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

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Arctic_Fox wrote:AN-94:

???

They said the Abakan is to heavy, to to complex, the iron sights are horrible for the field because if you drop it or have to pass through mud the diopter sight will be closed with mud and the operator has no chance to use it properly and needs to start cleaning it before using any aimed shots. Professionals had disambled it and took over 20 minutes while an ak has about less than 1 minute to do the same. Overall shooting is nice feature of the first two bullets coming out with 1800 rpm which have low spread and will hit same object while the rpm after that slows down to the same as AK and the grouping is similiar to the AK. Overall it lost to the AEK.

I still can't believe they watered down AK-12
What a shitshow

magnumcromagnon wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Arctic_Fox wrote:AN-94:

???

They were mean with my feelings. How dare them think this weapon is on par with the AK accuracy wise. On single shots and two-round bursts the rifle is way better, but all the rest is true.

Regular wrote:I still can't believe they watered down AK-12
What a shitshow

I told y'all, but I hope they will keep trying to make it work. That MA rifle though.

Technical info about this compact Kalashnikov assault rifle

---

MA Kalashnikov Compact Assault Rifle 5.45 x39mm caliber

• Description
  

The MA Kalashnikov is the new compact assault rifle 5.45mm caliber developped and designed by the famous Russian firearms manufacturer Kalashnikov Group. A prototype of this weapon was presented for the first time to the public during the International Military Technical Forum, Army 2016, which was held near Moscow in the Patriotic Parc expocenter from the 6 to 11 September 2016. The The Kalashnikov MA compact assault rifle is an initiative development of Kalashnikov Group. It is intended as a Personal Defense Weapon for military vehicle and crew-served weapons crews, as well as a lightweight CQB weapon for Special Forces. The weight of MA Kalashnokov is only 2.5 kg without magazine. This new assault rifle is more lighter than a standard submachien gun 9mm caliber.

• Technical Data
  

-Armament

The MA Kalashnikov is based on plastic contsruction, only the barrel and some inside parts are made of metallic material. Design of the 5.45mm Kalashnikov MA compact assault rifle uses the most modern materials and ergonomic features. Unlike traditional Kalashnikov assault rifles, MA has an inverted-U shaped compact steel receiver which hosts bolt group. This ensures that integrated Picatinny rail at the top is always properly aligned with the barrel and no re-sighting of any scope or sight would be required after hard use or disassembly and maintenance. MA uses short-stroke gas piston operated action with rotary bolt locking. The lower receiver is made from polymer and is integral with magazine housing, trigger housing and pistol grip. Rifle features ambidextrous control and side-folding adjustable plastic shoulder stock. For special operations, it can be issued with quick-detachable tactical sound suppressor. The MA Kalashnikov has a full lenght of 750mm, and only 500mm with stock folded.

-Ammunition

The MA Kalashnikov is 5.45 x 39 caliber asault rifle. This weapon uses standard AK-74 magazine with a capacity of 30 rounds. It can fire in single shots and in full auto. The 5.45×39mm cartridge is a rimless bottlenecked rifle cartridge. It was introduced into service in 1974 by the Soviet Union for use with the new AK-74 assault rifle.

-Accessories

The MA Kalashnikov compact assault rifle is fitted with telescopic side-folding and adjustable shoulder stock. A Picatinny rail is mounted on the top of the receiver to offer the possibility to put any scope or sight availabe in the current military market. A quick-detachable tactical sound suppressor can be installed on the muzzle.

• Specifications
  

Caliber:
5.45 x 39mm

Technical data:

Weight:
2.5 kg empty

Length:
750 mm

Height:
180 mm

Barrel length:
?

Magazine:
30 rounds

Identification:
The MA Kalashnikov is a prototype, no identification on the weapon.

Security:
The safety of the MA Kalashnikov is provided by an ambidextrous manual safety.







Source: http://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_army_light_heavy_weapons_uk/ma_kalashnikov_калашников_compact_assault_rifle_5.45x39mm_technical_data_sheet_specifications_pictures_video_12809165.html

---

Looks cool to me, and I think that it will find great use at SpetsNaz units, and later it will be integrated into the "Ratnik" combat gear. I don't know, but maybe it (with stock folded) would be a great PDW (Personal Defense Weapon), of which Russia currently has no one. Another interesting thing is that this gun will come with a supressor by default, of which AFAIK older Kalashnikov rifles didn't have access to.

Benya wrote:Technical info about this compact Kalashnikov assault rifle

---

MA Kalashnikov Compact Assault Rifle 5.45 x39mm caliber

• Description
  

The MA Kalashnikov is the new compact assault rifle 5.45mm caliber developped and designed by the famous Russian firearms manufacturer Kalashnikov Group. A prototype of this weapon was presented for the first time to the public during the International Military Technical Forum, Army 2016, which was held near Moscow in the Patriotic Parc expocenter from the 6 to 11 September 2016. The The Kalashnikov MA compact assault rifle is an initiative development of Kalashnikov Group. It is intended as a Personal Defense Weapon for military vehicle and crew-served weapons crews, as well as a lightweight CQB weapon for Special Forces. The weight of MA Kalashnokov is only 2.5 kg without magazine. This new assault rifle is more lighter than a standard submachien gun 9mm caliber.

• Technical Data
  

-Armament

The MA Kalashnikov is based on plastic contsruction, only the barrel and some inside parts are made of metallic material. Design of the 5.45mm Kalashnikov MA compact assault rifle uses the most modern materials and ergonomic features. Unlike traditional Kalashnikov assault rifles, MA has an inverted-U shaped compact steel receiver which hosts bolt group. This ensures that integrated Picatinny rail at the top is always properly aligned with the barrel and no re-sighting of any scope or sight would be required after hard use or disassembly and maintenance. MA uses short-stroke gas piston operated action with rotary bolt locking. The lower receiver is made from polymer and is integral with magazine housing, trigger housing and pistol grip. Rifle features ambidextrous control and side-folding adjustable plastic shoulder stock. For special operations, it can be issued with quick-detachable tactical sound suppressor. The MA Kalashnikov has a full lenght of 750mm, and only 500mm with stock folded.

-Ammunition

The MA Kalashnikov is 5.45 x 39 caliber asault rifle. This weapon uses standard AK-74 magazine with a capacity of 30 rounds. It can fire in single shots and in full auto. The 5.45×39mm cartridge is a rimless bottlenecked rifle cartridge. It was introduced into service in 1974 by the Soviet Union for use with the new AK-74 assault rifle.

-Accessories

The MA Kalashnikov compact assault rifle is fitted with telescopic side-folding and adjustable shoulder stock. A Picatinny rail is mounted on the top of the receiver to offer the possibility to put any scope or sight availabe in the current military market. A quick-detachable tactical sound suppressor can be installed on the muzzle.

• Specifications
  

Caliber:
5.45 x 39mm

Technical data:

Weight:
2.5 kg empty

Length:
750 mm

Height:
180 mm

Barrel length:
?

Magazine:
30 rounds

Identification:
The MA Kalashnikov is a prototype, no identification on the weapon.

Security:
The safety of the MA Kalashnikov is provided by an ambidextrous manual safety.







Source: http://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_army_light_heavy_weapons_uk/ma_kalashnikov_калашников_compact_assault_rifle_5.45x39mm_technical_data_sheet_specifications_pictures_video_12809165.html

---

Looks cool to me, and I think that it will find great use at SpetsNaz units, and later it will be integrated into the "Ratnik" combat gear. I don't know, but maybe it (with stock folded) would be a great PDW (Personal Defense Weapon), of which Russia currently has no one. Another interesting thing is that this gun will come with a supressor by default, of which AFAIK older Kalashnikov rifles didn't have access to.

Wat? PBS-1 was what?

The only good thing is that the suppressor will be a classic one and wouldn't need ad-hoc ammo.

Also it's sad, 40 years and they managed to make a heavier variant of the Dragunov MA with worse looks (TBH).

Fucking KK.

I watched a video where Larry Vickers fires the AK-107 and I was really impressed with that incredible gun. How reliable would it be in relation to the AK-74? I would think that it's far more reliable than most Western assault rifles.

Cyrus the great wrote:
I watched a video where Larry Vickers fires the AK-107 and I was really impressed with that incredible gun. How reliable would it be in relation to the AK-74? I would think that it's far more reliable than most Western assault rifles.

Actually majority of NATO operated assault rifles these days are very reliable. Especially fairly recent developments from 90s and 00s.

Militarov wrote:

Cyrus the great wrote:
I watched a video where Larry Vickers fires the AK-107 and I was really impressed with that incredible gun. How reliable would it be in relation to the AK-74? I would think that it's far more reliable than most Western assault rifles.

Actually majority of NATO operated assault rifles these days are very reliable. Especially fairly recent developments from 90s and 00s.

It's a cycle process.

There are three cycles to achieve.

Failure between rounds.
Failure between field maintenance.
Failure between structural inspection/maintenance.

In these most Western rifles score rather poorly in 2 and 3. They can score abysmally on 1.

Kalashnikov systems score evenly in both, but that's a rather mediocre score anyway, although better.

The difference though is that Western have an edge when it comes to accuracy in pure numbers. All the rest is down to so many factors.

M4 FBR on test is over 1000 (1200 to be precise), on the field, its not even half that. Technical spec for Type 78 was 500 (wipe and clean) in the field that POS has seen more magazines than a pervert teenager, without a speck of lubricant. So you can't exactly tell which is going to be more reliable.

What you can say about the 107 is this, will this rifle be easier to maintain than a direct action system or a simpler system? The answer is no. It will be more complex and possibly that might add to the Field maintenance and Structural maintenance.

More boxes on a check list means more corners to cover.

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Cyrus the great wrote:
I watched a video where Larry Vickers fires the AK-107 and I was really impressed with that incredible gun. How reliable would it be in relation to the AK-74? I would think that it's far more reliable than most Western assault rifles.

Actually majority of NATO operated assault rifles these days are very reliable. Especially fairly recent developments from 90s and 00s.

It's a cycle process.

There are three cycles to achieve.

Failure between rounds.
Failure between field maintenance.
Failure between structural inspection/maintenance.

In these most Western rifles score rather poorly in 2 and 3. They can score abysmally on 1.

Kalashnikov systems score evenly in both, but that's a rather mediocre score anyway, although better.

The difference though is that Western have an edge when it comes to accuracy in pure numbers. All the rest is down to so many factors.

M4  FBR on test is over 1000 (1200 to be precise), on the field, its not even half that. Technical spec for Type 78 was 500 (wipe and clean) in the field that POS has seen more magazines than a pervert teenager, without a speck of lubricant. So you can't exactly tell which is going to be more reliable.

What you can say about the 107 is this, will this rifle be easier to maintain than a direct action system or a simpler system? The answer is no. It will be more complex and possibly that might add to the Field maintenance and Structural maintenance.

More boxes on a check list means more corners to cover.

Scar Light (or Heavy not sure) fired 20.000 without jam and lubrication, with "dry" cleaning now and then. My first M70AB2 fired mby 4-5k and was literally useless and i couldnt even qualify with it on range (together with few other guys that got weapons from the unit rather than storage), then i got new one from storage, that one was ofc all fine. Naturally price tags and eras are not comparable but still. Here they send rifle to armory when it stops shooting, or when there is crack in the reciever, prevention does not exist

They told us we need in ideal situation to clean rifle in combat after every "RAP", which is basically 150 rounds, and in no situation to leave it uncleaned for more than 500 rounds. On other hand dad says they were getting into maintenance tanks which for months did not get their cannon cleaned, rifles that saw oil last time in factory and howtizers that got more water down their tube than average rain drain.

Naturally price tags and eras are not comparable but still

Militarov wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Cyrus the great wrote:
I watched a video where Larry Vickers fires the AK-107 and I was really impressed with that incredible gun. How reliable would it be in relation to the AK-74? I would think that it's far more reliable than most Western assault rifles.

Actually majority of NATO operated assault rifles these days are very reliable. Especially fairly recent developments from 90s and 00s.

It's a cycle process.

There are three cycles to achieve.

Failure between rounds.
Failure between field maintenance.
Failure between structural inspection/maintenance.

In these most Western rifles score rather poorly in 2 and 3. They can score abysmally on 1.

Kalashnikov systems score evenly in both, but that's a rather mediocre score anyway, although better.

The difference though is that Western have an edge when it comes to accuracy in pure numbers. All the rest is down to so many factors.

M4  FBR on test is over 1000 (1200 to be precise), on the field, its not even half that. Technical spec for Type 78 was 500 (wipe and clean) in the field that POS has seen more magazines than a pervert teenager, without a speck of lubricant. So you can't exactly tell which is going to be more reliable.

What you can say about the 107 is this, will this rifle be easier to maintain than a direct action system or a simpler system? The answer is no. It will be more complex and possibly that might add to the Field maintenance and Structural maintenance.

More boxes on a check list means more corners to cover.

Scar Light (or Heavy not sure) fired 20.000 without jam and lubrication, with "dry" cleaning now and then. My first M70AB2 fired mby 4-5k and was literally useless and i couldnt even qualify with it on range (together with few other guys that got weapons from the unit rather than storage), then i got new one from storage, that one was ofc all fine. Naturally price tags and eras are not comparable but still. Here they send rifle to armory when it stops shooting, or when there is crack in the reciever, prevention does not exist

They told us we need in ideal situation to clean rifle in combat after every "RAP", which is basically 150 rounds, and in no situation to leave it uncleaned for more than 500 rounds. On other hand dad says they were getting into maintenance tanks which for months did not get their cannon cleaned, rifles that saw oil last time in factory and howtizers that got more water down their tube than average rain drain.

Naturally price tags and eras are not comparable but still

20000 rounds without failures? That's simply impossible (Barrel for SCAR-L is rated for 10000 before inspection). Build up per round is 0,09 gr. 20000 rounds means 2kg of build up inside rifle. It maybe wasn't lubricated but it was cleaned each 1200 rounds. SCAR-L however failed 99 times purely on mechanical purpose. 111 times ammunition was concerned.

KoTeMoRe wrote:

20000 rounds without failures? That's simply impossible (Barrel for SCAR-L is rated for 10000 before inspection). Build up per round is 0,09 gr. 20000 rounds means 2kg of build up inside rifle. It maybe wasn't lubricated but it was cleaned each 1200 rounds. SCAR-L however failed 99 times purely on mechanical purpose. 111 times ammunition was concerned.

That was in the article written in magazine "Kalibar", few years back that one of the Scar rifles, fired 20.000 rounds without lubrication, with cleaning (every 500 rounds?), without mechanical failures, and X failures due to ammunition and new plastic magazine. It was stress test of a sort, they did similar with Saiga.

Militarov wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

20000 rounds without failures? That's simply impossible (Barrel for SCAR-L is rated for 10000 before inspection). Build up per round is 0,09 gr. 20000 rounds means 2kg of build up inside rifle. It maybe wasn't lubricated but it was cleaned each 1200 rounds. SCAR-L however failed 99 times purely on mechanical purpose. 111 times ammunition was concerned.

That was in the article written in magazine "Kalibar", few years back that one of the Scar rifles, fired 20.000 rounds without lubrication, with cleaning (every 500 rounds?), without mechanical failures, and X failures due to ammunition and new plastic magazine. It was stress test of a sort, they did similar with Saiga.

The dust test as inducted by JSOC was done with 10 rifles, 60000 rounds (6000 rounds each), Inspection done prior fire one, then 50 cycles of 120 rounds, inspection each 5 cycles, cleaning & Lubricating each 10. FNUSA asked for the lubricating to be ad hoc, which happened only twice with half the rifles (which is good).

The SCAr-L was the better rifle overall, but had some low-keys like indeed double feed with the plastic mags and other issues with the receiver.

The 20 000 rounds is only possible in a lab and with high quality ammunition. This doesn't take out cleaning and "barrelling".

Keep in mind, I'm a big fan of the SCAR, and it is very qualitative. It's just not all what FNH/USA made it out to be.

Also we're not speaking accuracy here, we're only speaking click, boom, click, boom,

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Militarov wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

20000 rounds without failures? That's simply impossible (Barrel for SCAR-L is rated for 10000 before inspection). Build up per round is 0,09 gr. 20000 rounds means 2kg of build up inside rifle. It maybe wasn't lubricated but it was cleaned each 1200 rounds. SCAR-L however failed 99 times purely on mechanical purpose. 111 times ammunition was concerned.

That was in the article written in magazine "Kalibar", few years back that one of the Scar rifles, fired 20.000 rounds without lubrication, with cleaning (every 500 rounds?), without mechanical failures, and X failures due to ammunition and new plastic magazine. It was stress test of a sort, they did similar with Saiga.

The dust test as inducted by JSOC was done with 10 rifles, 60000 rounds (6000 rounds each), Inspection done prior fire one, then 50 cycles of 120 rounds, inspection each 5 cycles, cleaning & Lubricating each 10. FNUSA asked for the lubricating to be ad hoc, which happened only twice with half the rifles (which is good).

The SCAr-L was the better rifle overall, but had some low-keys like indeed double feed with the plastic mags and other issues with the receiver.

The 20 000 rounds is only possible in a lab and with high quality ammunition. This doesn't take out cleaning and "barrelling".

Keep in mind, I'm a big fan of the SCAR, and it is very qualitative. It's just not all what FNH/USA made it out to be.

Also we're not speaking accuracy here, we're only speaking click, boom, click, boom,

if you may, can you compare AK74m with AR/SCAR platforms in terms of accuracy, is there really a huge difference?

and do you think that AK12 will improve accuracy significantly?

Arctic_Fox wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Militarov wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

20000 rounds without failures? That's simply impossible (Barrel for SCAR-L is rated for 10000 before inspection). Build up per round is 0,09 gr. 20000 rounds means 2kg of build up inside rifle. It maybe wasn't lubricated but it was cleaned each 1200 rounds. SCAR-L however failed 99 times purely on mechanical purpose. 111 times ammunition was concerned.

That was in the article written in magazine "Kalibar", few years back that one of the Scar rifles, fired 20.000 rounds without lubrication, with cleaning (every 500 rounds?), without mechanical failures, and X failures due to ammunition and new plastic magazine. It was stress test of a sort, they did similar with Saiga.

The dust test as inducted by JSOC was done with 10 rifles, 60000 rounds (6000 rounds each), Inspection done prior fire one, then 50 cycles of 120 rounds, inspection each 5 cycles, cleaning & Lubricating each 10. FNUSA asked for the lubricating to be ad hoc, which happened only twice with half the rifles (which is good).

The SCAr-L was the better rifle overall, but had some low-keys like indeed double feed with the plastic mags and other issues with the receiver.

The 20 000 rounds is only possible in a lab and with high quality ammunition. This doesn't take out cleaning and "barrelling".

Keep in mind, I'm a big fan of the SCAR, and it is very qualitative. It's just not all what FNH/USA made it out to be.

Also we're not speaking accuracy here, we're only speaking click, boom, click, boom,

if you may, can you compare AK74m with AR/SCAR platforms in terms of accuracy, is there really a huge difference?

and do you think that AK12 will improve accuracy significantly?

Depends what you call huge. For 3/400m the only issue between the 74M and Scar are the Iron sights. Mauser sights are OK for combat, much more difficult for marksmanship. Then the barrels aren't at all comparable. The one on the 74M is lighter by almost half a kilogram when compared with the Mk16 and almost twice that HAMR. Then there are the tolerances within the system itself. There's none on the SCAR. When I say none, it's really none. So the system is very direct. You don't have the usual AK trigger creep, the long reset you find on the 74's. The ammunition helps the 74M hang in there a lot, it is very flat and very competitive but the quality of the barreling is very average, it is military spec, sure just not as good.

Improving the accuracy on an AK platform is really easy, but requires weight gain and price hiking. Just not worth it when you have systems that are as proven as the AK with the fraction of the price (Dragunov MA for instance). The AK-12 did improve accuracy and stability by as much as a 30% positive reduction of the gap shooting (peep sights ) plus a very businesslike 1MOA at 100m multiple times with x4 Specter DR on top(best a military grade 74M can do is sub 2MOA).

But that comes with a lot of friction inside the action, more buildup and less space to store it.

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Arctic_Fox wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Militarov wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

20000 rounds without failures? That's simply impossible (Barrel for SCAR-L is rated for 10000 before inspection). Build up per round is 0,09 gr. 20000 rounds means 2kg of build up inside rifle. It maybe wasn't lubricated but it was cleaned each 1200 rounds. SCAR-L however failed 99 times purely on mechanical purpose. 111 times ammunition was concerned.

That was in the article written in magazine "Kalibar", few years back that one of the Scar rifles, fired 20.000 rounds without lubrication, with cleaning (every 500 rounds?), without mechanical failures, and X failures due to ammunition and new plastic magazine. It was stress test of a sort, they did similar with Saiga.

The dust test as inducted by JSOC was done with 10 rifles, 60000 rounds (6000 rounds each), Inspection done prior fire one, then 50 cycles of 120 rounds, inspection each 5 cycles, cleaning & Lubricating each 10. FNUSA asked for the lubricating to be ad hoc, which happened only twice with half the rifles (which is good).

The SCAr-L was the better rifle overall, but had some low-keys like indeed double feed with the plastic mags and other issues with the receiver.

The 20 000 rounds is only possible in a lab and with high quality ammunition. This doesn't take out cleaning and "barrelling".

Keep in mind, I'm a big fan of the SCAR, and it is very qualitative. It's just not all what FNH/USA made it out to be.

Also we're not speaking accuracy here, we're only speaking click, boom, click, boom,

if you may, can you compare AK74m with AR/SCAR platforms in terms of accuracy, is there really a huge difference?

and do you think that AK12 will improve accuracy significantly?

Depends what you call huge. For 3/400m the only issue between the 74M and Scar are the Iron sights. Mauser sights are OK for combat, much more difficult for marksmanship. Then the barrels aren't at all comparable. The one on the 74M is lighter by almost half a kilogram when compared with the Mk16 and almost twice that HAMR. Then there are the tolerances within the system itself. There's none on the SCAR. When I say none, it's really none. So the system is very direct. You don't have the usual AK trigger creep, the long reset you find on the 74's. The ammunition helps the 74M hang in there a lot, it is very flat and very competitive but the quality of the barreling is very average, it is military spec, sure just not as good.

Improving the accuracy on an AK platform is really easy, but requires weight gain and price hiking. Just not worth it when you have systems that are as proven as the AK with the fraction of the price (Dragunov MA for instance). The AK-12 did improve accuracy and stability by as much as a 30% positive reduction of the gap shooting (peep sights   ) plus a very businesslike 1MOA at 100m multiple times with x4 Specter DR on top(best a military grade 74M can do is sub 2MOA).

But that comes with a lot of friction inside the action, more buildup and less space to store it.

Thanks again for your explanation

Truth me told I never liked scars even when they made me field test those bloody things.

Too prone to malfunctions. In the hot climate, it's why I hated using M4's and used AK's.

It was far heavier than it needed to be in mu opinion. Low RoF.

The Scar-L is more accurate than an AK-74M but the difference isn't huge.

The effective range with these guns is virtually the same. Maybe a mere 50 apart at best.

(depends on your version of AK) This is merely the sum of my experience with using both rifles in real combat.

I have had M4's for example overheat on me.

Militarov wrote:

Cyrus the great wrote:
I watched a video where Larry Vickers fires the AK-107 and I was really impressed with that incredible gun. How reliable would it be in relation to the AK-74? I would think that it's far more reliable than most Western assault rifles.

Actually majority of NATO operated assault rifles these days are very reliable. Especially fairly recent developments from 90s and 00s.

This is especially true of the Western armies that have finally seen the merits of piston driven rifles, but the AK variants are still the gold standard of reliability by a significant margin.

KoTeMoRe wrote:

There are three cycles to achieve.

Failure between rounds.
Failure between field maintenance.
Failure between structural inspection/maintenance.

In these most Western rifles score rather poorly in 2 and 3. They can score abysmally on 1.

Kalashnikov systems score evenly in both, but that's a rather mediocre score anyway, although better.

The difference though is that Western have an edge when it comes to accuracy in pure numbers. All the rest is down to so many factors.

M4  FBR on test is over 1000 (1200 to be precise), on the field, its not even half that. Technical spec for Type 78 was 500 (wipe and clean) in the field that POS has seen more magazines than a pervert teenager, without a speck of lubricant. So you can't exactly tell which is going to be more reliable.

What you can say about the 107 is this, will this rifle be easier to maintain than a direct action system or a simpler system? The answer is no. It will be more complex and possibly that might add to the Field maintenance and Structural maintenance.

More boxes on a check list means more corners to cover.

I expected the long-stroke piston and the larger clearances in the AK system to make up for the more complex mechanics but I guess the AK-107 is just too complex. I have never seen a rifle handle full automatic fire with such little recoil as the AK-107 has continuously demonstrated. It really does seem that the AK-400 is the future but I still don't really know what a reverse short-stroke piston is and just how it stacks up to a conventional short-stroke system in terms of reliability and whether or not it has the same problem with carrier tilt.  The AK-400 will not be as reliable as the AKM and AK-74 variants (nothing is) but a slight hit to reliability is worth it for a modern rifle. Based on how much the AK-400 shares with the Dragunov, you have referred to it as AD-400 for Avtomat Dragunov, so it could have the same layout as the new SK-16 with its modern flat-top rail and its modern magwell guide and the mag release, bolt-lock/release of the ACR. The SK-16 magwell guide seems nice and wide -- wide enough for a 60 round magazine.  





The AD-400 for Avtomat Dragunov is definitely the future; it has a free float barrel and an adjustable gas block but it must also incorporate the ambidextrous controls seen in other modern rifles, like the ACR. A carbine variant with a length no longer than 840 mm and a lightweight alloyed magnesium full length rail like the one seen here on this M4, would be awesome.



I really like the pistol grip of the AK-15 and think it should be incorporated into the AK-400.




Do you think incorporating a bolt-lock/release would negatively impact on reliability in the AK-400?  

There are new, light, strong and cost-effective materials that would allow such a rifle to weigh only 3 kg unloaded.

I really do hope that Kalashnikov Concern eventually adopts the architecture of the SK-16 or MA Kalashnikov for the AK-400 for a much more stable and streamlined flattop rail while maintaining the same degree of clearances to preserve reliability. The AK-400 is not as ergonomic as its predecessor, the AK-12 but Kalashnikov Concern seems to be heading in the right direction in this regard. The AK-400 will (mostly) preserve the legendary reliability of its antecedents while gaining world class accuracy with its free floating barrel -- likely matching or surpassing any other modern assault rifle in the world in accuracy. If the AK-400 is as reliable as the Dragunov then it has the potential to be the best assault rifle in the world provided it has the same kind of ergonomics as rifles like the ACR.

So there's been talk about a secretive deep modernization of Pechneg 7.62, I wonder what it could mean. OK KoTeMoRe, have at it:

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fvpk.name%2Fnews%2F174253_sekretnyii_pulemet_rossii.html&edit-text=&act=url

magnumcromagnon wrote:So there's been talk about a secretive deep modernization of Pechneg 7.62, I wonder what it could mean. OK KoTeMoRe, have at it:

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fvpk.name%2Fnews%2F174253_sekretnyii_pulemet_rossii.html&edit-text=&act=url

There's nothing secretive about the compromises made to obtain the PKP. And there was no such thing when it comes to the two different weapons shown in the picture.

The biggest of them was the decision to have a fixed barrel, instead of a QCB (Quick change barrel) and have an airflow ventilation through a sleeve instead of relying on swapping barrels.

The problem started when the PKP got out of the platoon Squad automatic weapon role (in lieu of RPK) and became, because of its qualities in this role, a GMPG and started getting mounted on everything. You can see that the first "modernization" is in fact a return to PKM standard with a CQB, an integral M1913 style rail and the possibility to use the PKM for close combat or sweeps by adding a vertical grip. The other huge factor is the muzzle device that should play a role in reducing the felt recoil (inverted deflector principle like the AKS74U).

There are some cons IMO, the integral rail system has forced them to put the iron sights on the front of the top cover, which may be a problem for zero holding as it stands just atop of the feed tray and ammo band. The return to a QCB clearly shows this is a modernization of the PKM rather than the Pecheng.

The second monster is just a Spetznaz toy, it features a dual controls and triggers, completely over the top. But hey, bullpup PKP....

I've been asking a flurry of questions and so I hope that I'm not annoying people here, but I have learned a lot from posters on this forum, so please bear with me. I have some more questions:

The AK-12 was able to achieve 1 MOA - which is astonishing... and the AK-400 purpotedly surpasses this -- which would make it a sub MOA rifle. Is this possible in an assault rifle? Am I wrong to assume that the AK-400 should be more reliable than the genuine SIG 550 series in Swiss service?