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

GarryB wrote:It would not hurt to integrate both weapons, but I suspect the multi calibre AK12SN might have an advantage with SMG, carbine, rifle, and LMG weapons shown already.

I think the AK12 has better ergonomics than the AEKs we have seen, though to be fair we have not seen many AEK models in recent versions.

Werewolf wrote:But i don't like the Stock, i like the AK-12 stock.

Zivo wrote:They're suited for confined firing positions, clearing rooms, etc.

Folding stocks are better for troops who ride in vehicles, who keep the weapons folded when not in use, and unfold them when they dismount. So interference from the folded stock isn't a problem.

The AEK's if purchased would be used by special forces, so telescopic stocks would suit their mission.

 the stock is not suited for the Russian army, and soldiers will accommodate better with the AK-12 than they would with AEK-973, so naturally the AK-12 should be chosen over the AEK-973 for the army because it's most similar to the AK-74M that the average soldier is the most experienced with. 

Most soldiers wear body armour and no two soldiers are the same size so adapting the length of the stock to suit the individual soldier should make it easier for them to hit their targets and use their rifles for long periods.

Asf wrote:
Look, AEK is very similar to AK mechanics too. Rifle stock is just a feature. And yes, it looks like H&K, but I like their style. Rigid stock is better in a hand-to-hand combat, but has no impact on accuracy due to balanced mechanics of AEK (less perceptible recoil)

Asf wrote:BTW there is another version of AEK's stock

 it's weather or not the average soldier will like and be accustomed to a stock that's significantly different from the stocks that are attached to the AK-74, and AK-74M series

Regular wrote:I'm not too sure about those stocks. Something like newer magpul stocks could be better.

Asf wrote:Sometimes I wonder how did people fight effectively without all whose "absolutely needed" gear. Civilisation made us weak.Nowadays we loosing wars not because of strategy but because of military budget expences for sport equiment for basic rifles and helicopter nachos delivery right into the trenches.

I saw youtube vids about NATO soldiers in Afghanistan - they just spray bullets into an area because the need of fire suppression or due to panic just like a century ago. Are all those regulated stocks and staff realy that needed or it's just for comfort of contract jarheads who fetishize military gear?

Just call me conservative, but I prefer reliable men with old AKs, a good fire support man and a good plan of advance rather than wannabe machos equipped to the teeth who shoot on sight, get nervous under fire and looses discipline if there are no porn journals and ice cream.

And what wars that would be  ?  

No, mosin nagant with bayonet is only thing soldier needs.

Would You trust a conscript?

What good plan of advance?

When it comes to training US troops are probably the best trained in the world. 

To be all fair I don't know where You get all porn journals and icecream thing, soldiers are more interested in drugs when they are on deployment.

WTF??? Tell me what is this?

Roll... Wtf? Running and shooting. Nice. Look how they storm the building.

Why they are running like this? So hastily like high on speed?

Running and shooting. 

How do You even call this formation? Who is covering what? 

use their AKs as Bolt action rifles.

It is not revolutionary, but it is clearly more than just rails and a big magazine.

Asf wrote:

It is not revolutionary, but it is clearly more than just rails and a big magazine.

Yes, it's what I'm saying. AK-12 looks like an upgrade over a general soviet assault rifle. And AEK has a unique feature. It already has a diopter sight, picatinny rail, short-burst selector, ect, plus the balanced mechanics. In what sence it is inferior to AK-12?