Russian Assault Rifles/Carbines/Machine Guns Thread: #1

Serdyakov recently said:

On the AK-74, Serdyukov claims they aren't rejecting it, but they have depots overflowing with 17 million automatic rifles. He says they'll be used or modernized, some will be sold, and others transferred to other power ministries.

So they will be used/modernised/sold/transferred to other government orgs.

Modernised would only make sense if you apply features of the AK-200 as an upgrade for existing rifles... for the older model rifles I would expect that the vast majority of older rifles will be sold or transferred, but then there are a few units that seem to prefer the 7.62 x 39mm calibre rifles, and certainly some conditions where the larger calibre is more effective.

Clearly the situation is not urgent, and I rather suspect that improved ammo would go rather further than new rifles in terms of improving performance.

I would think with newer hotter powders that the 7.62 x 39mm round with perhaps a 100 grain bullet and a 1,200m/s muzzle velocity would be interesting to field test, as would a 100 grain 5.45mm round at 950m/s...
Different bullet structures could also be tried for different penetration and lethality requirements.

GarryB wrote: but then there are a few units that seem to prefer the 7.62 x 39mm calibre rifles, and certainly some conditions where the larger calibre is more effective.

I would think with newer hotter powders that the 7.62 x 39mm round with perhaps a 100 grain bullet and a 1,200m/s muzzle velocity would be interesting to field test, as would a 100 grain 5.45mm round at 950m/s...
Different bullet structures could also be tried for different penetration and lethality requirements.

Problem with hotter powders, is that the wear on weapons that wasnt made for them is much higher.
Also, there isnt really much you can do with the 5.45 . The 7.62 is much more easy for modification.

As i have read, and experienced, most users of 5.56 is going for the 7.62 or a new 6.8. In that hindsight, and with almost everyone using bodyarmor, i think it will be a mistake to produce a ultramodern new assaultrifle with 40 year old ammo.

But for now, the AK-74M with red dot sight, is amongs the world best, if not the very best.

So i agree, there is no point in making more, not with 17milion in stores. But there is a room for modernization with new optics.

Problem with hotter powders, is that the wear on weapons that wasnt made for them is much higher.

It is not so much the powder as the muzzle velocity... very high muzzle velocity rounds in the 1,000m/s plus range are very hard on barrels.

I am not suggesting increasing muzzle velocity for the sake of it... the calls you mention to move from 5.56 to 7.62 are largely based on the fact that the smaller calibres have bullets that are simply too light to be effective at longer ranges.

The purpose of my suggestion regarding the new powders in the 5.45mm weapons is not to greatly increase the muzzle velocity... 950m/s is the normal muzzle velocity of 5.45mm ammo in the RPK-74 and it has no problems with barrel wear.

I am suggesting the new powder to allow an increase in bullet weights that the 6.8 cal weapons were supposed to offer with more speed than the 7.62 x 39mm offers to get the combination of flat shooting and short bullet flight time, with greater bullet weight leading to it retaining energy over greater distances and also for increased penetration and effect on the target.

Using standard powder in the 5.45mm calibre case with a larger bullet greatly effects performance.

An 80 grain bullet leaves so little room in the case for the standard powder the muzzle velocity is actually subsonic.

Or to put it another way the heaviest bullet they could cram into the case for a subsonic load was only 80 grain.

This underwater projectile takes up even more internal space leaving even less space for powder... to actually make it effective they had to develop a whole new type of powder.

If they are producing that powder anyway they might as well make some special rounds too.

AFAIK the Russian MIC have been tasked with making Russian small arms 2.5-3 times more effective... this means better range, better accuracy, and presumably better lethality.

A change in calibre is enormously expensive... they already dabbled with a 6 x 49mm round that supposedly had a 120 grain bullet travelling at a muzzle velocity of something like 1,200m/s which sounds pretty hot to me. It was to replace the 7.62 x 54mm round and there was a machinegun to replace the PKM that fired it and a sniper rifle that looked like an SVD too.

New more potent ammo will give them an excuse to work their way through their store of weapons fairly rapidly or to update their armoury.

I agree a new from scratch weapon family that is being developed needs a new round, though they haven't had any problems with the 5.45 in terms of lethality AFAIK... it is the 5.56 that is failing.

As i have read, and experienced, most users of 5.56 is going for the 7.62 or a new 6.8. In that hindsight, and with almost everyone using bodyarmor, i think it will be a mistake to produce a ultramodern new assaultrifle with 40 year old ammo.

7.62 x 51 is actually older than 5.56 and it is the best current solution... will get out my SLR and clean it for a bit and chuckle over that tonight...

[quote="GarryB"]

7.62 x 51 is actually older than 5.56 and it is the best current solution... will get out my SLR and clean it for a bit and chuckle over that tonight...

Ha, yes the 7.62x51 is more of a ammo for a real man. But i have to admit that for an assault rifle, its a bit to much. In single shot its ok, real good, but in automatic, well its almost just a waste of ammo.

The G3 and SLR is good weapons both of them, but i think G3 is the better and with modern red dot sights, its holding its own out there.

Now i have tried the AK-74 and AKM, the only difference of much, is the ammo and hence the recoil. Though the -74 is more accurate, i would chose the AKM with 7.62 anytime. Simply because its greater ability to penetrate protective materials.

And Gary, when i clean an AK, i chuckle all the time.. of the easy of it.

Ha, yes the 7.62x51 is more of a ammo for a real man. But i have to admit that for an assault rifle, its a bit to much. In single shot its ok, real good, but in automatic, well its almost just a waste of ammo.

And that is the dilemma...

Perhaps the best solution is a dual feed 7.62 x 51/54?

In single shot you get 150 grain bullets at 850m/s... in other words normal loads.

For full auto bursts you have 50 grain sub calibre 6.5mm round in Sabots. These will be less accurate but with much less recoil for full auto bursts so accuracy will not be so important as volume of fire...

The G3 and SLR is good weapons both of them, but i think G3 is the better and with modern red dot sights, its holding its own out there.

The G3, M14, and FN FAL are pretty much different models of the same gun and pretty much do the same job. The choice pretty much comes down to what you are familiar with, and all are pretty obsolete as a standard rifle because of weight and recoil.

In the desert or mountains their extra reach makes them better than assault rifles... unless you have to carry them any distance... even the SVD is lighter than any of these three...

Now i have tried the AK-74 and AKM, the only difference of much, is the ammo and hence the recoil. Though the -74 is more accurate, i would chose the AKM with 7.62 anytime. Simply because its greater ability to penetrate protective materials.

I've fired 223 cal weapons and I prefer hunting goats with the heavier 7.62 x 39mm round too. It might not be a super accurate round but it is not deflected by grass or twigs and will even kill goats after passing through quite substantial small trees.

And Gary, when i clean an AK, i chuckle all the time.. of the easy of it.

Exactly... I far prefer cleaning my AK over having to clean the SLR... and for that matter carrying the AK over carrying the SLR... and something the soldier doesn't care about... paying for ammo for the AK over the SLR.

Of course my AK has a suppressor on it so the weight is not actually that much different...

Here is a link to an event that had some new prototype weapons from Tula...

http://www.rg.ru/2011/10/06/reg-cfo/orugie.html

If you click on the link below the picture you can see a series of other photos.

That revolver looks quite big, and the thickness of the barrel suggests it is likely suppressed. The barrel seems to be aligned with the bottom cylinder of the revolver to lower the line of recoil... something I have seen on the Nosorog revolver.

The bullpup also looks interesting as the magzine size looks rather too big to be 5.45... is this a prototype for the 7.62 x 54mm replacement for the SVD?

The grenade launcher under the bullpup looks rather big too... wonder if it uses the Balkan grenade with perhaps a 338 round?



Lots of large calibre bullpup weapons and a few very long grenades in front of the guy second from the right with the revolver grenade launcher on the table.
Perhaps the large magazines are 20-30mm grenade launchers on those bullpups?



The bottom rifle on the table is of interest here... clearly a bolt action of large calibre... but how large?
14.5 x 115mm? 23 x 115mm?

"The bullpup also looks interesting as the magzine size looks rather too big to be 5.45... is this a prototype for the 7.62 x 54mm replacement for the SVD?"

Yes, a large mag, but why an GL on a sniper rifle? And why a Bullpup? Unless the focus is urban combat, then it makes much sense. When you just see an enemy glimse by, blow out the room. But the motto is "one bullet one kill". Maybe not for hardcore snipers with VIP targets, but for sharpshooters, very nice.

The bottom bolt action isnt that big as 12.7 or 14.5 and shouldnt be, as these are not primarly sniper weapons but engineers weapon for ammo, mines.
My guess is 7.62x54. With bolt action you get more accuracy then SVD semi action, and could get hits at up to 1200m. Provided the scope is as good as the rifle.

Yes, a large mag, but why an GL on a sniper rifle?

The Balkan grenade is not a low pressure grenade like the round fired by the GP-25/30... it could perhaps have a range of 500m or more....

This is a new prototype, so it could be a completely new niche weapon with a new calibre or role.

Despite being a bullpup it still seems like a large weapon in comparison to something like the ADS or Groza.

I think given the magazine length it probably isn't the 7.62 x 54R round as its rimmed base would require a more curved shape for that length of magazine... of course for all I know it could be a 12 guage... and yes it is possible to fit suppressors to shotguns.

The pistol must be a specialist weapon too, because by the look of the size of it it would probably be easier to carry a Klin or Kedr SMG for the same size and weight but with more fire power.

For the rifles at the bottom of the bottom picture... I use the palm rule... the width of your palm does not vary very much between different people so it makes a better frame of reference for size.
The guy holding the weapon in the background you can clearly see his palm and if you look at the very bottom of the photo you can see the length of the magazine used in the bottom rifle.
The magazine is significantly larger than the mans palm and a 7.62 x 54mm round is about the same length as a mans palm.

I would say the bottom rifle is 12.7 x 108mm calibre just because of the size of the mag.

The rifle above it looks like a bullpup SVD.

I noticed Izhmash have some new rifles out, including a new rifle based on the Nagant revolver that can fire either .22lr or .22 WMR.

This is brilliant as both calibres can use the same barrel but loaded into different spec cylinders. The different lengths of cartridges has meant rifles designed to fire one cannot fire the other safely, while being able to choose which calibre to use would be very useful for hunters as the .22lr ammo is very cheap and easy to find, while the .22wmr is more expensive but extends the reach of the hunter by a significant distance, so having the option of using either round simply by swapping cylinders while hunting would be much easier than carrying two different rifles.

Why am I posting this here?

Well if you have a look at the weapon... from the company that is making the AK-200, it has picatinny rails on top for a scope and near the front of the fore stock for a bipod or perhaps laser or torch.
Looking at the photo carefully the rear iron sight is not easily discernible, but the front iron sight is easy to see... suggesting a rear iron sight is built in to the picatinny rail.

Here is the Yastreb revolver rifle:

GarryB wrote:I noticed Izhmash have some new rifles out, including a new rifle based on the Nagant revolver that can fire either .22lr or .22 WMR.

This is brilliant as both calibres can use the same barrel but loaded into different spec cylinders. The different lengths of cartridges has meant rifles designed to fire one cannot fire the other safely, while being able to choose which calibre to use would be very useful for hunters as the .22lr ammo is very cheap and easy to find, while the .22wmr is more expensive but extends the reach of the hunter by a significant distance, so having the option of using either round simply by swapping cylinders while hunting would be much easier than carrying two different rifles.

Why am I posting this here?

Well if you have a look at the weapon... from the company that is making the AK-200, it has picatinny rails on top for a scope and near the front of the fore stock for a bipod or perhaps laser or torch.
Looking at the photo carefully the rear iron sight is not easily discernible, but the front iron sight is easy to see... suggesting a rear iron sight is built in to the picatinny rail.

Here is the Yastreb revolver rifle:

Interesting... I thank you colleague.

Thanks RP.

The fact that it is based on the Nagant revolver we can assume a few other things, like it is probably a 7 shot weapon and that the cylinder might actually be fixed with a flip open loading gate.

This means it will be slow to operate as you have to load it one round at a time and then remove one empty shell at a time.

The rod sticking out in front of the front fore grip area looks like the rod used to force out the fired shells.

This means to load it you open the loading gate, push in the first round and then rotate the cylinder one place and load the second round and rotate and continue till all 7 rounds have been loaded and close the loading gate.

Once you have fired all 7 rounds you then open the loading gate and push the rod at the front end of the fore stock that pushes the shell in the chamber aligned with the loading gate out. You then rotate the cylinder to the next shell and push it to remove each of the seven shells.

As you empty them you can replace them with a live round and then close the loading gate ready to fire with 7 fresh rounds.

Not fast or easy or simple by any means.

They made it this way because the cylinder moves forward as you cock the hammer to form a seal between the end of the cylinder and the start of the barrel.
On most revolvers there is a gap there through which some gas escapes making a loud noise and making silencers on normal revolvers totally pointless.

The Nagant was a gas sealed revolver that closed the gap during firing so a silencer actually makes sense with that revolver and this rifle.

A totally useless fact is that the Nagants cylinder does revolve but not freely, so it will click around to the next position manually but will not spin as shown when people play roulette.

In other words the western concept of "Russian" roulette where you place one round in the revolver and then spin the barrel as a lethal game of chance is rubbish as the cylinder would not spin like a roulette wheel at a fair ground.

With subsonic .22LR ammo this rifle should be as quiet as this:

The Yasteb in person.
As displayed in the currrent hunting show in Moscow:

"Kalashnikovs" 200 series at 50% exceed the performance AK-100

it will be all the same reliable AK, but with significantly improved performance characteristics and ergonomi Apparently, this is a Kalashnikov 200 series. CEO "Izhmash" Maxim Kuzyuk promised that he would soon be ready to show. According to the developers, this weapon is 40-50 per cent is superior to one hundredth of AK series. At an advanced "Kalash" seemingly appeared strap for attaching additional equipment - the sights and laser pointers. In addition, the store "dvuhsotki" will become a larger one - at 30, 50 or 60 rounds, compared with 30 in the AK-74M.

Frustratingly vague as usual...

Significantly improved performance and ergonomics.

Easier to attach sights and gadgets to and a bigger magazine capacity.

I could take an AK-74 and put on front stock components with picatinny rails built in to them, and fit this new 60 round capacity mag and tadaa!!! I have an AK-200.

Not that that would be a bad thing as such, but why has it taken so long?

Hopefully later this month we will see the real thing and you can either put up with me complaining that they have turned it into an M4 abomination, or hear me wax lyrical about how they are so smart and how wonderful this new rifle is and how I will happily field test it for them.

Of course even after they reveal the AK-200 there is no guarantee that another rifle wont beat it like the AN-94 did last time.
I would expect that the ADS will be put forward for testing too amongst other competitors.

And even after the tests the question becomes how many will they buy considering they are working on a new from scratch family of weapons to replace the current crop.

I rather suspect the purpose of the AK-200 will include the requirement that existing AK-74Ms in stock can be upgraded to that level with a few bits replaced or modified... and if that is the case then the ADS is automatically eliminated as it is too different.

So both AN-94 and AK-200 are competing or both will be procured ?

Hard to say.

In the mid 1990s there was a competition for a new rifle, with the requirements changed over previous requirements.

All these new balanced recoil rifles seem new to us, but many of the designs were also put forward in the 1970s when the AKM was being replaced.

The AK-74 was chosen over balanced recoil weapons because although they were more accurate they were more expensive to make, harder to maintain, and would require more training, so the AK-74, which is pretty much an AKM in 5.45mm calibre won.

In the 1990s however the focus was on accuracy and performance so the AN-94 won.

They found however that the AN-94 is a very complex rifle and far more complicated than the AK and so in the end the AN-94 tended to be issued in smaller numbers to special forces who would benefit from the improved accuracy and could be trained to handle and maintain it.

The question is what will the military be after this time... I rather suspect as this is an interim rifle design that they wont want a radical new design, they will want something that makes the AK easier to use and easier to attach stuff to and generally improve performance.
New rails (of whatever type to make attaching kit easier), larger capacity mags, and adjustible stock length so it is easier to use while wearing body armour, are probably top priorities, but I don't think they will adopt M4 type stocks as they will be folders too.
I hope they will add a balanced recoil mechanism within the same dimensions of the existing rifles so that perhaps the new bolt and bolt carrier can be fitted to existing rifles in the AK-100 series too.

I know I keep harping on about the balanced recoil mechanism, but the fact is that without it it will just be an AK-74 with rails and a big mag.
Also the fact that Russian soldiers are trained to use bursts of fire from their rifles much more than western soldiers are means they will actually benefit in combat more from a balanced recoil system too.
The best way to increase the lethality of a round is with multiple hits.

Because I think they want something to upgrade existing rifles rather than a replacement they might accept an AN-94 that is less complex but offers the same improvement in performance, but I would think their focus is on giving the troops an improved AK for now.

Their future soldier gear includes an AN-94, but I suspect that might be replaced with the AK-200 with the AK-200 being the new issue rifle, the An-94 continuing to be issued to soldiers who can use it effectively but the ultimate goal will be the new "from scratch" weapon family that will likely replace both.

I have no evidence to support this of course it is just my opinion based on what I know.

I think both AN-94 and AK-200 will be good future weapons , they really do not need to make any thing radical but just ensure that what ever they have they make it better and more versatile. I always believe in Keep It Simple philosophy.

I just hope they dont try something that latest and greatest only to find it harder to maintain and expensive to procure.

I think even the legendary AK-47 is a great weapons of choice today.

I don't know enough about the An-94.

It sounds pretty complicated internally and the fact that the barrel slides back and forth during shooting is a little weird.
The fact that it uses pulleys and wires in its structure does not create confidence on my part either.

Personally a balanced recoil mechanism makes rather more sense than a barrel recoil mechanism that allows the rifle to fire twice as the barrel recoils for the first shot.

Regarding a new from scratch designed rifle family, I think it would make more sense if they used the opportunity to adopt new cartridges.

For instance right now they have 5.45 x 39mm, 7.62 x 39mm, and 9 x 39mm calibre weapons in service together in assault rifle weapons, and the ancient 7.62 x 54mm round in rifles and MGs. They are now introducing the 338 LM round.

Is there some possibility of using the new compressed high energy powders to perhaps come up with a single round to replace the 7.62 x 39mm and 9 x 39mm that can either be loaded with a light (say 100 grain) high velocity (900-1,000m/s) bullet or heavy (say 250 grain) subsonic (290m/s) bullet for special use by recon units or special forces that would otherwise want an AKM.

The thing is that they were working on a 6 x 49mm round that was supposed to replace the 7.62 x 54mm in machineguns and rifles.

Could the solution be the 6 x 49mm hot round (120 grain bullet at 1,200m/s) to replace the 7.62 x 54mm, a lighter loaded 6 x 49mm (say 80 grain at 950m/s) to replace the 5.45mm, and the 338LM as a sniper rifle cartridge?
If they can fit a 250 grain bullet in the 9 x 39mm case then they might get a 200 to 220 grain bullet in the 6 x 49mm case with a subsonic powder load perhaps?
There would be very little space for powder in the underwater round for the ADS so I would assume that a large heavy projectile in a small case with little powder room can work for the ADS then the same powder could be used in the 6 x 49mm.

Of course there is no point in going for one universal round (ie assault rifle rounds have traditionally been reduced power rifle rounds that lack the range or accuracy of their rifle cousins... the 6 x 49mm and equivalent western rounds seek to achieve a battle rifle round performance with an assault rifle size and recoil.

The critical dimension being the ballistic coefficient that is the ratio of diameter to weight or actually density.

A very good ballistic coefficient means the bullet retains velocity and therefore also energy much better which makes it more effective at longer ranges.

Longer thinner heavier bullets are most efficient, but an arrow or dart shape is too long and thin and cannot be stabilised in flight by spinning.

To put it in perspective the 5.45mm round is long and thin and requires a one in 25cm rate of twist. In other words for every 25cm it travels it makes one complete revolution.

As it is leaving the muzzle at about 915m/s that means it is spinning at a rate of 3,660 revolutions per second...

A 6 x 49mm round would enable them to accurately engage an enemy at any range they could have accurately engaged an enemy with a 7.62 x 54mm round, but hopefully with less recoil and more ammo carried.

Of course having said all that a plastic or caseless round that can match the 6 x 49mm round would be just as useful to the troops, yet much lighter and more compact and in the longer term cheaper because it uses less metal.

Of course the Russians traditionally use steel cases so their costs in terms of cases are already lower than western costs with more expensive brass cases.

I also rather expect that in the interests of making it easier to use that the new AK-200 will have fold down iron sights... which means like the AN-94 they have moved to peep iron sights.

I think the main purpose for the change will be to allow a cheap simple low power scope to be fitted as standard, which will greatly improve accuracy and shooting performance, especially at extended ranges.

Remember hitting targets at 300m with iron sights is not that easy... the human eye cannot focus on the rear sight, the front sight and the target at one time.

Soldiers are trained to identify the target first and then place their heads on the stock of the weapon in a place called a cheek wield as that position means the eye is automatically aligned with the rear and front sights, so with the head fixed there and aligned with the front and rear sight you just need to sweep the weapon round onto the target... but you can't focus on the target AND the front iron sight post at the same time.

So you have to look at the target and identify the part you want to shoot for... at 300m it will be centre of chest with an AK. You identify the centre of chest area and then you focus on your front sight because that tells you where your bullets are going. Move the front sight onto the fuzzy blob that is the target where you think the chest is as squeeze the trigger till it goes bang, quickly refocus on the target to check for a reaction. Fire again if need be, otherwise look for another target.

With a scope you have the enormous advantage of just having to put your head in the right place on the stock so you are looking straight down the tube with a clear full view. The crosshair is in focus, as is the target, plus with the magnification of the scope the target looks closer and clearer which also makes identification and aiming much much easier.

The SA-80 is issued with a scope, as is the Steyr AUG, so this really isn't anything too new or radical.

Is AK-47 an accurate weapon ? Indian Army widely uses AK-47 for anti-terrorist ( close combat ) operation in kashmir and else where besides israel Tavor.

Many soldiers still prefer the AK , so is it accurate weapon at short and long ranges ?

Now they are getting new holographic site also for AK

http://idrw.org/?p=5234#more-5234

Is AK-47 an accurate weapon ?

First of all what is accurate?

Weapons and ammo is not accurate or inaccurate... both are either consistent or inconsistent.

Take a rifle and ammo and fire 10 rounds aiming at the bullseye of a target. A consistent rifle will deliver the tightest groups, which is what you want, though the cluster of hits might not be centred on the bullseye.

An inaccurate rifle will scatter hits all over the place no matter what you do... such rifles are rare (if undamaged).

An AKM in 7.62 x 39mm can be a very accurate assault rifle out to 300m or so. The AKM would be a very inaccurate sniper rifle to 600m.

AR users consider the AKM inaccurate because it gets 300mm groups at 300m (the equivalent of 12 inches, or roughly about 4MOA.)
The point is that this is a chest hit at a range where the round has plenty of energy to be lethal.

In comparison a tricked out M16 might hit human sized targets at 600m... but the wound will be superficial unless it goes through a vital organ... comparable to a .22lr hit.

Very simply, no special forces unit in the world would use AKMs if they simply sprayed bullets at random.

Indian Army widely uses AK-47 for anti-terrorist ( close combat ) operation in kashmir and else where besides israel Tavor.

It provides adequate accuracy and good penetration and lethality.

Many soldiers still prefer the AK , so is it accurate weapon at short and long ranges ?

Its trajectory is steep at longer range so accurate range estimation is needed for it to be effective at longer ranges... besides at longer ranges an SVD or PKM is much better and makes much more sense than ANY assault rifle.

Both the 7.62 x 39mm and the 5.45 x 39mm rounds are effective and accurate enough.

With modern production practises the ammo is now rather more consistent than it ever was before.

Thanks Garry.

Can I also add that 20 years ago the 7.62 x 39mm round was seen here with mistrust and suspicion.

Inaccurate... not offering any advantage over a 30-30... corrosive primers!

(Note here is New Zealand).

Over time however... and most importantly the introduction of relatively cheap SKS rifles that were simple and reliable weapons, the opinion of the round and many of the rifles that use it has dramatically changed.

The 30-30 is actually a good round so having similar performance to it is a good thing... plus the fact that the 7.62 x 39mm round is a short compact cartridge of modern rimless design that fits well in a magazine, whereas the 30-30 is a long (50mm case length) with a rimmed base, and of course with normally being a round used in a lever action gun they tend to be loaded in tube magazines which means round nose ammo to prevent the pointed tip setting off the primer of the round in front under recoil.
The round nose means better transfer of energy on target, but poor aerodynamic performance at supersonic speeds which makes it a short range round. New ammo with pointed tips that are safe in tube mags have been developed... but that brings up the other popular aspect of the Russian round... the Russian round is very cheap from eastern bloc country sources, which range from good to poor.

The fear of corrosive primers is largely myth... the primers do use chemicals that attract and absorb water so if you don't clean you rifle it will rust over time, but this is generally countered by the fact that the AK and SKS both have chrome lined barrels that are easy to clean and resistent to rust.

At the end of the day, if you clean you rifles properly then there is no problems and the new ammo from Russia is not corrosive primed now anyway.

These days in NZ the 7.62 x 39mm round is becoming a popular short rifle round used out to 200m or so against goats and pigs and small deer... it is cheap and because the round is actually a .311 calibre bullet and this makes it exactly the same calibre as the .303, which also actually uses a .311 calibre bullet it is actually quite common for locals to get their 303s rechambered to the much cheaper and milder Russian round.

They end up with a relatively cheap to use accurate light rifle... often as part of the conversion they shorten the barrel and remove a bit of excess wood to make it lighter and handier.

At the moment Czech rifles tend to be popular... they make a few light bolt action carbines chambered for the Russian round.

The price difference means that instead of costing $30 or more for 20 rounds you can be paying as little as $16 for a box of 20 rounds of hunting ammo.

We don't have any really big dangerous animals that a 7.62 x 39mm round can't take down with proper shot placement, though at the moment the range of bullet types is fairly limited to 120-122 grain. I would be interested in lighter and heaver rounds as options... a 70 grain round for varmints and a 150 grain... or even a 193 grain subsonic round would be interesting too... with a suppressor it could be a very quiet round.

Not long now for this:

http://www.milsupexpo.ru/milsup/

I wonder if they will reveal the Ak-200 here or keep us waiting.

It is also possible they might simply use the AK-200 as a replacement for the AN-94 and only issue it to special forces soldiers.

For a special forces soldier they will have different requirements to the average soldier.

Being able to change calibre from 5.45 to 7.62 x 39mm or 9 x 39mm with a few changes (ie barrel, bolt, magazine) would mean using one rifle instead of 2 or 3.
Having the picatinny rail on top would also be useful and a pistol grip with a built in flashlight and laser and bipod would be useful too.
A sliding stock allowing the user to wear thick body armour yet still reach the trigger would be useful, plus I think a push through trigger safety in addition to the normal safety would be useful as the rifle could be safe but set for full auto fire with a push of the push through safety it is ready to fire without needing to reach over to the left side of the weapon to slide the fire selector.

Cutting a slot on the right side of the top cover and shifting the cocking handle to the left side of the rifle would make it easier to reload.
A 60 round mag would reduce the number of stoppages to change magazines.
Backup iron sights would be nice, but a standard low power wide field of view scope that can have night vision scopes and magnifying scopes fitted in front of it without needing to be rezeroed should make shooting at extended ranges easier.

A balanced recoil mechanism would enhance short and medium range performance and in conjunction with the pistol grip bipod should allow extended range shooting with short bursts increasing hit probability by a significant degree without spraying rounds uselessly.

If it is to be a general issue rifle then there is less justification for the multi calibre idea as standard troops don't need that flexibility, and certainly wont want the complication or the extra weight to carry around the battlefield.