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

franco wrote:The newest RPK-16 machine gun goes to the troops

The concern Kalashnikov and the Defense Ministry signed a contract for the supply of the newest RPK-16 machine guns, the company's general director Alexei Krivoruchko said.

"There are", - said Krivoruchko, answering the question about the conclusion of the contract, TASS reports.

In March 2017 it was reported that the serial production of the RPK-16 machine guns is planned for 2018.

The light machine gun Kalashnikov RPK-16 caliber 5.45 mm was created on the basis of the experience of modern armed conflicts. He was presented at the arms exhibition "Army-2016". Thanks to the possibility of replacing the barrel, the weapon can be used both as a manual machine gun and as an assault rifle.

Specially for the machine gun developed a new disk store of increased capacity - 96 rounds. It can also be used for Kalashnikov assault rifles.

Obviously RPK-16 will replace RPK-74 as the squad ligh machine gun in Russian Army

Don't see too many of them (RPK-74) any more in the Military photos and videos being used by the troops.

franco wrote:Don't see too many of them (RPK-74) any more in the Military photos and videos being used by the troops.

Havent seen one for years myself tbh. Saw it in hands of border guards recently somewhere.

The Ministry of Defense of Russia has concluded a contract for the supply of new manual machine guns RPK-16

JSC "Concern" Kalashnikov "in the extended press release stated that" the beginning of 2018 turned out to be rich in news. First, in the last days of January, AK-12 and AK-15 assault rifles were announced, and on February 6, in an interview with TASS, the general director of the Kalashnikov concern Aleksey Yurievich Krivoruchko told that the concern and the Ministry of Defense of Russia had signed a contract for the supply of new manual RPK-16 machine guns."

Short TTX RPK-16:

Caliber: 5.45x39mm
Weight: 4.5 kg (with a short barrel, without an optical sight, bipods and a store)
Barrel length: 415 or 580 mm
Length of the weapon (with a barrel 415 mm): 840-900 mm in combat position, 650 mm with a folded butt
Capacity of shops: 30, 45 or 95 cartridges
Rate of fire: 700 rounds per minute





https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3086559.html

It was my understanding that the PKP was replacing the RPK-74 as the light machinegun... a bit heavy for a LMG, but with better power and range than any LMG available anywhere.

It seems that the RPK-16 trades range and power for weight being lighter and having lighter ammo, while remaining effective out to useful ranges.

GarryB wrote:It was my understanding that the PKP was replacing the RPK-74 as the light machinegun... a bit heavy for a LMG, but with better power and range than any LMG available anywhere.

It seems that the RPK-16 trades range and power for weight being lighter and having lighter ammo, while remaining effective out to useful ranges.

The RPK is an SAW not an LMG.

Says who?

Technically it is an assault rifle with a heavy barrel and a larger magazine.

And so far the PKM is a SAW too in the sense that it is carried in squads and is an automatic weapon, but lets ignore stupid modern western terms shall we?

The RPK-74 is a LMG, as is an RPK-16 and a PKP.... because they are all with fixed barrels and are not intended for sustained fire. (OK you can change the barrel on the RPK-16 but you will have a short and long barrels, not several replacements of each for sustained fire)

A PKM is a general purpose machine gun or medium machine gun.

Kord is a heavy MG.

Do the new bayonettes have edges for cutting wood... that would be their only SAW.

GarryB wrote:Says who?

Technically it is an assault rifle with a heavy barrel and a larger magazine.

but lets ignore stupid modern western terms shall we?

Well its not as bad as the question of why some idiot decided that the term APC should not apply to a troop carrier with slightly better armament and armor.

But wait the Russians did the same BTR and BMP oh well.

GarryB wrote:The RPK-74 is a LMG, as is an RPK-16 and a PKP.... because they are all with fixed barrels and are not intended for sustained fire. (OK you can change the barrel on the RPK-16 but you will have a short and long barrels, not several replacements of each for sustained fire)

A PKM is a general purpose machine gun or medium machine gun.

Kord is a heavy MG.

No the PKS is the tripod mounted medium machinegun used to complicate logistics the PKM is the LMG and the PKP is an improved PKM

The reason the west uses SAWs is because thier soldiers are a bunch of usless panzies who cannot even comprehend the idea of using a fully automatic weapon chambered in a full power rifle round.

The reason Russia uses RPKs is that it uses the same ammunition as the AK-74.

GarryB wrote:Do the new bayonettes have edges for cutting wood... that would be their only SAW.

Best quote I have seen on this forum so far.

Is Russia lacking proper sniper rifles?

The Dragunov to this day is probably the best fielded sniper rifle for an infantry unit. High power, good range, good accuracy, etc. With modern technologies, they managed to reduce the weight, increase ergnonomics, and increase options for scopes and attachments. As reported in the video, they are still more or less figuring out the high caliber rifles. There has been some interesting work of course in it.

Actually, a SAW should be intended as an automatic weapon able to operate along infantrymen while an LMG should be operated from behind them, even if deployed at the squad level.

Of course there is no clear boundary between one or another.

At least, a SAW should not have too great recoil and should be possible to move it around just like an assault rifle, so having a closed fire cycle, while an LMG could be either heavier with less felt recoil, or on opposite have a stronger recoil with around the same weight, could even have an open fire cycle, but should anyway be mostly used from a prone position.

Think of the two extremes: RPK and PKM, both of them deployable at the squad level, but the first being more suited to actually going along the advanced elements of a squad, while the latter would find a more natural role into providing them fire support from a little behind.

AlfaT8 wrote:Is Russia lacking proper sniper rifles?

After watching that video, it is very apparent, that Russia is lacking proper sniper rifles and it is behind the US in sniper rifles.

The experience in Syria will really help Russian engineers build the correct sniper rifles, Russia has the know how to build very good sniper rifles, Lobaev arms proves this.

par far wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:Is Russia lacking proper sniper rifles?

After watching that video, it is very apparent, that Russia is lacking proper sniper rifles and it is behind the US in sniper rifles.

The experience in Syria will really help Russian engineers build the correct sniper rifles, Russia has the know how to build very good sniper rifles, Lobaev arms proves this.

How so? Please explain.

I'll start - Dragunov is still used widely and very popular due to it's well roundedness. US is constantly trying to field a new sniper.

T-5000 is becoming rather very popular world wide due to it's quality. It's rather better than most other bolt action rifle. Except the price. It's very expensive.

Don't bother with SV-98, they are not really being fielded at all.

You don't need dozens of different sniper rifles. Instead, having the few you need is that is. Except that the 12.7MM rifles seem to rather taken a back seat. Hopefully they change that with new development.

par far wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:Is Russia lacking proper sniper rifles?

After watching that video, it is very apparent, that Russia is lacking proper sniper rifles and it is behind the US in sniper rifles.

The experience in Syria will really help Russian engineers build the correct sniper rifles, Russia has the know how to build very good sniper rifles, Lobaev arms proves this.

Can you give a specific example of this inferiority. The video did not demonstrate any substantial gap.

kvs wrote:

par far wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:Is Russia lacking proper sniper rifles?

After watching that video, it is very apparent, that Russia is lacking proper sniper rifles and it is behind the US in sniper rifles.

The experience in Syria will really help Russian engineers build the correct sniper rifles, Russia has the know how to build very good sniper rifles, Lobaev arms proves this.

Can you give a specific example of this inferiority.   The video did not demonstrate any substantial gap.

It just seems that the US sniper rifles are more sophisticated sniper rifles with all the bells and the whistles(I don't know if all of those bells and whistles are need), the US sniper rifles are better looking(that is what I should have said).

One question I have is why is the Russian Military not using the Lobaev Snipers? They look very promising.

Well its not as bad as the question of why some idiot decided that the term APC should not apply to a troop carrier with slightly better armament and armor.

But wait the Russians did the same BTR and BMP oh well.

Actually the secret is in the name... a BTR is a troop transport with minor fire power for self defence if attacked.

BMP is a transport and support vehicle that delivers troops to positions on the battlefield but can also be used to support their attacks and retreats.

No the PKS is the tripod mounted medium machinegun used to complicate logistics the PKM is the LMG and the PKP is an improved PKM

The PKM can be mounted on a tripod mount for the medium machine gun... sustained fire role, it can also be carried at squad level as a LMG too, the PKP is a squad LMG intended to be used like a heavy calibre RPK... the RPK and PKP have fixed barrels too.

The reason the west uses SAWs is because thier soldiers are a bunch of usless panzies who cannot even comprehend the idea of using a fully automatic weapon chambered in a full power rifle round.

Full auto in a rifle is a bloody waste of time... when I fire 20 shots from my 1944 Mosin carbine the barrel becomes too hot to touch... if it was full auto instead of a bolt action you would have a glowing barrel in a minute or less.

My SLR is no better and while it shoots rather well... it pushes back rather than kicks violently, it would still be pretty useless in full auto anyway... the barrel is simply not heavy enough.

My AK on the other hand can fire quite a few rounds before there are problems... and the same with my M4 carbine...

The reason Russia uses RPKs is that it uses the same ammunition as the AK-74.

Most countries developed a heavier barrel version of their standard assault rifle to use in the light machine gun role... from the SA-80 to the M16 and the FN FAL... they all had heavy barrel models able to fire full auto... the difference is that the Soviet Union and Russia actually adopted them into service and used them.

I was watching a video last night testing the Ratnik soldier system and the troops testing it (a red force and a blue force) both had soldiers with RPK-74s amongst their number...

In a lot of units the RPK-74 was replaced with the heavier but also more powerful and longer ranged PKP.

Personally I think with proper optics the RPK-74 has plenty of potential and with the RPK-16 the choice of long or short barrel makes it rather interesting too.

I have heard the RPK-74 is rather accurate and might make a rather good small calibre designated marksman rifle...

Is Russia lacking proper sniper rifles?

What a terrible video... what is a semiautic rifle? The guy can't even pronounce semi automatic properly... WTF is he doing the voice over for videos for?

You might get the impression that the Russians don't have many sniper rifle options... they listed every weapon the US uses.

The fact is that the US had crap sniper rifles until the 2000s when they came up against enemies in Afghanistan and Iraq that fired at them from 800m plus.

Their bolt action rifles lacked fire power (rate and capacity of fire) and their 223 assault rifles lacked lethality and range so they were forced to adopt quite a few weapons in a hurry and put them at squad level.

The Soviets and Russians already had PKMs and SVDs at squad level and also RPK LMGs and so did not have the same problems... they could already reach targets in the 600m (RPK) 800m (SVD) and 1,500m (PKM) range.

Look at the dates of adoption... the SVD in 1963... all these super cool new US weapons in the last 20 years.

Don't bother with SV-98, they are not really being fielded at all.

The new models seem to be used in 7.62x54 and their new round based on the Lapua cartridge... I believe it is a 9 x 69mm round instead of the 8.6x70mm original.

They also adopted a few SSG rifles as well but I suspect they will be replaced by Russian alternatives soon enough.

They didn't even mention all of them... the full auto version of the SVD, the VS-121 bullpup version.

Except that the 12.7MM rifles seem to rather taken a back seat. Hopefully they change that with new development.

they have two in service... the semi auto folding model and the bullpup bolt action.



The SV-99 in .22lr, and of course the VKS in 12.7 x 55mm, and the new SVK, the bolt action MTs-116M, and the VSV-338 bolt action... honestly they are spoiled for choice.

They also have the SR-4, and I haven't even mentioned the old models they could still use the way this video kept bringing up ancient weapons like the M14 and M21.

Plus of course they have the brand new SVCh...

GarryB wrote:

Most countries developed a heavier barrel version of their standard assault rifle to use in the light machine gun role... from the SA-80 to the M16 and the FN FAL... they all had heavy barrel models able to fire full auto... the difference is that the Soviet Union and Russia actually adopted them into service and used them.

I was watching a video last night testing the Ratnik soldier system and the troops testing it (a red force and a blue force) both had soldiers with RPK-74s amongst their number...

In a lot of units the RPK-74 was replaced with the heavier but also more powerful and longer ranged PKP.

Personally I think with proper optics the RPK-74 has plenty of potential and with the RPK-16 the choice of long or short barrel makes it rather interesting too.

I have heard the RPK-74 is rather accurate and might make a rather good small calibre designated marksman rifle...

After the second world war the Red Army adopted 2 new machineguns the RP-46 machinegun chambered in 7.62x54r and the RPD chambered in 7.62x39.

The Red army later went on to replace its RP-46s with the new PK light machineguns and adopted the RPK to help supplement thier RPDs.

The PKM is inspered by the Nazi universal machinegun concept and can fullfill the roles of both light and medium machinegun however a dedicated medium machingun version exists (PKS).

The PK family are LMGs just like the MG-34 and 42 were.

Weather you choose to call it a sqaud automatic weapon, a heavy assault rifle or a very light machinegun the RPK series sits imbetwene the class of assault rifle and light machingun in both weight and effective range.

One thing to note about the PKP is that as default it lacks anf form of handgaurd or foregrip.

par far wrote:

kvs wrote:

par far wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:Is Russia lacking proper sniper rifles?

After watching that video, it is very apparent, that Russia is lacking proper sniper rifles and it is behind the US in sniper rifles.

The experience in Syria will really help Russian engineers build the correct sniper rifles, Russia has the know how to build very good sniper rifles, Lobaev arms proves this.

Can you give a specific example of this inferiority.   The video did not demonstrate any substantial gap.

It just seems that the US sniper rifles are more sophisticated sniper rifles with all the bells and the whistles(I don't know if all of those bells and whistles are need), the US sniper rifles are better looking(that is what I should have said).

One question I have is why is the Russian Military not using the Lobaev Snipers? They look very promising.

I figured you were talking bullcrap. Made it more obvious that you are COD kiddy and believe that looks matters.

I think we are done here.

miketheterrible wrote:

par far wrote:

kvs wrote:

par far wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:Is Russia lacking proper sniper rifles?

After watching that video, it is very apparent, that Russia is lacking proper sniper rifles and it is behind the US in sniper rifles.

The experience in Syria will really help Russian engineers build the correct sniper rifles, Russia has the know how to build very good sniper rifles, Lobaev arms proves this.

Can you give a specific example of this inferiority.   The video did not demonstrate any substantial gap.

It just seems that the US sniper rifles are more sophisticated sniper rifles with all the bells and the whistles(I don't know if all of those bells and whistles are need), the US sniper rifles are better looking(that is what I should have said).

One question I have is why is the Russian Military not using the Lobaev Snipers? They look very promising.

I figured you were talking bullcrap.  Made it more obvious that you are COD kiddy and believe that looks matters.

I think we are done here.

In my opinion the SVD and OSV-96 are very aesthetically pleasing while guns like the m110 and m107 are little more than a rod with a forgrip,magazine,stock and scope.

Is it just me or does Russian equpment usually look better ("stealth" equipment aside as in Su-57 and new naval turrets) than most other equipment?

Anyway looks are better than stealth as both are only good for publicity and have absolutely no combat value.

Some british special forces apart, soviet armed forces got the longest and most proficient DM and sniper tradition.

As noted, SVD has been both the first purpose built DMR and the first to be doctrinally inserted in the standard squad or platoon order of battle.

What soviet armed forces lacked was something able to engage beyond the 800 m mark.

It is a really niche requirement, because on a classical peer or near-peer war, such kind of targets would be dealt with by area interdiction weapons such as artillery.

Still, from Afghanistan onwards the requirement for proper sniper weapons has arose, both in the west and in Russia and beyond.

And quite clearly Soviet Union, and then Russia, lacked a purpose designed ammunition for such tasks.

It is more related to proper ammunition than the weapons themselves: the 338 Lapua Magnum has been a real game changer being the first ammunition able to both have great accuracy at long ranges, reasonable stopping power, reasonable size and weight, and last but not least the ability to overcome soft obstacles such leafs and small branches without suffering too much deviation.

Anything else falls just in the usual quest for the universal gun which is more than good at long ranges, could provide suppressive fire, gives the operator a chance to fight even on very short ranges, and so on.

The real point in sniping is given by the ammunition itself, nothing else. Then you could have more or less versatile or dependable weapons, but the real selling point is the ammunition fired.

miketheterrible wrote:

par far wrote:

kvs wrote:

par far wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:Is Russia lacking proper sniper rifles?

After watching that video, it is very apparent, that Russia is lacking proper sniper rifles and it is behind the US in sniper rifles.

The experience in Syria will really help Russian engineers build the correct sniper rifles, Russia has the know how to build very good sniper rifles, Lobaev arms proves this.

Can you give a specific example of this inferiority.   The video did not demonstrate any substantial gap.

It just seems that the US sniper rifles are more sophisticated sniper rifles with all the bells and the whistles(I don't know if all of those bells and whistles are need), the US sniper rifles are better looking(that is what I should have said).

One question I have is why is the Russian Military not using the Lobaev Snipers? They look very promising.

I figured you were talking bullcrap.  Made it more obvious that you are COD kiddy and believe that looks matters.

I think we are done here.

Never played COD, living in the west, you are made to believe that the US has the best weapons. When it comes long range sniper rifles, the US is ahead(not by a lot) but Russia has made great progress in this area.

The US has fought in a shit ton wars since the collapse, so it is the truth that they are ahead in some areas.

par far wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:

par far wrote:

kvs wrote:

par far wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:Is Russia lacking proper sniper rifles?

After watching that video, it is very apparent, that Russia is lacking proper sniper rifles and it is behind the US in sniper rifles.

The experience in Syria will really help Russian engineers build the correct sniper rifles, Russia has the know how to build very good sniper rifles, Lobaev arms proves this.

Can you give a specific example of this inferiority.   The video did not demonstrate any substantial gap.

It just seems that the US sniper rifles are more sophisticated sniper rifles with all the bells and the whistles(I don't know if all of those bells and whistles are need), the US sniper rifles are better looking(that is what I should have said).

One question I have is why is the Russian Military not using the Lobaev Snipers? They look very promising.

I figured you were talking bullcrap.  Made it more obvious that you are COD kiddy and believe that looks matters.

I think we are done here.

Never played COD, living in the west, you are made to believe that the US has the best weapons. When it comes long range sniper rifles, the US is ahead(not by a lot) but Russia has made great progress in this area.

The US has fought in a shit ton wars since the collapse, so it is the truth that they are ahead in some areas.

Thats why they fucked up in Afghanistan that opted for them to create another sniper rifle based up on the AR-15 platform but in the .308 round, which they are now looking to replace due to the issues that exists with it (IE: lack of reliability).  I mean, Russia has AK's in the .308 caliber which can be given longer barrel and what not.  I mean, all latest AK's are using all the tacticool crap and what not.  But even the SVDM is using all that tacticool stuff, and even latest variants have all that.  But anyway, the Russian's have the 800 - 1km range covered and their bolt action rifle covers the 1 - 2km range with the T-5000, and they got the anti material that goes upwards to 2km range.  What more do you expect or want?

https://modernfirearms.net/en/sniper-rifles/standart-caliber-rifles/russia-standart-caliber-rifles/svk-eng/
https://modernfirearms.net/en/sniper-rifles/svch-2/
https://modernfirearms.net/en/sniper-rifles/standart-caliber-rifles/russia-standart-caliber-rifles/svdk-eng/

miketheterrible wrote:

par far wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:

par far wrote:

kvs wrote:

par far wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:Is Russia lacking proper sniper rifles?

After watching that video, it is very apparent, that Russia is lacking proper sniper rifles and it is behind the US in sniper rifles.

The experience in Syria will really help Russian engineers build the correct sniper rifles, Russia has the know how to build very good sniper rifles, Lobaev arms proves this.

Can you give a specific example of this inferiority.   The video did not demonstrate any substantial gap.

It just seems that the US sniper rifles are more sophisticated sniper rifles with all the bells and the whistles(I don't know if all of those bells and whistles are need), the US sniper rifles are better looking(that is what I should have said).

One question I have is why is the Russian Military not using the Lobaev Snipers? They look very promising.

I figured you were talking bullcrap.  Made it more obvious that you are COD kiddy and believe that looks matters.

I think we are done here.

Never played COD, living in the west, you are made to believe that the US has the best weapons. When it comes long range sniper rifles, the US is ahead(not by a lot) but Russia has made great progress in this area.

The US has fought in a shit ton wars since the collapse, so it is the truth that they are ahead in some areas.

Thats why they fucked up in Afghanistan that opted for them to create another sniper rifle based up on the AR-15 platform but in the .308 round, which they are now looking to replace due to the issues that exists with it (IE: lack of reliability).  I mean, Russia has AK's in the .308 caliber which can be given longer barrel and what not.  I mean, all latest AK's are using all the tacticool crap and what not.  But even the SVDM is using all that tacticool stuff, and even latest variants have all that.  But anyway, the Russian's have the 800 - 1km range covered and their bolt action rifle covers the 1 - 2km range with the T-5000, and they got the anti material that goes upwards to 2km range.  What more do you expect or want?

https://modernfirearms.net/en/sniper-rifles/standart-caliber-rifles/russia-standart-caliber-rifles/svk-eng/
https://modernfirearms.net/en/sniper-rifles/svch-2/
https://modernfirearms.net/en/sniper-rifles/standart-caliber-rifles/russia-standart-caliber-rifles/svdk-eng/

I remember wacthing videos of American soldiers, ditching their rifles for the AKM rifle. Russia has everything covered, I think the Americans make great propaganda and that is what gets most people (including me).

After the second world war the Red Army adopted 2 new machineguns the RP-46 machinegun chambered in 7.62x54r and the RPD chambered in 7.62x39.

Dear god... you don't actually think a light machine gun and a medium machine gun and a heavy machine gun are different because of their weight do you?

They did adopt the RP46 and soon after dropped it because it was a dog.

The standard medium machine guns of the Soviets just after WWII was the SG-43 and the Maxim machine gun, the standard light machinegun was the DPM and then the RPD.

They planned to have a rifle and an assault rifle/smg and a light machine gun... respectively the SKS, AK, and RPD.

They realised the SKS was unnecessary and just made lots of AKs for rifle and SMG role and the RPD and later RPK as the light machine gun.

The Red army later went on to replace its RP-46s with the new PK light machineguns and adopted the RPK to help supplement thier RPDs.

No they didn't... the PK is a general purpose machine gun that can either be used as a light machine gun or a medium machine gun... it replaced the SG-43 and the few remaining Maxim MGs... its rifle round and removable barrel meant it could be used in sustained fire from a gun mount... it could also be carried into combat by one soldier making it also a light machine gun even if it wasn't actually what you could call light.

The PK family are LMGs just like the MG-34 and 42 were.

they were used in the light and medium role and therefore were general purpose machine guns.

Weather you choose to call it a sqaud automatic weapon, a heavy assault rifle or a very light machinegun the RPK series sits imbetwene the class of assault rifle and light machingun in both weight and effective range.

A SMG is used at squad level and is automatic... a fucking pistol is a squad automatic as long as it is not a revolver...

An AK is an assault rifle, an RPK is a LMG and a PK is a GPMG... it is in the designation... avtomat = assault rifle, Ruchnoy Pulemjot = light (hand held)machine gun, and Pulemjot = machinegun.

So Kalashnikovs assault rifle, Kalashnikovs light machine gun and Kalashnikovs machine gun.

One thing to note about the PKP is that as default it lacks anf form of handgaurd or foregrip.

The PKP has a fixed barrel and is intended for the LMG role for mobile forces and special forces.

What soviet armed forces lacked was something able to engage beyond the 800 m mark.

Hahahaahaha... you keep thinking that... but just ask yourself... if the US has 1km range 7.62mm rifles and 338 lapua magnum rifles that can kill at 1.5km and 50 cal rifles that can reach 2km+ WTF did they need to scramble to get all those extra new 308 cal sniper rifles if the SVD is no good beyond 800m... surely they were set... I have even heard some Americans talk about shooting 556 at 800m ranges... of course paper is a softer target than people are... at 800m you have to do more than just hit the target.

The Russians don't lack anything in small arms... they even have underwater assault rifles...

and for targets beyond 800m in Afghanistan the Soviets used automatic grenade launchers, 12.7mm HMGs and 23mm cannon... as well as SPG-9 recoilless rifles.

The term "light machingun" came into use during WWI and describes a rifle caliber machingun with a weight of around 10 kg and a bipod and would be able to be carried and operated by 1 man.

Heavy machinegun used to mean tripod mounted but then as larger 12.7mm and 13mm models were introduced people started using the term "medium machingun" for the rifle caliber tripod mounted weapons and heavy machingun came to mean MGs with a caliber of 12.7mm and up.

The soviet union diched the idea of medium machineguns with the introduction of the PK LMG.

Sqaud automatic weapons all have one thing in common and that is that they use intermediate cartriges rather than rifle cartirges just like the all of the Russian "ручной пулемёт" or "handheld machinguns" in english wheras LMGs are all in rifle caliber.

There is no such thing as a medium machinegun in the Russian army and the term ruchnoy pulemot is basically the Russian way of saying sqaud automatic weapon.

Machinegun type is defined by the round it fires.