Russian Assault Rifles/Carbines/Machine Guns Thread: #2

I might be being a bit thick, but how does having a removable barrel make it lighter.... the old grenade launcher literally clips on and off like a bayonette... if it makes it too front heavy then don't mount it till you want to fire grenades and then flick it off when you are done.

Having a removable barrel just seems to complicate things in my view.

I did not say anything about a "removable barrel" so I don't know where you got this idea from? For me this is clearly a clip on underbarrel launcher. It is a lot smaller than the older versions and appears to be made from lighter materials. In that respect I consider it a nice bonus for guys who have to carry it around. Any foot soldier knows what I'm talking about.

Plus there is not much wrong with front heavy... most conventional rifles already are front heavy anyway.

Adding more weight just makes it more heavy. Adding additional weight to the front can make it harder to handle the weapon in combat conditions.

Yeah, have heard complaints about the poor accuracy of the AKS-74U, but the fact of the matter is that the barrels of the VSS and AS in 9x39mm have even shorter barrels and are reportedly quite accurate to 400m or so.

These are silent sniper rifles. Designed for a completely different purpose and the ammo type is also purpose designed for the silent sniper role. Now I know you get the AKSB74U-bs1-kanareyka Spetsnaz rifle, but we are talking about the AKS-74U here - specifically designed for crew members. This is NOT a sniper rifle (never mind silent!) and is issued with standard ammo to the crew.

I did not say anything about a "removable barrel" so I don't know where you got this idea from?

From its description...

The peculiarity of the GPR-20 is that instead of constantly carrying a bulky under-barrel grenade launcher, a soldier can, if necessary, simply fix a container with a grenade and make a shot.

The frame that attaches to the rifle holds a container that the grenade is inserted in to... I assume you only have one container, but it might be that each grenade comes in its own container... it is not clear.

If you look on the previous page post number 311, the rocket grenades are those silver tubes, and the green thing is a single use container that is attached to the launcher on the rifle to fire.

Might make the rifle lighter but would make the ammo heavier if you have to carry around a single use barrel for each grenade.

Adding more weight just makes it more heavy. Adding additional weight to the front can make it harder to handle the weapon in combat conditions.

Harder to hold in an unsupported position for long periods... but should help resist recoil when firing too.

These are silent sniper rifles. Designed for a completely different purpose and the ammo type is also purpose designed for the silent sniper role. Now I know you get the AKSB74U-bs1-kanareyka Spetsnaz rifle, but we are talking about the AKS-74U here - specifically designed for crew members. This is NOT a sniper rifle (never mind silent!) and is issued with standard ammo to the crew.

The VSS is a suppressed sniper rifle... the AS is a suppressed assault rifle... both are intended for recon forces within armoured formations and are quite widely deployed.

There is also the SR-3 and 9A-91 compact assault rifles that fire the same 9mm rounds, not to mention the Groza AKS-74U based 9x39mm bullpup assault rifle that was also intended to be an assault rifle of a compact size.

The 9A-91 and VSK-94 were direct competitors to the AS and VSS, but the SR-3 was intended for general issue.

The AKS-74U was a compact light rifle for crew to use that didn't need a full sized assault rifle, for which the SR-3 or 9A-91 could have been issued.... without the suppressors of course because there was no need to be quiet.

From its description...

I don't see that that it is a removable barrel from any description but perhaps you can show me the description?

I could be wrong, but what I see is a framework that you attach underneath the barrel. I suspect it is mostly made of composites, but that is guesswork for now. Then you have a loose container with the grenade inside the container. This container also seems to made from a composite material. This is not clear but as you say it may just be a disposable container - each with it's own grenade?

Extensive use of composites would make this launcher and it's container much lighter than the older versions.

The VSS is a suppressed sniper rifle... the AS is a suppressed assault rifle... both are intended for recon forces within armoured formations and are quite widely deployed.

There is also the SR-3 and 9A-91 compact assault rifles that fire the same 9mm rounds, not to mention the Groza AKS-74U based 9x39mm bullpup assault rifle that was also intended to be an assault rifle of a compact size.

The 9A-91 and VSK-94 were direct competitors to the AS and VSS, but the SR-3 was intended for general issue.

The AKS-74U was a compact light rifle for crew to use that didn't need a full sized assault rifle, for which the SR-3 or 9A-91 could have been issued.... without the suppressors of course because there was no need to be quiet.

I think the point here is that there is no direct comparison between the AKS-74U and the ASVAL/VSS/9A-91 or the SR-3 apart from being compact. These rifles are designed for a different application.

Here you have a nice video showing the AKS-74U in full auto. The Anthem sort of masks the sound a bit but you can get the picture this lady is a wild thing!


The Russians prefer the term silenced but yes suppressed will also do just fine. The silence is deadly!



So if you're a sniper and you want to take out the enemy colonel having a nice meal around the camp fire. Which rifle would you choose?

I don't see that that it is a removable barrel from any description but perhaps you can show me the description?

Go back a page to post number 311.

The first photo is the rockets/grenades themselves... 3 of them.

The next photo looks like Shoigu attaching the launcher tube to a rifle held by another man.

Then there is this new text from RP_:

A little information about the GPR-20. For the first time, this under-barrel rocket launcher was presented at the Army-2016. And recently, Sergei Shoigu was presented with a version of the GPR-20, ready for testing.

It is also worth remembering that this grenade launcher is being created as part of the development work on the creation of the Sotnik equipment. I think that its deliveries to the troops can begin even before the introduction of new equipment.

Then a caption stating these are the rocket propelled grenades and then a photo of the three grenades previously posted.

Then a caption stating single use container which appears to be the tube that is the grenade launcher when fitted and a photo.

And then a caption... mounting for a single use container, and a photo showing what appears to be a grenade launcher mount without a barrel fitted.... that presumably the single use container is attached to for firing.

Under that photo of the rifle held vertically with a grenade launcher frame but no barrel is this comment.

The peculiarity of the GPR-20 is that instead of constantly carrying a bulky under-barrel grenade launcher, a soldier can, if necessary, simply fix a container with a grenade and make a shot.

Which sounds like the new grenade launcher is the same as the old one but with a removable single use barrel that contains the grenade that is attached to fire the grenade.

Then a short description and a photo of the grenade launcher attached to a rifle.

I think the point here is that there is no direct comparison between the AKS-74U and the ASVAL/VSS/9A-91 or the SR-3 apart from being compact. These rifles are designed for a different application.

The AKS-74U is a compact assault rifle intended for crews and weapon operators that cannot carry or do not need a full sized rifle... it includes soldiers carrying heavy weapons like RPGs and MANPADS and of course ATGMs, but also weapons like towed guns or vehicle crews or aircraft crews.

The SR-3 was more intended for VIP protection but like the 9A-91 is intended to be a compact Assault rifle... sometimes called a PDW.

The 9A-91 is intended to be cheaper than the SR-3...

the 9A-91:

https://modernfirearms.net/en/assault-rifles/russia-assault-rifles/9a-91-eng/

and the SR-3:

https://modernfirearms.net/en/assault-rifles/russia-assault-rifles/sr-3-sr-3m-vihr-eng/

The 9A-91 can already be seen on some Russian videos... it was often shown with the RPO grenade launchers and Metis ATGM team weapons as a backup weapon... much the same way the AKS-74U would be used.


The AKS-74U vids are nice... this is a fire to destruction video from Kalashnikov just to show these things are not belt fed water cooled machine guns...

Ok I think maybe we misunderstood each other? Your post indicated to me, or you made it sound like you had to replace the complete barrel [of the rifle] in order to attach and operate the grenade launcher - and you also indicated that it would make the whole process a time consuming affair. That's how I interpreted your post.

There is no barrel to remove. You just attach the fitting /housing under the barrel of the rifle for the grenade and inset the container with the grenade and fire away. I think the container is disposable but we have to wait and see.

Just a question about pilot PDW weapon.
Russian pilots receive

1) PPK-20
https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/12189617


2) Ma-17

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/12194527


anybody has any official statement not conflicting press reports?

Ok I think maybe we misunderstood each other? Your post indicated to me, or you made it sound like you had to replace the complete barrel [of the rifle] in order to attach and operate the grenade launcher - and you also indicated that it would make the whole process a time consuming affair. That's how I interpreted your post.

Sorry no.

It seems the grenade launcher barrel is replaceable and one use only so disposable, so if you carry one of those bags they have with 40mm grenades that holds ten grenades then you hold 10 barrels too.

The photo of the weapon mounted on a rifle with the spec sheet has a cutaway of the grenade launcher below it and the new grenade looks huge.

I was thinking perhaps it might be like some of their new disposable rocket launchers that has a tube inside a tube so as you fire the rocket a tube extends with the rocket which effectively doubles the length of the tube so in the rocket launcher the rocket motor can burn slightly longer and get the rocket up to a higher speed for better range, but this is a rocket launcher like the 73mm gun of the BMP-1 is a rocket launcher... or recoilless rocket launcher but with the end closed off so it generates recoil and needs less propellent.

There is no visible extra tube in the cutaway.

I suspect they tried their best to make the launch tubes as light as possible and their best tube didn't last a lot of launches so they went for a single shot disposable tube.

There is no barrel to remove. You just attach the fitting /housing under the barrel of the rifle for the grenade and inset the container with the grenade and fire away. I think the container is disposable but we have to wait and see.

It says specifically that the container is single use... hopefully it is ejected during use so you carry the grenades already inside their launch containers and mount it on the under barrel mount... fire it and then mount the next container with the next grenade with no need to remove anything.

The original grenade launchers were good like that.

The standard one if you got two grenades ready the iron sights had two scales... one in red for indirect fire and one in white for direct fire, so you can take a grenade and load it and set the iron sight to say 200m red... you aim and fire at a target 200m away and start counting in seconds. While still counting out loud you shift the iron sight from 200m red to 200m white and then load a second grenade and aim at the same target... when you get to 12 second fire the second shot... and both rounds should land almost together at the same time.

Hopefully you can still do that with the new system (note it does not have to be 200m, but at different ranges it will be different times so you can practise and work out flight times to red distances on your range scale to work out how long the grenade takes and how much time you have to reload.

I think they are excellent weapons... very well designed and the airburst rounds are amazing and cheap and have been in service for almost 40 years now.

I had a look at your original post again and you certainly seem to indicate that it has a removable barrel

Inserting a container is practically the same as inserting a grenade into the old launcher?

I might be being a bit thick, but how does having a removable barrel make it lighter.... the old grenade launcher literally clips on and off like a bayonette... if it makes it too front heavy then don't mount it till you want to fire grenades and then flick it off when you are done.

Having a removable barrel just seems to complicate things in my view."

There is nothing complicated about the new design. In fact if anything it simplifies things.

Photos of one of the AK-12 assault rifles recently delivered to the troops, the trigger mechanism of which is almost completely covered with rust, got on the Internet. It is alleged that this happened after conducting training sessions with shooting in the forest, where the machine gun was caught in a light rain. Based on the fact that only a part of the parts corroded, it is likely that the coating technology was violated at a specific production site.

I actually saw that and was wondering if the gun was not exposed to sea water, but you say it's only rain! Not good if true but I have my doubts?

Mir wrote:I actually saw that and was wondering if the gun was not exposed to sea water, but you say it's only rain! Not good if true but I have my doubts?

This is a defective assault rifle, because this should not be.

Just a question about pilot PDW weapon.
Russian pilots receive

1) PPK-20
https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/12189617


2) Ma-17

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/12194527


anybody has any official statement not conflicting press reports?

The PPK-20 is essentially replacing the Stechkin machine pistol, while the AM-17 is supposed to replace the AKS-74U PDW for aircrew and vehicle crew roles.

I had a look at your original post again and you certainly seem to indicate that it has a removable barrel

The grenade launcher does... the container that holds the grenade is a single use container, so if you carry ten grenade/rockets, then you need ten containers which presumably are discarded after a single use.

It means instead of carrying loose grenades you carry the grenades in light disposable launch tubes... so rather than RPG-7 grenades in a backpack loaded into the launcher and fired they are RPG-22s each with their own launch tubes that are discarded after launch.

The difference is that there is a frame that attaches to your rifle so you connect the launcher and launch tube to the rifle and fire the grenade and then discard the launch tube and load a new container with a new grenade inside onto the launcher frame attached to the rifle to fire another rocket grenade.

Inserting a container is practically the same as inserting a grenade into the old launcher?

If the grenade is carried inside the container... yes, but if it isn't then you attach the container which acts as the grenade launcher barrel and then load the grenade and then fire and then remove the container to attach another container and load another grenade... unless the grenades are kept in the containers all the time...

It is hard to say for sure without seeing someone using one or seeing the webbing for carrying the ammo.

With the old grenade launcher the grenade was like a mortar bomb that was muzzle loaded and fired... no shell case, no replacing barrels.

There is nothing complicated about the new design. In fact if anything it simplifies things.

It means carrying the grenades in single use barrels... meaning each container has rifling and acts like a barrel and is discarded when used.

Based on the fact that only a part of the parts corroded, it is likely that the coating technology was violated at a specific production site.

How long before it was stripped and cleaned... normal rain shouldn't do that... clearly a coating issue...  as well as a cleaning issue... this rifle was not properly cleaned after use.[/quote]
[/quote]

VKS will include the PPK-20 submachine gun in the pilot's survival kit

https://iz.ru/1216542/2021-09-03/vks-vkliuchiat-pistolet-pulemet-ppk-20-v-komplekt-vyzhivaniia-letchikov

“The leadership of the Russian Aerospace Forces made a decision on the regular inclusion of pilots of fighter, assault and bomber aviation of the PPK-20 submachine gun in the NAZ. The corresponding work on the laying of submachine guns in the NAZ will begin in the near future, ”the agency's interlocutor said.

why smg do they expect only fight with talibs without body armor?

Mir wrote:I actually saw that and was wondering if the gun was not exposed to sea water, but you say it's only rain! Not good if true but I have my doubts?

That rust is way older than something you see a short while after being exposed to rain.   This thing looks like it sat outside for
a year or longer.  The gun oil coating would survive for a while depending on the texture of the metal surface and was not being
washed directly that would accelerate its removal.  

It is likely that the guns were being improperly stored before being distributed.   There is no way this is from use in the field for
a short period of time.   If such a thing was possible, then we would have seen claims of such rusting on any type of rifle anywhere
around the world.  

If we have T-90s forgotten in some abandoned airfield, then this is not so surprising.  The rot maggots never sleep.

kvs wrote:

Mir wrote:I actually saw that and was wondering if the gun was not exposed to sea water, but you say it's only rain! Not good if true but I have my doubts?

That rust is way older than something you see a short while after being exposed to rain.   This thing looks like it sat outside for
a year or longer.  The gun oil coating would survive for a while depending on the texture of the metal surface and was not being
washed directly that would accelerate its removal.  

It is likely that the guns were being improperly stored before being distributed.   There is no way this is from use in the field for
a short period of time.   If such a thing was possible, then we would have seen claims of such rusting on any type of rifle anywhere
around the world.  

If we have T-90s forgotten in some abandoned airfield, then this is not so surprising.  The rot maggots never sleep.

Could be, but you would be surprised how quickly that kind of rust is formed especially on high carbon steel that isn't alloyed or treated properly. I've seen that kind of rust develop within days.

why smg do they expect only fight with talibs without body armor?

It is essentially replacing the Stechkin machine pistol, so it was self defence only... against humans and animals like wolves and bears and tigers...

That rust is way older than something you see a short while after being exposed to rain.

Uncoated metal can rust up very fast if it is kept wet and warm... someone in a warm and wet environment that used this gun and it got thoroughly wet and they didn't take it completely apart and cleaned and oiled will get this sort of result if those components are not coated... this could be a week later when the user takes the gun out to use it next time.

The gun oil coating would survive for a while depending on the texture of the metal surface and was not being
washed directly that would accelerate its removal.

If it got wet in use and the oil coating was removed and not replaced then this is exactly what happens.

If such a thing was possible, then we would have seen claims of such rusting on any type of rifle anywhere
around the world.  

This requires only two things... not properly coated to prevent rust (that is the purpose of the coatings after all...) and that the rifle got wet and any protective oil or other coatings got washed off and were not properly replaced before being put back into storage.

It should only be surface rust, but to prevent it in future the owner needs to make sure they coat all internal metal surfaces with anti rust coatings and light oil.

Obviously in a desert environment with little humidity wipe it dry afterwards so you don't end up with dust caked in it like soil.

GarryB wrote:

why smg do they expect only fight with talibs without body armor?

It is essentially replacing the Stechkin machine pistol, so it was self defence only... against humans and animals like wolves and bears and tigers...

They have also Lebedev 9mm pistol "for wolves" . Besides same ammo for both I guess what is advantage smg over MA-17?

US pilots got also M4 derivative for self defence for example.

I rather suspect they would get this SMG instead of a pistol as it is more powerful and more accurate to greater ranges.

Earlier in this thread I posted a video of this SMG and although I don't speak Russian the person on Combat Approved was at a shooting range and he was shooting up close at a target with a pistol and then changed to the sub machine gun and then switched to targets much much further away and kept hitting them.

I didn't understand what he was saying but I suspect he was mentioning that it takes a lot of practise to get good with a pistol and most pilots wont spend the sort of time needed to get any good with them because they will be working hard to be good pilots.

The SMG is easier to hold and has a longer barrel and is steadier and with shoulder support is able to engage targets at rather more than the 5-10m they could use a pistol effectively against. The SMG targets seemed to be at about 30m and another at about 50m which he seemed to get hits on with the SMG... obviously without training.

Edit... a SMG is easier to use and carry than a rifle or carbine, but is vastly more effective than a pistol, which is why the west is currently calling them PDWs... or personal defence weapon... which is ironically a stupid generic designation that could describe anything from a pistol, machine pistol, submachine gun, short barrel assault rifle carbine, assault rifle, light machine gun, rifle, machine gun... or hand grenade.

Russia is a huge country and there are lots of places they could crash land where they might have to fend for themselves for a day or two or perhaps longer depending on the weather.

The danger from wild animals is quite real... they armed their Cosmonauts for the very same reason... spending a day or two on the tundra you can get attention for wolves and bears and all sorts of other undesirable animals... and in the far north a polar bear that is hungry is a serious problem for a pilot on his own.

GarryB wrote:I rather suspect they would get this SMG instead of a pistol as it is more powerful and more accurate to greater ranges.

apologies, I was not clear enough: they received both pistol and SMG

I didn't understand what he was saying but I suspect he was mentioning that it takes a lot of practise to get good with a pistol and most pilots wont spend the sort of time needed to get any good with them because they will be working hard to be good pilots.

The SMG is easier to hold and has a longer barrel and is steadier and with shoulder support is able to engage targets at rather more than the 5-10m they could use a pistol effectively against. The SMG targets seemed to be at about 30m and another at about 50m which he seemed to get hits on with the SMG... obviously without training.

You're correct smg is way better then a pistol My point was however that small calibre carabines are used not without reasons behind this choice. M4 has better body armod penetration capability then any SMG. and flatter trajectory too. Easier to aim.

[/quote]

Russia is a huge country and there are lots of places they could crash land where they might have to fend for themselves for a day or two or perhaps longer depending on the weather.

The danger from wild animals is quite real... they armed their Cosmonauts for the very same reason... spending a day or two on the tundra you can get attention for wolves and bears and all sorts of other undesirable animals... and in the far north a polar bear that is hungry is a serious problem for a pilot on his own.

As for predators in Siberia ro any place in the world again agreed. Just what about talibs in body armor? or pro Turkish terrorists in Syria?

apologies, I was not clear enough: they received both pistol and SMG

Ammo commonality then.

My point was however that small calibre carabines are used not without reasons behind this choice. M4 has better body armod penetration capability then any SMG. and flatter trajectory too. Easier to aim.

Very short barrel assault rifle calibre carbines are not as accurate or effective as standard assault rifles despite using the same calibre.

Some survival rescue kits for aircraft or vehicle crew include full sized assault rifles along with other things like inflatable shelters and inflatable rafts.

The fact that these two weapons have been adopted to replace Stechkin machine pistols should not be taken to mean they can only have these two weapons in a survival situation.

As for predators in Siberia ro any place in the world again agreed. Just what about talibs in body armor? or pro Turkish terrorists in Syria?

Against either threat the best they can hope for is to keep enemy forces at bay while waiting for the cavalry... even having a PKP wont help in many cases and they wouldn't have the space for it anyway.

There is a carbine to replace the AKS-74U and there are likely drastically shortened assault rifle models too like the AK-105 and short barrel versions of the AK-12 and AK-15 and even AK-19 in 556.

GarryB wrote:

apologies, I was not clear enough: they received both pistol and SMG

Ammo commonality then.

that's the only logical explanation I can see here

As for predators in Siberia or any place in the world again agreed. Just what about talibs in body armour? or pro Turkish terrorists in Syria?

Against either threat the best they can hope for is to keep enemy forces at bay while waiting for the cavalry... even having a PKP wont help in many cases and they wouldn't have the space for it anyway.[/quote]

True. Still AM-17 is better - then any smg...

GB wrote: There is a carbine to replace the AKS-74U and there are likely drastically shortened assault rifle models too like the AK-105 and short barrel versions of the AK-12 and AK-15 and even AK-19 in 556.

yup. It is called Dragunov's AM-17 . Was it the reason to choose Kalashnikov SMG?

If you are behind enemy lines then attracting attention to yourself is the last thing you should be doing....

I would say a 9x19mm calibre SMG with a suppressor firing subsonic ammo optimised for armour penetration would be my weapon and ammo of choice.

Short barrel assault rifles have more powerful ammo but attract too much attention.

Something quiet that is compact and easy to use out to reasonable ranges but not excessive distances seems a more sensible choice in my opinion.

Quietly taking down dogs as they approach and enemy soldiers would make more sense to me than trying to hold ground and starting your own front.

Hiding and calling in help would be my two top priorities... I could do either with all sorts of weapons, but something like an AS or VSS would be ideal in their current forms (ASM and VSSM) but an SR-3M would also do the job... the problem is bulky ammo that is not cheap but probably about as quiet but with the greatest effective range you might hope for... at the end of the day a SMG with 9x19mm subsonic ammo with a suppressor is the cheapest but also most effective weapon they are likely to get.

Vladimir Onokoy, an employee of the Kalashnikov Concern, presents an AK-19 submachine gun to the UAE Defense Minister Mohammed bin Zayed. IDEX-2021, February.

By and large the Gulf Arabs are posers and cockteases who never order, just hint at it

So there was no need for that timid and fawning posture of the Kalashnikov salesman before the Emirati feudal lord