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

IMO russia should stop with the spetznaz fetishism and modernize their equipment after the regular mechanized troops do. There should be less focus on producing superspecialised weapons and immediately focus on weapons used for mass conventional warfare(shmel-M, Ak-12, ORSIS T-5000 instead of VKS or AS val), while any new assault rifle or ratnik suit should be given to regulars.

VKS and Val are used by regular recon units of regular mechanized troops, for example.
Ratnik is designed for regular combat troops.

Asf wrote:

IMO russia should stop with the spetznaz fetishism and modernize their equipment after the regular mechanized troops do. There should be less focus on producing superspecialised weapons and immediately focus on weapons used for mass conventional warfare(shmel-M, Ak-12, ORSIS T-5000 instead of VKS or AS val), while any new assault rifle or ratnik suit should be given to regulars.

VKS and Val are used by regular recon units of regular mechanized troops, for example.
Ratnik is designed for regular combat troops.

I meant that now ratnikand AK-12 are only given to spetsnaz, delaying their delivery to regulars.

Can the BMP-2 hide in rooms?

Of course it can.

You're basically saying infantry firepower shouldn't be improved because IFVs will always have larger guns.

Even with an exoskeleton a soldier wont be bullet proof, so a 14.5mm AR is simply not necessary.

It would make rather more sense to give that soldier a laser target marker and use it to guide bombs from orbiting Bears, Backfires, and Blackjacks.

I meant that now ratnikand AK-12 are only given to spetsnaz, delaying their delivery to regulars.

I dare say spetsnaz have had it for quite some time and this is a roll out to the Ground forces.

Asf wrote:

IMO russia should stop with the spetznaz fetishism and modernize their equipment after the regular mechanized troops do. There should be less focus on producing superspecialised weapons and immediately focus on weapons used for mass conventional warfare(shmel-M, Ak-12, ORSIS T-5000 instead of VKS or AS val), while any new assault rifle or ratnik suit should be given to regulars.

VKS and Val are used by regular recon units of regular mechanized troops, for example.
Ratnik is designed for regular combat troops.

Yes, SF will be getting 4 types of uniforms/equipment too. Legioner, Centurion, Sherp, Gladiator. Ratnik will only be used by SF attached to army.



They look heavy as fuck, but knowing that those guys operate as bullet and grenade magnets, their operations are usually end quick so it's understandable. Maska helmets were heavy too.

Regular wrote:

Asf wrote:

IMO russia should stop with the spetznaz fetishism and modernize their equipment after the regular mechanized troops do. There should be less focus on producing superspecialised weapons and immediately focus on weapons used for mass conventional warfare(shmel-M, Ak-12, ORSIS T-5000 instead of VKS or AS val), while any new assault rifle or ratnik suit should be given to regulars.

VKS and Val are used by regular recon units of regular mechanized troops, for example.
Ratnik is designed for regular combat troops.

Yes, SF will be getting 4 types of uniforms/equipment too. Legioner, Centurion, Sherp, Gladiator. Ratnik will only be used by SF attached to army.



They look heavy as fuck, but knowing that those guys operate as bullet and grenade magnets, their operations are usually end quick so it's understandable. Maska helmets were heavy too.

What evidence are you basing how heavy those uniforms on? Is these claims simply based off of the 'eye test'?

Note that he clearly said "look". IMHO, they "look" heavy, but that doesn't mean they are. Any info on this would be appreciated.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

What evidence are you basing how heavy those uniforms on? Is these claims simply based off of the 'eye test'?

Yes, I said look. They might be using different materials but still I would never compare to Ratnik 2. It's not as clumpy for a reason.

Evidence? I only have personal experience.
Plates do weight. Usually it's 18 kg at best. That's why some soldiers like to slack off and take them out in training. Shoulder armor not only adds weight but it hampers movement. Crotch protector is the worst thing You want to have in the field. Add the weight of backpack. Equipment and etc. Add the weight of the shield if operator is using it.
Neck protection doesn't help you to cheek wield the gun too, thats why sp3mp has second butstock placement.


By the way all that weight makes You breathing heavy and stops proper bloodflow. No matter how comfortable they are eventually You will start to feel it when breathing. It makes you disbalanced and shooting with armor is different than shooting without it. I might sound dramatic, but those things will keep You in one piece, it will save lives so it's worth it.
What info do You want to know? Everything was posted by other members before, just go back few pages. There isn't much known about them yet.

AS Val and VSS Vintorez

Gorgeous weapons.

May be not really relevant but... some pics from Vietnam.

Many people said that Vietnam should have chosen Russian AK instead of Israel Galil






Correct me if I am wrong, but it looks like the most left solider held a RPK.

The spike bayonet suggests Chinese AKs in yuor second photo.

Definitely an RPK in the third photo.

GarryB wrote:The spike bayonet suggests Chinese AKs in yuor second photo.

The rusty AKs stored in my high school (used for basic military education in high school) also have spike bayonets.

These bayonets are very blunt, partly because of being worn out after times. When some students asked the military instructor about the bluntness of the bayonets, the instructor said: "It's not a problem because in the battlefield, medical care is very inconvenient, and hygiene is terrible. In such conditions a hit caused by these blunt bayonets is actually more terrible than you can imagine."

Machine combat equipment "Warrior" will be released under two caliber

MOSCOW, December 10 - RIA Novosti. The machine, which will be a major small arms in the Russian military outfit "future soldier" "Warrior", will be available in two versions caliber - 5.45 and 7.62 mm, said Tuesday the deputy chairman of the board of the Military -Industrial Commission (MIC) of the Russian Federation Oleg Bochkarev.

"Caliber will be two - 5.45 and 7.62 mm. This is a classic. Different objectives, so we do not deviate from this plan," - said Bochkarev in the "National Defense" on the radio station "CAPITAL FM" .

He recalled that at the present time the Ministry of Defense completes the state tests, the results of which will make their choice in favor of a particular machine.

"We compare two types of automatic weapons - AEK-971 (concern" Kalashnikov ") and AK-12 (Degtyarev Plant), machines about the same level. But it is important that the weapon was simple, at a price cheaper and more suited for mass production" - said the deputy chairman of the board of MIC.

According to him, "if we compare these characteristics, but they will be very important to make a decision that will go in the series, the AK-12 is preferable." However, the decision - for the military, emphasized Bochkarev. "A technique for exactly the same machines," - he said.

http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20141210/1037425974.html

Looks like Ak-12 is favourite to win the Warrior Program as its cost effective to produce compared to A-545

Can anyone give us an overall view for the standard rifle of russian ground forces, naval infantry, airborne troops, internal troops and about what is projected for the future for each of these branches?

thanks

Oops they made a little mistake there....

"We compare two types of automatic weapons - AEK-971 (concern" Kalashnikov ") and AK-12 (Degtyarev Plant), machines about the same level. But it is important that the weapon was simple, at a price cheaper and more suited for mass production" - said the deputy chairman of the board of MIC.

Obviously the Ak12 is Concern Kalashnikov, and AEK-971 is Degtyarev plant.


When they say AK12 in 7.62mm and 5.45mm I wonder if they mean 7.62 x 39mm or 7.62 x 54mm?

Can anyone give us an overall view for the standard rifle of russian ground forces, naval infantry, airborne troops, internal troops and about what is projected for the future for each of these branches?

Hard to say.. ground forces, naval forces, and airborne are all military and this is the competition that is going on now... for the military. However there are other government departments like interior forces (MVD) and of course what used to be called the KGB (now FSB) and of course the Russian police that are not bound by what the Russian armed forces choose and they can choose for themselves.

AFAIK the VDV and Russian Naval Infantry have adopted the ADS as a standard weapon, but whether that is as a direct replacement for the AK-74 or just the APS underwater rifle I don't know.

If it is the latter it will be adopted in fairly limited numbers to just replace the APS rifle, but if it is the former then it will be the standard rifle replacing the AK-74 and APS and pretty soon we will see entire units armed with ADS instead of AKs.

They might be waiting for test results from the AK12 before they decide to adopt the ADS as a standard rifle perhaps... it will be interesting to see what rifles are carried in next years May Day Parade.

Special forces can generally carry a weapon they are happy with so currently a GRU Spetsnaz soldier might choose to carry an AK-104 carbine in 7.62 x 39mm calibre or the AK-74 in 5.45mm calibre. (note the short barrel 104 carbine is compact and easier to use in urban areas while the 7.62mm doesn't lose much performance with a shorter barrel, whereas the 5.45mm performs better at higher velocities so at longer range with a full length barrel it performs better).

To be honest most special forces units in Russia are spoiled for choice...

@Garry: I think an AK-xx with foldable buttstock is good enough. Foldable buttstock enable the rifle to be armed to both the normal ground force and to the VDV/special forces who need tiny and compact weapons.

You can see that folded AKM is only 655mm, that is shorter than most of the bullpups in this world. Therefore, Russia and Germany do not invest much in the bullpup design because they already have foldable buttstock. When you fold the buttstock, you cannot lean the rifle to your body to make a proper aim, but the soliders will be train to fold the buttstock only when they don't need to aim.

Personally I would like to see a bullpup which reaches the legendary level of compactness, like the TKB-022PM. The buttstock and the receiver of TKB-022PM are completely fused toghether, therefore its lenght is only 525 mm.

When you are in a vehicle or an aircraft length is a serious issue, but AKs generally are not long weapons. The FN FAL and full length barrel M16 are very long weapons by comparison, though ironically this long barrel length makes them more effective at extended ranges the benefit mostly comes at ranges further than normal combat occurs so that benefit is largely wasted.

The ADS is a very compact weapon and is very interesting to me, as is the Groza bullpup.

The VS-121 is also very interesting and they have a bullpup bolt action 12.7mm sniper rifle too that is also of interest...

I rather suspect their next gen rifle and small arms family will be modular and most likely will be a bullpup design.

[quote="higurashihougi"]

You can see that folded AKM is only 655mm, that is shorter than most of the bullpups in this world. Therefore, Russia and Germany do not invest much in the bullpup design because they already have foldable buttstock.

Well Russia actually have invested ALOT into bullpup designs. As Garry mentioned. Damn they have been testing them when Stalin was alive and breathing.

When you fold the buttstock, you cannot lean the rifle to your body to make a proper aim, but the soliders will be train to fold the buttstock only when they don't need to aim.

Are the soldiers trained to lace their shoes too? Sorry, but it sounded funny. I don't think such thing is even trained as it's only logical as opening lid from optics before aiming.

Personally I would like to see a bullpup which reaches the legendary level of compactness, like the TKB-022PM. The buttstock and the receiver of  TKB-022PM are completely fused toghether, therefore its lenght is only 525 mm.

But why? There are plenty of SMGs that are quite short and they would work even better than midget assault rifle. But similar one exists actually. Don't know why exactly.
Tavor 2. It's 590 mm and it's quite a workhorse as IDF guys say. There are versions who shoot Russian 5.45 too for export customers.

I personally would love something bit bigger and conventional. I have never shot bullpup rifle in my life so I can't say anything bad or good.
G36 without optics is finest weapon I've ever handled, bullpups for me don't look natural.

Regular wrote:

Personally I would like to see a bullpup which reaches the legendary level of compactness, like the TKB-022PM. The buttstock and the receiver of  TKB-022PM are completely fused toghether, therefore its lenght is only 525 mm.

But why? There are plenty of SMGs that are quite short and they would work even better than midget assault rifle. But similar one exists actually.

Because rifle provide much greater power, range and trajectory compared to SMG/MP.

For example if you have to deal with someone wear bulletproof vest, SMG/MP may be not enough.

That's why after AK-47 entered service, PPSh gradually phased out.

I mentioned a very short bullpup because, we already have foldable AK-xx which is only 655mm when the buttstock is folded. For me I prefer foldable AK rather than a bullpup which is longer than 655mm.

Regular wrote:I personally would love something bit bigger and conventional. I have never shot bullpup rifle in my life so I can't say anything bad or good.

The conventional design enable the rifle to have an angled buttstock, or a buttstock which is considerably lower than the axis of the barrel. As far as I know, angled buttstock enable the gunner to have a better aiming than an inline buttstock.

Meanwhile in bullpup design, because the buttstock and the receiver fuse toghether, we have an inline buttstock.

Regular wrote:G36 without optics is finest weapon I've ever handled, bullpups for me don't look natural.

Germany is the best gun designer in Western Europe, after all. But I dislike the Colt-like bolt in the gun, though.

I mentioned a very short bullpup because, we already have foldable AK-xx which is only 655mm when the buttstock is folded. For me I prefer foldable AK rather than a bullpup which is longer than 655mm.

Short is handy but is there really any advantage in carrying one of those stupid little short barrel carbine versions of assault rifles?

In the AK line the AKS-74U is really a SMG with more powerful ammo but nothing near assault rifle accuracy at combat ranges.

I personally like fitting suppressors to my rifles as it makes them quieter... it also increases length which is not really a problem.

The conventional design enable the rifle to have an angled buttstock, or a buttstock which is considerably lower than the axis of the barrel. As far as I know, angled buttstock enable the gunner to have a better aiming than an inline buttstock.

Meanwhile in bullpup design, because the buttstock and the receiver fuse toghether, we have an inline buttstock.

The alternative to angled buttstock is raised sights... which seems to work OK too. the problem with an angled stock is increased separation of the barrel thrust line with the support offered by the shoulder leading to an upward kick effect.

GarryB wrote:Short is handy but is there really any advantage in carrying one of those stupid little short barrel carbine versions of assault rifles?

In the AK line the AKS-74U is really a SMG with more powerful ammo but nothing near assault rifle accuracy at combat ranges.

I personally like fitting suppressors to my rifles as it makes them quieter... it also increases length which is not really a problem.

Well... I did not metion the carbine versions like AKS-74U. 655mm is the length of full barrel AKMS when the buttstock is folded. And that 655mm is shorter than many kinds of bullpup.

GarryB wrote:The alternative to angled buttstock is raised sights... which seems to work OK too. the problem with an angled stock is increased separation of the barrel thrust line with the support offered by the shoulder leading to an upward kick effect.

There are some people dislike the raised sight, they say that the new raised sight line is not good enough.

For example, in M16, the raised front sight decreases the stability of its base and therefore the designer cannot put it near the muzzle like AK-47. M16 front sight has to be put near the handguard, which decrease the radius of sight line i.e. the distance between the eyes and the front sight.

A compensation for the disadvantage of angled stock is using short burst mode when accuracy is needed. In fact, people do not use long burst when they want to hit the target, because the amount of ammunition is very limited.

SR2MP submachine gun