Military Review

The system corrects the error. TSNIITOCHMASH against?

90
My opponent V.V. Korablin published on the "Military Review" article "One person error or system failure?"where he criticizes my proposal to improve the effectiveness of shooting AK74.


Firstly, I note that Korablin modestly signed an article “a veteran of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation” to create the appearance of an outside independent view of the problem. Meanwhile, he works as a leading researcher at TsNIITOCHMASH. As is known, TsNIITOCHMASH is responsible for the development of combat equipment “Warrior” and machine guns, as an integral part of this equipment. And Viktor Vasilyevich Korablin is not the last of those responsible for the shyness and blunders when developing new Kalashnikov assault rifles that we have been witnessing in recent years. So no, he is not an independent expert, but an extremely interested party.

Secondly, I do not understand the reasons why Korablin brought this discussion to the media. I have never refused to discuss the topic directly with TsNIITOCHMASH, on the contrary, this TSNIITOCHMASH did not respond to my proposals to correct the annoying errors in their generally positive conclusion.

TsNIITOCHMASH and Korablin agreed

Ways of aiming from AK74 are set out in article 155 of the Manual:
The system corrects the error. TSNIITOCHMASH against?

Fig.1 - The 5,45-mm Kalashnikov assault rifle (AK74, AX74, AK74H, AX74H) and 5,45-mm Kalashnikov machine gun (RPX74, RPX74, RPK74H, RPXXXUMXXUMNXXXUM, RPX74H, RPXXXUMXXXUMNXXXXNUMXH).

As you can see, in the first paragraph of Art. 155 an exact shot is described, in the second paragraph - a direct shot, in the third paragraph - when which of these shots to use. In the article 155, the axioms of the small business are set out, which are given in any textbook or instruction on shooting and which “as our Father” must be known by any officer.

Indeed, the degree of combining the midpoint of hits (STP) with the center of the target determines the accuracy of shooting. And for an accurate shot it is necessary: ​​1) to determine the distance to the target, 2) to set the corresponding target range, 3) to direct to the center of the target.
But in battle, goals want to live and therefore appear for a short time. The shooter does not have time to perform these three operations. Therefore, military science has a hundred years since it came to a direct shot, at which it is not necessary either to measure the distance, nor to change the sight. As we set the sight for a direct shot, so we work with it within the direct shot, always aiming at the same point - at the lower edge of the target (Fig.1, second paragraph).

It is important to remember that with a direct shot, the STP moves along the target depending on the distance:

Figure 2. Scheme of the author. The ellipses of dispersion are depicted in scale to the figures based on the median dispersion deviations for the AK-74 mechanical sight of the best machine gunners - the table “Characteristics of dispersion for the AK-74” in the AK-74 Manual [2] or in the document “Grade tables ...” 3].

As we see in Figure 2, the STP coincides with the center of the target only at ¼ and at ¾ of the range of the direct shot. At ½ of the range of the direct shot, the STP rises to the upper edge of the target, and at the range of the direct shot and point-blank it drops to the aiming point - to the lower edge of the target. Naturally, if the STP does not coincide with the center of the target, the probability of hitting decreases. Where the STP is at the upper or lower edge of the target, at least half of the bullets knowingly go above or below the target, that is, the probability of hitting single shots will be no higher than 0,5. But we deliberately go to reduce accuracy for the sake of simplicity and speed of aiming a direct shot. And the probability of hitting the raise queue.

With a direct shot, the trajectory should not be above the target, this is how a direct shot is determined. In addition, a direct shot must be counted on the lowest possible target, because we will hit all the higher targets with a direct shot without any problems. But when a direct shot is designed for a high target, then over the lower target there will be a flight. Present in Figure 2 instead of a growth, for example, a pectoral target that is lower in 3. What will happen? That's right, in the middle part of the trajectory it will be impossible to get - the trajectory goes above the chest target. Therefore, it does not occur to anyone with the 6 sight (approximate range of a direct shot at a growth figure) to shoot straight at the chest figure. But to make a “P” sight on the AK74 for a direct shot at a not-low-chest shot — someone came into his head.

In AK74, the 4 trajectory has a height of 0,4 m, and when aiming at the lower edge of the head target, the height of which is 0,3 m, the trajectory at distances from 150 m to 300 m goes higher than the head target, at the distance of the top of the trajectory - by 0,1 m above:


Fig.3 Scheme compiled by the author.

The “P” trajectory is even higher - 0,5 m (chest figure), that is, it is higher than the head target on 0,2.

Moreover, when the STP is behind the contours of the target, then improving (reducing) the accuracy of shooting, we can not improve, but decrease the probability of hitting, which is shown by calculations for A-545 (AEK-971) and can be seen in Figure 3.

STF need to get in the contours of the head target. So I suggested to return AK74 and all 5,45-mm automata the height of the trajectory of the direct shot of 0,3 m, that is, to bring a direct shot into line with its definition.

It is difficult to argue with the axioms and TsNIITOCHMASH confirmed:
“Using the“ P ”unit with a direct shot at a chest figure with a height of 0,5 m or a sight“ 4 ”under a cut on the head figure at near ranges (100 ... 300 m) is really inefficient due to the large values ​​of STF exceedances (32 cm on 300 m, 37 cm to 250) ... At the same time there is a simple and effective way out of this situation - you must use the "3" sight

[Conclusion of TSNIITOCHMASH on the proposal of V.A. Svateeva, ref. X597 / 24 from 05.02.2014].

So after all, I suggested exactly that for already manufactured AK74 - shoot with a direct shot from "3," and not from "4" or from "P" ["The machine gunner should and can hit the head figure", Svateev V.A., "Herald Academy of Military Sciences "№2 for 2013 g., P.127-131].

And on the new machines being developed, the “P” label should be immediately done with the height of the 0,3 m trajectory. But this order-bearing TsNIITOCHMASH was frightened:
“For the developed automaton, the installation of the“ P ”sight with ABS for the purpose of 0,5 height m ... it is advisable to keep it, given that in the course of shooting ... the main number of targets falls on these targets and personnel training is carried out in accordance with these provisions.”

[Conclusion of TSNIITOCHMASH on the proposal of V.A. Svateeva, ref. X597 / 24 from 05.02.2014].

Indeed, it was necessary to convince the Ministry of Defense to return the course of firing to the real battle. But the matter is worth it: our submachine gunners will return the opportunity to hit the same submachine of the enemy, which lies with emphasis weapons on the parapet. And I had to convince all instances of the Ministry of Defense alone. A few months ago, experimental firing conducted at the direction of the Military Scientific Committee of the Ground Forces confirmed: the probability of hitting a trajectory with an altitude of 0,3 m is significantly better than with “4”, and even more so with “P”.

It would seem that the debate is in the past, it is necessary to correct the error. And suddenly - an article by V.V. Korablina, where he is against and appeals to all possible instances, which "are silent, as if by typing water in the mouth."

I would like to note that TSNIITOCHMASH signed the conclusion quoted above by V.V. Korablin. Therefore, when he writes in the article that the reviews of my articles "were negative," he is obviously disingenuous. He personally signed the conclusion about the correctness of my article. And when below I will compare the “arguments” of Korablin’s article with the conclusion of TSNIITOCHMASH, I’ll be comparing Korablin with him.

I will not linger on the numerous theatrical sighs in Korablin’s article on the impact of my proposal “on the immature minds of some young military scientists.” I will consider the few factories of Korablin’s article.

The choice of the head target as the “main”, allegedly, is not justified.

The lowest goal is the head and therefore a direct shot should be designed for its height.

And before AK74 it was. It was the head figure that was shot straight from the beginning of the 20 century from the three-lane (the head figure was “planted on the fly”) and to the AKM inclusive, with the height of the “P” trajectory equal to 0,34 m, almost the height of the head. In Shooting courses starting from at least 1915 on at least 1947 shooting on a course approved by Marshal I. Konev, not only snipers, but all shooters learned to hit all targets starting from the head. The same thing happened abroad, for example, in the German course of shooting. Now in the instruction on M-16 and, apparently, in all of NATO, the targets for machine gunners begin with the head.

Why is it necessary to hit the headache?

Because the head figure indicates the arrow behind the parapet with the focus of the forearm on the parapet. In the battle, everyone wants to live and take a position behind the parapet - by some kind of shelter. And all the armies of the world are taught to take a position that way. Therefore, the head figure - the most numerous in the battle of the lay infantry. Do not fall into the head - it means not to hit the enemy.

Both in my articles and in appeals to TsNIITOCHMASH these facts are stated repeatedly. But Ph.D. Korablin himself cannot analyze these facts, he cannot draw conclusions from them - moreover, he called them “pictures”. Requires a piece of paper - "special studies." So I personally gave him the results of a special research project “Lightness”, where the main goal is indicated in all types of combat! Here is the chest, on which the "P" sight is now being made, in an offensive battle is completely absent, and the head one is in all types of combat. During the discussion in the military-scientific committee, I twice read the results of the R & D project “Lightness” to Korablin and indicated that the former head of the TsNIITOCHMASH VN department referred to this R & D in his book. Noblemen, and the current specialist TsNIITOCHMASH Korablin for some reason is not familiar with it. After that, Korablin turned red as boiled crab and left the room where the discussion was going. But less than a year and Korablin forgot how I brought him this research and again requires what he has long been granted.

Although, what kind of events there are to remember a year ago, Korablin in the middle of the article does not remember what he wrote at the beginning! At the beginning of the article, he states that it is impossible “by simply changing the value of the sight P to increase the shooting efficiency,” and the entire first half of the article proves it. And in the middle of the article with aplomb gives: "It is natural that when firing at the head figure with the" P "sight ... the probability of hitting was lower than when shooting with the proposed" P "sight with the height of the 0,3 m trajectory. That is how it should be. To prove the obvious truth, it was not necessary not only to carry out calculations or experimental firing, it was not necessary to even think about it. ”And even a little lower without blinking an eye again changes his mind to the opposite:“ there will be no increase in the effectiveness of shooting! ”

It is simply amazing: in one article - directly opposite statements, porridge, a stream of consciousness that contradicts itself. And this person plays a certain role in the development of new Kalashnikovs! What is surprising about throwing when developing these machines?

Apparently understanding the price of his “arguments”, Korablin goes on the offensive - accuses me of the fact that I “selected such results that worked for my version”. This statement of Korablin is a lie. I did the calculation for the middle shooters and sent it to TsNIITOCHMASH, the middle shooters have the same advantage “P_0,3” over “4” and “P”, like the best ones. The aiming point at the lower edge of the target is not because I wanted to, but because this is how it is fired with a direct shot, see the second and third paragraphs of article 155 of the AK74 Manual (Figure 1). And why should we consider shooting options with accurate aiming, because we are talking about improving the direct shot? To confuse matters?

At AK74, allegedly, “sight“ P ”corresponds to sight“ 4 ”

Korablin himself quotes the AK74 Manual: "St. 13 ..." P "is a fixed sight, approximately corresponding to the 4 sight (440 m firing range)." The manual was developed for more than one year by the Main Directorate of Combat Training of the Ground Forces and put into effect by order of the Commander-in-Chief Ground Forces This manual is obligatory not only for the Ground Forces, but for all law enforcement agencies that have AK74 in service. And in the Manual in black and white: "P" is equal to 440 m. On what basis Korablin claims that "P" equal to 400 m ?!

It turns out that Korablin’s appeal to “the manufacturer of the machine gun clarified this question: for the AK74, the“ P ”sight corresponds to the“ 4 ”sight. The name of this manufacturer Korablin is silent.

So, if you believe Korablin, then the manufacturer of the machine gun substituted our soldiers. After all, all troops follow the AK74 Manual and are confident that with the “P” sight they will fall from 440 m. And the manufacturer, it turns out, made it impossible to get in the range from 400 m to 440 m, the sight is not at this distance!

I sent a request to the Kalashnikov Concern, and they responded very promptly:
“Concern“ Kalashnikov ”JSC did not make a change to the CD on the sector sight of the AK74 and AK74М assault rifles in order to change the dimensions of the sector curve, including the position of the“ P ”position. Concern “Kalashnikov” JSC does not have information about applying to the company of the author of the article “One person’s error or system failure?” On the above question. ”
[Answer “Concern“ Kalashnikov ”JSC to V. Svatiyev from 08.02.2018].

Thus, the manufacturer of the machine not only did not change the “P” to the range of 400 m, but V.V. Korablin did not even contact the manufacturer on this issue! Korablin came up with his appeal, and the manufacturer's explanation? It looks like it.

I note that the manufacturer’s letter, Korablin, proves that the “P” sight is equal to “4” and, therefore, with it, it is allegedly possible to “confidently hit various, including small-sized targets”. Korablin forgot that he signed the conclusion, which correctly stated: "Using ... the sight of" 4 "... is really ineffective." Korablin also forgot about the similar conclusion of the Institute "STIS" of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, and about the shooting of the manufacturer of the oil refinery sights. Korablin also forgot about the results of recent shooting at the direction of the military-scientific committee of the Ground Forces, which showed the likelihood of hitting with “P_0,3” is significantly better than with “4”.

Therefore, even if you align the “P” sight with the “4” sight, this will not solve the problem. The “4” trajectory is too high for the head figure and the probability of hitting is insufficient, it can be significantly increased only by reducing the “P” trajectory to 0,3 m.

The failure of Korablin’s offer

What does Korablin suggest instead of correction “P”? He proposes to ignore the indication of Art. 155 to aim at the lower edge of the target, and instead “choose the correct aiming point” so that the trajectory passes along the center of the target.

But for this the machine gunner should: 1) somehow measure the exact distance to the target; 2) remember what the excess according to the table of exceedances at this range for the sight with which he is now taking aim; 3) measure the excess with an eye from the lower edge of the target 4) and only now, instead of the lower edge of the target, direct to this point. So does a sniper from an ambush, when time allows to measure, calculate and measure. But this is impossible in that battle, which is usually conducted by a machine gunner, where targets appear unexpectedly, at different ranges, for a few seconds.

Thus, Korablin proposes to abandon the experience of all the preceding military science, concluded in Art NNXX, which did not just come to a direct shot. If a machine gunner had a car of time, then in the Guide he would not be advised to, until 155 m, always shoot with a constant sight while aiming at the lower edge of the target, not measuring anything, not calculating and not shifting.

By the way, if the submachine gunner has time to make an accurate shot to the 400 range, m, then he should not listen to Korablin with his shift of the aiming point, but rather, as indicated in 155, just set the exact target range and aim at target center. It will be more reliable and accurate.

Not relevant references Korablin and the "system of models of small arms" in each unit, which (the system) affects all targets. Even formally speaking, the capabilities of any system are made up of the capabilities of its component parts, therefore, by increasing the capabilities of machine guns, we will increase the capabilities of the entire system of small arms. And in detail, in our course of shooting, only snipers from the SVD are learning to hit head targets. Sniper in the squad one. And he must hit the entire enemy unit, since all the enemy soldiers are trying to lie down so that to be the lowest goal in battle - the head. If we reduce AK74 "P" to 0,3, then all our submachine gunners will confidently start hitting the enemy’s detached branch. Let me remind you once again that this was the case before AK74. Why Korablin against it is impossible to understand from his article.

By the end of the article, Korablin arrives at the usual premise for unscrupulous weapons developers: “For effective shooting, you need not to carry out experiments with a sight, but to teach people to shoot.” How familiar! Guilty for the wrong sight “P” has already been assigned “Vanka-Rotny”, which is trying to teach submachine gunners to “choose the correct aiming point”. Pay for the wrong "P", in fact, a long time ago, from Afghanistan, machine gunners pay. With their lives. And Korablin V.V. left with nothing ?! I will not allow it!

More precisely - not allowed. Because I was able to convey to the core structures of the Ministry of Defense, and not only, the essence of the error with the "P" gun sight. That is why Korablin’s article appeared - an attempt to justify and slow down the correction of an error.
Author:
90 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Titsen
    Titsen 13 February 2018 06: 34
    +3
    You boil beautiful - a loner against the system!

    And who is who?

    Your word, comrade Mauser!

    More precisely, Kalishnikov of the new generation!
    1. Vladimir 5
      Vladimir 5 13 February 2018 13: 22
      -1
      Advanced small arms have advanced sights and it is high time to forget the flies and rear sights, I mean, the sight should be self-adjusting with a laser or other measurement of distance, wind, temperature and give a point of impact ... That and the debate will become unnecessary ...
      1. nov_tech.vrn
        nov_tech.vrn 13 February 2018 20: 46
        +11
        Yes, and the sofa should be self-propelled and maneuverable!
        1. Vladimir 5
          Vladimir 5 13 February 2018 21: 31
          -1
          Advanced sniper devices already have such capabilities, it is up to mass in the near future. And self-propelled sofas with a stove and a toilet are called "kungs" and have long been distributed - from which den you broadcast .......
          1. nov_tech.vrn
            nov_tech.vrn 14 February 2018 02: 22
            +1
            a sniper, a well-trained shooter, and a fighter after KMB, completely different faces, and I liked the kung, after all, he is a sofa
          2. midivan
            midivan 17 February 2018 20: 02
            +2
            Quote: Vladimir 5
            Advanced small arms have advanced sights and it’s high time to forget the flies and pillars

            Quote: Vladimir 5
            Advanced sniper devices already have such capabilities, it is up to mass in the near future.

            It’s not only about advanced technologies, the sniper lies down and waits, and the fighter runs and sometimes falls, so you run and caught up in the rocky terrain and tryndets to your sight, but there’s no sight and sight request offer through the barrel to aim then? wink
            1. Vladimir 5
              Vladimir 5 17 February 2018 22: 22
              -1
              Such sights are brought to a sufficient level of protection (foolproofness), because even a delicate mobile phone is no longer scared to hurt ... The main thing is to be able to conduct effective and sniper and massive fire. There is nothing more expensive than the life of a fighter, because everything is for victory in battle, but on this topic our lag is constant ......
              1. midivan
                midivan 17 February 2018 22: 46
                +2
                Quote: Vladimir 5
                Such sights are brought to a sufficient level of protection (foolproofness)

                I would be silent if I hadn’t seen the mutilated NSPU, don’t ask the model, I don’t remember, but it looks like it’s possible to break your head through a helmet, but nevertheless a case, it’s about not being able to use the compass with a navigator, let there will be an advanced sight but a soldier must be able to shoot without it. IMHO
      2. Mihail28
        Mihail28 27 February 2018 00: 33
        +1
        Not only the sight is self-aiming, but also the machine gun is self-shooting, and the fired bullets are homing with a guaranteed one hundred percent hit in the enemy.
    2. Svateev
      14 February 2018 12: 52
      +2
      Quote: Titsen
      You boil beautiful - a loner against the system!

      Yes, never wrong! I am also part of the system, albeit retired. It’s just that the system understands the problem internally, as indicated in the title of the article.
  2. The comment was deleted.
  3. brdm
    brdm 13 February 2018 07: 21
    +1
    In the Top Ten !!!
  4. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 13 February 2018 07: 25
    +9
    It seems to me that this dispute between two people, even those versed in firing from a machine gun, should not have been brought to the site. One wants to prove that he is smarter than the other, so this is a purely personal matter. At one time, being a platoon commander, and then a company, was personally involved in gunfire and taught fighters based on experience and the “Manual on a small business” for AK, PKK, PK ..., which gave positive results. What is the argument? In self-affirmation?
    1. Nosgoth
      Nosgoth 13 February 2018 14: 41
      +2
      When it seems, you need to be baptized.
      1. rotmistr60
        rotmistr60 14 February 2018 06: 17
        +1
        Judging by your comment, you can assume that you are the author of this article.
        1. Svateev
          14 February 2018 12: 01
          +2
          Quote: rotmistr60
          Judging by your comment

          And judging by my nickname "Svateev" and the signature under the article "Svateev" this can also be assumed yes
          1. rotmistr60
            rotmistr60 14 February 2018 12: 07
            +2
            I have not seen your nickname, I apologize. And Nosgoth wrote
            can be assumed
            due to his strange reaction to my comment. hi
    2. Sergey824
      Sergey824 13 February 2018 17: 56
      +10
      "It seems to me that this dispute between two people, even those versed in firing from a machine gun, should not have been brought to the site." And where to take it? What a crap only you can’t see here. Starting from the knights and ending with the next “promises” that we will have to take twenty years later that we delivered two boats to Venezuela, that is. boats with a motor. And people are discussing. And here is the most important thing, what decides life on the battlefield is not the place? You can have an ingenious plan, give a battle order perfectly, paint a map with all colors, but there is no defeat. Each kind has its own means of destruction, the infantrymen have small arms and machine guns, the most massive part of it. The author raised the necessary topic, thank you.
  5. alex-cn
    alex-cn 13 February 2018 07: 46
    +1
    An interesting article, but, like rotmistr, I do not understand why a purely scientific (at least for now) dispute should be submitted to a popular site. Most of those present have no opportunity to support or refute the author.
    1. Svateev
      13 February 2018 11: 10
      +5
      Quote: alex-cn
      I don’t understand why a purely scientific (at least for now) dispute should be submitted to a popular site.

      This is explained at the very beginning of the article:
      Secondly, I do not understand the reasons why Korablin brought this discussion to the media. I never refused to discuss the topic directly with TSNIITOCHMASH, on the contrary, TSNIITOCHMASH did not answer my suggestions
    2. aws4
      aws4 13 February 2018 22: 32
      +5
      it’s very bad that there is no .. every man in our country should be able to shoot with ak and have his own experience ... thank you very much to the author for the article .. everything is clear and let me not be a great shooter and special but my personal modest experience confirms his words, by the method poke realized that it was the sight 3 middle ground and after 3 months of training I didn’t spit on the platoon who set 3 instead of P, the results on the growth figure were not distinguishable, but on the chest there was a clear improvement and not only for me ... after some officers already in the linear part they noticed that the machine always stands on the top three even in the pyramid and one even praised and did not believe that I myself came to this and no one told me ... but most of the stubborn people scolded me and scolded me but you can’t argue with the results ...
      1. Svateev
        14 February 2018 12: 07
        +2
        Quote: aws4
        my personal modest experience

        Thanks for the experience. I will send the article with all the comments to the All-Russian Military Commission. Because when I alone say: P’s sight is wrong, it’s I alone, “I don’t know how to shoot,” which Korablin tried to prove.
        And when I can’t even count how many people bring my experience, then this is already a real problem for the authorities, they won’t brush it off.
        1. aws4
          aws4 14 February 2018 20: 09
          +2
          Thank you for your work .. I’m sure even if nothing is changed, then people will read your article if they hope to pick up ak they will know and remember ...
  6. andrewkor
    andrewkor 13 February 2018 07: 47
    +2
    I already noted my opinion today, for dear opponents I will repeat: this worthless 5,45 * 39 outgrowth and return the ingenious 7,62 * 49!
    1. alex-cn
      alex-cn 13 February 2018 08: 48
      0
      Sorry, but what kind of cartridge is 7,62x49. I didn’t hear about him before and there seems to be no data about him ...
    2. Svateev
      13 February 2018 11: 16
      +7
      Quote: andrewkor
      throw this worthless 5,45 * 39 and return the ingenious 7,62 * 49!

      5.45mm better
      1) the number of wearable ammunition - in 1.5 times more cartridges with the same weight,
      2) and in the accuracy of automatic shooting.
      Therefore it is necessary not to return 7.62mm. and at 5.45mm return the scope P to the same path height as 7,62mm. To hit the dead infantry.
      1. Vektor
        Vektor 20 February 2018 00: 02
        0
        Just in case: the P sight corresponds to 5,45 and 7,62 DPA in the chest figure, only because of the different initial bullet speed in these samples, the different RPA in the chest figure in 7,62 mm "3" in 5,45 mm " 4"
        1. Svateev
          20 February 2018 11: 07
          0
          Quote: vektor
          Sight P corresponds to 5,45 and 7,62 RPA on the chest figure

          Wrong.
          In AK74, the Sight P really corresponds to the RPA for the chest and this is clearly indicated in the Guide.
          But for AK and AKM, the scope P is equal to the scope 3 (this is indicated in the Guide). And the height of the 3 trajectory is equal to 0,34m (see the main table), that is, only 4cm higher than the head figure, but it is not at all close to the chest 0,5m.
          That is, the direct shot for AK and AK74 is different: for AK - almost in the head, and for AK74 - in the chest.
          Yes, in the shooting course, AK and AKM also shot only in the chest, but in the battle they also hit the head. But the AK74 doesn’t get into the battle in the lead.
    3. Nulgorod
      Nulgorod 13 February 2018 21: 38
      +1
      I will also note: I myself am at 7.62, but stop raising this topic wherever I get, this article is not about that at all angry
  7. Bator
    Bator 13 February 2018 09: 19
    +2
    Some kind of stupid argument. We must learn to shoot and shoot a lot. AK-74 is a good machine. I am a frontier. And we shot at least 1 time per week (1 store). And before the exercises 3 times a week (3 stores each). Well, they shot their weapons. At first I didn’t shoot well, but after six months it was very good. Once, they once somehow talked with the "Maremans" who served nearby: "And we only saw the machine gun on the oath" (and then AK-47).
    1. Moon rover xnumx
      Moon rover xnumx 13 February 2018 11: 00
      +4
      Of course, you need to learn how to shoot. But! We always have a but. Namely: “And we only saw the submachine gun on the oath” (and then AK-47). ”And Savateev rightly says that a mobilized citizen should not spend much time on sighting. Otherwise, he will already be dead ...
      1. Svateev
        13 February 2018 11: 25
        +7
        Quote: Lunokhod 1
        a mobilized citizen should not spend much time on sighting.

        You're right. The correct sight P is especially important for those called up from the reserve, who will be given a few days to restore skills.
    2. Svateev
      13 February 2018 11: 20
      +6
      Quote: Batar
      We must learn to shoot and shoot a lot.

      The calculation of the probability of hitting to compare the sights П and 4 with the sight П_0,3 (height of the trajectory 0,3м) was made for the best and average shooters. That is, for trained shooters, further training is no longer possible. Tested at experimental firing, too, trained people - cadets of the military school.
      That is, how many do not shoot, but with the P target on the AK74 it’s better not to get it. STP ABOVE GOALS.
    3. Sergey824
      Sergey824 13 February 2018 17: 36
      +2
      "You have to learn to shoot and you need to shoot a lot." Nobody is against it, only it is necessary to do it correctly. Then the result will be obtained not at the expense of quantity ...
    4. aws4
      aws4 13 February 2018 22: 35
      +2
      let's finally cut the fly and let them learn to shoot offhand ... well, you have a respected logic
  8. Moon rover xnumx
    Moon rover xnumx 13 February 2018 11: 04
    +13
    The opinion "why did they take dirty linen out of the hut" is striking! Yes, because Svateev, a practitioner, apparently trying to prove to a theorist, reality may not work out without the support of society. It’s like with a Fedorov assault rifle, they said that “ETOGES what an overrun of cartridges !!!” and that’s all ... And then the wars showed that Fedorov’s machine gun was ahead of time and could save the lives of soldiers of the Russian empire ...
    1. Mavrikiy
      Mavrikiy 13 February 2018 23: 13
      +2
      I also think - "the honor of the uniform." And if you also "defended" on the topic ....
      All science is worth it. "Do not go here. Go there"
  9. Lexus
    Lexus 13 February 2018 12: 17
    +3
    Against the background of 100% equipping of soldiers of Western armies with collimator (holographic), optical and infrared (thermal imaging) sights (I note, from the beginning of the 90s of the XX century) and the massive introduction of highly intelligent universal (day / night + built-in ballistic computer with stabilization system and the display of shooting information "in a single window") a discussion of mechanical sights looks curious. It is tantamount to arguing heatedly about the effectiveness of the musket on today's battlefield. No offense. hi
    1. Svateev
      13 February 2018 12: 35
      +7
      Quote: lexus
      The discussion of mechanical sights looks interesting. It is tantamount to arguing heatedly about the effectiveness of the musket on today's battlefield. No offense.

      No offense and no. You just don’t know that there IS NO LESS 4 LABELS FOR ALL our machines on ALL optics. Sight manufacturers clearly completed the second paragraph of Article 155 of the AK74 Manual (Fig. 1 in the article, read carefully). Therefore, with optics for the machine gun on the head to shoot at all IMPOSSIBLE.
      So the topic under discussion for modern mounted sights is even more important than for a mechanical sector sight. At the sector, even a smart submachine gun can put 3 and shoot straight from it. But on optics, neither 3, nor 2, nor 1 are present.
      1. Lexus
        Lexus 13 February 2018 12: 58
        +1
        Is it really so difficult to do humanly, and not through the "lower back"? It turns out-producers and arrows - each on its own?
        1. JD1979
          JD1979 13 February 2018 15: 43
          +4
          And it’s difficult, since the developers, for the most part, are theorists, and it’s easy to drive all the theorists through real hot spots with their miscarriages, so that the lower brain feels that the fractions of a second spent on aiming can save lives.
    2. Lock36
      Lock36 13 February 2018 13: 44
      +1
      Quote: lexus
      Against the background of 100% equipping of soldiers of Western armies with collimator (holographic), optical and infrared (thermal imaging) sights (note, from the beginning of the 90s of the XX century)

      Is it 100% straight from the beginning of the 90s? Right?
      1. Lexus
        Lexus 13 February 2018 13: 48
        0
        "Desert Storm" remember? And we still have the majority of soldiers a modern sight only on TV see. Or a couple of times in the classroom for OP.
        1. Lock36
          Lock36 13 February 2018 20: 39
          +3
          I remember, and?

          The US House of Representatives Committee on Armed Forces noted back in 1975 the suitability of using collimator sights for the M16, however, it was still quite a long time before collimator sights began to be used on weapons.
          Aimpoint Sights limited use during Operation Desert Storm.
          But only in 2000 there was a breakthroughAimpoint signed a contract to supply the US Army. 565783 sights M68 Close Combat Optic Rifle Sights (Aimpoint Comp2).

          And these are the richest - the USA.
          1. Lexus
            Lexus 13 February 2018 20: 46
            0
            Nightlights are much more expensive than collimators. And what? To shoot outbreaks?
            1. Lock36
              Lock36 13 February 2018 20: 58
              +1
              I didn’t understand anything. What are you talking about?
              I say that there was not 100% even in the USA, especially in the 90s. Mass deliveries to the US Army began only after 2000.
              All.
              1. Lexus
                Lexus 13 February 2018 21: 04
                0
                I just shifted the emphasis towards “nightlights”. You are right about the daytime.
          2. Svateev
            14 February 2018 12: 18
            +1
            Quote: Lock36
            Aimpoint scopes were limitedly used during Desert Storm operations.

            ACOG scope too. The manufacturer’s website has a bunch of reviews of this type: "Before sending to the Gulf, I bought ACOG for my own (option: we, parents, bought our own child ...)
            But you understand what the difference is in the situation: new machines are being purchased from us now. And the costs of their sights are already included in the price of the machine. So why do sights with P on the chest, if you can do P on the head ?!
            Similarly for purchases of night sights for rifles: it was possible to add a mark for a direct shot at the head, but they buy with a mark of 4 and there are fewer marks.
            So to fix the error often do not need extra money. Only a will is needed.
            1. Lock36
              Lock36 14 February 2018 12: 34
              +1
              I do not mind, something else was discussed.
            2. brn521
              brn521 14 February 2018 15: 53
              0
              Quote: Svateev
              we are now purchasing new machines. And the costs of their sights are already included in the price of the machine. So why do sights with P on the chest, if you can do P on the head ?!

              With this approach, it is necessary to change the sights of all machine guns that have already been put into service and shipped to warehouses. But with optics there really can be an ambush.
        2. aws4
          aws4 13 February 2018 22: 40
          0
          Well, this only confirms the fact that if there are no modern sights, then you need to study on exactly what is .. you contradict yourself
  10. Glory1974
    Glory1974 13 February 2018 13: 03
    +9
    The correct and necessary article. I support Svateev Viktor Alekseevich on 100%. In the troops, the topic of firing at head targets has been exaggerated for a long time. Personally, I came across this topic in practice in Grozny in the first company. Low firing efficiency at militants hiding behind shelters at urban battle distances of 150-250 meters. And I, a graduate of a military school, and then my fighters, were taught to shoot correctly in battles. With the sight of 2 or 3, but not "P".
    If you delve into, it seems, learn to determine distances, make corrections and you will be happy. So basically all the big bosses and theorists believe. But in a real battle, you need to do as Svateev says, and this error must be corrected with an eye. Moreover, she went further, penetrated new sights.
    1. Severok
      Severok 13 February 2018 22: 14
      +4
      Everything is exactly so.
      And besides machine guns there are also pistols that are shot like a god put on a soul. The PM has aiming points from tens to the bottom six, ПY has aiming points from tens to (!) The top five! This is to get into the tweet.
      Now imagine that it is imperative to hit the adversary with a pistol at the farthest, understandable distance. In units taught to shoot from 25 meters, no more no less. If in the hands of the PY, then the enemy must be allowed up to 10-15 m, otherwise the sights close the approximate point of impact. If PM - then to get into the chest you need to aim at the eggs !?
      Thanks to the gunsmiths for taking care of the defenders of the motherland, for oh ... what a sighting of weapons from the factory. Indeed, in many parts our well-wishers from Moscow were reformed to the complete absence of RAV workshops, where it would be possible to fix the affairs of filthy factory hands.
  11. leonardo_1971
    leonardo_1971 13 February 2018 14: 29
    0
    Each fighter must shoot his weapon under his own eye, grip, lying. But this requires the desire of a good instructor.
    1. Svateev
      13 February 2018 14: 51
      +3
      Quote: leonardo_1971
      We must shoot our weapons to each fighter under his own eye, grip, lying

      Will not work. At the sight, all the marks (aiming angles) are designed to fulfill the requirements of “straight fly, correct attachment, smooth descent”.
      And if the fighter is so special that his departure angle is not tabular, then, well, personally bring under him, for example, the position of the 3 sight, so he will only hit the 300m, but not at other ranges.
      An even fly, a butt, a descent must be trained, not to get away from this.
      1. DimerVladimer
        DimerVladimer 13 February 2018 15: 58
        +6
        Quote: Svateev
        An even fly, a butt, a descent must be trained, not to get away from this.


        One Uzbek, shot for the first time - the butt under the arm clamping, tracers with a fan in the sky ...
        He put another butt on his shoulder - a line 5 meters from the position scattered the ground ... Tin
        Taught of course.
        All alone, while the department was aiming, he managed to put his targets and 4-5 neighbors in seconds, for which he received a scolding from the duty officer on the training ground and encouragement from the company.
        Military training should go from school - if I didn’t shoot 50-100 small rounds of ammunition in a school dash every day, hell would be taught to shoot in the army.
  12. the same doctor
    the same doctor 13 February 2018 15: 16
    0
    I read it carefully, I can’t verify the authenticity. I hope that if they give me Kalash, then they will conduct a briefing taking into account all the changes.
    .
    However, today Kalash is like a checker among officers of the First World War. And while the quality of the Zlatoust steel drafts did not affect the combat effectiveness of the troops, even today the properties of the riflemen are practically useless. Today it is a weapon of self-defense and police. And in the outcome of the battles will be decided by ATGMs and artillery. Whoever has more missiles and shells will win.
    .
    I would like to share these and other thoughts in a more private setting.
    1. Massik
      Massik 17 February 2018 12: 52
      +1
      Quote: also a doctor
      Whoever has more missiles and shells will win.
      All this is as old as the world. At 41m they also thought so, but no, two weeks before Moscow it did not work out.
    2. midivan
      midivan 17 February 2018 21: 21
      +1
      Quote: also a doctor
      And in the outcome of the battles will be decided by ATGMs and artillery. Whoever has more missiles and shells will win.

      wink hi I hope you all ... at the scalpel and bandages, Kalash does not need you with this approach drinks
  13. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 13 February 2018 15: 49
    +1
    Well I do not know.
    How many shots from the AK-74 - there were no problems with aiming and shooting.
    Thoracic or growth - hits at a distance of 100-300 m are stable.
    True, at the beginning, the tracer determined the trajectory in order to fill a hand.
    I already wrote that the chest target was covered with a small mound, because of which only the corner of the “head” stuck out and it was not possible to hit the target with a direct shot. The knowledge of the trajectory made it possible to take the sight in such a way that a bullet would fly over the mound and fall into the part of the head that was invisible by the shooter — mounted shooting.
    True, I had a rifle discharge from school.
    But the guys from the “villages” shooting was given tight.
    1. Svateev
      13 February 2018 19: 56
      +1
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      Thoracic or growth - hits at a distance of 100-300 m are stable.

      And we are talking about getting into the head.
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      the chest target was covered with a small knoll, because of which only the corner of the “head” stuck out and it was not possible to hit the target with a direct shot.

      Very interesting. Let's clarify:
      1) Do you think that with a direct shot a bullet flies in a straight line?
      2) And when mounted - a canopy?
      1. DimerVladimer
        DimerVladimer 15 February 2018 08: 59
        +2
        Quote: Svateev
        Very interesting. Let's clarify:
        1) Do you think that with a direct shot a bullet flies in a straight line?
        2) And when mounted - a canopy?


        It was understood that aiming according to instructions - you get into an obstacle. Knowing the trajectory - you take it so high that the bullet with a minimum excess flies over the obstacle and "falls" into the target, which is not visible from the lying position behind the obstacle.
        1. Svateev
          15 February 2018 18: 59
          +1
          Quote: DimerVladimer
          Knowing the trajectory - you take it so high that a bullet with a minimum excess flies over an obstacle

          So you can calculate a shot from any sight, including with P. If you know the trajectory (you are absolutely right) and the obstacle is approximately in the middle of the range. Such a case is described in the book "Vanka-company."
          1. Massik
            Massik 17 February 2018 13: 06
            +2
            Quote: DimerVladimer
            How many shots from the AK-74 - there were no problems with aiming and shooting.
            Thoracic or growth - hits at a distance of 100-300 m are stable.
            I don’t have any discharges, but I learned to shoot easily, all targets fell as they should.
            From heaven, the sinful earth had to fall when the targets became small mobile and pose a considerable threat to health. Although they were preparing us very intensively, I did not get into the dirty hat that appeared under the bush from 200 meters. It’s good that it turned out to frighten her and make her hide. This provided our valiant division with an additional 5 hours of work.
  14. Earnest
    Earnest 13 February 2018 18: 06
    +6
    Quote: alex-cn
    An interesting article, but, like rotmistr, I do not understand why a purely scientific (at least for now) dispute should be submitted to a popular site. Most of those present have no opportunity to support or refute the author.

    What does it mean no? What are we doing here then? Or you need to ask a little tougher: "What are they doing here who can not reasonably express their opinion on the issues of firing, physical and other training of a fighter?" Just reading? Then do not write anything in the comments, "do not increase the entropy of the Universe" (C).
    The topic of the aiming point in our unit was raised by officers and warrant officers who returned from Chechnya and tried to teach fighters how to shoot from the bottom up in the mountains and in the city (it is especially difficult in the city where you have to get into the head of a machine gunner in a window, for example). As for our regimental practices, we did not argue much about the “P” and “3”, and with the permission of the unit commander we arranged comparative firing of 2 groups of 5 fighters who were not even informed of any experiments there. The result was in favor of “novelty,” and we just “shot” all the assault rifles in a few shootings so that the STP for the chest figure on the 300 m fell on the head when shooting “under the edge” of the target. This gave a sharp surge (increase) in estimates of firing training (remember the old practice of control firing from AK, with 12 rounds, when it was necessary to hit three targets with "excellent"?). As for the fire on distant targets, then everything was left to chance;
    for all the years of service I have never had to shoot further than at 500 meters from the AK. And about the author present here and his struggle with windmills, I learned already on this site.
    1. Earnest
      Earnest 13 February 2018 18: 11
      +5
      I’ll also add such an argument for the especially stubborn - imagine for a moment that the AK is not an open sight, but a diopter. Presented? Now lose in your head all the options for shooting in battle at quickly appearing targets at a distance of 50-200 m. Here you have all the science from TSNIITOCHMASH ... I’d better underestimate the shot / and it’s not excluded that I’ll get a rebound / and correct the point of incidence of the first bullets sight, than I’ll shoot a bullet over the target and I don’t even understand, I shoot at 1 cm or 1 m higher.
      1. Varna
        Varna 16 February 2018 21: 08
        +1
        Quote: Earnest
        . I'd rather underestimate the shot / and it is possible that I will get a rebound / and when I see the point of the first bullets falling, I’ll adjust the scope than shoot a bullet over the target and I don’t even understand, I shoot 1 cm or 1 m higher.

        Thanks for the advice .
  15. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 13 February 2018 19: 09
    +1
    I remember that all the time at the shooting range the sight was constant “P” and we fired from the AK-74. Because I liked to shoot, by the end of the service, under a contract with 12 rounds of ammunition, half laid down all three targets, and the rest I helped my neighbors. But once 5 rounds were left, and the tavaryshi officers in advance a little on the sidelines, about 70-80 meters, put a bottle of champagne on a stump, so that they could shoot for a bet. I was aiming, as at a machine gunner, under the edge of a hemp, and removed it with a burst. True, then I had to "apologize" through the store laughing Fortunately, officers are also people, and although they threatened to perform sexual acts, they nevertheless recognized the accuracy smile
    So for combat distances of 100-200 meters a permanent sight is enough, especially in high-speed battles with changing positions in the urban environment and in the forest belt, no one is especially aiming. The fire is rather anecdotal. So, in principle, improving the quality of shooting with a change in scope to defeat less noticeable targets is needed for more specialized units. And the soldiers, who mostly use small arms to a lesser extent (artillery, rocket men, rear services, and engineering troops), have enough skills to shoot at the "P" sight
    Personal opinion hi
    1. Svateev
      13 February 2018 20: 20
      +3
      Quote: Rurikovich
      meters in 70-80 put on a stump a bottle of champagne

      You got only because the bottle was close - 75m. We consider:
      the excess of the 4 trajectory over the aiming line (above the bottom of the target) at 50m range is 11cm, at 100m range - 24cm, Therefore, at 75m range the excess is approximately (24 = 11) / 2 = 17cm. The height of the champagne bottle is 25-30cm, that is, the bullets have not yet flown through the bottle (as they do not fly through the head to the 150m range). But if you put the bottle on 150m, where the excess 4 is 33cm, then the bullets would go above it. No, sometimes bullets due to dispersion go significantly below the STP and can get into the bottle and on 150m. But very seldom.
      PS I do not understand the officers who first put the bottle under fire. and then forced her to refund. I prefer officers from the movie "Torpedo bombers":
      - Comrade Senior Lieutenant, you are late for construction!
      “No way, Comrade Colonel, three more minutes before construction!”
      - Throw away your watch, it is behind!
      Starley tears his watch from his hand and throws it to hell: "Permit me to be in order?"
      The next morning:
      - Comrade Senior Lieutenant, you were right - yesterday my watch was in a hurry for three minutes! - The regiment takes his watch off of his hand and gives it to the senior lieutenant.
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 13 February 2018 21: 05
        +1
        They put it out earlier when they were preparing the shooting range. And I had the audacity to knock her down, because I knew who she was "intended" lol So in any case, I was threatened by a store fellow
        Quote: Svateev
        The height of the champagne bottle is 25-30cm, that is, the bullets have not yet flown through the bottle (as they do not fly through the head to a distance of 150m

        Well, whatever you say, but the visible area of ​​the bottle is several times smaller than the target area of ​​the machine gunner and even comparable to the human head (relatively, of course). And if you also take the barrel to the side (EMNIP right up), then the choice of aiming point is also important.
        Quote: Svateev
        You got only because the bottle was close - 75m

        This is an approximate distance - years old decently passed. But the fact that she was somewhat closer than the near growth is undoubtedly hi
        1. Svateev
          14 February 2018 14: 10
          +1
          Quote: Rurikovich
          the visible area of ​​the bottle is several times smaller than the machine gunner’s target area

          I do not question your ability to correctly direct the target and make the right descent. But if the bottle stood on 150-200m, then with any precise aiming it is impossible to get in because bullets are already going above the bottle. It is necessary to reduce the trajectory, and for this it is necessary to know the ballistics not in the volume of the training course of the machine gunner. We, officers, were taught this whole first year of the school very densely, and then another three years in the process of practical use of weapons. And then you reach a lot already in the army.
          That's why I fight for the correct P, so that any machine gunner puts P, leads to the lower edge of any target AND GOT ​​without thinking about any ballistics.
    2. Svateev
      13 February 2018 20: 24
      +2
      Quote: Rurikovich
      for battle distances in 100-200 meters of a permanent sight is enough,

      Not. Already at the 150 range, the 4 trajectory is higher than the head target, the P trajectory is even more so.
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 13 February 2018 21: 17
        0
        I will not argue, especially with you hi smile
        The fact that you are giving the right arguments in your arguments to improve the accuracy of shooting is good. But one should not deny the fact that not all goals are leading at such distances. Yes, and based on purely psychology, fighters can fire just that way. Here it all depends on the task or situation at the moment. Anyway, any battle at different distances in different visibility conditions does not look like one to one request So everything is relative.
        So in any case, the soldier will aim based on his knowledge multiplied by experience hi
        1. Svateev
          14 February 2018 12: 26
          +2
          Quote: Rurikovich
          it is not worth denying that not all goals are leading at such distances.

          I do not deny. And the 155 article of the AK74 Manual does not deny.
          The fact is that when the sight P is made for the lowest goal, then for all higher goals we get without problems. Look at Fig. 2 and substitute a higher target there. Will we get there? Without a doubt!
          Therefore, when I say that AK74 should hit the head, then I mean "start from the head and all higher to growth". And now with P, we hit from thoracic to growth.
          1. Rurikovich
            Rurikovich 14 February 2018 17: 53
            +1
            I agree with you hi
  16. Operator
    Operator 13 February 2018 20: 42
    0
    The correct solution to the dispute about the constant aiming at the range of a direct shot is switching to sub-caliber bullets with an initial speed of 1400 m / s and RPV 600 meters.

    TSNIITochMash, ay!
    1. Mavrikiy
      Mavrikiy 13 February 2018 23: 35
      +3
      They will make a bullet out of a sub-caliber bullet ....
      Will there be a DPV 600 on the growth target and? ..... The accuracy will increase a little, but the problem will remain.
  17. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 13 February 2018 23: 29
    +2
    In the Shooting Courses, starting from at least 1915 to at least the Shooting Courses of 1947, approved by Marshal I. Konev, not only snipers, but all shooters learned to hit all targets starting from the main one. The same thing was abroad, for example, in the German course of firing. Now in the manual on M-16 and, apparently, throughout NATO, targets for submachine gunners begin with the lead.

    Probably, after 1947, having received a new, large firepower weapon, scientists decided to create "the most advanced battle science."
    Like the battle became maneuverable, which means the main target is running. And most importantly, hit her. And the fact that 90% of the battle is a shootout and here we have a frantic consumption of ammunition, with a minimum of hits ..... But the "scientific nature" of the new proved the value of personnel.
    1. Svateev
      14 February 2018 12: 31
      +2
      Quote: Mavrikiy
      scientists decided to create the "most advanced battle science."

      Plus, a higher chest target dramatically improved the results of fire training. The interests of the “new word in military science” and the generals of the non-combatant army coincided.
  18. tasha
    tasha 14 February 2018 05: 44
    0
    If we exclude personal hostility from the article, then there remains only one major unresolved issue - the change in the rate of fire in accordance with the realities of modern combat and statistics of fire contacts. As far as I know, in the Firing Course (CS SB BM and T-2003), the main target No. 5 is mentioned for firing only from a sniper rifle ....
    Maybe in modern editions that has changed ...
    1. Svateev
      14 February 2018 12: 33
      +1
      Quote: tasha
      Maybe in modern editions that has changed ...

      No, not yet changed. It is the need to edit the Firing Course that slows down the correction of an error with P, because at the current rate, they fall on the thoracic target, so everything is normal.
      1. tasha
        tasha 14 February 2018 12: 39
        0
        Ege. Then you still need to start with the shooting course. After all, as I understand it, TSNIITOCHMASH is working on the requirements of the customer - the armed forces.
        "Error P" - this is the second thing ...
        1. Svateev
          14 February 2018 14: 22
          +2
          Quote: tasha
          TSNIITOCHMASH carries out work according to the requirements of the customer - the armed forces.

          That’s how TsNIITOCHMASH answered in the conclusion, they say, the case is for the Ministry of Defense. I quote this in an article.
          But when I proved the mistake in the Ministry of Defense, suddenly an employee of TsNIITOCHMASH Korablin was publishing an article: "Guard, do not reduce the trajectory of P!" And it turns out that TSNIITOCHMASH is interested in preserving the error. Why? That is the question ...
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. woolf-1211
            woolf-1211 11 September 2020 09: 29
            0
            Quote: Svateev
            it turns out that TSNIITOCHMASH is interested

            I didn’t notice that Mr. Korablin would position himself as an employee of the Central Research Institute in the article and speak on his behalf ...
            1. Svateev
              15 September 2020 09: 05
              0
              Exactly. Korablin tried to create the appearance of a "voice of the people". I write about this at the beginning of the article:
              "Firstly, I would like to note that Korablin, in order to create the appearance of a third-party independent view of the problem, modestly signed the article" veteran of the RF Armed Forces. "
              And once again I will note: in principle, TsNIITOCHMASH confirmed that it is ineffective to shoot with P or 4 sights at the head figure. Further - it's up to the Ministry of Defense.
              But changing the high chest to a small head is to lower the mark for fire training. And Salyukov resists as best he can. He hopes to hit the enemy with grades.
  19. sib.ataman
    sib.ataman 14 February 2018 07: 25
    +2
    It is not Svateev and Korablin that need to be dealt with, but the FSB and Korablin. On the face are all signs of intentional wrecking. And further ranting is equivalent to betrayal.
    1. Svateev
      14 February 2018 12: 36
      0
      Quote: sib.ataman
      On the face are all signs of intentional wrecking.

      Is there an article “Wrecking” or similar in the Criminal Code? They say no.
      1. Operator
        Operator 14 February 2018 21: 53
        0
        Article 281 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - sabotage (harming the country's defense ability).
        Forms of diversion:
        - explosions;
        - arson;
        - other actions.
        1. Svateev
          15 February 2018 19: 02
          +2
          Quote: Operator
          sabotage

          Not suitable ... request
          1. Operator
            Operator 15 February 2018 19: 22
            +2
            Other actions to harm the defense of the Russian Federation are the targeted shooting down of sights of regular small arms of the Republic of Armenia.
  20. 130979
    130979 28 January 2020 20: 01
    0
    Good morning, comrades! Please look at my invention, evaluate it. I wrote to Kalashnikov, but they sent me there. What do you think? Technically everything is very simple ... here is a link to my patent: https://patentdb.ru/patent/2615152 Write the answer: [email protected]
    1. Svateev
      15 September 2020 09: 21
      0
      Quote: 130979
      https://patentdb.ru/patent/2615152

      Applicable in principle. No need for PRB, which everyone running around looking for when bringing. On M16-M4, the front sight is moved with the bullet nose using a special screw.
      But to push your "someone else's" invention into the concern ... request