Russian Sniper Rifles

Werewolf wrote: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 even worse thing regarding Americans and their guns is fact that each state issues own guns to the police and partially federal armed agents. They use across US from Beretta 92 variants, SiG226, Glock 17,19,26 to Colt 1911 and HS2000. Probably over 20 various pistol models is used by US State "owned" agencies lets not even go further. Standardisation at the lvl of Middle Ages and their sprear production.

Getting a little bit carried away with the conspiracy theories people.

Very simply the 7.62 x 54mmR round was designed well over 100 years ago... in fact it is approaching 125 years ago... it entered service in 1891 in a bolt action Mosin Nagant rifle.

When it entered service it was a low velocity round using black powder as a propellent and a large 220 grain round nose bullet and it was not a great round for anything but relatively short range because of the black powder propellent and the round nosed heavy projectile.

It was very dirty and needed a lot of cleaning to keep operational.

Of course now it has a pointed boat tail projectile in the 150 to 180 grain range though 203 grain bullets are available. It also uses smokeless powder and has significantly better range performance.

Why does it need replacing... why does the MiG-29 or Su-27 need replacing... they both still do the job.

Fit AESA radars and new AAMs and they should be just fine.

The thing is that money has already been spent on replacing them all and in the case of the round in question the 6x49mm round exceeds the old rounds performance by a significant margin while adding a few very significant advantages. the some of which include that the round is much smaller and lighter and is rather more accurate and with a much larger effective range.

The old rimmed cartridge also effects the design of the weapons it is used in... magazines need to be loaded carefully so the rims do not lock in the mag, and in links the round must be withdrawn to the rear and then thrust forward into the chamber... with rimmless rounds they can be pushed through the link directly into the chamber... easier, smaller and therefore lighter.

GarryB wrote:Getting a little bit carried away with the conspiracy theories people.
Very simply the 7.62 x 54mmR round was designed well over 100 years ago... in fact it is approaching 125 years ago... it entered service in 1891 in a bolt action Mosin Nagant rifle.

And 9x19mm parabellum cartridge entered service a couple of years later and is still extremely popular. Heck, even Russia has moved away from 9x18mm to the parabellum cartridge.
A successful cartridge is judged by its performance and not its age.

GarryB wrote:
When it entered service it was a low velocity round using black powder as a propellent and a large 220 grain round nose bullet and it was not a great round for anything but relatively short range because of the black powder propellent and the round nosed heavy projectile.

It was very dirty and needed a lot of cleaning to keep operational.

Of course now it has a pointed boat tail projectile in the 150 to 180 grain range though 203 grain bullets are available. It also uses smokeless powder and has significantly better range performance.

It matter little how the cartridge started out. It has since been successfully modernized.

GarryB wrote:
Why does it need replacing... why does the MiG-29 or Su-27 need replacing... they both still do the job.

Fit AESA radars and new AAMs and they should be just fine.

Very inaccurate analogy. A better analogy would be for Russia to transition to a completely new aviation fuel type (which current aircraft cannot use) with no readily apparent or insignificant benefit.

GarryB wrote:
The thing is that money has already been spent on replacing them all and in the case of the round in question the 6x49mm round exceeds the old rounds performance by a significant margin while adding a few very significant advantages. the some of which include that the round is much smaller and lighter and is rather more accurate and with a much larger effective range.

Now we are on to something tangible. Although the 6x49mm round looks good on paper, it has several deficiencies (from "Cartridges of the World" book). It did not have the energy retention and barrier/armor penetrating capabilities of competing 6.5mm intermediate cartridges and its high muzzle velocity meant higher chamber pressures and thus higher wear.

GarryB wrote:
The old rimmed cartridge also effects the design of the weapons it is used in... magazines need to be loaded carefully so the rims do not lock in the mag, and in links the round must be withdrawn to the rear and then thrust forward into the chamber... with rimmless rounds they can be pushed through the link directly into the chamber... easier, smaller and therefore lighter.

Yes, I completely agree with you about the following deficiencies of 7.62x54mm: the rimmed design made the mechanism for automatic loading more complicated and magazines needed to be loaded in a more careful manner.
However, the automatic loading/extraction mechanism for the 7.62mmR have had decades to be perfected and are now considered very reliable.
I agree that if one is looking to save some weight in the firearm and to increase possible cycle rates, than a mechanism working on a rimless design would be optimal. But are +/- 100 gram in a GPMG or a faster fire rate really so necessary?

Acheron wrote:

GarryB wrote:Getting a little bit carried away with the conspiracy theories people.
Very simply the 7.62 x 54mmR round was designed well over 100 years ago... in fact it is approaching 125 years ago... it entered service in 1891 in a bolt action Mosin Nagant rifle.

And 9x19mm parabellum cartridge entered service a couple of years later and is still extremely popular. Heck, even Russia has moved away from 9x18mm to the parabellum cartridge.
A successful cartridge is judged by its performance and not its age.

Apples and oranges. There's almost no developpement for "LEO" rounds in Europe. Almost none. Everyone is happy with the 9mm Luger. And everyone is wrong. Russia had developped a lot of rounds for LEO work, the US as well, two different paradigms get to the same point. One because of medieval state mentality, the other (Russia) because the State needs to do everything and its contrary.

GarryB wrote:
When it entered service it was a low velocity round using black powder as a propellent and a large 220 grain round nose bullet and it was not a great round for anything but relatively short range because of the black powder propellent and the round nosed heavy projectile.

It was very dirty and needed a lot of cleaning to keep operational.

Of course now it has a pointed boat tail projectile in the 150 to 180 grain range though 203 grain bullets are available. It also uses smokeless powder and has significantly better range performance.

It matter little how the cartridge started out. It has since been successfully modernized.

The biggest issue is that it hasn't been modernized, it has been adapted. There are a lot of things to do on the cartdrige, it you can have a NEW CASING. Which is the biggest hurdle. It's a case of "too big to fail".

GarryB wrote:
Why does it need replacing... why does the MiG-29 or Su-27 need replacing... they both still do the job.

Fit AESA radars and new AAMs and they should be just fine.

Very inaccurate analogy. A better analogy would be for Russia to transition to a completely new aviation fuel type (which current aircraft cannot use) with no readily apparent or insignificant benefit.

Granted, yours is better.

GarryB wrote:
The thing is that money has already been spent on replacing them all and in the case of the round in question the 6x49mm round exceeds the old rounds performance by a significant margin while adding a few very significant advantages. the some of which include that the round is much smaller and lighter and is rather more accurate and with a much larger effective range.

Now we are on to something tangible. Although the 6x49mm round looks good on paper, it has several deficiencies (from "Cartridges of the World" book). It did not have the energy retention and barrier/armor penetrating capabilities of competing 6.5mm intermediate cartridges and its high muzzle velocity meant higher chamber pressures and thus higher wear.

6.5mmR is a sporting match grade ammo. Off course it would be better. But again, it used a different casing than 7.62/8mmR.

GarryB wrote:
The old rimmed cartridge also effects the design of the weapons it is used in... magazines need to be loaded carefully so the rims do not lock in the mag, and in links the round must be withdrawn to the rear and then thrust forward into the chamber... with rimmless rounds they can be pushed through the link directly into the chamber... easier, smaller and therefore lighter.

Yes, I completely agree with you about the following deficiencies of 7.62x54mm: the rimmed design made the mechanism for automatic loading more complicated and magazines needed to be loaded in a more careful manner.
However, the automatic loading/extraction mechanism for the 7.62mmR have had decades to be perfected and are now considered very reliable.
I agree that if one is looking to save some weight in the firearm and to increase possible cycle rates, than a mechanism working on a rimless design would be optimal. But are +/- 100 gram in a GPMG or a faster fire rate really so necessary?

Exactly why, people want a new cartdrige; because it would open to completely new paradigm in firearms. Although the PKM/PKP is the LIGHTEST offer out there for that kind oreliability and lethality. There's a lot to gain, especially since there are projects out there that would get 6.5kg GPMG's (vs 9kg for PKP) with new rounds. New materials will also allow a better design and less ballistic flex on the Weapons. Case in point is the new AK-12 (yeah yeah yeah I know) which is about 40% stiffer and thus more accurate (not 40% more accurate, just more accurate and dependable) than AK74M.

Granted, it isn't exactly divorce material from 7.62R but at some point it would have to be let go.




[/quote]

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Acheron wrote:
And 9x19mm parabellum cartridge entered service a couple of years later and is still extremely popular. Heck, even Russia has moved away from 9x18mm to the parabellum cartridge.
A successful cartridge is judged by its performance and not its age.

Apples and oranges. There's almost no developpement for "LEO" rounds in Europe. Almost none. Everyone is happy with the 9mm Luger. And everyone is wrong. Russia had developped a lot of rounds for LEO work, the US as well, two different paradigms get to the same point. One because of medieval state mentality, the other (Russia) because the State needs to do everything and its contrary.

Everyone seems to have converged to the 9mm parabellum as the "bread and butter" PDW and LEO round for a reason. And I don't think it is because everyone just happens to be wrong (although you are free to elucidate further on that idea). More specialized round for LEOs exist and will continue to be developed for obvious reasons, but no one is going to take away the "podium" from the venerable parabellum as the default cartridge.

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Acheron wrote:
It matter little how the cartridge started out. It has since been successfully modernized.

The biggest issue is that it hasn't been modernized, it has been adapted. There are a lot of things to do on the cartdrige, it you can have a NEW CASING. Which is the biggest hurdle. It's a case of "too big to fail".

Throughout its lifetime, the 7.62x54mmR cartridge had absolutely everything altered to suit various needs, with the only immutable thing retained being the dimensions of the cartridge. The thickness of the casing was experimented upon, the bullet was altered to meet certain needs, as well as the propellent. I don't know what problem you see in regards to the material for the casing, but updating the round with new casing should not be too difficult.

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Acheron wrote:
Now we are on to something tangible. Although the 6x49mm round looks good on paper, it has several deficiencies (from "Cartridges of the World" book). It did not have the energy retention and barrier/armor penetrating capabilities of competing 6.5mm intermediate cartridges and its high muzzle velocity meant higher chamber pressures and thus higher wear.

6.5mmR is a sporting match grade ammo. Off course it would be better. But again, it used a different casing than 7.62/8mmR.

To me, the problems with 6x49mm unified cartridge seems to mirror closely the issues found in the experimental US 6x45mm SAW round. The cost per benefit ratio seems to be too prohibitive.

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Acheron wrote:
Yes, I completely agree with you about the following deficiencies of 7.62x54mm: the rimmed design made the mechanism for automatic loading more complicated and magazines needed to be loaded in a more careful manner.
However, the automatic loading/extraction mechanism for the 7.62mmR have had decades to be perfected and are now considered very reliable.
I agree that if one is looking to save some weight in the firearm and to increase possible cycle rates, than a mechanism working on a rimless design would be optimal. But are +/- 100 gram in a GPMG or a faster fire rate really so necessary?

Exactly why, people want a new cartdrige; because it would open to completely new paradigm in firearms. Although the PKM/PKP is the LIGHTEST offer out there for that kind oreliability and lethality. There's a lot to gain, especially since there are projects out there that would get 6.5kg GPMG's (vs 9kg for PKP) with new rounds. New materials will also allow a better design and less ballistic flex on the Weapons. Case in point is the new AK-12 (yeah yeah yeah I know) which is about 40% stiffer and thus more accurate (not 40% more accurate, just more accurate and dependable) than AK74M.

Granted, it isn't exactly divorce material from 7.62R but at some point it would have to be let go.

I agree with you that eventually, the 7.62x54mmR cartridge will have to be let go in order to progress to something greater. However, I do not see that better alternative currently on the market or in development. In the history of firearms and projectile design in particular there have been many revolutionary breakthroughs that have significantly increased the capability of firearms, from the Minie ball, to self-containing cartridge, smokeless powder, pointed bullets, intermediate cartridge etc... However, I believe I am not the only one to see an obvious stagnation in cartridge design over the last couple of decades. Most of the present debate seems to be centred on finding that optimal +/- 1 mm sweet-spot for cartridge dimensions that produces a single digit percentage improvements in meeting current requirements over the previous design. Such a "caliber hunt" is a potentially endless cycle as the nature of typical military engagements and tactical doctrines constantly evolve necessitating different military requirements. If Russia is going to invest a large amount of funds in order to introduce a cartridge for its armed forces, I would rather prefer it not be just another cycle of this "caliber hunt", but rather a revolutionary new cartridge design which will have significant impact on infantry efficacy, maximize the cost/benefit ratio and set the tone for future developments. Till that time, the 7.62mmR cartridge should remain sufficient.

A while ago I had posted a photo of one of the Russian 7.62 X 54 rounds (without "R"). Threads apparently disappear on this forum.

Acheron wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Acheron wrote:
And 9x19mm parabellum cartridge entered service a couple of years later and is still extremely popular. Heck, even Russia has moved away from 9x18mm to the parabellum cartridge.
A successful cartridge is judged by its performance and not its age.

Apples and oranges. There's almost no developpement for "LEO" rounds in Europe. Almost none. Everyone is happy with the 9mm Luger. And everyone is wrong. Russia had developped a lot of rounds for LEO work, the US as well, two different paradigms get to the same point. One because of medieval state mentality, the other (Russia) because the State needs to do everything and its contrary.

Everyone seems to have converged to the 9mm parabellum as the "bread and butter" PDW and LEO round for a reason. And I don't think it is because everyone just happens to be wrong (although you are free to elucidate further on that idea). More specialized round for LEOs exist and will continue to be developed for obvious reasons, but no one is going to take away the "podium" from the venerable parabellum as the default cartridge.

The issue with the 9mm, is that it's cheap (the same story with 7.62/8mmR)n bar that the round has a lot of shortcomings. Massive energy bleed, fairly unpredictable wound patterns, prone to squibs, lack of actual lethality (to the point that people find out that cause of death while hit by 9mm Luger is usually a remote consequence of the shooting, not a direct cause of it. Up to 25% of fatalities after being shot by 9mm luger in Belgium, by police have been unrelated to the round actually wounding (10% cardiac arrests ...). It's funny how going "average" is seen as positive in this field. On the other side super hot rounds like the 7.62x25 go completely unoticed (while being arguably a far better offering). Same for 45 ACP, it's a shit round, but hits like a bulldozer, yet US Americans pray sweet Jebus to have it. The Czechs tested with the 9x21(before the Israelis). The Soviet Russians totally moded the round (hipress 7n2X family) to the point it's a different round.

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Acheron wrote:
It matter little how the cartridge started out. It has since been successfully modernized.

The biggest issue is that it hasn't been modernized, it has been adapted. There are a lot of things to do on the cartdrige, it you can have a NEW CASING. Which is the biggest hurdle. It's a case of "too big to fail".

Throughout its lifetime, the 7.62x54mmR cartridge had absolutely everything altered to suit various needs, with the only immutable thing retained being the dimensions of the cartridge. The thickness of the casing was experimented upon, the bullet was altered to meet certain needs, as well as the propellent. I don't know what problem you see in regards to the material for the casing, but updating the round with new casing should not be too difficult.

The current casing thickness, shape and flaring is the same since 1970's. And basically the walls are the same 'in thickness' since the damn Korean war. There have been specialized rounds for accuracy and clean shooting, but none is as spread statistically as the GPMG round. Fact is that it still costs a fortune to have 80's era "accurized" soft-casing rounds. There's also a limitation in the ammount of boom stuff you can cram in that casing. But as I told you, it's a beautiful dinosaur, and dinosaurs are protected species.

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Acheron wrote:
Now we are on to something tangible. Although the 6x49mm round looks good on paper, it has several deficiencies (from "Cartridges of the World" book). It did not have the energy retention and barrier/armor penetrating capabilities of competing 6.5mm intermediate cartridges and its high muzzle velocity meant higher chamber pressures and thus higher wear.

6.5mmR is a sporting match grade ammo. Off course it would be better. But again, it used a different casing than 7.62/8mmR.

To me, the problems with 6x49mm unified cartridge seems to mirror closely the issues found in the experimental US 6x45mm SAW round. The cost per benefit ratio seems to be too prohibitive.

If you check upwards in this thread, this is my original position, the swap will cost a lot for SOME advantages and it's nothing short of a self-inflicted wound. Especially if it is to kill both "foot-mobile" rounds (5..45/7.62 short/7.62R) it will recquire teething and will cost a lot. But this doesn't need to be an all in one.

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Acheron wrote:
Yes, I completely agree with you about the following deficiencies of 7.62x54mm: the rimmed design made the mechanism for automatic loading more complicated and magazines needed to be loaded in a more careful manner.
However, the automatic loading/extraction mechanism for the 7.62mmR have had decades to be perfected and are now considered very reliable.
I agree that if one is looking to save some weight in the firearm and to increase possible cycle rates, than a mechanism working on a rimless design would be optimal. But are +/- 100 gram in a GPMG or a faster fire rate really so necessary?

Exactly why, people want a new cartdrige; because it would open to completely new paradigm in firearms. Although the PKM/PKP is the LIGHTEST offer out there for that kind oreliability and lethality. There's a lot to gain, especially since there are projects out there that would get 6.5kg GPMG's (vs 9kg for PKP) with new rounds. New materials will also allow a better design and less ballistic flex on the Weapons. Case in point is the new AK-12 (yeah yeah yeah I know) which is about 40% stiffer and thus more accurate (not 40% more accurate, just more accurate and dependable) than AK74M.

Granted, it isn't exactly divorce material from 7.62R but at some point it would have to be let go.

I agree with you that eventually, the 7.62x54mmR cartridge will have to be let go in order to progress to something greater. However, I do not see that better alternative currently on the market or in development. In the history of firearms and projectile design in particular there have been many revolutionary breakthroughs that have significantly increased the capability of firearms, from the Minie ball, to self-containing cartridge, smokeless powder, pointed bullets, intermediate cartridge etc... However, I believe I am not the only one to see an obvious stagnation in cartridge design over the last couple of decades. Most of the present debate seems to be centred on finding that optimal +/- 1 mm sweet-spot for cartridge dimensions that produces a single digit percentage improvements in meeting current requirements over the previous design. Such a "caliber hunt" is a potentially endless cycle as the nature of typical military engagements and tactical doctrines constantly evolve necessitating different military requirements. If Russia is going to invest a large amount of funds in order to introduce a cartridge for its armed forces, I would rather prefer it not be just another cycle of this "caliber hunt", but rather a revolutionary new cartridge design which will have significant impact on infantry efficacy, maximize the cost/benefit ratio and set the tone for future developments. Till that time, the 7.62mmR cartridge should remain sufficient.[/quote]

See above, gradually going through a testing process, shouldn't be some kind of self sacrifice. There's already enough calibres the Russians can field with less hassle. The Fins themselves consider the 6.5mmR to be one hell of round, with almost on par interchangeability. Going at 1000m/s and being an Olympic champion should have pushed the good people to get it done....There's also the 9.3x54 (with puff casing that is there too for these things).

I wouldn't say it's stagnation. It's just not necessary for now. But the MO has the choice.

Since this became 7,62x54R thread of a sort i felt free to post this: http://www.prvipartizan.com/rifle_ammo.php. "First Partisan Užice" is one of the biggest ammunition poducers in the world, and producer with biggest caliber range, they even produce extremly rare and forgotten ammo types like 6,5 Carcano.

KoTeMoRe wrote:
The issue with the 9mm, is that it's cheap (the same story with 7.62/8mmR)n bar that the round has a lot of shortcomings. Massive energy bleed, fairly unpredictable wound patterns, prone to squibs, lack of actual lethality (to the point that people find out that cause of death while hit by 9mm Luger is usually a remote consequence of the shooting, not a direct cause of it. Up to 25% of fatalities after being shot by 9mm luger in Belgium, by police have been unrelated to the round actually wounding (10% cardiac arrests ...). It's funny how going "average" is seen as positive in this field. On the other side super hot rounds like the 7.62x25 go completely unoticed (while being arguably a far better offering). Same for 45 ACP, it's a shit round, but hits like a bulldozer, yet US Americans pray sweet Jebus to have it. The Czechs tested with the 9x21(before the Israelis). The Soviet Russians totally moded the round (hipress 7n2X family) to the point it's a different round.

Well, in terms of lethality, it has already been shown via autopsy that the 9mm parabellum is powerful enough to cause hydrostatic shock and organ hemorrhaging. So lethality is not a problem. The other contentious issue is energy bleed. A quick view of youtube penetrating tests of this round shows that although the accuracy from a pistol degrades significantly beyond 100m, the round goes right through ballistic gel and causes a lethal wound up to 200m if used from a pistol. Heck, if used with an elongated barrel, the round is lethal up to 400m. Hence, energy bleed is not an issue, especially for PDW/LEO requirements. Also, the round is not only affordable, but comes with a large variety of bullets and even has overpressurized cartridges. When it comes to military equipment, there is a certain kind of excellence inherent in something that manages to achieve a perfect balance of parameters and can thus be referred to as "average". AK and T-34 are the first things that come to mind.

I have to agree that the venerable 7.62x25mm tokarev round is amazing. However, there must have been a valid reason to dump it in favour of the 9x18mm Mak round, even though it was so widely used in WW2 and there were massive stocks of that ammo. Even though it had better ballistics, muzzle velocity and penetrating power, the tokarev round must have been deemed to have insufficient lethality in comparison to the parabellum/mak one.

KoTeMoRe wrote:
The current casing thickness, shape and flaring is the same since 1970's. And basically the walls are the same 'in thickness' since the damn Korean war. There have been specialized rounds for accuracy and clean shooting, but none is as spread statistically as the GPMG round. Fact is that it still costs a fortune to have 80's era "accurized" soft-casing rounds. There's also a limitation in the ammount of boom stuff you can cram in that casing. But as I told you, it's a beautiful dinosaur, and dinosaurs are protected species.

What can I say, if there is little demand, there is little supply and higher prices due to lower production runs. Capitalism baby. Also, how is the case capacity of 7.62x54mmR problematic? If I recall correctly, it surpasses the competing 7.62x51 NATO round (another cartridge that is going to be around for a while), so I don't see a problem in that.

KoTeMoRe wrote:
If you check upwards in this thread, this is my original position, the swap will cost a lot for SOME advantages and it's nothing short of a self-inflicted wound. Especially if it is to kill both "foot-mobile" rounds (5..45/7.62 short/7.62R) it will recquire teething and will cost a lot. But this doesn't need to be an all in one.

I would go as far as to posit that it would be irresponsible, wasteful and highly inefficient to try to replace the above-mentioned three rounds by a single "unified" round, because the requirements of GPMGs, assault rifles and designated marksmen are vastly different. Heck, modifying the SVD to allow the use of the general purpose MG rounds was a large step at MG/marksmen unification, and it is still debatable whether such a move was successful or not.

SV-338 Sniper Rifle

Acheron wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:
The issue with the 9mm, is that it's cheap (the same story with 7.62/8mmR)n bar that the round has a lot of shortcomings. Massive energy bleed, fairly unpredictable wound patterns, prone to squibs, lack of actual lethality (to the point that people find out that cause of death while hit by 9mm Luger is usually a remote consequence of the shooting, not a direct cause of it. Up to 25% of fatalities after being shot by 9mm luger in Belgium, by police have been unrelated to the round actually wounding (10% cardiac arrests ...). It's funny how going "average" is seen as positive in this field. On the other side super hot rounds like the 7.62x25 go completely unoticed (while being arguably a far better offering). Same for 45 ACP, it's a shit round, but hits like a bulldozer, yet US Americans pray sweet Jebus to have it. The Czechs tested with the 9x21(before the Israelis). The Soviet Russians totally moded the round (hipress 7n2X family) to the point it's a different round.

Well, in terms of lethality, it has already been shown via autopsy that the 9mm parabellum is powerful enough to cause hydrostatic shock and organ hemorrhaging. So lethality is not a problem. The other contentious issue is energy bleed. A quick view of youtube penetrating tests of this round shows that although the accuracy from a pistol degrades significantly beyond 100m, the round goes right through ballistic gel and causes a lethal wound up to 200m if used from a pistol. Heck, if used with an elongated barrel, the round is lethal up to 400m. Hence, energy bleed is not an issue, especially for PDW/LEO requirements. Also, the round is not only affordable, but comes with a large variety of bullets and even has overpressurized cartridges. When it comes to military equipment, there is a certain kind of excellence inherent in something that manages to achieve a perfect balance of parameters and can thus be referred to as "average". AK and T-34 are the first things that come to mind.

1. Along with muscle tear and blunt trauma, but so do the .25/.22/.32
2. FBI test shown that but a fraction of the 9mm Lugers on the market can do that, usually "hot loads". Which tends to nullify the major advantage of the 9mm which is barrel lifespan.
3. Using elongated barrels (like in PDW's/SMG's etc is) already an escalation of force. And no it's not lethal up to 400m (that one I can testify myself, seeing people being shot by MP5A3's in the early 90's when storming the embassy area in Tirana, not a single dead, until the Guard started popping 7.62short on escapists).
4. T-34/AK are good or bad, not average. Generally bad ergonomics, but very good power retention and lethality. T-34 same thing, when it appeared it was OTT for most threats, yet it was also surpassed, yet the solutions it provoked, were a clear proof that the tank was good, not average. It became less lethal with the answers to it.

But here, we're talking cartdriges, which is more like ... fuel ;-).

I have to agree that the venerable 7.62x25mm tokarev round is amazing. However, there must have been a valid reason to dump it in favour of the 9x18mm Mak round, even though it was so widely used in WW2 and there were massive stocks of that ammo. Even though it had better ballistics, muzzle velocity and penetrating power, the tokarev round must have been deemed to have insufficient lethality in comparison to the parabellum/mak one.

It's just an economy of scale...nothing else. 7.62x25 is more lethal than some PDW rounds of late. Penetrates like a rapist on a girls' dorm, retains power easily up to 400m. BUT, costs more in the long run and in a western setup is a clear escalation of force for LEO.

KoTeMoRe wrote:
The current casing thickness, shape and flaring is the same since 1970's. And basically the walls are the same 'in thickness' since the damn Korean war. There have been specialized rounds for accuracy and clean shooting, but none is as spread statistically as the GPMG round. Fact is that it still costs a fortune to have 80's era "accurized" soft-casing rounds. There's also a limitation in the ammount of boom stuff you can cram in that casing. But as I told you, it's a beautiful dinosaur, and dinosaurs are protected species.

What can I say, if there is little demand, there is little supply and higher prices due to lower production runs. Capitalism baby. Also, how is the case capacity of 7.62x54mmR problematic? If I recall correctly, it surpasses the competing 7.62x51 NATO round (another cartridge that is going to be around for a while), so I don't see a problem in that.

Translated in propulsion it doesn't. And then again the 7.62 NATO is going "home alone, keeping only battle rifles for new coming countries and the GPMG family. It's already a strategical failure from that POV.

KoTeMoRe wrote:
If you check upwards in this thread, this is my original position, the swap will cost a lot for SOME advantages and it's nothing short of a self-inflicted wound. Especially if it is to kill both "foot-mobile" rounds (5..45/7.62 short/7.62R) it will recquire teething and will cost a lot. But this doesn't need to be an all in one.

I would go as far as to posit that it would be irresponsible, wasteful and highly inefficient to try to replace the above-mentioned three rounds by a single "unified" round, because the requirements of GPMGs, assault rifles and designated marksmen are vastly different. Heck, modifying the SVD to allow the use of the general purpose MG rounds was a large step at MG/marksmen unification, and it is still debatable whether such a move was successful or not.

The problem is that the change is happening. LapMag is coming to town, and probably the 7.62R will go with the Mohicans for sniper duty. I suspect that there is the demand for another round at least for the RPK/SAW (RPK "replacement" tested shows configuration that looks ready to handle more than 5.45. So...

And 9x19mm parabellum cartridge entered service a couple of years later and is still extremely popular. Heck, even Russia has moved away from 9x18mm to the parabellum cartridge.
A successful cartridge is judged by its performance and not its age.

If the 9x19mm had a rimmed case it would have already been replaced.

Besides I hope the Russians adopt the 9 x 21mm round as their standard side arm and SMG calibre as it is a rather better round.

It matter little how the cartridge started out. It has since been successfully modernized.

Technology has moved on... the rimmed case of the 7.62 x 54 is a pain in the ass in modern ammo feeding systems.... from belt to box.

Very inaccurate analogy. A better analogy would be for Russia to transition to a completely new aviation fuel type (which current aircraft cannot use) with no readily apparent or insignificant benefit.

I think it is a very accurate analogy... with newer radar and newer air to air missiles an old MiG-29 or Su-27 would be perfectly adequate for the roles needed today... in fact an Su-27 with an AESA and modern AAMs like R-77 and R-37M would be better equipped than the Su-30s Russia is using in Syria right now.

the fact that small arms ammo has not changed as much as aircraft design in the last 30 odd years is just an indicator of how , much aviation technology moves.

The Russian forces are currently testing and evaluating a whole new suite of small arms to replace existing types.... now is the ideal time to change calibres.

Now we are on to something tangible. Although the 6x49mm round looks good on paper, it has several deficiencies (from "Cartridges of the World" book). It did not have the energy retention and barrier/armor penetrating capabilities of competing 6.5mm intermediate cartridges and its high muzzle velocity meant higher chamber pressures and thus higher wear.

And how much of that is actual factual information and how much sour grapes and speculation?

On several threads on this forum it has been mentioned that the Russian arms designers have developed plastic driving bands to both increase muzzle velocity and also reduce barrel wear.

Those articles seemed to imply such driving bands (that are normally used on cannon shells as the projectiles are often made of steel so a copper or soft metal driving band have been used to engage the rifling in the barrel to impart spin on the round without damaging the rifling with a harder material.) could be used on small arms ammo too... so that means even higher muzzle velocity for the 6mm round and reduced wear on the barrels.

I agree that if one is looking to save some weight in the firearm and to increase possible cycle rates, than a mechanism working on a rimless design would be optimal. But are +/- 100 gram in a GPMG or a faster fire rate really so necessary?

Actually one of the benefits of having to withdraw the round and then push it forward into the chamber is claimed by some to remove dirt or debris from the round before it is chambered as such a violent thrust back and then forward allows material to fall off the rounds.

The advantage however is making the mechanism much smaller and more compact as the round does not need to be withdrawn from the belt and thrust forward into the chamber... which takes space and mechanical complication. Also the new rounds are shorter than the existing round and rather lighter.

Remember the main thing is weight... a full box of 250 rounds of 7.62 x 54mm rounds can weigh more than the weapon itself. reducing weight by 50 percent has a dramatic effect on the amount of weight a unit must carry for its support weapon. Of course in a mechanised army that means much more ready to use ammo can be carried.

In some areas or conflicts 6mm rifles could be issued to increase effective range and fire power of a unit... for instance in the mountains greater range small arms is an advantage... the SVD is already a light weapon... an AK12 variant in 6mm would be very useful as a DMR if not sniper rifle. The VS-121 in 6mm would be a great compliment to any field unit...

Acheron wrote:Very inaccurate analogy. A better analogy would be for Russia to transition to a completely new aviation fuel type (which current aircraft cannot use) with no readily apparent or insignificant benefit.

Wrong. How can a new aviation fuel type which no current aircraft can use and has no apparent or significant benefit be comparable to a new cartridge that is smaller and lighter and can be used in simplified mechanisms with longer range and better accuracy?

If you must use the analogy of aviation fuel how about a new high energy fuel that doubles the engine thrust of current engines but needs new engine designs to take advantage of the increased power... say it is ideal for scramjet and pulse jet technology and requires new engines to use it effectively. then yes... it would be worth introducing but that does not mean the old existing fuels suddenly stop being produced or disappear from existing stocks.

the new fuel will be introduced as the new engines are introduced but old fuel will still be produced until all engines that use it are withdrawn.

It might even continue producing old fuels for export for a decade or more... but likely most customers will want the new engines with the new fuel...

Granted, it isn't exactly divorce material from 7.62R but at some point it would have to be let go.

Not a divorce... the thing is 120+ years old... let it retire in dignity and on with the new.

If you don't replace something because the old thing worked then the 7.62 x 39mm and 5.45 x 39mm would not have existed...

Everyone seems to have converged to the 9mm parabellum as the "bread and butter" PDW and LEO round for a reason. And I don't think it is because everyone just happens to be wrong (although you are free to elucidate further on that idea). More specialized round for LEOs exist and will continue to be developed for obvious reasons, but no one is going to take away the "podium" from the venerable parabellum as the default cartridge.

Everyone joined NATO and 9 x 19mm is a standard NATO cartridge. the round Russia is experimenting with is not a standard NATO version and is rather hotter than the rounds NATO uses... they clearly want more than the original round was designed to give... I hope they go for the 9x21mm they developed.

I don't know what problem you see in regards to the material for the casing, but updating the round with new casing should not be too difficult.

The rim at the base is the main problem.  Of course being rimless did not save the 30-06 as a military round in the US...

To me, the problems with 6x49mm unified cartridge seems to mirror closely the issues found in the experimental US 6x45mm SAW round. The cost per benefit ratio seems to be too prohibitive.

Explain the cost benefit to us, because I see that in the short term it will not be cheap but then in the short term they are replacing all their small arms so cheap is not an issue.

I would not compare US efforts with Russian ones as they don't have the same goals.

In the short term the costs of the 6x49mm will be significant, but then they are spending over 40K on each soldier with their ratnik system... setting up production for a new calibre is peanuts in comparison.  Producing it in large numbers just means investing in production at most cartridge plants in Russia... but they are upgrading them anyway... and all sorts of new calibres are in service since the 1970s... 5.45 x 39mm, 9x39mm, 12.7x55mm, and now Lapua rounds for snipers.

For the pluses I can see... lighter, smaller, more accurate, longer range, makes weapons smaller and lighter and cheaper.

For the minuses I can see high initial costs to start production, plus reconfiguring scopes for the new trajectories. (Note I didn't mention recalibrating iron sights as that wont be needed for new build weapons.). the cartridges are not similar like the 7.62 x 39mm is comparable in size to the 5.45 x 39mm so the wrong ammo could potentially be loaded into the wrong gun...

I agree with you that eventually, the 7.62x54mmR cartridge will have to be let go in order to progress to something greater. However, I do not see that better alternative currently on the market or in development. In the history of firearms and projectile design in particular there have been many revolutionary breakthroughs that have significantly increased the capability of firearms, from the Minie ball, to self-containing cartridge, smokeless powder, pointed bullets, intermediate cartridge etc... However, I believe I am not the only one to see an obvious stagnation in cartridge design over the last couple of decades. Most of the present debate seems to be centred on finding that optimal +/- 1 mm sweet-spot for cartridge dimensions that produces a single digit percentage improvements in meeting current requirements over the previous design. Such a "caliber hunt" is a potentially endless cycle as the nature of typical military engagements and tactical doctrines constantly evolve necessitating different military requirements. If Russia is going to invest a large amount of funds in order to introduce a cartridge for its armed forces, I would rather prefer it not be just another cycle of this "caliber hunt", but rather a revolutionary new cartridge design which will have significant impact on infantry efficacy, maximize the cost/benefit ratio and set the tone for future developments. Till that time, the 7.62mmR cartridge should remain sufficient.

Considering they have already spent money developing the 6x49mm and that they did not introduce it because of cost in the 1990s, and that further development in new powders and bullet design should have led to further improvements... now the Russian military is getting fully rearmed over the next decade including all new small arms don't you thing now would be the best time to make the transition to a new round?

Especially if it is to kill both "foot-mobile" rounds (5..45/7.62 short/7.62R) it will recquire teething and will cost a lot. But this doesn't need to be an all in one.

AFAIK it will only replace the 7.62 x 54mm as the 5.45mm seems to do the job.

Since this became 7,62x54R thread of a sort i felt free to post this: http://www.prvipartizan.com/rifle_ammo.php. "First Partisan Užice" is one of the biggest ammunition poducers in the world, and producer with biggest caliber range, they even produce extremly rare and forgotten ammo types like 6,5 Carcano.

Hahaha... the first rifle I bought was a Mosin Nagant 1944 and the first ammo I bought was about 10 bags of cheap FMJ ammo likely of Chinese origin and 2 boxes of 20 rounds of privi partisan soft nose rounds...  

Even though it had better ballistics, muzzle velocity and penetrating power, the tokarev round must have been deemed to have insufficient lethality in comparison to the parabellum/mak one.

Pistol calibre bullets are just self defence rounds from pistols. In SMGs they are effective... in pistols you are really only a challenge to another pistol armed person or unarmed person...

If I recall correctly, it surpasses the competing 7.62x51 NATO round (another cartridge that is going to be around for a while), so I don't see a problem in that.

Which just makes it bigger and more expensive to fill for no real performance advantage...

A 0.01 cent cost extra per round sounds insignificant but making millions of rounds and it starts adding up... and it also means extra weight per round that has to be carried around the battlefield too.

I would go as far as to posit that it would be irresponsible, wasteful and highly inefficient to try to replace the above-mentioned three rounds by a single "unified" round, because the requirements of GPMGs, assault rifles and designated marksmen are vastly different. Heck, modifying the SVD to allow the use of the general purpose MG rounds was a large step at MG/marksmen unification, and it is still debatable whether such a move was successful or not.

I agree... I am only suggesting the 6x49mm round replaces the 7.62 x 54mm round... not the 5.45mm.

They are already looking at introducing the 338 as a sniper round... if it is worth it then they will do it.

The problem is that the change is happening. LapMag is coming to town, and probably the 7.62R will go with the Mohicans for sniper duty. I suspect that there is the demand for another round at least for the RPK/SAW (RPK "replacement" tested shows configuration that looks ready to handle more than 5.45. So...

I suspect they will actually keep the sniper in each platoon but they will not use 338. In such a case I would like to see them use a VS-121 in 6x49mm and have an assistant with a heavy AK12 in 6x49mm. That would leave the PKM or PKP gunner in the unit with 6x49mm.

I would think snipers with 338 rifles will be separate units that operate in teams that can be attached to divisions when needed.

In other words I think the SVD gunner remains a DMR guy in platoons while the SVD guy in GRU spetsnaz gets an SV-338 or SV-98M or even SV-99 or SVN-98 or OSV-96 for use depending upon the mission and expected targets.

KoTeMoRe wrote:
The problem is that the change is happening. LapMag is coming to town, and probably the 7.62R will go with the Mohicans for sniper duty. I suspect that there is the demand for another round at least for the RPK/SAW (RPK "replacement" tested shows configuration that looks ready to handle more than 5.45. So...

You might be a bit too optimistic and premature in regards to the "change" to LapMag. There is a huge difference b/w NATO militaries and LEOs of various countries. Most recent military sniper rifle developments (at least for NATO) have been utilizing the 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge, while 5.56 still remains popular for the designated marksman role. As long as 5.56/7.62 remain the baseline NATO cartridges required by STANAG, LapMag is not going to make any meaningful inroads into the military market.

Acheron wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:
The problem is that the change is happening. LapMag is coming to town, and probably the 7.62R will go with the Mohicans for sniper duty. I suspect that there is the demand for another round at least for the RPK/SAW (RPK "replacement" tested shows configuration that looks ready to handle more than 5.45. So...

You might be a bit too optimistic and premature in regards to the "change" to LapMag. There is a huge difference b/w NATO militaries and LEOs of various countries. Most recent military sniper rifle developments (at least for NATO) have been utilizing the 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge, while 5.56 still remains popular for the designated marksman role. As long as 5.56/7.62 remain the baseline NATO cartridges required by STANAG, LapMag is not going to make any meaningful inroads into the military market.

Mhh for sniper duty, the most prevalent choice, so far has been the LapMag. There have been some special calibres (.308 Win/ .300 WinMag)

US has gone LapMag/WinMag (even the last m24A2 systems have been put to rest with the A3, probably the only thing that was accurate in American Sniper).  
UK= LapMag.
France= Again LapMag.
Germans= .338

We can go and check, but as the sniping task is directed more and more above 1000m consistently, the need for a better round is indeed there. The 7.62 NATO is sliding to DMR role (something the Soviets/Russians already had).

NB: Sniper Duty, is a specialized role.

KoTeMoRe wrote:
Mhh for sniper duty, the most prevalent choice, so far has been the LapMag. There have been some special calibres (.308 Win/ .300 WinMag)

US has gone LapMag/WinMag (even the last m24A2 systems have been put to rest with the A3, probably the only thing that was accurate in American Sniper).  
UK= LapMag.
France= Again LapMag.
Germans= .338

We can go and check, but as the sniping task is directed more and more above 1000m consistently, the need for a better round is indeed there. The 7.62 NATO is sliding to DMR role (something the Soviets/Russians already had).

NB: Sniper Duty, is a specialized role.

Well, it is apparent that there is a capability gap b/w 5.56/7.62 DMRs and the heavier .50 BMG SRs. It can be said that this capability gap is being progressively occupied by a number of rifles chambered for a number of cartridges, including the winmag and lapmag.
However, the vastly more numerous (and arguably with the most battlefield impact) "sniper rifles" in the military are the squad-level DMRs, which for most NATO states are chambered for 5.56x45mm (becoming less popular) or 7.62x51mm (becoming more popular) STANAG cartridges. These are not going to be replaced by rifles firing non-STANAG cartridges any time soon.

The critical thing with the sniper rifles is range... if you want to kill targets at more than 1km but less than 2km the 308 in western winchester and the Russian 7.62 x 54mm just don't cut it.

No matter how good the ammo and how good the scope and rifle they start to peter out at 800m or so.


The LM is designed for the 1,200m range to 1,500m range depending upon the version.

the larger calibre is capable to 1.5km yet is cheaper and much lighter than 12.7mm calibre weapons.

Of course being able to detect targets and correctly identify them at over 1km range means not just every soldier in each platoon needs a 338 magnum rifle... this is very specific use only... GRU spetsnaz or VDV spetsnaz or naval spetsnaz snipers will have a standard rifle... possibly the VS-121... making it in 6x49mm will offer much better effective range over the 7.62 x 54mm SVD, but a 338 calibre version for longer range engagements against similarly armed opponents and of course 12.7mm calibres for even further still. Another standard rifle might be three versions of the SV-98 in 6mm, 7.62mm, and 338 lapua calibre... of course fully replacing the 7.62 x 54mm with the 6x49mm would eliminate one calibre from the logistics chain while improving range and accuracy performance...

In fact with its long projectile they could make a 600m rifle for DMR use in 5.45mm calibre as it retains velocity rather better than the short stubby 5.56mm NATO round and by design does not rely on velocity for effect on target.

A bullpup design with an extended barrel length no longer than a standard AK12 would do...

Keep in mind that the Russians have so far shown they will spend extra on something better... they have stopgap upgrade versions like the T-90MS and Su-35 and MiG-35 being produced but they are also spending money on next generation stuff like the PAK FA and Armata/kurganets/boomerang/typhoon vehicles... which is not cheap or easy.

the S-350 will be better than the S-300 in raw performance but smaller lighter and cheaper overall... the 6x49mm is smaller lighter and would use less metal and powder and over time will become cheaper to make than the 54R ammo.

the upgrade solution of removing the rim of the 54mmR will have the same effect of increasing cost and rendering older weapons useless as they wont benefit from the new rimless design as their feed mechanisms wont change and ballistically they wont be improved...

Of course they might have a new technology that is getting perfected that might change everything... like liquid propellant...

DMRs in 5.56mm are a joke as the short little stubby projectile of the 5.56mm has poor long range performance. I remember british military magazines in the 1980s boasting effective ranges of 600m and even 800m for 5.56mm rounds and I don't doubt with the right scope and the right ammo and no crosswinds you might get bullet on paper but the terminal ballistics of a 60 grain round at subsonic speed are pathetic and not actually worth the effort.

Conversely the 5.45mm round is a much better ballistic shape and will retain rather more energy to extended range from a long barrel... a plastic driving band on the bullet and increased pressure propellant and the performance could be greatly improved to perhaps 600m or so... which was good enough for their previous DMR (the SVD). Obviously terminal ballistics wont be the same but should be rather better than 5.56mm.

338 calibre are rather widely deployed in western armies and Russia will no doubt match them with similar or home designed versions.

Acheron wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:
Mhh for sniper duty, the most prevalent choice, so far has been the LapMag. There have been some special calibres (.308 Win/ .300 WinMag)

US has gone LapMag/WinMag (even the last m24A2 systems have been put to rest with the A3, probably the only thing that was accurate in American Sniper).  
UK= LapMag.
France= Again LapMag.
Germans= .338

We can go and check, but as the sniping task is directed more and more above 1000m consistently, the need for a better round is indeed there. The 7.62 NATO is sliding to DMR role (something the Soviets/Russians already had).

NB: Sniper Duty, is a specialized role.

Well, it is apparent that there is a capability gap b/w 5.56/7.62 DMRs and the heavier .50 BMG SRs. It can be said that this capability gap is being progressively occupied by a number of rifles chambered for a number of cartridges, including the winmag and lapmag.
However, the vastly more numerous (and arguably with the most battlefield impact) "sniper rifles" in the military are the squad-level DMRs, which for most NATO states are chambered for 5.56x45mm (becoming less popular) or 7.62x51mm (becoming more popular) STANAG cartridges. These are not going to be replaced by rifles firing non-STANAG cartridges any time soon.

Totally agree that on the DMR role the Soviets BTDT before it was cool. It wasn't my intention to actually insinuate those were going away. But when that shift will happen, people will evaluate the round for DMR as well. Do we need to have two standarts? Or one standart? Personally with enough experience the LapMag will have its way beyond the sniper duty. But, taking in consideration the current needs of the Russian armed forces, maybe there won't be even a need for LapMag. Afterall using a 12.7 round is as good, (the Iranians use it exactly for those situations). Maybe the ballistics aren't as sexy as LapMag, but it sure will put a dent to everything it touches.

ORSIS

Apparently a new sniper rifle from CK:

Looks like a Molot 308 dressed up for cash...Not bad.



But this is better ...

KoTeMoRe wrote:Looks like a Molot 308 dressed up for cash...Not bad.



But this is better ...

Nah,
It is clearly a souped up SVD with new stock, forearm, picatiny rails etc.
Not bad looking.

As for the picture that you posted, it is a Vepr Super in 308 with adjustable cheek stock. A silencer and bipod have been added as accessories.

magnumcromagnon wrote:Apparently a new sniper rifle from CK:

It's a short AK receiver. Not a long Dragunov one. Magazine is typical .308 straight wall.

The only short receiver Drag is the 6x49 one. Which was actually a Kalashnikov redesign.

I know it's a Molot Vepr in .308. And I firmly believe the rifle we see is exactly that.

The SVD-M still retains the long receiver.



While the birdcage muzzle device and the gas port might indicate this is a Dragunov variant the typical short receiver tells me that this is a different thing.

You mean it is a hybrid of Vepr and Dragunov designs?

AFAIK Molot is not part of Kalashnikov Concern. The planned merger did not happen. So, it is odd that to see a new rifle from Concern Kalashnikov that has Molot origins.

Maybe it is something completely new that happens to look like an SVD with short receiver.

Hopefully the short receiver and straight magazine indicates 6x49mm calibre... it would be a very good cartridge out to about 1,200m in terms of ballistics.

The small calibre long heavy projectile should get to the target faster than older slower heavier draggier rounds which would further improve performance, not to mention reduced recoil and lighter ammo.

I still prefer the VS-121 bullpup version...