Russian Sniper Rifles

First, allow me to made a correction.
I've made a quick check, that confirmed that the standard magazines of SVD are indeed double-stacked.
They just need a little plus of attention and time during hand loading compared to normal rounds but it is nothing difficult, also because we are talking of a weapon destined to a marksman if not to a sniper, not to an ordinary conscript.

The biggest magazine I have ever seen for 7.62x54mmR is a 15 round mag for a WWII Simonov type rifle. The rims stick out a significant distance which makes large capacity magazines too curved to fit into normal webbing.

In fact it quickly becomes a drum which is what they tended to use for that calibre early on with the 47 and 60 round drums for the DP27/28 and DPM, and vehicle mounted DT and DA LMGs. Drums are noisy and difficult to carry in large volumes and quite heavy compared with stick mags or belts and are more expensive to make.

I would also add that conscripts did get issued with SVDs as they were issued to platoons to extend the effective shooting range of the group with the SVD and PKM and RPKs being used for that purpose.

In case of the Chukavin rifle 15 and 20 rounds magazines are available also, so no big deal here.

That is impressive but not ideal.

Obviously nothing against adopting an eventual batch of 6x49mm sniper rifles for spetznaz's use once they would be available but for standard units the actual SVDM and Chukavin are just ok.

A changeover would be expensive and time consuming and I don't think it would be a good idea to try to do during a conflict unless it was considered necessary... that lack of penetration or accuracy is leading to missed shots or failure to penetrate the targets being hit.

Well you have to first resolve the problem of the excessive wear of the barrel and after it to begun to design a fully new weapon from scratches.

Well the 6x49mm project is not new and they have had several weapons being used to test it based on the PK and SVD... I would say the obvious way to deal with excessive barrel wear in a high velocity rifle or machine gun is the same solution as used in cannons... a plastic driving band on the projectile that engages the rifling and reduces the friction and also the wear and increases the velocity of the projectile. They developed a special plastic for the job in cannons that actually increased muzzle velocity by about 10% because of the reduced friction. I am sure they could do the same with rifle calibre weapons. (note most cannon projectiles are made of relatively hard materials and so often they would use a copper driving band to actually engage the rifling and impart spin on the projectiles).

Another option might be fin stabilised rounds in a smoothbore barrel... not actually flechettes because their terminal performance is not good enough even if they are good for penetration. In fact they could use larger calibres like 7.62x39mm with a sabot round that is the new 6mm low drag projectile in this new round, the 7.62x39mm has quite a good large shell case for its length so plenty of room for extra powder. The 5.45x39mm in comparison is a much slimmer case with less powder room. The 6.004x41mm appears to be a longer 5.45 x 39mm case (2mm) and slightly larger calibre (0.45mm) and it looks slim too rather than fat like an old 7.62x39mm round would. They already mass produce the 7.62x39mm round so a sabot round with a smoothbore weapon with a 100 grain bullet that is 6.004mm calibre leaving the barrel at 800m/s like this new round does might achieve the same or perhaps even better performance using existing magazines. With the new propellant and the extra case capacity they might get 6x49mm performance from this new round.

Maybe a revised calibre allowing for a sabot or plastic banded projectiles, but I would think plastic banded projectiles would be ideal as the calibre has already been selected for low drag shape while combining the mass necessary to retain velocity in flight and also presumably retain terminal effects on target too.

Ironic that a 103 grain bullet is not that far off the 110-120 grain bullet some hunters use in .243 calibre rounds, which is a 7.62x51mm HATO (or 308 Winchester) round necked down to a smaller ~6mm bullet.

A popular light deer cartridge.

Infact , to get the advantages of the new ammo, you could not just adjust the existing MGs to the new caliber as they work in the pull and push loading mode, so basically almost one of the possible reason to prefer the new caliber is gone.

The thing is that the Russians seem to have set themselves the goal of replacing all their cold war stuff with new improved stuff and generally they have done that by applying as many upgrades to existing kit to make it as good as it can possibly be and that creates upgrades that can be applied during overhauls to improve things quickly without having to replace everything all at once... like the T-72 upgrades which are based on improvements applied to the T-90 to make it better, while in the background they are also working on fundamentally new stuff that is intended to eliminate the main flaws of what is being used... for instance eventually the T-14 might come in an unmanned version where no crews have to run the risk of being killed... but in the mean time the T-14 maximises protection and safety for the crew.

I would say a SVDM in the new calibre could be made rather lighter with the different ammo and the PKP could also be made lighter.... but more importantly their performance will improve... range, accuracy, hit probability, less recoil, and much lighter ammo.

The new weapons they are introducing all have rails for optics which will help their soldiers take advantage of the increased effective range.

If you look at the new sniper rifle to replace the SVD the reduced size rifle to fire the 6x41mm round looks quite a bit smaller... but of course a rifle in 6x49mm with presumably the new optimised powder should also be smaller than the 7.62x54mmR rifle and would not need the extra long barrels the original 6x49mm weapons had...

For example this is a folding bullpup 6x49mm sniper rifle based on the SVD:



And here it is folded:



Being a bullpup because it allows a very long barrel for a compact rifle, but even being a bullpup they thought it was still too long so they made it capable of folding.

There was also the normal versions of the SVD and SVDS... the latter to reduce length because of the long barrel:





And of course the PK version which has a built in telescopic sight to take advantage of the extra range and accuracy of the round:



If we put this next to this image of the PKT:



You can see the mechanism of the unified new machine gun using 6x49mm ammo is rather smaller and more compact, though the barrel length is bigger.

Note AFAIK the PKT actually has a longer barrel than the PK family because it was used to replace the SG43 machine gun which had replaced the drum fed DT machine gun. All use the same ammo but the SG43 used belt feed allowing more rounds to be fired before needing a reload, while the PKT was just a more modern machinegun that replaced the SG43.  AFAIK they extended the barrel of the PKT so its ballistics matched the SG43 so they didn't have to replace the optics used for the vehicle mounts.

I suspect modern coaxial mounts in their new vehicles use software based reticules using laser rangefinders and all weather optics with zoom lenses.

Using newer powders to improve the 6mm ammo types should improve performance significantly.

I seem to remember the specs for the 6x49mm were for a 120 grain bullet moving at about 1,250m/s or thereabouts at the muzzle.

So optical mounts would improve hit probability along with reduced recoil, flatter shooting rounds getting to the target faster.

All the work they have been doing on long range sniper rounds and perfecting projectiles shapes aerodynamically they might get further improvements in performance using new projectiles and new propellant.

I do think it is worth having two different rounds... a smaller lighter round for assault rifles and a heavier longer ranged round for a sniper or battle DMR rifle and machine gun. But improvements in bullet design and propellant means both could have longer effective ranges than existing rounds and also be cheaper to make and more effective in the field.

I would think a heavier rifle calibre round and machine gun might be interesting for coaxial weapons that had better reach and more power... perhaps based on the 9x70mm round. A vehicle would have the stabilised supported gun mount and the optics to be able to take advantage of the extended range it could be used over.

And no, I didn't think that a push only MG in 6x49mm, thus capable of a way greater ROF than the PKM, would end up weighting less than its own 7,5 kilos: just look at the weights of the otherwise excellent MG3 and MAG even if they use the less powerful and  more modern (but still lousy IMHO) .308Win.

The unified MG shown above is supposed to weigh 6.5kgs with its bipod and scope included... but every single belt of ammo is also going to be much lighter too so with every belt of ammo you carry for your main support gun is going to be lighter.

Above all it doesn't seem me that such a new weapon would do nothing to resolve the main shortcoming in the actual usage of the PKM/PKP
i.e. that when used as a squad level weapon it need to use a different caliber than the rest of squad.

They found the extra power and extra range of the PKP made it preferred over the RPK box mag fed weapons. As a support weapon it was also easier for other squad members to carry a few extra belts of ammo too... it is easier and lighter than magazines or drums.

Now part of that might be the belt feed which allows more rounds and longer bursts before it is time to reload, and the new RPL-20 will be interesting if they can take that into combat and test its use.... even just for shooting at air targets like drones where firing more than 30 rounds in a burst can make a difference. With a 30 round mag you might catch up to the target and just as you get to start to hit it you need to change mags... whereas with a belt feed you don't stop... or don't stop so often... and belts are lighter than boxes or drums.

Right now they have 5.45x39mm and 7.62x54mmR rounds and a recon unit might have AS and VSS rifles in 9x39mm too.

Having different calibres in a unit is only bad if your supply is compromised or incompetent... or confusing.

Using the right calibre for the job can make a difference.

Western forces are now adding 7.62x51 rifles and MGs to their 5.56mm platoons because experience in Afghanistan is that if you can't shoot a long way the enemy will take advantage of that and shoot from a long way away with PKs and SVDs. They might not be accurate at 900m but they can still get kills, whereas at 900m with 5.56 you are wasting your time no matter what barrel length you are using... and in Afghanistan and elsewhere US soldiers tended to prefer the M4 carbine rifles and the shorter barrels for the FN Minimis which also reduced their effective range. No barrel length would help the round at 800m plus though.

Using the 6x49mm instead of them do nothing on that regard a.t.c. almost in the case of motorized troops it actually make the problem even more severe: BMP and BTR actually carry PKT, so we would have three different calibers in the same squad...

The thing is that when they introduce the 6x49mm it will replace all 7.62x54mm R at once... actually with stabilised gun mounts and optics 6x49mm would probably be more of an improvement for vehicle mounted guns because they will be better able to take advantage of its extended range and increased ammo capacity because of the smaller lighter rounds.

Think instead how would be much more practical instead the idea of adopting the 6x41mm as an unified caliber for both the AK-22s (that would have to adopted anyway given that they consider actual 5,45x39mm to have exhausted its own possibility of further evolution) and TWO RPK for each squad instead of the single PKP+ ammo carrier as it is a.t.m.

I would think for most units that the lighter weapons like the RPL-20 that are belt fed but using the 6x41mm round to extend range and improve lethality... a faster moving bullet that is heavier is going to be more lethal at any range it hits and that a couple of RPL-20s and maybe an RPK-16 with replaceable barrels and 95 round drum mags would be much more potent as would the AK-22 over the AK-12 or AK-15 and RPK-74.

Belt fed machine guns generally distribute belts amongst the entire unit and when you stop you drop all your belts with the machine gunner team and then spread out and the extra fire power of the heavier calibre is useful, but if everyone is firing the same 6x41mm round I would think the fire power of that unit would be significantly increased because essentially everyone with an assault rifle will probably be able to kill enemy forces to 500m at least and possibly out to 800m.

A new sniper rifle in 6x49mm could probably hit group targets at 1.2km+

When the Soviets introduced SMGs in WWII on a large scale it created a serious fire power advantage for them in combat... so much so that the Germans were forced to create intermediate round assault rifles so they could fight from a distance where the effectiveness of the SMG fell away.

Combat didn't suddenly start to only happen at 300m, but 300m didn't fall from the sky either... if you think about it for a second 300m is about the right distance where most full calibre rifles can still hit targets, and assault rifles can do the same, but SMGs are no good and lose their advantage.

This means as a standard weapon you need a battle rifle or an assault rifle because a SMG would leave you vulnerable to someone armed with the other two weapons.

In close combat in a forest or urban area a SMG is just fine as the Soviets learned from the Fins before they started fighting the Germans.

I think 300m is a good rule of thumb because in real combat with iron sights and average ammo and an issued rifle you shouldn't really be firing at anything further away than that... for a start a target that far away is a tiny smudge.

Improved ammo and optical sights would let you hit targets further away, but body armour means you might be wasting your ammo anyway.... and telling him where you are...

The replacement for the 7.62x54mmR is probably more urgent because it focusses on range and power so the new round extends effective range while reducing ammo weight and size and weapon weight and size and also reducing recoil making hits easier.

I have several rifles in 7.62x54mmR and it is a good cartridge that is rather powerful and effective on any game I might hunt in New Zealand.

I have 1938 and 1944 Mosin carbines and I have a few 1891/30 rifles too. I bought an old worn out rusty M44 carbine I was going to use for parts... I paid $65 for it, but when I got it home and cleaned it up it was actually just fine so I had a suppressor put on it and a rifle scope and removed the bolt and put an angled bolt handle on it to allow for the scope mount. You can fire it without ear protection but there is still a hint of a muzzle flash when you fire it...

Existing PKM and PKP could be re-utilized on a dedicated mounting on the roof of light vehicles and logistical trucks or in a dedicated MMG sections at battalion level, same as actually happen for the snipers.

When they decide to make the change it will take a while to meet the needs of their military and various police and other government forces and rear area units will likely continue to use these weapons for quite some time to come... they are not bad weapons, but they are due for replacement.

I suspect they are working on weapons of a new design to replace the existing types... it would be useful to test such things against real targets in real combat so special forces might get some of these things, but the key is their ability to supply things.

Of course half way up a mountain in Afghanistan you are hard to resupply if the enemy has stingers, but these days they could use supply drones and if the enemy want to waste stingers on those then they are welcome to...

After deciding they need better anti armour performance and developing this round (6x41mm) they might find they can get almost the same results with the 5.45mm round by changing the shape of the projectile... perhaps making it slightly narrower with a plastic driving band surface and the new propellant leading to increased bullet weight and increased velocity.

Of course if they do change to 6x41mm then they will need an underwater version as well like the underwater version of the 5.45x39mm underwater round used in the ADS rifle... but that is hardly a big problem.

In fact it might be interesting to look at an ADS version too, though it has the same 415mm barrel length as the AK-12 and presumably the AK-22.

The ADS is a very interesting weapon and its ejection port is forward so you can fire left or right handed without adjustment without getting hot brass thrown into your cheek, but as it blows the empty cases forward through a tube I would say it would not be compatible with 7.62x54mmR rounds so a DMR version would not make sense. With the 6x41mm and 6x49mm ammo however I would say it could be developed as a weapon bullpup family together with a belt fed version in both calibres...

Snipers

GarryB wrote:

Well you have to first resolve the problem of the excessive wear of the barrel and after it to begun to design a fully new weapon from scratches.

Well the 6x49mm project is not new and they have had several weapons being used to test it based on the PK and SVD... I would say the obvious way to deal with excessive barrel wear in a high velocity rifle or machine gun is the same solution as used in cannons... a plastic driving band on the projectile that engages the rifling and reduces the friction and also the wear and increases the velocity of the projectile. They developed a special plastic for the job in cannons that actually increased muzzle velocity by about 10% because of the reduced friction. I am sure they could do the same with rifle calibre weapons. (note most cannon projectiles are made of relatively hard materials and so often they would use a copper driving band to actually engage the rifling and impart spin on the projectiles).

Another option might be fin stabilised rounds in a smoothbore barrel... not actually flechettes because their terminal performance is not good enough even if they are good for penetration. In fact they could use larger calibres like 7.62x39mm with a sabot round that is the new 6mm low drag projectile in this new round, the 7.62x39mm has quite a good large shell case for its length so plenty of room for extra powder. The 5.45x39mm in comparison is a much slimmer case with less powder room. The 6.004x41mm appears to be a longer 5.45 x 39mm case (2mm) and slightly larger calibre (0.45mm) and it looks slim too rather than fat like an old 7.62x39mm round would. They already mass produce the 7.62x39mm round so a sabot round with a smoothbore weapon with a 100 grain bullet that is 6.004mm calibre leaving the barrel at 800m/s like this new round does might achieve the same or perhaps even better performance using existing magazines. With the new propellant and the extra case capacity they might get 6x49mm performance from this new round.

Maybe a revised calibre allowing for a sabot or plastic banded projectiles, but I would think plastic banded projectiles would be ideal as the calibre has already been selected for low drag shape while combining the mass necessary to retain velocity in flight and also presumably retain terminal effects on target too.

Ironic that a 103 grain bullet is not that far off the 110-120 grain bullet some hunters use in .243 calibre rounds, which is a 7.62x51mm HATO (or 308 Winchester) round necked down to a smaller ~6mm bullet.

A popular light deer cartridge.

And no, I didn't think that a push only MG in 6x49mm, thus capable of a way greater ROF than the PKM, would end up weighting less than its own 7,5 kilos: just look at the weights of the otherwise excellent MG3 and MAG even if they use the less powerful and  more modern (but still lousy IMHO) .308Win.

The unified MG shown above is supposed to weigh 6.5kgs with its bipod and scope included... but every single belt of ammo is also going to be much lighter too so with every belt of ammo you carry for your main support gun is going to be lighter.

Above all it doesn't seem me that such a new weapon would do nothing to resolve the main shortcoming in the actual usage of the PKM/PKP
i.e. that when used as a squad level weapon it need to use a different caliber than the rest of squad.

They found the extra power and extra range of the PKP made it preferred over the RPK box mag fed weapons. As a support weapon it was also easier for other squad members to carry a few extra belts of ammo too... it is easier and lighter than magazines or drums.

Now part of that might be the belt feed which allows more rounds and longer bursts before it is time to reload, and the new RPL-20 will be interesting if they can take that into combat and test its use.... even just for shooting at air targets like drones where firing more than 30 rounds in a burst can make a difference. With a 30 round mag you might catch up to the target and just as you get to start to hit it you need to change mags... whereas with a belt feed you don't stop... or don't stop so often... and belts are lighter than boxes or drums.

Right now they have 5.45x39mm and 7.62x54mmR rounds and a recon unit might have AS and VSS rifles in 9x39mm too.

Having different calibres in a unit is only bad if your supply is compromised or incompetent... or confusing.

Using the right calibre for the job can make a difference.

Western forces are now adding 7.62x51 rifles and MGs to their 5.56mm platoons because experience in Afghanistan is that if you can't shoot a long way the enemy will take advantage of that and shoot from a long way away with PKs and SVDs. They might not be accurate at 900m but they can still get kills, whereas at 900m with 5.56 you are wasting your time no matter what barrel length you are using... and in Afghanistan and elsewhere US soldiers tended to prefer the M4 carbine rifles and the shorter barrels for the FN Minimis which also reduced their effective range. No barrel length would help the round at 800m plus though.

[

I would think for most units that the lighter weapons like the RPL-20 that are belt fed but using the 6x41mm round to extend range and improve lethality... a faster moving bullet that is heavier is going to be more lethal at any range it hits and that a couple of RPL-20s and maybe an RPK-16 with replaceable barrels and 95 round drum mags would be much more potent as would the AK-22 over the AK-12 or AK-15 and RPK-74.

Belt fed machine guns generally distribute belts amongst the entire unit and when you stop you drop all your belts with the machine gunner team and then spread out and the extra fire power of the heavier calibre is useful, but if everyone is firing the same 6x41mm round I would think the fire power of that unit would be significantly increased because essentially everyone with an assault rifle will probably be able to kill enemy forces to 500m at least and possibly out to 800m.

A new sniper rifle in 6x49mm could probably hit group targets at 1.2km+

Sorry, I have cut your answer to not overcrowd the thread.
So allow me to summarize what you said in an idiomatic expression we use there in Italy: "Did you know if it will also made coffee?" i.e. regarding proposing something that look fantastic in its description but overly too complicated to work really.

I mean: plastic bands, fleceettes , smoothbore barrel and so on, all things that could surely work and were actually tried before in some of the various US programs that ended regularly in nothing because the sum of added advantages they seemed to promise would not in any way overcome the huge economical and logistical nightmare of replacing the whole stock of existing ammos and of the weapons that used them.

Now, the point in which all our disagreement seem to reduce itself is the different evaluation of the relative urgence of replacing respectively the 7,62x39 and the 5,45x39mm on individual weapons and of the 7.62x54Rmm on the squad and vehicle's coaxial ones.
In my own opinion  there is not really faulty in the latter, almost as it is used actually as it has enough range, precision, capability of penetration, portability and last but not least ruggedness     to stand almost for another Long Duration Acquisition Programme (I mean with acquisition of new weapons chambered in it: Chukavins and Pechenegs) while I and more relevantly the Russian Armed Forces seems to concord on the fact that all individual weapon cartridges actually in use have exausted their own capability of further improvement.

Now, one thing make me wonder is that you have cited all possible cartridges as possible of amelioration EXCEPT the 7,62x54Rmm itself, so what eactly make you so contrary to it?
I earnestly consider it a great cartridge instead, way superior to the 7,62 NATO as it is more powerful but weight less (thanks to the rim) and perfectly practical IN THE ROLES AND WITH THE WEAPONS IN WHICH IT IS ACTUALLY USED by russian military i.e. with no any intention of put it, even in a modernized version or the 6x49mm in a battle rifle for line infantry...that's is what the US is actually trying to do mutatis mutandis with its XM-7 program.

The thing is that when they introduce the 6x49mm it will replace all 7.62x54mm R at once... actually with stabilised gun mounts and optics 6x49mm would probably be more of an improvement for vehicle mounted guns because they will be better able to take advantage of its extended range and increased ammo capacity because of the smaller lighter rounds.

Now, I will point it as EXACTLY THE THING not to do in the case we want a large army to introduce a new caliber. and as the one pretense that has damned all the aforementioned US programmes.

The less (still functioning) things you have to dump, the more probability you would have to replace the one things that instead really need it.
Russia, errh the Soviet Union, with the adoption of the PKM more than50 years ago has showed tht's perfectly possible and also very convenient to use two different caliber even at squad level, Us has not still learned it as for now.

Now, the introduction of and the 6x41mm could permit them to reverse such decision with sufficient ease (replacing a single PKM/PKP with two RPL-20 in such caliber and the AK-74 with the AK-22) in a PROGRESSIVE WAY, replacing all the weapon actually in 7,62R at once would instead not resolve the problem of the individual weapons and create instead the feared logistical nightmare.

I mean: plastic bands, fleceettes , smoothbore barrel and so on, all things that could surely work and were actually tried before in some of the various US programs that ended regularly in nothing because the sum of added advantages they seemed to promise would not in any way overcome the huge economical and logistical nightmare of replacing the whole stock of existing ammos and of the weapons that used them.

I appreciate that, but Russia has also taken on the task of replacing Soviet equipment and systems with modern equipment and systems and that includes new firearms which could include new types of ammunition too... they certainly have not stopped working on more exotic ideas.

With the 6x41mm ammo the main driver was to optimise an intermediate round to have rather better armour penetration performance, and I suspect aerodynamic optimisation to extend the effective range of the ammunition.

This is because obviously against a peer enemy with body armour you need better penetrating ammo, but also with new rails and optics engaging targets at greater ranges is becoming possible too where a round with a longer reach becomes more practical.

Now, the point in which all our disagreement seem to reduce itself is the different evaluation of the relative urgence of replacing respectively the 7,62x39 and the 5,45x39mm on individual weapons and of the 7.62x54Rmm on the squad and vehicle's coaxial ones.

The issue is that shifting from one calibre to another is not something to be taken lightly and is expensive and complex and disruptive, but has been done before... after WWII they introduced the M1943 7.62x39mm round and in the mid 1970s they introduced a 5.45x39mm round to replace it.

Right now the military is essentially replacing the 9x18mm with 9x19mm and 9x21mm rounds... the former being SMGs and the latter the Boa pistol.

The 9x18mm was eventually replaced because it was considered to lack power especially as body armour becomes more common, so the solution of a more powerful round... an existing international cartridge (9x19mm) and a new round they developed for themselves (9x21mm) were suggested and both seem to have been adopted but adoption has been messy and haphazard because Makarovs are cheap and simple and available and pistols are not a vital small arm anyway.

When they introduced the 5.45 they didn't eliminate all 7.62x39mm overnight, what I suspect will probably happen is that if they want to introduce new rounds they will need to both produce the new weapons and also set up mass production for the new rounds, which is going to take time and money, but they are on the verge of introducing Ratnik 3 which may include the AK-22 and this new version of the Chukavins, and perhaps also the new belt fed LMGs. They might also introduce a new PKP in 6x49mm calibre but obviously they might need new technology or materials to be developed first.

Plus I would add that if you reject new ideas because the Americans have already tried it and it didn't work, well does the Russian Navy have to return their rocket propelled torpedoes and hypersonic anti ship missiles because the Americans failed to make working models?

America was trying to make super weapons... of course they failed.

Russia wants something with better penetration at combat ranges... look at the information released... the armour penetration stats are from 300m... not the 1,000m the Americans would be wanting them for.

Now, the point in which all our disagreement seem to reduce itself is the different evaluation of the relative urgence of replacing respectively the 7,62x39 and the 5,45x39mm on individual weapons and of the 7.62x54Rmm on the squad and vehicle's coaxial ones.

If there is one thing you should take away from the current conflict in Ukraine is that the Russian military looks at experience and develops solutions and implements those solutions to see if they are effective and if they are they become standard for production items... finding their small arms can see further than they can hit or don't hit hard enough has led to testing new rounds leading to the ideal solution being a 6x41mm round as a replacement for the 5.45x39mm.

This is perhaps a case like the PMM Makarov... the improved round designed with a lighter projectile moving at higher speeds under higher pressures was the solution but the solution could not be applied safely because the new round fitted old pistols and weapons and tended to damage them or not function properly so they kept using the old ammo which is now in the process of being replaced.

The question is, can the new powder be used in existing weapons to improve their performance, because if it is not safe then the risk of new ammo in old guns causing problems means a new calibre is in order that wont fit in the old guns.

Increasing the calibre from 5.45mm to 6mm ensures the new ammo will not chamber in old guns... is that why the calibre increased, or is it part of the aerodynamic optimisation that improves performance too.

The AK-22 has the same barrel length as the AK-12 so the improved acceleration is achieved at normal barrel lengths, would a bullpup or LMG with a longer barrel perform even better or is the round optimised for the barrel length of the AK-22?

to stand almost for another Long Duration Acquisition Programme (I mean with acquisition of new weapons chambered in it: Chukavins and Pechenegs) while I and more relevantly the Russian Armed Forces seems to concord on the fact that all individual weapon cartridges actually in use have exausted their own capability of further improvement.

If you watch the video I posted above you will see the Russian snipers are talking about using 308 winchester... 7.62x51mm HATO calibre ammo.

I would say they could probably introduce the 6x49mm as a new sniper round for use out to 1.2-1.5km... especially with the new propellant, but the superiority of the round over the old calibre should make the transition worth the time and money and effort... assuming they can solve the barrel wear issues... but as teh_beard already mentioned here... when you punch in the numbers for the 6x41mm you can't get the 800m/s performance they claim, so while 800m/s sounds ordinary, it is actually rather high given the other information, so if the 1.2km/s muzzle velocity of the 6x49mm is what they achieved with existing powder and extended barrel lengths shown with the experimental weapons, then perhaps with the new propellant they can achieve the same velocities from normal barrel lengths.

The thing is that the new round deserves new weapons to take advantage of the chances the new calibre introduces... so if you look at the sniper rifle:



If you look at that image, just changing the calibre from 7.62x54mmR to 6x41mm, you would end up with a big heavy rifle for an assault rifle cartridge.

The question is... could you use the more powerful 6x49mm in the smaller rifle... would it work OK in the larger rifle or would you need something in between?

Looking at the modified PK I would say for the machine gun it makes sense to redesign the weapon to take advantage of the new round to make the weapon lighter and simpler, but does that apply to other 7.62x54mmR weapons?

Now, one thing make me wonder is that you have cited all possible cartridges as possible of amelioration EXCEPT the 7,62x54Rmm itself, so what eactly make you so contrary to it?

It is two centuries old. It is heavy and not a modern cartridge... but then of course maybe a plastic cased 6x49mm could be looked at too.

I earnestly consider it a great cartridge instead, way superior to the 7,62 NATO as it is more powerful but weight less (thanks to the rim) and perfectly practical IN THE ROLES AND WITH THE WEAPONS IN WHICH IT IS ACTUALLY USED by russian military i.e. with no any intention of put it, even in a modernized version or the 6x49mm in a battle rifle for line infantry...that's is what the US is actually trying to do mutatis mutandis with its XM-7 program.

It is not perfect and the 6x49mm was developed to replace it with something smaller and lighter and cheaper (eventually) and with higher muzzle velocity flatter shooting greater point blank range, with longer effective shooting range.

Now, the introduction of and the 6x41mm could permit them to reverse such decision with sufficient ease (replacing a single PKM/PKP with two RPL-20 in such caliber and the AK-74 with the AK-22) in a PROGRESSIVE WAY, replacing all the weapon actually in 7,62R at once would instead not resolve the problem of the individual weapons and create instead the feared logistical nightmare.

It depends on what you consider to be wrong with the individual weapons... I would say the introduction of optics and body armour mean existing weapons lack effective armour penetration and effective accurate range so these two modernised rounds optimised low drag bullets to maintain velocity to extended ranges should be ideal.

When they phase in their new Ratnik 3 system would be a good time to also introduce the AK-22 and RPL-22 and also the PKP in 6x49mm calibre.

I would think special forces can try operational testing of the gear and the weapons where the improved performance might be more obvious... new optical sights able to record combat footage for evaluation would be an interesting new testing tool.

Sorry, I have cut your answer to not overcrowd the thread.

Would have just been easier to delete it...

GarryB wrote:

Sorry, I have cut your answer to not overcrowd the thread.

Would have just been easier to delete it...

Well, I'll take your advice now.
It seems me that we are much more closer now or almost we have explained each one better and found that the disagreement points between us are much less that it would appear initially.

Just one point: some american programs led to faulty weapons but in most case what determined their own downfall was the operational and logistical aspect of the question i.e. the advantages afforded by a new  weapon or caliber were not nearly enough to justify the cost associated with dumping all the old models.
As I have hinted in my previous post it seems me that they have placed the major hurdle along their own road all by themselves, never accepting the idea that it was perfecty possible to use different ammo calibers almost at platoon if not even at squad level like instead the Soviets have done smoothly with the PKM already at the end of the sixties.

Now, the 6x41mm fit my taste as it seems me that to solve about all the problems in one leap: individual weapon, marksman rifle, squad or even section automatic weapon, all built by just modifying the caliber of already standard issue weapon (or relying on them like in the case of the mini-Chuka).
Ammo itself seems me to be a solid choice, made without pushing performances so absurdly high to require the application of "exotic" modifications to the ammo or the weapon itself to made it work like in the case of 6x49mm of even worse the .277 Fury (an ammo more powerful of the .308Win fired from a 330mm barrel...Seriously WTFH????).

It seems me that we are much more closer now or almost we have explained each one better and found that the disagreement points between us are much less that it would appear initially.

There is simply not enough information available to say I am right and you are wrong or you are right and I am wrong... both of us are bringing up important considerations and factors that are important and matter, but there is information we don't have.

For instance if their new super powder can achieve such amazing performance from existing rifle barrel lengths as we see with the AK-22, then can we assume the same powder applied to the 6x49 might not only improve its performance... say 1.3km/s muzzle velocities with 120 grain bullets... perhaps achieved from existing barrel lengths rather than the extended models shown for the prototype weapons used for the original rounds... and of course other technologies like plastic cased rounds and plastic driving bands.. perhaps even tiny fins on the bullet tips to induce a slow roll for the bullet with smoothbore barrels for higher muzzle velocities... all sorts of technologies.

One video I saw of Flechette testing showed that the sabots were dangerous out to hundreds of metres so firing at targets meant you could not have any friendlies in front of you at all, but modern low density super light sabots that might disintegrate to powder as the round exits the barrel might solve that problem and of course double or triple thickness projectiles so their terminal performance is more like bullets than needles...

I am so looking forward to see what they reveal with Ratnik III, or it might take till Ratnik 4...

Ironically replacing all the Soviet Stuff the 7.62x54mmR rounds are both Rimmed and Russian...

It might be that the new aerodynamics for the bullets and the new propellant can be applied to the 5.45mm round so existing rifles and magazines can be used even if it doesn't quite have the performance of the AK-22 with 6x41mm rounds, but with the 7.62x54mmR the aerodynamic changes would be difficult to achieve with that calibre so even with new propellant boosting speed to much higher levels the aerodynamic shape would mean it would dump that speed rapidly and by about 1km range would probably not be hugely better off than current 7.62mm bullets.

In terms of range for small calibres you need needles to retain speed, and as you increase calibre then you get range from weight better than from reduced calibre... which is why 30mm cannon shells have better range against targets than 23mm cannon shells because the increased weight allows the shell to push through the air more efficiently so it maintains speed for longer than a smaller caliber lighter shell does.

Just one point: some american programs led to faulty weapons but in most case what determined their own downfall was the operational and logistical aspect of the question i.e. the advantages afforded by a new  weapon or caliber were not nearly enough to justify the cost associated with dumping all the old models.

Agree, but equally in the case of the Sheridan and I think the M60A2 with the 152mm main gun and the Shilleighlah (spelling) GLATGM it would have been better if they had cancelled it... they made the mistake of designing the missile first and then designing the gun around the missile leading to a terrible gun with awful ballistics and a missile that has never been successfully used in combat for the several decades and multiple conflicts it has been used in. Cancelling it would have prevented the need to make 152mm shells that no other vehicle uses, and while impressive on paper the missile was super expensive and never really worked and could easily be replaced by an M113 vehicle carrying TOW missiles which are slower but much cheaper and rather more effective in practise if not on paper.

I would add that they made the same mistake again more recently when trying to make a super gun for the navy to replace cruise missiles.

In comparison the Soviets decided they didn't want to make a super tank that relied on missiles (IT-1 and IT-2), what they ended up designing was a missile that could be fired through existing tank calibre barrels, which limited the performance of the missiles but also led to rather more practical missiles that improved over time to offer unique capabilities including anti helicopter use. The west had a fine time claiming they developed the missiles because their guns were inaccurate, but when the target is 5+km away accuracy has nothing to do with it... when you are moving and the target is moving firing at 5km + distances any change in speed by either gun platform or target will mean a miss if your gun is accurate. Ironically if your gun is inaccurate then your miss might accidentally hit the target, so the target gets hit because it is not where the gun was aimed to hit. Only a guided weapon can efficiently hit a moving target that is actively evading getting hit... because any moves after being fired can be compensated for in flight so a hit is still achieved.

Russia is big enough that 5.45mm rifles and machine guns and ammo could continue to be produced... I am sure in Africa and Asia and Central and South America there will be demand for the 5.45mm ammo and the 7.62x54mmR ammo is still effective and cheap.

As I have hinted in my previous post it seems me that they have placed the major hurdle along their own road all by themselves, never accepting the idea that it was perfecty possible to use different ammo calibers almost at platoon if not even at squad level like instead the Soviets have done smoothly with the PKM already at the end of the sixties.

This idea that everyone in the unit uses the same ammo is a misleading goal simply because you will have guys with rifles with full power rounds and guys with a light rifle and an intermediate round and guys with SMGs with a pistol round and of course guys with pistols using pistol rounds.

At the end of WWII the US ruined the potential for assault rifles by demanding conformity to their new 7.62x51mm rifle round and it took them going up against AKs in 7.62x39mm and also their own experience with lighter 5.56x45mm ammo to realise assault rifle calibres make sense too.

All the bullshit that went into that is hilarious with Belgium getting screwed multiple times by different countries...

Now, the 6x41mm fit my taste as it seems me that to solve about all the problems in one leap: individual weapon, marksman rifle, squad or even section automatic weapon, all built by just modifying the caliber of already standard issue weapon (or relying on them like in the case of the mini-Chuka).

That is probably where we disagree, the 6x41mm is not a universal round, and neither is the 6x49mm. The 6x49mm was intended to replace the 7.62x54mmR rounds in rifles and machine guns, so in a 1980s unit in Afghanistan the PK and SVD would be 6x49mm and the AKS-74U, AKS-74, and RPK-74 would remain in 5.45x39mm because most Muj didn't have body armour.

Today they would want to replace both rounds because the 5.45mm is coming up short against body armour and its performance trails off before the new rifles capacity to hit targets trails off with decent optics.

The new 6x41mm round means if you can see it you have a chance of hitting it and killing it, that chart showing energy and muzzle velocity presumably refers to the AK-22, so the RPL-22 and a new DMR rifle in the SVCh rifle. The SVCh is a DMR rifle rather than a sniper rifle... it is a rifle you give to the soldiers in your platoon who really know how to shoot so that will allow them to shoot further and more accurately than they would if they had an AK-12.

To be clear even giving a sniper rifle to your average soldier wont mean he will be a sniper and certainly wont make him a better shot.

In this situation AK-22s and RPL-22s and SVCh-6.41 rifles makes sense because they all have the same ammo type, though the SVCh-6.41 will obviously be issued with selected ammo types... probably including armour piercing incendiary types... now this squad should be able to deal with targets out to 800m, but adding a PKP-6.49 you extend the engagement range considerably to 1.5km plus and he can hit harder too. The burden of carrying two different ammo types is not that excessive, and the PKP-6.49 will not only be 1kg lighter than a PKP, but every belt you carry is going to be rather lighter too.

On the modern battlefield you can have aerial and ground drones delivering more ammo as needed to forward deployed units and logistically they seem to be doing very well considering they ran out of shells and missiles 3 months into this conflict.

Note the SVCh already comes in 7.62x54R and 7.62x51mm HATO, and the SVCh-8.6 is in 338 Lapua Magnum calibre, so for Russian use the 6.49, 7.62.54 and 8.6.70 versions of this rifle can be considered sniper versions while the 6x41mm model can be a DMR to use with troops also using the 6x41mm ammo.

Ammo itself seems me to be a solid choice, made without pushing performances so absurdly high to require the application of "exotic" modifications to the ammo or the weapon itself to made it work like in the case of 6x49mm of even worse the .277 Fury (an ammo more powerful of the .308Win fired from a 330mm barrel...Seriously WTFH????).

The 6x49mm ammo is not new... it has been worked on for a long period of time and it has only been relatively recently that the Russians have really considered very long range sniping calibres... it was something they completely neglected, but have now gotten the bug.

Personally if I wanted to kill someone 8km away I would use a Kornet-EM... at about $5K per missile it probably wouldn't be expensive compared with the cost of training a sniper and of course the cost of the special optics and special rifle and special ammo to shoot at someone quarter that distance... you could get most soldiers to set up and aim a Kornet-EM and launch a missile to hit a vehicle or room your target is in... but then again I do like shooting things at excessive ranges.

It is much cheaper to use a 22lr on a 300-400m range than a $20K rifle with bullets that cost $30 each at 2km or more... the challenge is the same... but it is much cheaper the way I do it.  

So to recap I don't think they can replace both their current calibres with one calibre... the 6x41mm is double the bullet weight of the 5.45mm and 80% the bullet weight of the 7.62x39mm, but it is two thirds the weight of a decent 7.62x54mm round at a lower muzzle velocity.

I think the improvements from the 6x41mm might be able to be transferred to the 5.45mm like bullet shape and construction and powder types which have clearly been massively improved... obviously it wont achieve the same performance as the 6x41mm but it will be better... it is sort of like the T-72BM3 compared with the T-90AM, while the 6x49mm is the T-14... because the T-14 is not going to be their only tank vehicle moving forward because their will be the B-14 and K-14 and Typhoon-14 and the DT-30-14 as well as the Sprut light tracked tank... these other tanks will be lighter and cheaper and more mobile but with the same firepower.

I was referring exclusively to small arm programs from the end of Cold War to now, not to all failed US wunderwaffe.
Problem swapping one caliber with another just happen in this sector, while for changing a tank's gun with another is something that happen normally.

In any case I think that the better performances of the 6x41mm are mainly due to its capacity of retaining speed and velocity compared to the caliber it would eventually replace.
At this regard I have searched and in some video they give it an initial speed of 800 m/s with 415 mm barrel, 860 m/s with 550 mm and 900 m/s with 620 mm barrel, so we are talking to something comparable to the ones actually already in use.
So we have speeds already superior to the one of 7,62x54R mm in a similar lenght barrel combined with a better speed retinue potential.

I just looked again at an old article talking about hypersonic bullets and it mentioned that "gun powder" is replaced by chemicals that are rather different to achieve those sorts of velocities... hypersonic being mach 5 and above so they were talking about bullets moving at between 1.5km to 2km per second.

Regarding the bullet performance I would agree that a large part of the 6x41mms performance comes from its aerodynamics where the rate at which is slows down is dramatically slower than more conventional bullets and is probably derived from their work on super long range sniper ammo.

Having said that the initial velocity is rather important... the most aerodynamic shape in the world only improves your ability to maintain speed so the faster you can launch such a projectile the more range it will achieve.

They tested several rounds during the original testing and the 6x41mm worked out best, and the comparison with the 5.45 and 7.62x39mm rounds is used to show the improvement in performance, but really I would say the curves would likely be consistent so if you wanted a more effective 5.45mm round then using that new propellant would certainly boost performance, but using a similar projectile would actually change the curve of the energy/velocity loss which would make the existing rounds more competitive.

The 6x41mm is faster than the 7.62x39mm but also lighter, while the 5.45mm is a lighter bullet and faster muzzle velocity but because of the better shape and weight of the 6mm round at various distances the difference becomes more apparent with the greater the distance the better the 6mm performs compared with the other calibres.

Speed increases drag, so the higher the muzzle velocity the higher the drag... you reduce the effect of drag with a smaller cross section and also with extra mass/weight.

So a smaller calibre round will have a narrower cross section and the longer the bullet the more weight the bullet has the more energy it has to push aside the air in front of it without slowing it down so much.

Now, the 6x41mm fit my taste as it seems me that to solve about all the problems in one leap: individual weapon, marksman rifle, squad or even section automatic weapon, all built by just modifying the caliber of already standard issue weapon (or relying on them like in the case of the mini-Chuka).

The problem might be the propellant which might be rather more exotic and require some investment to get it into production.

Also in a DMR rifle remember this new round does not really replace 7.62x54mm fully.

I would think a platoon armed with AK-22s and RPL-20s in 6x41mm would be a boost in performance, but I think adding Chukas and a PKP in the same new design of the unified machine gun in 6x49mm would boost all round performance to a greater degree.

I suspect all their new ammo will use new more aerodynamic ammo and new powders to achieve higher muzzle velocities without needing long barrels, and I would also think that the new projectiles for the 6x41mm could also be used in the 6x49mm but perhaps slightly longer and slightly heavier.

I think the current 6x41mm round is about 103 grain and the 6x49mm round was about 120 grain.

I suspect they are on the verge of introducing a range of new weapons (including the Chuka and AK-12 and RPL-20 based weapons), so I would think it would be a good opportunity to look at changing calibres at the same time.

Some of the new weapons have changeable barrels so for a LMG like the RPK-16 you can mount a short barrel or a long barrel... how hard would it be to design bolt heads and barrels to allow changing calibres and using rounds specifically designed not to be compatible in a dangerous way.

The 6x49mm seems to have a rather larger propellant case and would not chamber in a 5.45mm or 6x41mm chamber, while the 6x41 and 5,45x39mm rounds would go into the 6x49mm chamber but the firing pin is very unlikely to make contact with the primer because these rounds are too short for the larger chamber of the 6x49mm chamber.

It sounds to me from teh_beard that they don't make (civilian?) small arms propellant in Russia any more and import most of it presumably from China so setting up production of new propellant might free up the military production facilities to make powder for sporting use in Russia while newly made facilities working on new chemical combinations for new military ammo could set up and start mass production... I suspect they will transition over a period of time with special forces and high readiness troops getting the new ammo and weapons first... well troops in the Ukraine conflict already have AK-12s, so that already happens...

The straighter sided magazines are going to be much better for bullpups like the ADS in both calibres...

Or it might be that optimised bullet shape and increased bullet weight with new propellant in existing calibres might be a better solution.

The 5.45 already has a long aerodynamically efficient bullet, but improving it further and boosting muzzle velocity might make it good enough.

Equally they might decide the new propellant could be adapted to be used in a caseless round that is even lighter and cheaper...

It is going to be fun to see what they end up moving forward with.

https://topwar.ru/234590-snajperskie-vintovki-serii-bespokegun-raptor.html

Russian snipers participating in the Special Operation to Protect Donbass are armed with high-precision weapons of various types of domestic production. Some units are equipped with sniper rifles of the BespokeGun Raptor series from the Moscow Arms Company. The first samples of this family appeared, went into production and got into the army last year. Another modification of the Raptor was presented just the other day.

Rifles for the army​

Over the years, it has created several models of elite class sporting and hunting weapons, as well as their modifications for different cartridges, in various designs, etc. At the same time, the company did not deal with military weapons in the first years.

According to some reports, in 2022, BespokeGun rifles got into the zone of the Special Operation, where they were used as high-precision sniper weapons. In the wake of these events, the IOC decided to develop, on the basis of the accumulated experience, a full-fledged sniper system, originally designed for operation and use in the army.

The availability of appropriate know-how and production facilities helped the company to solve this problem in a limited time. In addition, the Russian company CNC GC was involved in the design. She had to develop a new stock that would meet all the features and characteristics of the future rifle.

The results of the joint work were presented in February 2023; The new rifle was called the Raptor or Raptor Tactical. It was a long-barreled bolt-action weapon chambered for the .338 Lapua Magnum (8.6x70 mm) cartridge, capable of accurate shooting at ranges of at least 1800-2000 m.

By the end of February, the second model of the family, the Raptor Sport rifle, was presented. This product was developed with the participation of the Russian University of Special Forces. It almost completely repeats the design of the basic model, but uses the 6.5 PRC (6.5x51 mm) cartridge. Such ammunition provides high ballistic characteristics, but significantly reduces the load on the structure and reduces wear. The rifle of the new model was considered as a sports and/or training analogue of the original Raptor .338 LM.

On January 15, 2024, the IOC revealed the next rifle in the family for the first time. The Raptor Tactical sniper system chambered for the .300 Norma Magnum cartridge has been brought to production. As in the case of the sports modification, the main components and solutions are preserved, and the new cartridge provides optimal combat and operational characteristics.

Thus, in just a year, the Moscow Arms Company presented three new high-precision rifle systems designed for use in the army and other areas. According to published data, Raptor Tactical rifles have been supplied to sniper units for a long time and are used at the front. We are already talking about at least dozens of complexes. It is likely that the number of such weapons in the armed forces will only grow over time.

Common Solutions​

The three rifles of the BespokeGun Raptor series have a similar appearance and differ minimally from each other in terms of design. Projects are based on common solutions and components. At the same time, different ammunition is used, and the designs are adapted for them. As a result, the customer gets the opportunity to choose the product that best meets his requirements and needs.

In the manufacture of these weapons, modern materials and technologies are used, due to which high production accuracy and increased accuracy characteristics are achieved. It is important that the IOC itself produces all the key parts of the weapons. In addition, there is an integrated approach - along with the rifle, the customer is given a set of necessary additional devices and accessories.

In addition, the customer is offered cartridges of compatible models in the required design - with the required case and bullet, the required weight, etc.

The Raptor series rifles are built according to the traditional scheme. A steel tubular receiver of limited length is used, in which the barrel is fixed and the bolt moves. Together, these parts are mounted on a specially designed aluminium stock with integrated stock and control handle, as well as seating for additional devices. The length of such weapons in the firing position, depending on the barrel used, can exceed 1 m. Weight - 7.165 kg.Three products are equipped with barrels from 26 to 28 inches (660-711) mm long.

The muzzle is threaded for the installation of compensating brakes or low-noise firing devices. The 8.6 mm (.338 LM) barrel has rifling pitches of 9, 9.5 or 10 inches (228, 241 or 254 mm). The 6.5 mm barrel is rifled with a 7.5 inch (190.5 mm) twist. There are three chamber versions to work with different ammunition.

The rifles have a bolt-action for manual reloading. Locking is carried out by turning, on three combat stops. At the same time, the bolt rotates 60° relative to the longitudinal axis. This is smaller than other rifles and speeds up the reloading process to some extent. Due to the use of a rather powerful Lapua Magnum cartridge, the locking assembly has an increased margin of safety. In modifications for other ammunition, similar bolts with the appropriate geometry are used, which also retain a margin of safety.

All variants of the Raptor Tactical use a detachable 5-round box magazine. Shops made of the usual plastic and carbon fiber are offered. The carbon magazine is lighter than the plastic one, and also has poor thermal conductivity and protects the ammunition from changes in external temperatures.

Upper Picatinny rails are provided on the receiver and handguard for mounting compatible scopes. Under the handguard, the bipod of the desired model is placed. On the sides of the handguard, there are KeyMod interfaces for the corresponding devices. The standard stock of the rifle also provides some adaptation to the needs of the shooter. It is foldable and features an adjustable recoil pad and cheek pad.

The BespokeGun Raptor rifles have high fire characteristics. The most powerful model of the series, using the 8.5x70 mm cartridge, has an effective firing range of up to 2 km. The range of the new Raptor Tactical .300 NM is slightly less, and the Raptor Sport hits at 1700 m. The firing characteristics of all three presented rifles meet the requirements for sporting and combat use. Thus, in the entire range of firing ranges, the bullet retains energy sufficient to destroy manpower and unprotected materiel.

Production quality and combat performance come at a price. So, on the official website of the BespokeGun brand, the cost of the Raptor Tactical and Raptor Sport complexes is indicated as "from 1,500,000 rubles." The final price depends on the composition of the complex and the included components.

Needs & Opportunities​

The army needs small arms of various classes, from mass-produced assault rifles and machine guns to high-precision sniper systems produced in limited series. Our arms industry produces a variety of products of all classes and covers the needs of the armed forces. At the same time, the production of the most complex samples from the field of high-precision weapons has been mastered only in recent years.

A significant contribution to the rearmament of snipers and the introduction of weapons with increased characteristics was made by the Moscow Arms Company. It has already developed a number of sporting and hunting rifles with special parameters, and has recently been engaged in military systems. Apparently, the IOC will continue to work in this direction, as a result of which the BespokeGun Raptor line will be replenished with new interesting samples.

Barrett Firearm 'Killer': Top-Notch Russian Sniper Rifle to Be Used in Special Op Zone, by Oleg Burunov for Sputnikglobe. 02.07.2024.

This advanced Russian sniper rifle was displayed for the first time at the Army 2023 International Military and Technical Forum in Kubinka outside Moscow.

Russia's brand-new MTs-572 anti-materiel sniper rifle will be used by servicemen in the special military operation zone "in the near future," a spokesperson for the company High-Precision Complexes (part of the state arms manufacturer Rostec) told reporters.

"Currently, the rifle is undergoing tests as the weapon’s performance characteristics are being checked under various operating conditions," the spokesperson said.

The MTs-572 is touted as a 'killer' of semi-automatic anti-material rifles manufactured by the US company Barrett Firearms, including the Barrett M82 model.
The term anti-materiel refers to rifles that are chambered for much larger calibers than conventional rifles and are used to destroy military equipment such as unarmoured or lightly armoured vehicles.

According to High-Precision Complexes, previous comparative tests showed that the MTs-572 outperformed the Barrett M82 by at least four times in terms of accuracy.

During bull's-eye shooting tests, a shooter managed to fire five shots into a circle 6 centimeters in diameter from the Barrett M82, and five more shots - into a 1.5 centimeter circle - from the MTs-572.

https://sputnikglobe.com/20240207/barrett-firearm-killer-top-notch-russian-sniper-rifle-to-be-used-in-special-op-zone-1116637069.html

The barret is a short recoil gun made out of sheet metal in someones garage with the intended goal of making a big rifle for mucking around. None of that is conducive to accuracy. Computer games have really fostered quite the misconception here.

To be fair the Barrett was designed as an anti material rifle and in 50 cal it was intended to shoot at light vehicles with the intention of stopping them... shooting out tires or engines or both, so it was certainly never intended to be used at 1.5-2km range

The PTRS-41 and PTRD-41 were used in a similar fashion after tank armour got too heavy to expect a rifle calibre weapon to be effective.

They are all intended to be used at short to medium range against vehicles.

https://vz.ru/society/2024/4/26/1265019.html

Special operation changes the role of snipers on the battlefield
Text: Matvey Malgin

“One trained group of snipers can quickly destroy dozens of enemy fighters and disrupt their attack or counter-offensive.” With these words, military experts describe the significance of the sniper groups participating today in the Ukrainian special operation. How have both the technology and tactics of using snipers changed in modern conditions?

In Russia, Sniper Day is celebrated annually on April 26. This is one of the most risky and at the same time respected professions at the front, requiring colossal military skill. Traditionally, it was believed that snipers work together and mainly against particularly important enemy targets - officers, manpower. However, the special operation required new combat tactics for snipers.

“During the Great Patriotic War, our snipers acted alone, or at most in pairs. This was due to camouflage and a number of other factors. Now there are at least three snipers working,” notes Alexander Bartosh, corresponding member of the Academy of Military Sciences. The standard sniper group was a trio: a spotter, a sniper and a covering shooter. Sometimes when working in a team of three, only one person serves as the shooter, while the rest provide camouflage and supply ammunition. If necessary, team members replace each other.

Moreover, in the conditions of the SVO, snipers sometimes unite even in small groups, which increases the density of fire and allows them to independently conduct a full-fledged battle. These groups of snipers can disperse, coordinate and influence one target from different directions and ranges, including very significant ones.

Modern military equipment has significantly increased the operating range of sniper groups. For example, Russian long-range Kord rifles of 12.7 mm caliber are capable of firing at distances of up to two kilometers. The DXL-3 “Retribution”, DXL-4M “Sevastopol” and DXL-5 “Devastator” rifles have similar characteristics - they hit targets at distances of more than two kilometers. Also in demand among snipers is the Raptor Tactical rifle (kills at a distance of up to 1.8 km).

Optics are also being improved. The Dozor-4 observation device sees a target at a distance of up to a kilometer, even in foggy conditions. “To increase the accuracy of hits, our military began to use various innovations in optical day and night vision devices, and short-range reconnaissance radar stations. Thermal imagers are used to monitor the battlefield,” notes retired colonel Anatoly Matviychuk.

With the help of UAVs, snipers are able to identify a target at long distances, establish surveillance over it, and then destroy it. “The tactics of sniper combat have changed dramatically compared to what they were during the Second World War,” notes military expert Vasily Dandykin.

The enemy, of course, also uses drones. Due to the danger from Ukrainian drones, snipers have to enter positions at night or closer to dawn, and long - days and even weeks - before the start of actual combat work. This is necessary in order to be well camouflaged and thoroughly study the combat position. The main means of camouflage remain special robes and nets. Special camouflage suits have also appeared that provide invisibility in the infrared range.

The targets for snipers have also changed. During the SVO, snipers repeatedly disabled various types of light equipment of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and even missile and UAV launch systems. “If a sniper hits the engine, it can disable the helicopter and also seriously damage the radar station. The experience of the Northern Military District has shown that the range of use of snipers is quite wide,” Bartosh emphasized.

But perhaps the main innovation was the work of snipers directly against enemy drones. Thus, the Ministry of Defense  talks about a sniper of the Crimean Airborne Regiment with the call sign “Bolt”, who discovered an enemy copter of the “Baba Yaga” type. “After the second shot, the Ukrainian Armed Forces drone fell to the ground,” says Bolt.

And the other day, the head of the Ministry of Defense, Sergei Shoigu, was presented with new domestic models of small arms, developed with the direct participation of snipers - participants in the SVO. It is reported that a decision has been made to create tactical training fields at all training grounds of the Russian Armed Forces as soon as possible to practice skills in countering enemy UAVs using these types of small arms.

Many snipers of various Russian units in the Northern Military District zone consider foreign mercenaries of the Armed Forces of Ukraine to be their priority target. Usually they can be easily distinguished from Ukrainian militants by their higher quality uniforms.

At the same time, the main targets for snipers continue to be enemy machine-gun and mortar crews, crews of armored tanks, all kinds of unarmored vehicles, as well as individual military personnel, primarily commanders and officers. Thus, in mid-April, a sniper group of the Ussuri Separate Guards Air Assault Brigade  destroyed  a group of Ukrainian military personnel and captured four nationalists in the Artemovsk direction.

An experienced sniper from one of the special forces of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and his cover group of seven people were also eliminated. Sniper duels - that is, the work of Russian snipers against groups of enemy snipers - are also a high priority.

“Trained snipers from that side pose a great threat,” says retired colonel Anatoly Matviychuk. According to him, as a rule, special groups “trained for sniper duels” are engaged in the fight against snipers of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. They are more mobile and equipped with the longest-range rifles. “As a rule, in such cases, large-caliber rifles are used - 9, 12.7 and 14.5 mm, designed specifically to kill a sniper,” says Matviychuk. “Anti-sniper actions have become very strict.”

Experts emphasize that sniper business today is much more difficult than it was a couple of decades ago. At the same time, Russia is at the forefront of training snipers.

“We have had a sniper training center for many decades – the Vystrel courses. Our snipers rely on surprise. The main thing in the work of snipers is skill, accuracy and patience,” said Matviychuk.

“There were cases when snipers disrupted attacks by entire units of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. First the commanders are knocked out, then the damage is done - and as a result, the attack is abandoned. One trained group of snipers can quickly destroy dozens of enemy fighters, disrupt their attack or counter-offensive,” the speaker sums up.

“As a rule, in such cases, large-caliber rifles are used - 9, 12.7 and 14.5 mm, designed specifically to kill a sniper,” says Matviychuk. “Anti-sniper actions have become very strict.”

Interesting, that is the first time I have seen mention of a 14.5mm long range sniper weapon.

I would assume the 9mm is their upgrade of the .338 Lapua magnum round that was originally 8.6x70mm which they modified to a 9x70mm round apparently.

12.7 would be their own 12.7x108mm I suspect.

What are they using as a 14.5mm sniper rifle?

Don't know... as I mentioned above I have not seen a 14.5mm Russian sniper or anti material rifle other than the original PTRS-41 and PTRD-41 models.

There was a South African dual calibre AMR in 20mm and 14.5mm, and there were eastern european 14.5mm weapons, but I don't remember any Russian models.

I actually thought they should make a rifle modelled on the South African rifle except instead of a 20mm calibre they could use the 23x115mm together with the 14.5x114mm round.

In belt fed weapons like the KPV and GSh-23 twin barrel cannon the AP rounds and the HE rounds need to have the same ballistics so they both fire to the same point of aim, which means the HE round can't be heavy with HE and the AP round can't be too high velocity despite HE round being better with more HE and AP rounds being more effective at higher speeds.

In an AMR or sniper rifle role you can have APFSDS rounds and low velocity heavy HE rounds, but in that case you would not need the 14.5mm round because the 23mm with an APFSDS round should be even more powerful in terms of anti armour use than the 14.5mm.

The 14.5mm is a good anti armour round because it was an anti tank round originally which is why it compliments the 20mm cannon round of the South African rifle because the 14.5mm is good for penetrating armour but the 20mm carries more HE and is more effective against soft targets.

The 23x115mm round is designed to carry a heavy HE projectile so the muzzle velocity is very low but with a light AP projectile it could have a rather high muzzle velocity too. They didn't do that because it uses a single belt feed so a light high velocity AP round would have a very flat trajectory and the HE round which is much slower and heavier has a trajectory like a rainbow. If you aimed with the HE rounds any APFSDS rounds in the belt would miss the target by miles.

With a bolt action or semi automatic rifle you could use electro optics that compensated for the different rounds.

Russian Snipers Roll Out New STM-308 Precision Rifle, by Oleg Burunov for Sputnikglobe.com, 10.26.2024.

The STM-308 was designed as a more effective analogue of the SVD sniper rifle, which was put on service at the Russian army in the 1960s.

The new sniper rifle, which could replace the Dragunov model, has been developed and sent to the battlefield. What are the characteristics of the STM-308 rifle?

The STM-308 features an in-line arrangement, in which the main mechanisms of the weapon are located on one line.

"In the Dragunov sniper rifle (SVD), the piston line is higher than that of the barrel, which causes a bending moment during shooting. In the STM-308, the return mechanism and the bolt group are on the same level," a spokesperson for the Soyuz-TM manufacturing company told Russian media.

He added that the new rifle is lighter than the 4.3-kg SVD and makes it possible to see the results of shooting immediately thanks to weaker blowback than the SVD’s.

The STM-308 is chambered for 7.62 x 51 mm cartridges, allowing a marksman to confidently hit targets at a distance of up to one kilometer (0.62 miles).

The new rifle is fitted with an adjustable buttstock and a Picatinny rail that allows for the installation of various sights, bipods or an additional handle. The rifle also supports the installation of alternative muzzle devices.

The STM-308’s shooting accuracy is less than one angular minute, which means that at a distance of 100 meters the rifle’s bullet hits a circle with a diameter of 29 mm, a fact that has already been appreciated by Russian sharpshooters on the front line.

https://sputnikglobe.com/20241026/russian-snipers-roll-out-new-stm-308-precision-rifle-1120684021.html

Why waste time with a HATO calibre?

Is this for sporting use?

The STM-308’s shooting accuracy is less than one angular minute, which means that at a distance of 100 meters the rifle’s bullet hits a circle with a diameter of 29 mm, a fact that has already been appreciated by Russian sharpshooters on the front line.

1MOA is one inch at 100 yards. If they are going to use western rifles why not use western measurements?

They need to put the new intermediate caliber into production.
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2024/01/10/new-russian-6-02x41-cartridge-and-prototype-rifles-ak-22-mini-svch/

These Mosin-Nagant rifle rounds with that thick rim mean the magazine needs to be curved a lot, which means it cannot hold that many rounds.

The 6x41mm is a replacement for the 7.62x39mm and the 5.45x39mm intermediate cartridges, so it would be used in the AM-17 (AKS-74U) SMG, AK-22 assault rifle, RPK-16 LMG, and the RPL-20 belt fed LMG.

You might have a DMR in the SVCh with the same calibre and mags as the other weapons, but you will likely also have the SVCh and PKP, which would be in 6x49mm or its development.

Obviously with the 6x41mm they have optimised the bullet shape to reduce drag to an absolute minimum so the bullet retains speed in flight maximising its range and minimising its time to reach its target, and also improved propellants to improve muzzle velocity from a normal length barrel.

In the articles above it mentions they don't know the barrel length but I would assume that they used the new AK rifle for the job of testing the 5.45 and 7.62 and 6mm rounds which means the AK-12 in 5.45, the AK-15 in 7.62x39,, and the AK-22 in 6x41mm.

This means a standard rifle barrel length... which means performance from an RPL-20 or RPK-16 should be even better with a higher muzzle velocity and the bullet itself retaining velocity in the same way... getting to targets faster, shooting flatter.

Using the same bullet profile for the 6x49mm should further extend the effective range performance out beyond the 1.5km effective range the prototypes achieved.

The high muzzle velocity of course causes barrel erosion, so hopefully they will be applying the sort of plastic driving bands they use on cannon shells to further improve performance and extend barrel life.

When used on 30mm cannon shells the replacement of the copper driving band for a plastic band improved muzzle velocity by 10% and drastically improved barrel life and reduced barrel wear.

Of course they are also working on new chemicals for hypersonic bullets... assuming they are actually bullets and not flechettes, would be a serious breakthrough in performance... as long as the new chemicals are affordable and can be produced in the volumes required.

Remember that the M16 took a serious hit when the original powders had to be substituted because the original clean burning powder could not be produced in enough volume to meet the needs of the US military. They changed powder without changing anything else which led to jamming rifles and broken rifles because with the old powders the rifles needed to be cleaned but because the new powder was so clean burning they were not issued with cleaning kits. The old powders also increased the rate of fire leading to parts failing faster than expected.

They could perhaps save the hypersonic propellant for sniper rifles to start with...

Of course another change they might make is a new machinegun.

They currently have the RPK-74 and are looking at the RPK-16 with changeable barrels including barrel length options, the other LMG is the PKP, and the RPL-20 has just been introduced too. The PKM is the GPMG. The Kord is the HMG.

If they are going to drop the 7.62x54mmR PKP and PKM and SVD, then perhaps in addition to these weapons in 6x49mm calibre, they might also consider another level of calibre in the 9x70mm (their modification of the .338 Lapua magnum long range cartridge).

With optics and ballistics computers engaging targets at 1.5-2km should be possible... certainly a bolt action (SV-98) or semi auto (SVCh) in that calibre would be useful... I wonder if a MMG in that calibre would make sense or not.

Perhaps just use Kord in that case.