Firearms comparison: Russia with rest of the world

GarryB wrote:M2HB is rather old and if you want to reset the head space and timing every time you replace a barrel you are welcome to do so.

I have seen video of both being fired and Kord appears to be much more accurate... even from a bipod!

Don't forget automatic grenade launchers... the AGS-30 is half the weight of the AGS-17... the AGS-17 is 18kgs plus 12 kgs for the tripod. The AGS-30 is 16kgs including tripod.

With the new more aerodynamic ammo it can reach 2.2km in range and as the US has finally worked out such grenades rely on the sides for fragmentation so even a smaller calibre grenade like the 30mm Soviet grenade can have a better fragmentation pattern than a western grenade of larger calibre (40mm).

Just as interesting, the under barrel 40mm grenades of the Russian Army, have since the late 1970s had an air burst grenade. the US has spent a small fortune on a 25mm grenade launcher and grenade where the launcher has a ballistic computer and laser range finder and each grenade has a very precise and very expensive timing mechanism so the main weapon finds the target lases the range, calculates the time to target and deducts a fraction of a second so the round will explode above the target... it may never get into service and the precision of the timers in the grenades makes them very expensive, but the air burst capability makes them 5-10 times more effective than impact grenades that waste most of their fragments straight into the ground.

the 40mm VOG-25P has a small charge in its nose that blasts the grenade back up into the air when it hits the ground and starts a very short fuse that detonates the main charge in the grenade a fraction of a second later. The main charge generally goes off at 1.5-2 metres above the ground.

No precision timing, very cheap grenades, widely in service now...

BTW some of the new Russian Sniper Rifles are every bit as accurate as western rifles.

it's just like how the Russian tanks had gun launched missiles

i dont think the M2HB is much inferior to the Kord

forced to chose i would go for a new G36 then a 40 year old AK-74.

 Still, i would go for a new RPG if a could, a RPG-29.

 the PKM is as good as KSP-58

NationalRus wrote:best in the world is a naive childish term, all depends on diffrent sectors and characteristics you are looking for. just shortly to say if i would need to arm a field army i would probably or better to say most likely go for modern AK versions or arms based on AK operating system. if i would need to equip a urban force, like Police, SWAT, special units for urban combat i would most likely go with some western or israeli models

btw. the reliability issue is over used, modern even M16/M4 veriants and all arms based on ther operating system hold up very well in harsh enviroment, the famous saying that a littel of dirt and ther are out of order is total BS, only vietnam era M16's and the infamous british L85A1 can service this myth

 Much larger shells means more room for digital timing systems that are rather cheaper than a unit small enough to fit in a 25mm grenade...

runaway wrote:I have used both AKM and H&K36, and the G36 is a very very nice weapon, forced to chose i would go for a new G36 then a 40 year old AK-74.
As for RPG, am a gunner on Carl Gustav, 84mm recoiles. Its in service in 40 countries and a truckload of different ammo is availeble. Still, i would go for a new RPG if a could, a RPG-29.
Heavy MG, often on vehicles, i dont think the M2HB is much inferior to the Kord.
Ordinary MG´s the PKM is as good as KSP-58.
Pistols, little differens.
Special weapons, iam not to good to judge on them.

Overall i think russian weapons have an edge the western dont have, but its time the AK-12 come out with better optics, aimpoint style, better ergonomics and better accuracy on 200-400m.

Western weapons are often made for the firing range, the russian ones are made for war.

huy phúc wrote:
The U.S. used M16 just because it is the offspring of Colt, the main rifle manufacturer of that country. Not else.

Colt buy the design of AR-15 when it was very immature, and put it in the king's throne when it was born prematurely. That's why in three decades, EU never touched the U.S. M16. They would rather use heavy rifle catridge for an assault rifle than use M16. Clearly, M16 is a premature born child, it can be the king in U.S. but cannot have any place in Europe.

Close allies of U.S. such as Canada, Australia, UK, Japan all used FN FAL design as their main assault gun, in the time when Russia still used 7.62mm M43 bullet.

(...)

Amongst the assault rifles which have large production rate, no one has such a humiliating and disgraceful history like M16.

EU and other U.S. allies such as Japan, Canada, Australia... despised the M16A1. They would rather had no modern assault rifle for 3 deacades than touching the M16A1. Except the small, dependent, weak countries, only UK and Japan used the U.S. barrel, but they took the feeding machine from AR-18. Later EU used the SS109, but they never used feeding machine of M16. Countries with advanced technology like Germany designed their own weapon, like G11. The UK attempted several times to create its own catridge, for example cooperation with FN to format the 7x40mm for SM2, or 4.ab xmm like G11, but uncessful due to the dependence on U.S. supply.

(...)

Maximum effective range is stupid. Effective rane is the average results of the statistics taken from lots lots of soldiers. Average means no maximum.

The so-called "maximum" effective range is achieved when the gun is tested when it is putted in a support system. At that condition, the maximum "effective" range is only 450 metres for rifles. The maximum range that soldier can aim using the iron sight is 300 metres. Therefore, people usually consider that effective range of rifle is 300 metres. Below that is the range of pistol.

Effective range of M16 is damn low. Therefore the propaganda machine has to use the concept of "maximum effective range" to fool the buyers.

(...)

M16 is more accurate than AK-47... is just a myth.

M16's bullet has a fixed rotation axis. This is the outdated technology of 19th century. Meanwhile AK's bullet is a spitzer, more aerodynamic, and more accurate. AK-74 perform a 3-round burst test all hit the target at 250m, in a snowy day.

Can M16 perform the firing test of AK which have a 10cm diameter target at 100 metre ? F*ck no.

(...)

At the range of 100m, AK-107/08 and AN-94 can perform a full burst of 30 rounds effectively, all 30 bullets hit the target of 20x20cm. M16 cannot do that. For AK-47, a lot of bullet also hit the no.4 target in the test. Skewing angle is just 0.2 degree.

(...)

The relability of M16 is lower. The weakest point of M16 is its gas-operated reloader. The vessel for gas in M16 is damn small (1mm diameter) and can be easily choked by dust. Meanwhile, gas vessel in AK-47 has a big diameter (2/3 of M16 barrel diameter), it cannot be choked.

AK also use the effect of "turning back of air's kinetic energy", the air flow has to turn back 300 degree when moving with 600m/s, therefore when the bullet escape the barrel, the air has just escape through air hole.(I don't really understand, can anybody explain this ?)

(...)

In the past, the USSR had a legendary gun named SVT. The idea was born in 1917, but received no support, finally in 192x people began to test it. It was accepted in 1938.

SVT's gas-operated reloading was very preeminent. It was improved from the DP and it is lightweight. The characteristc of this gas-operated is that the "return shaft" (Vietnamese: cần đẩy về, I don't really know well what it is) has spring separated from the receiver, the cylinder is attached onto the return shaft (LWRC and AR-18 has a propaganda about "cup-shaped piston" which is bullshit).

German's G43 copied the SVT gas-operated feeding, and that is the reason why G43 was accepted in the war. Countries like Sweden, Belgium, Switzerland also use similar breech to Russia. The basic design is the same, but the small details is different because Russia created it by milling and stamping machine, while Western Europe casted the breech. The distinctive characteristic of the breech is that the two pronged parts at the sides. And the FN FAL, standard assault rifle of EU in the old days of AK 7.62mm also used similar SVT gas-operated feeded, but it has different piston.

(original Vietnamese used "khóa nòng", and I translated into "breech". Hope I used the right term.)

Sweden, due to its neutral stance, decided to create its own gun and it copied the SVT to created  AG-42. But the AG-42 did not use SVT's gas-operated ones. AG's piston was positioned in the reverse order compared to FSA MAS, piston was positioned ontop of the below part of the receiver, and in M16 people called it "carrier key", a f*cking queer name.

The gas feeder of AG-42 was used in AR-15. But the AR designer at that time were unexperienced. They did not know that the AG-42's feeder is no good. In fact, people had already discovered many shortcomings of AG's gas operated system: uneven heat cause the bending of the barrel, heavy amount of dust is generated inside the feeder... But it was in the time of war and for the sake of selling the propaganda machine went on to cover the AG's weakness. AR-15's design was poisoned by the propaganda, and since AR-15 fires in burst of very high rate, the problem of dust and choking quickly rose in the manner of geometric progression.

And when Colt purchased AR-15 from Armalite, Colt passed the poisonous propaganda into American tax payers. The lobbyist bla bla bla about anything of AR-15 was all good, all perfect, etc. Colt also recruited Eugene Stoner from Armalite in order to bolster the propaganda effect. Stoner though that in Colt he would have a chance of promotion and have a chane of further improve the AR-15, but later Stone realized that he was fooled, for Colt's AR-15 he was merely a figurehead for advertisement. Frustated, Stone switched to Cadillac Gate and designed Stoner 63.

When Stone designed the Stoner 63, the remaining team of Armalite designed the AR-18. Both AR-18 and Stoner 63 had a improved and much better feeding mechanism. Especially, the AR-18 re-introduced the feeding mechanism of SVT.

Today, after the harsh truth about M16 in Iraq, Afganistan,... the gun designers massively revolt against the bullshit in M16. One of the design amongst this is the LWRC, actually this is a modernization of AR-18.

Meanwhile, M16 is still a permature born child, a freaking fetus of Colt. It can only trembles with fear in front of SVT feeding mechanism.

For reference, it is said that, when the U.S. officer tried to use Vietcong's AK-47, they said "this is the true weapon !". Today, when AK-47 and M16 are used in the same army against the Taliban and Iraqi terrorists, people have the chance to better compare them. The U.S. tried hard to replace AK-47 the Iraqi and Afghan allies by M16. But failed. Even the U.S. themshelves also prefer to use the AKs. The U.S. had to bought AKs from their allies in Eastern Europe and former USSR. But these countries started to use NATO bullet and reduced the production of AKs. And finally, what should come has finally come: it is said that Washington planned to purchase 70.000 AKs from Russia and a large number of AKs have been delivered.

Look at the webpage of XM8, LWRC, FN... you can see many things about the freaking, premature born, degenerated feeding machine of M16.

G36 offers strictly nothing over it, whereas M4 does, it's lighter, and easily modded

Accuracy for non expert shooter is better with CG though

I don't really understand, can anybody explain this ?

AK also use the effect of "turning back of air's kinetic energy", the air flow has to turn back 300 degree when moving with 600m/s, therefore when the bullet escape the barrel, the air has just escape through air hole.(I don't really understand, can anybody explain this ?)

Asf wrote:

G36 offers strictly nothing over it, whereas M4 does, it's lighter, and easily modded

M4... nay, I'd prefer german quality over unreliable carabine prone to overheating. Plus, it has nice in-build scope already. IIRC, it can be replaced with the whole transport grip, don't it?

Accuracy for non expert shooter is better with CG though

Why?

cracker wrote:

Asf wrote:

G36 offers strictly nothing over it, whereas M4 does, it's lighter, and easily modded

M4... nay, I'd prefer german quality over unreliable carabine prone to overheating. Plus, it has nice in-build scope already. IIRC, it can be replaced with the whole transport grip, don't it?

Accuracy for non expert shooter is better with CG though

Why?

M4 is a fine weapon, and more compact and lighter than G36. M4 reliability is fine, but you can't use it like an AK of course. Overall M4 offers high modularity, small size, and decent performance. M16A4 is a fine weapon too, but I prefer M4, more handy. German quality? It's a joke, german quality in firearms is overratted and irrelevant. G36 overheats easily, more than M4. G36 and G36K, service rifles of german army, are not modulable at all, and can't use any other optic. The optics inside were fine in 2000, they are largely outclassed by what you can put yourself on a M4 top: ACOG or Eotech, magnifiers, night vision... I don't like G36, but it's not a shitty weapon, just inferior.

CG has better and more instinctive accuracy than RPG-7, because the projectiles are simple ballistic shells with high velocity, spin stabilised (CG is rifled). RPG-7 rounds are also spin stabilised, but also fin stabilised, and they are rockets, not ballistic objects, and they are more sensitive to wind. CG is thus more easy for an untrained person, but a highly trained RPG user will touch the target every time inside 300m.

magnumcromagnon wrote:Speaking about Russian Arms, whats your guys thoughts on the AK-74MB?

As far as I know the rocket nozzles just propel the grenade and the long fins impart a slow rate of turn... 6,000 rpm is a relatively slow rate of turn. There is a piece at the very rear of the rocket that has angled fins the diameter of the tube that might direct the blast of the launching charge and make it impart roll on firing. wrote:

Werewolf wrote:

I think you are right with the after section fins that they produce the spinning.