.

Why? These aren't SVD's. They're on par with what the Western Armies get and already half the price. Don't forget a Dedal Scope is 3 times cheaper than the closest counterpart. A 4000 euro rifle (scope included) should be the best offer on the market in .338 Lapua.

I was about Lobaev, hopefully they lower the prices.

Doesn't matter anymore. Lobaev proved to show their true colors when they moved off to UAE in the first place. Orsis proved as a great alternative and apparently cheaper too.

sepheronx wrote:

par far wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

par far wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

par far wrote:

Werewolf wrote:

par far wrote:Why are Lobaev sniper rifle's not getting any love? They are making great Sniper rifles that match any in the west, why is the Russian army not taking a serious look at Lobaev sniper rifle's?


http://lobaevarms.com/

Freaking high costs, costs as much you get in an entire year, while other sniper rifles cost roughly the half and are still top notch.

How much more does it cost than say Orsis T 5000? I just hope the company would lower the price a little bit, we want the Russian to be one the best, then we have to buy the best.

For civilians the cost with Dedal 5-20 is about 6500 Euros.

That's half the price of an British Lseries rifle in current service. Unit cost for new m24's in US (without scope) varies from 11 thousand to 17 thousand (contracts for the Army were with and without scopes). Lobaev comes really close to those prices and uses generally Hensoldt scopes. Thus it has zero chances for mass production.

That is expensive, hopefully They lower the price.

Why? These aren't SVD's. They're on par with what the Western Armies get and already half the price. Don't forget a Dedal Scope is 3 times cheaper than the closest counterpart. A 4000 euro rifle (scope included) should be the best offer on the market in .338 Lapua.

I was about Lobaev, hopefully they lower the prices.

Doesn't matter anymore.  Lobaev proved to show their true colors when they moved off to UAE in the first place.  Orsis proved as a great alternative and apparently cheaper too.

They came back.

sepheronx wrote:

par far wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

par far wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

par far wrote:

Werewolf wrote:

par far wrote:Why are Lobaev sniper rifle's not getting any love? They are making great Sniper rifles that match any in the west, why is the Russian army not taking a serious look at Lobaev sniper rifle's?


http://lobaevarms.com/

Freaking high costs, costs as much you get in an entire year, while other sniper rifles cost roughly the half and are still top notch.

How much more does it cost than say Orsis T 5000? I just hope the company would lower the price a little bit, we want the Russian to be one the best, then we have to buy the best.

For civilians the cost with Dedal 5-20 is about 6500 Euros.

That's half the price of an British Lseries rifle in current service. Unit cost for new m24's in US (without scope) varies from 11 thousand to 17 thousand (contracts for the Army were with and without scopes). Lobaev comes really close to those prices and uses generally Hensoldt scopes. Thus it has zero chances for mass production.

That is expensive, hopefully They lower the price.

Why? These aren't SVD's. They're on par with what the Western Armies get and already half the price. Don't forget a Dedal Scope is 3 times cheaper than the closest counterpart. A 4000 euro rifle (scope included) should be the best offer on the market in .338 Lapua.

I was about Lobaev, hopefully they lower the prices.

Doesn't matter anymore.  Lobaev proved to show their true colors when they moved off to UAE in the first place.  Orsis proved as a great alternative and apparently cheaper too.

Don't underestimate the power of Russian MOD to 'armtwist' and arms manufacturer. Take UVZ for a example, they were offering Armata's at too high of cost, after some strong-arming from MOD, UVZ is now selling Armata's at a more reasonable level (if only they can get Yasen's to be sold at a reasonable cost). MOD could say "You can get a 1,000 orders, but you have to cut the price in half." Give them a large order, and they can't justify not selling their rifles at a reasonable price, especially now because of the Rouble devaluation.

This is not "strong arming" it is proper haggling. When you have one supplier and one consumer they have to duke it out for the
price. There is no market value. The company tries to go for the Moon so it needs to be brought down to Earth. In Russia it
appears that the government has a spine and is not a corporate whore whose task it is to transfer tax payer money into the
pockets of the oligarchy. My toast to the Russian MOD for being a responsible purchasing agent.

Guys don't forget also that Orsis devlopped very fast and very well in accordance with few RU MO orders and tenders. While Lobaev never managed to get beyond the workshop mentality. So you have very good rifles from a master gunsmith but it isn't really the "concern mentality". They say it themselves. They got "benchrest mentality". That's simply out of the mark with high volume, military grade rifles. They got to the UAE because of the easy cash. They were told to just pring their science, everything else was laid out. They tried to take advantage of that, only to find out that the small arms world is every bit as political as the hardware one. So now they're back making select orders and small batches of laser accurate weapons, for eye watering prices.

KoTeMoRe wrote:Guys don't forget also that Orsis devlopped very fast and very well in accordance with few RU MO orders and tenders. While Lobaev never managed to get beyond the workshop mentality. So you have very good rifles from a master gunsmith but it isn't really the "concern mentality". They say it themselves. They got "benchrest mentality". That's simply out of the mark with high volume, military grade rifles. They got to the UAE because of the easy cash. They were told to just pring their science, everything else was laid out. They tried to take advantage of that, only to find out that the small arms world is every bit as political as the hardware one. So now they're back making select orders and small batches of laser accurate weapons, for eye watering prices.

Good post and quite right. If they can reduce their prices and still make quality equipment, then they hopefully will survive the market.

Osiris and Sigal

As part of the program, the agency developed new 7.62x51mm and 8.6x69mm rifles. Standard Russian rifle calibers historically range from 7.62x39mm to 7.62x54mm.

Why waste time with these two calibres?

The 308 winchester round is foreign and the 8.6 x 68mm is not that remarkable in terms of performance. It hits harder than 7.62 x 54mm with its heavier projectile, but is not a long range round.

Personally I would drop the 8.6x69mm... or more accurately not adopt it, and would focus on the 6x49mm and 338 lapua magnum. That would result in a useful infantry rifle and machine gun calibre (6x49mm) and a long range sniper round (the lapua magnum).

GarryB wrote:

As part of the program, the agency developed new 7.62x51mm and 8.6x69mm rifles. Standard Russian rifle calibers historically range from 7.62x39mm to 7.62x54mm.

Why waste time with these two calibres?

The 308 winchester round is foreign and the 8.6 x 68mm is not that remarkable in terms of performance. It hits harder than 7.62 x 54mm with its heavier projectile, but is not a long range round.

Personally I would drop the 8.6x69mm... or more accurately not adopt it, and would focus on the 6x49mm and 338 lapua magnum. That would result in a useful infantry rifle and machine gun calibre (6x49mm) and a long range sniper round (the lapua magnum).

7,62x54R is getting old tho, it needs either serious design revision or replacement in future.

When its about why they offer these two calibers atm is probably for export or some specialised units that would appreciate .308 over 7,62x54R, but most likely main reason is export.

GarryB wrote:

As part of the program, the agency developed new 7.62x51mm and 8.6x69mm rifles. Standard Russian rifle calibers historically range from 7.62x39mm to 7.62x54mm.

Why waste time with these two calibres?

The 308 winchester round is foreign and the 8.6 x 68mm is not that remarkable in terms of performance. It hits harder than 7.62 x 54mm with its heavier projectile, but is not a long range round.

Personally I would drop the 8.6x69mm... or more accurately not adopt it, and would focus on the 6x49mm and 338 lapua magnum. That would result in a useful infantry rifle and machine gun calibre (6x49mm) and a long range sniper round (the lapua magnum).

Err, LapMag is 8.6x69. Personally I would resurect thet 8mm mauser, Yugos done wonders with it and the round ironically was kind of revived with the BabyLapMag (7.62x69) the Russians tested.

There's also a SuperLapMag 8.6x89 for "special purpose" tested by Lobaev some times in the 2010.

KoTeMoRe wrote:

GarryB wrote:

As part of the program, the agency developed new 7.62x51mm and 8.6x69mm rifles. Standard Russian rifle calibers historically range from 7.62x39mm to 7.62x54mm.

Why waste time with these two calibres?

The 308 winchester round is foreign and the 8.6 x 68mm is not that remarkable in terms of performance. It hits harder than 7.62 x 54mm with its heavier projectile, but is not a long range round.

Personally I would drop the 8.6x69mm... or more accurately not adopt it, and would focus on the 6x49mm and 338 lapua magnum. That would result in a useful infantry rifle and machine gun calibre (6x49mm) and a long range sniper round (the lapua magnum).

Err, LapMag is 8.6x69. Personally I would resurect thet 8mm mauser, Yugos done wonders with it and the round ironically was kind of revived with the BabyLapMag (7.62x69) the Russians tested.

There's also a SuperLapMag 8.6x89 for "special purpose" tested by Lobaev some times in the 2010.

"7,9 says HI"

Militarov wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

GarryB wrote:

As part of the program, the agency developed new 7.62x51mm and 8.6x69mm rifles. Standard Russian rifle calibers historically range from 7.62x39mm to 7.62x54mm.

Why waste time with these two calibres?

The 308 winchester round is foreign and the 8.6 x 68mm is not that remarkable in terms of performance. It hits harder than 7.62 x 54mm with its heavier projectile, but is not a long range round.

Personally I would drop the 8.6x69mm... or more accurately not adopt it, and would focus on the 6x49mm and 338 lapua magnum. That would result in a useful infantry rifle and machine gun calibre (6x49mm) and a long range sniper round (the lapua magnum).

Err, LapMag is 8.6x69. Personally I would resurect thet 8mm mauser, Yugos done wonders with it and the round ironically was kind of revived with the BabyLapMag (7.62x69) the Russians tested.

There's also a SuperLapMag 8.6x89 for "special purpose" tested by Lobaev some times in the 2010.

"7,9 says HI"

Very good in your "sporterized" "hunting rifles". My old boss had one for hunting. Seized by the new regime. M85B (looked like an Enfield, shot like a Mule).

[quote="KoTeMoRe"]

Militarov wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

GarryB wrote:

As part of the program, the agency developed new 7.62x51mm and 8.6x69mm rifles. Standard Russian rifle calibers historically range from 7.62x39mm to 7.62x54mm.

Why waste time with these two calibres?

The 308 winchester round is foreign and the 8.6 x 68mm is not that remarkable in terms of performance. It hits harder than 7.62 x 54mm with its heavier projectile, but is not a long range round.

Personally I would drop the 8.6x69mm... or more accurately not adopt it, and would focus on the 6x49mm and 338 lapua magnum. That would result in a useful infantry rifle and machine gun calibre (6x49mm) and a long range sniper round (the lapua magnum).

Err, LapMag is 8.6x69. Personally I would resurect thet 8mm mauser, Yugos done wonders with it and the round ironically was kind of revived with the BabyLapMag (7.62x69) the Russians tested.

There's also a SuperLapMag 8.6x89 for "special purpose" tested by Lobaev some times in the 2010.

"7,9 says HI"


Very good in your "sporterized" "hunting rifles". My old boss had one for hunting. Seized by the new regime. M85B (looked like an Enfield, shot like a Mule).  

Those are still available in some shops around, good rifles.

But production stopped in favor of very similar just modernised rifle, dubbed M2010, available apparently only in .223 and .308

Militarov wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Militarov wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

GarryB wrote:

As part of the program, the agency developed new 7.62x51mm and 8.6x69mm rifles. Standard Russian rifle calibers historically range from 7.62x39mm to 7.62x54mm.

Why waste time with these two calibres?

The 308 winchester round is foreign and the 8.6 x 68mm is not that remarkable in terms of performance. It hits harder than 7.62 x 54mm with its heavier projectile, but is not a long range round.

Personally I would drop the 8.6x69mm... or more accurately not adopt it, and would focus on the 6x49mm and 338 lapua magnum. That would result in a useful infantry rifle and machine gun calibre (6x49mm) and a long range sniper round (the lapua magnum).

Err, LapMag is 8.6x69. Personally I would resurect thet 8mm mauser, Yugos done wonders with it and the round ironically was kind of revived with the BabyLapMag (7.62x69) the Russians tested.

There's also a SuperLapMag 8.6x89 for "special purpose" tested by Lobaev some times in the 2010.

"7,9 says HI"


Very good in your "sporterized" "hunting rifles". My old boss had one for hunting. Seized by the new regime. M85B (looked like an Enfield, shot like a Mule).  

Those are still available in some shops around, good rifles.

But production stopped in favor of very similar just modernised rifle, dubbed M2010, available apparently only in .223 and .308

That RPK receiver.

That RPK receiver.

For calibres more powerful that 7.62 x 39mm you want a bit more receiver strength...

Err, LapMag is 8.6x69

Ummm.... yes... my eyes saw 8.6x 69 but my brain saw 9.3x62mm... you know that heavy calibre round the made the SVDK in for testing...

I would prefer they invested in 6x49mm or some viable replacement for the 54R.

Why is there so much displeasure at the venerable 7.62x54R cartridge in this thread? I hope everyone realizes that it is service weapons that are made according to the available cartridges and not vice versa. Hence, armies do not just introduce new cartridges because of the "new flavour of the day" that happens to come around, unless there is a readily apparent lack in capabilities in the current line up. Can someone tell me what are these glaring deficiencies in the 7.62x54R that seem to necessitate it's lengthy and very costly replacement (money that the military can spend to address more pressing matters)? Most unbiased arms enthusiasts seem to highly praise this cartridge, so I don't see why it couldn't persist as a designated marksman/general purpose MG cartridge for some time.

The 7.62x54mmR won't be replaced that easily. Most countries use russian calibres either 7.62x39mm or 7.62x54mmR there are millions weapons that use this calibres and armies aswell. Russia will produce along with others ammunition for them as long they are around and those guns will exceed our lifespan that is beyond doubt.

We had that discussion before with introduction of a new round it is very complex and very costly aswell you have to either invest money for current guns to be modified to fit a new one which is also very costly or you try to sell all current weapons while introducing new one for that specific cartridge that will leave ammunition manufactorers trying to run up a large scale production for new calibre aswell trying to sustain manpower to produce old calibres which are still the biggest market for ammunition producers for that exact calibres.

Werewolf wrote:The 7.62x54mmR won't be replaced that easily. Most countries use russian calibres either 7.62x39mm or 7.62x54mmR there are millions weapons that use this calibres and armies aswell. Russia will produce along with others ammunition for them as long they are around and those guns will exceed our lifespan that is beyond doubt.

We had that discussion before with introduction of a new round it is very complex and very costly aswell you have to either invest money for current guns to be modified to fit a new one which is also very costly or you try to sell all current weapons while introducing new one for that specific cartridge that will leave ammunition manufactorers trying to run up a large scale production for new calibre aswell trying to sustain manpower to produce old calibres which are still the biggest market for ammunition producers for that exact calibres.

Agreed. It wont be replaced easily but it will most likely be replaced in future, not in next 10 years but it will. Or at least the good old R will get revised in some way to increase its performance without need to actually change caliber or weapons.

And yeah its very costly and complex, but many countries last 20-35 years switched their calibers from .30-06 to .308, 7,62x39 to .223 or 5,45x39 and similar, its has to happen once. Serbia is in process of switching from 7,62 to .223 for like a decade now.

Acheron wrote:Why is there so much displeasure at the venerable 7.62x54R cartridge in this thread? I hope everyone realizes that it is service weapons that are made according to the available cartridges and not vice versa. Hence, armies do not just introduce new cartridges because of the "new flavour of the day" that happens to come around, unless there is a readily apparent lack in capabilities in the current line up. Can someone tell me what are these glaring deficiencies in the 7.62x54R that seem to necessitate it's lengthy and very costly replacement (money that the military can spend to address more pressing matters)? Most unbiased arms enthusiasts seem to highly praise this cartridge, so I don't see why it couldn't persist as a designated marksman/general purpose MG cartridge for some time.

The displeasure with 8mm Russian, comes from the fact that the round's lineage comes from the Franco-Prussian war.It's and old ammunition that can't be technically evolved anymore. But, granted, it's a puncher, it's a straight shooter, has immense energy and makes horrible wounds.  

While much of the "public" hate on the 8mmR comes from Americunt ninja malls who can't have triple negative sub moa groups, the guys being at the receiving ends of both the round and the systems being built to fire it, tell a diversely different story. Yet, the Soviets, Russians and even the Chinese have tried to make better rounds out of it. 6,5R (6,5x54R) initially used a 8mmR casing. Still unmatched in sportive shooting.

However, the problem of the round comes from the rim center-fire design which makes necessary contraptions for feeding and extraction on most weapons it is used in select fire. Those small things complicate Select fire weapons design both in operation and performance. Other than that, it's a fabulous dinosaur.

Also given how much the Soviets and Russians have tested the similar casings as the LapMag (Mauser Magnum, 8mm Mauser) I wouldn't say it is the "flavour of the day". It's rather the fact Americans have "invented"/started using the damn thing that suddenly it becomes this new hot round everyone must have. Same for the 6,5 Grendel. or the 6,8 SPC. Soviets Been there done that.

Personally seen how the Unified round was promising and extensively tested, a "new" weapon for it was the only thing needed. And as the Russian designers are making new weapons (Zid Tokar, Whole AK-12SN family, new sport rifles like the Saiga-MK/AK15, plus the bolt actions that need no complex proofing etc etc etc).

Maybe it was time to try and incorporate something new.

Also switching from M43, 7N family to .223 is the dumbest thing to do (especially with countries like Finland, done that and gone back to 7N family). The .223 is a dead end.

The funny thing is that such a perception is created that everyone must look at americans and what they do and copy that while americans can't built guns. They repeatadly have contracted foreign companies to make weapons for them or even design from scratch like H&K for M416/417 series, XM25, XM8, Belgian machineguns M249, M240, Austrian Glocks series, German USP, SOCOM issued MK23 that was specially designed for them and other series. Lot of use of Italian Baretta's M92 or Benelli shotguns from law enforcement to civilian market highly demanded. So many guns and even more weapons in atoher catagories.

Actually the dichotomy is wrong, Americans have had (and still have) very good designers with top of the range pinnacle guys like the Colts, the Brownings etc.

However what America really is, is a vibrant guns market, as such those who will thrive are not the super innovators, but those who can cash in. You see how the market gets quickly dominated by packages, that albeit not always innovative (AR market makes me want to puke) are very well made and durable.

In the last 20 years innovation has been more in the form of creating more demand, that creating new demand. The very case in point is the fact that the AR-15's needed roughly 30 years before having a better offer in magazines (with the P-mag series). Compare that with the legacy magazines for the AK-platfoms...

You even have bakelite 70's magazines that could be used on the newest AK-12 without much of a hassle. That's something americans stopped overlooking. Operational availability of their firearms depends directly on the level of manutention and cleaning input. No cleaning, no bang.

Compare that with the AK platforms.

So again, Americans have their own standards, which are always weird. The trigger issue for instance. It makes me laugh how "crisp" the trigger is supposed to be. While that might count in benchrest shooting, for a military grade weapon it is completely unnecessary.

So make that distinction. Civilian Gun Market vs Military Commission.

Well i have initially tried to stay on military guns and then divagated to civilian market which is not fair to compare, i aggree.