Military Review

Modular weapons: how real is the need?

158
The Russian media, and we, together with them, are discussing a statement by TsNIItochmash on the development of a modular weapons for the Russian army.


Modular weapons: how real is the need?


The idea of ​​using modular weapons in the troops is not new. Many countries, mainly, of course, NATO’s high-tech partners, have long been putting into practice an extensive array of tactical body kits, thereby expanding the capabilities of the average fighter.

“... And the headlamp! Screw the headlight on my forehead so that it can mow at night! ”

(From the folk.)

Of course, America in the race "how to increase the cost of the Marine" defeated everyone. In 1994, especially for the Motherland, the brave guys from the Colt company created a kind of shooting bar for Picatinny or Weaver (yes, there are options too).



But this is all the kit, although the guys from Heckler and Koch also did not lag behind and in 2005 developed HK416.



All these are body kits, trims, forends designed to increase practicality, convenience and high cost. It’s a stretch to call such systems modular, although if you really want to ...

In fact, a module is something that can be uncoupled without using factory facilities and add something else more appropriate to the moment to replace it. So the replacement in the city of an optical sight with a collimator is, in principle, also modular. Especially if both items are included, shot and so on.

But in 2005 the Belgians entered the scene, and the rest hiccuped. The world introduced the FN SCAR. And everyone understood what true modularity is.



Having one base, we immediately get 3 versions, and this is CQC - close combat with a barrel length of 253 mm, STD - standard 351 mm and SV - sniper 457,2 mm for L (light) - versions for the cartridge 5,56 and 330 mm, 406 mm , 508 mm, respectively, for the H (heavy) version under the 7,62 cartridge.

True, in order to achieve those very options, you need to change the trunk.



Of course, the manufacturer claims that the fighter himself can do this with a minimal set of tools. To state, of course, anything can be, the question is only in implementation. It is clear that in relation to NATO, it is absolutely not about the fact that the Yanks or Germans will be picking their rifles with multitools, because they are hot.

It has long been known about the repair units in the NATO armies, so the replacement of modules is the destiny of just these specialists.

Typically, the Heavy version can even be rebuilt for our domestic 7,62x39 with the possibility of power from stores from AKM.

Of course, for such a reassembly, it is necessary to replace the barrel, shutter, lower receiver, that is, leave the butt forend and upper receiver.

What is it? It turns out that here it is, modularity!

But at the same time we understand that even soldier Jane is incapable of filing such a thing in the field. And then a chain reaction begins.

The detonator will be the question: why? And how much will everything be OK?

But let's take a closer look at how cool everything is. It turns out that the unit’s fighter must either carry it all in the grocery cart behind him (carrying an extra pair of kg is not an option), or it will carry some kind of “Hammer”.

It is clear that the second option is preferable for everyone. When they take you for it, it’s excellent. Ok, uploaded to Humvee. But the trouble is, these “Humves” for some reason are tearing at land mines - do not feed honey. And the output is quite a regular situation, when these modules, conveniently folded in a jeep, a little of that ... Spoil. Leaving the compartment (or even two) without the necessary toys.

We exaggerate, we agree. Of course, all these manipulations can and should be carried out at the base. And there all this stuff should lie under the watchful eye of Corporal Bill, who at the right time will take weapons from your not very direct hands and do with him everything that is needed according to the submitted application.

And in the field, in a tent, squatting, and with the help of multitool, re-shorten the Belgian rifle ... I would like to see this, especially on the forelock of the barrel.

But excuse me, why is such a modularity needed if you can just change weapons? If all the same everything lies at the base, once a specially trained person sits there ...

Just imagine two identical bases. In Syria, for example. And from both bases, two groups will go “to the exit” to chase terrorists into the town of Al-Khuhum. Our and American. Maybe they’ll go different, maybe the same ones. What is the difference?

And the difference, it turns out, is that the American guys will carry their trunks for re-equipment, since there will be possible conflicts in the conditions of urban development. That is, down with long trunks, down with optics, put medium and short, flashlights, collimators and so on.

Only the trunk change plays here. The fact that changing it to SCAR seems to be simple is half the battle. Yes, it seems to be simple. Three axes of fastening, hexagons and all that. Just affairs, unscrewed, took out, inserted, twisted.

But if Billy, who did not get enough sleep, does it with a hangover and so on ... The human factor, so to speak ... Undercuts, underscores, and loses a cog ... And somehow it’s not very good either. It’s one thing if you (hypothetical for example) move the bolt frame into the bridge of the nose because of Bill, and another thing if you yourself are slightly crooked.

Perhaps this mentality affects us, but isn’t it easier to go to the warehouse to the ensign Serge Serega and there to take the factory-made finished product, shot and all that? In which no one’s hands were digging, and if you were digging, to be honest, did you often watch AK for repairs? Here we are…

But there is one more thing. Price issue. So, about the price. For everything in this life, including the apparent universality, you have to pay. Pay full $ 3000 - $ 4000. By the way, nowhere is it said that for the money replaceable modules are included. We are even sure that everything has its price, additional and considerable.

And here is the price. How much does the AK-74 cost there? AK-103? And so on? Well, all up to a thousand dollars, SVD will be a little more expensive. That is, for one modular rifle from FN we can stupidly get a box with trunks on our hands, which is for all occasions.

Note a box in which nothing needs to be twisted, twisted and remodeled. In which there will be a weapon with which you can at any time begin to carry out a specific combat mission.

Someone may object, they say, universality is our everything. Need a rifle sniper-Marxman - change the kit and you're done. Need a melee weapon - not a question. We need a weapon under a cartridge of a different dimension - and there are no problems.

Alas, there are problems. Of course, it may not be worth focusing on this, but the resource of the connecting elements in the receiver, where the temperature differences and mechanical loads is very, very.

And the most important thing. It is clear that the resource of all these cogs and cotter pins in the receiver is quite large. It is clear that this is for NATO, which means the best in the world. And we will not argue about how well the Belgian gunsmiths work.

Anyway, you need to drag along heaps of these modules. Plus equipment. Plus specially trained personnel for working with weapons. Plus all the same warehouse workers. By the way, the last two categories need to be fed, watered and all that.

In general: it makes sense to think for some perspective. Especially for those who have problems of a certain nature in terms of production. It is also useful for those who have a professional and small army.

In our case, all the dances on the topic of modularity, changing trunks, calibers, cartridge dimensions - this is from the evil one. In fact, we are able to provide ourselves with a simple but reliable weapon that does not require technicians, specialists in the field, shamans in the forest, and so on.

From good to seek good - well, so-so occupation.

Author:
158 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. NEXUS
    NEXUS 15 August 2019 04: 58
    +1
    Modular-shmodulnoe ... all the same, until the individual weapon of a combatant soldier is better than Kalashnikov.
    1. Same lech
      Same lech 15 August 2019 05: 28
      -1
      I agree ... for some reason, the Taliban, militants of all stripes and colors in warring countries prefer simple and reliable weapons without any canopies and body kits ... as a rule, our Kalash.

      Even simple shepherds with their AK-47s from Africa to Mogadishu were driven to death by American special forces hung with super-skirts.
      1. Talgat I.
        Talgat I. 15 August 2019 06: 29
        -4
        These same Americans demolished Iraq in a couple of months.
        1. Same lech
          Same lech 15 August 2019 06: 58
          +5
          These same Americans demolished Iraq in a couple of months.

          Hussein they demolished and not Iraq ... in return received Isil and a bunch of sympathetic problems.
        2. aybolyt678
          aybolyt678 15 August 2019 07: 27
          +7
          They demolished Iraq with missiles and not with machine guns.
      2. parma
        parma 15 August 2019 06: 41
        +8
        Quote: The same LYOKHA
        Even simple shepherds with their AK-47s from Africa to Mogadishu were driven to death by American special forces hung with super-skirts.

        How many Americans died in Mogadishu and how many "shepherds"?
        And as to the fact that the authors’s ideas about the drunken technique after which the American’s machine gun falls apart ... Why doesn’t anyone consider the idea of ​​the same drunken ensign Seryoga, who gave a blunder when repairing / cleaning the finished product .. If we compare modular weapons and conventional ones - compare it, and if the human factor, so it is necessary to compare it ...
        Modularity gives a big plus - great maintainability ... If a lopsided soldier bent the AK barrel, what to do? Arrange dances with a tambourine, because as the authors noted, "you often observed AKs being repaired" ... And for the same SCAR, replacing the barrel is a small problem (imagine how many barrels there are in the warehouse of a company with Belgian rifles) ...
        1. Same lech
          Same lech 15 August 2019 07: 00
          -2
          If a crooked soldier bent the barrel of an AK, what should I do?

          The bayonet put forward and forth Allah-Akbar ...
          that only Kalash didn’t get up ... the mind could not understand ... he shot anyway.
        2. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 15 August 2019 13: 19
          +5
          Quote: parma
          Modularity gives a big plus - great maintainability ... If a crooked soldier bent the barrel of an AK, what should I do?

          Give out another AK. If a modular rifle costs like 3-4 AKs, then keeping a spare machine in stock is more profitable.
          1. parma
            parma 16 August 2019 06: 21
            0
            Quote: Bad_gr
            Quote: parma
            Modularity gives a big plus - great maintainability ... If a crooked soldier bent the barrel of an AK, what should I do?

            Give out another AK. If a modular rifle costs like 3-4 AKs, then keeping a spare machine in stock is more profitable.

            Can you imagine the amount of paperwork to be written off? Maintainability is always good ... In addition, it’s not quite right to compare the price of Western weapons and ours ... ZP at least different
            1. Red_Baron
              Red_Baron 16 August 2019 11: 52
              +3
              Quote: parma
              Maintainability is always good ...

              That is, our weapons are not repairable? And what cannot be replaced with wear or damage?
              If the soldier bent or somehow damaged the AK barrel, then it must be changed. And here is modularity? For maintainability modularity gives almost no advantages. Because these advantages must be compared with the costs, capabilities, availability of nodes, and so on. And it turns out that in the vast majority of cases, the standard product is much more technologically advanced in production, more convenient to use, cheaper. Than exactly the same but providing for quick replacement or change of characteristics. Now we take absolutely rough estimates. For the army, it is necessary to purchase 1 million modular rifles. of these, 10% will somehow modulate and in rare cases, another 0,5 percent will be immediately re-equipped for other characteristics forever. And everything will be bought 3-4 times more expensive.
              1. ProkletyiPirat
                ProkletyiPirat 17 August 2019 11: 21
                +1
                Red_Baron You clearly do not understand the principle of modularity, this is very common today because of the "popularization", "PR" of "modularity", modules are shoved wherever you spit, and even modules are made for the sake of modules, and not for practical use ...
                For example
                Quote: Red_Baron
                And it turns out that in the vast majority of cases, the standard product is much more technologically advanced in production, more convenient to use, cheaper.

                Well, actually this is modularity. For example, the standardization of cartridges in terms of weight and weight of gunpowder is the very modularity.
                In general, modularity has only three applications (I know only three)
                1) standardization - allows you to independently upgrade several elements, subject to the standard. (for example, different types of bullets of the same cartridge, or different types of armored panels in body armor)
                2) production optimization
                3) simplification of repair \ maintenance \ modernization through the use of less qualified personnel - for example, elements of a personal computer
                As for the "wrong modularity" from your example, then it becomes correct if you use sharpening for different LDPs, for example, it is useful for special task forces where, due to training and the quality of weapons, you can increase the efficiency of completing combat missions, while maintaining the work with "enemy" ammunition (both in terms of additional BC and in terms of camouflage).
                1. Red_Baron
                  Red_Baron 17 August 2019 13: 10
                  0
                  Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                  for example it is useful for mtrs

                  And we are not quite talking about this. I wrote for the army. MTR is much smaller volumes. This is a different treatment with weapons and, as you wrote, due to better training, there is a greater return on various changes.
                  Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                  You clearly have a lack of understanding of the principle of modularity

                  Perhaps then give a definition.
                  Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                  Well, actually this is modularity.

                  Is manufacturability a modularity? How is this?
                  1. ProkletyiPirat
                    ProkletyiPirat 17 August 2019 14: 28
                    0
                    Quote: Red_Baron
                    Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                    You clearly have a lack of understanding of the principle of modularity

                    Perhaps then give a definition.

                    Modularity is the creation of individual elements (modules) created according to the "black box" design principle.
                    Quote: Red_Baron
                    Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                    Well, actually this is modularity.

                    Is manufacturability a modularity? How is this?

                    "modularity in one may not be modular in the other" - For example, modularity within manufacturing may not be modularity outside of manufacturing. For example, in production there may be a "stock" module used in N-pcs rifles, but this stock may not be removable and therefore it will not be a module outside the factory.
                    1. Red_Baron
                      Red_Baron 17 August 2019 15: 13
                      0
                      Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                      Modularity is the creation of individual elements (modules) created according to the "black box" design principle.

                      But the article is about something completely different. It deals with modularity, as the possibility of changing parts of weapons without special equipment and changing their properties. I talked about this.
                      Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                      "modularity in one may not be modular in the other" - For example, modularity within manufacturing may not be modularity outside of manufacturing. For example, in production there may be a "stock" module used in N-pcs rifles, but this stock may not be removable and therefore it will not be a module outside the factory.

                      This is not modularity. I understand what you mean, but this is not modularity. This is a unification of production.
      3. aries2200
        aries2200 15 August 2019 14: 48
        +2
        simple cheap .. and modular weapon breeders have a good fat ............. no need to be carried out by Russian gunsmiths on these "innovations"
    2. Aerodrome
      Aerodrome 15 August 2019 06: 40
      +1
      Quote: NEXUS
      Modular-shmodulnoe ... all the same, until the individual weapon of a combatant soldier is better than Kalashnikov.

      "Kalashmat" is an ideal individual weapon. in any "apocalepsis", I would only take it. good preferably AKSU 7.62.
      1. Catfish
        Catfish 15 August 2019 07: 25
        +2
        AKSU 7.62 - what is it?
        1. Aerodrome
          Aerodrome 15 August 2019 07: 28
          -2
          Quote: Sea Cat
          AKSU 7.62

          1. Catfish
            Catfish 15 August 2019 07: 35
            +5
            But he was never accepted into service, in which case Korobov can be desired directly from the museum. And such a stub instead of the trunk with this caliber will ensure that you get into the elephant no further than ten meters away. From AKMS without compensator tried to work in queues? hi
            1. rocket757
              rocket757 15 August 2019 07: 56
              0
              Come on, in many fantasy books about the zombie apocalypse, "shortening" rules like that!
              Quote: Sea Cat
              And such a stub instead of the trunk with this caliber will ensure that you get into the elephant no further than ten meters away.

              Hi Konstantin soldier
              This weapon is for ..... not for a linear battle of course, but compactness with a good stopping effect, 7.62 is a solid boom even in the armored car, gave him a ticket to ... where he fit!
              It’s better not to go to elephants with him, to African ones, and it’ll come down the little things!
              1. Catfish
                Catfish 15 August 2019 08: 02
                +2
                Hello Victor! hi
                Why, the point is that he didn’t fit anywhere except the weapons museum. Then already, at 5,45 realized. But I don’t want to go to elephants, I feel sorry for them, and we have enough goals here without African elephants. soldier
                1. rocket757
                  rocket757 15 August 2019 08: 22
                  0
                  Quote: Sea Cat
                  Then already, at 5,45 realized.

                  Exactly, the caliber was changing, I did not take into account this ...
                  Quote: Sea Cat
                  And I don’t want to go to elephants

                  Not a hunter, shot at one time, I don’t want anymore ... but skills, where will they go? how I learned to ride a bicycle, forever ....
          2. Red_Baron
            Red_Baron 15 August 2019 08: 17
            +2
            I will now have nightmares in my dreams.
      2. garri-lin
        garri-lin 15 August 2019 12: 42
        0
        Then order a version with a grenade launcher with a noiseless grenade launcher. Like 'Canaries'.
    3. Red_Baron
      Red_Baron 15 August 2019 08: 16
      0
      But this is not about the weapons of a combatant. And can’t Kalashnikov be modular, at least conditionally?
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 15 August 2019 08: 23
        +1
        Quote: Red_Baron
        But this is not about the weapons of a combatant. And can’t Kalashnikov be modular, at least conditionally?

        For a special contingent, lovers of everything complicated.
        And so, it is more difficult, more expensive, "softer"!
        1. Red_Baron
          Red_Baron 15 August 2019 08: 29
          -2
          I agree, but in principle, replacing the same barrel with AK will not play in any way on the reliability or type of magazines, sights, stock, grenade launcher or other module.
          But if we talk about combat units, then something is not necessary at all, in my opinion, but something has been done for many years.
          1. AUL
            AUL 15 August 2019 09: 12
            +1
            Quote: Red_Baron
            I agree, but in principle, replacing the same barrel with AK will not play in any way on the reliability or type of magazines, sights, stock, grenade launcher or other module.

            Spoil the thing! To make the barrel removable - therefore, to change the design. Provide for the replacement of stores - change the design. At the same time, to complicate the design, it is inevitable to reduce the reliability of the design and the weight and price will increase. It’s the same as making scrap with replaceable stings - round, flat, 4-sided, 3-sided ... You can also use homing ones. wink Get a universal tool that can’t work, otherwise it will break.
            Exaggerate, of course, but you understand me ...
            Modularity, IMHO, will be good for civilian shooters - athletes and hunters, but for the army this is evil.
            1. Red_Baron
              Red_Baron 15 August 2019 09: 33
              +2
              Let’s then, in order. :)
              Quote: AUL
              To make the barrel removable - therefore, to change the design.

              quick-detachable in the field - yes. And so it is being changed. Of course, it is desirable to simplify the design.
              Quote: AUL
              Provide for the replacement of stores - change the design.

              SO no - there are different stores.


              The latter is true for saigas, but the meaning is the same.
              Quote: AUL
              At the same time, to complicate the design, it is inevitable to reduce the reliability of the design and the weight and price will increase.

              In this case, no. Everything is already there. At best, simply simplify the replacement mechanism, if necessary.
              Quote: AUL
              It’s the same as making scrap with replaceable stings - round, flat, 4-sided, 3-sided ... You can also use homing ones.

              And mechanized - it turns out a jackhammer, for which there are interchangeable stings :))
              Quote: AUL
              Exaggerate, of course, but you understand me ...

              I understood of course. But in this case it seems a little bit different to me.
              1. AUL
                AUL 15 August 2019 12: 56
                +2
                Well, let's argue, reason.
                1. About changing the barrel. It was not about the ability to change the barrel if it overheats during firing, it has nothing to do with modularity. It was about the modularity of the weapon in terms of changing the length or caliber of the barrel in general, using other types of cartridges and other perversions. By itself, a detachable unit is a unit, and not a "blind" installation once and for all. And, like any assembly, it has less reliability and greater weight than a blind installation.
                2. You write about diverse but full-time stores designed for this particular type (or line) of weapons. Again. we are talking about modularity, that is, about the possibility of adapting weapons to a different ammunition, respectively, with other stores, with other methods of fixing them in the receiver. This is a big enough hemorrhoids for a designer. It will either have to be perverted either with the universality of the receiver, or provide for its entire interchangeability. For anyone, this complicates the design of the product, and, consequently, reduces its reliability and increases its weight and price.
                3.
                Everything is already there. Best case scenario just simplify the replacement mechanism, if necessary.
                But this is not easy at all! It would be simple - they would have done it a long time ago. And so at the stage of design, production and testing, all these issues are very carefully monitored!
                Regarding paragraphs 4 and 5 - no objection. hi
                1. Red_Baron
                  Red_Baron 15 August 2019 14: 47
                  0
                  Quote: AUL
                  1. About the change of the trunk.

                  Quote: AUL
                  By itself, a detachable unit is a unit, and not a "blind" installation once and for all. And, like any assembly, it has less reliability and greater weight than a blind installation.

                  I agree, but now the barrel is being removed, I did not change it myself, but I opened it to read, it was true about the AK-47, but I think about more modern ones the same way.
                  If you make a simpler shift, then of course we compare future reliability with necessity.
                  Quote: AUL
                  2. You write about diverse but full-time stores designed for this particular type (or line) of weapons.

                  Quote: AUL
                  This is a big enough hemorrhoids for a designer. It will either have to be perverted either with the universality of the receiver, or provide for its entire interchangeability. For anyone, this complicates the design of the product, and, consequently, reduces its reliability and increases its weight and price.

                  And here I can not agree with a decrease in reliability and an increase in weight. But in some cases it is minimal. for example, on the AR-15, when reworked to a 9mm caliber, an insert is inserted into the store’s receiver, there are kits for stores. But I think the liner in the receiver is more universal.
            2. ProkletyiPirat
              ProkletyiPirat 15 August 2019 15: 02
              -1
              Quote: AUL
              At the same time, complicate the design, while inevitably reducing the reliability of the structure

              That is, according to your opinion, an engineer adding to the classic bolted connection (bolt + nut) a kind of "lock washer" that prevents the bolt and nut from unscrewing and twisting relative to each other and the fastened elements leads to .... drum roll .... to a decrease in reliability? fool It's a pity that such "engineers" are now a dime a dozen ...
              1. AUL
                AUL 15 August 2019 18: 30
                -1
                If this engineer only THEN adds this "lock washer" (the grower is called laughing ) to where it should have been originally, then this "engineer needs to tear off his hands, and at the same time everything that protrudes from the body!"
                PS It's a pity that such "'experts" are now a dime a dozen ...
                1. ProkletyiPirat
                  ProkletyiPirat 15 August 2019 21: 28
                  -1
                  Quote: AUL
                  (the grover is called)

                  Well, actually this is just ONE OF the names of the lock washers, and I see no reason to paint tens, hundreds, or even thousands of names.
                  1. AUL
                    AUL 15 August 2019 22: 54
                    -1
                    Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                    Quote: AUL
                    (the grover is called)

                    Well, actually it's just ONE OF the names of the lock washers ...

                    Ah, well, this fundamentally changes the matter! wassat
    4. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat 15 August 2019 15: 34
      0
      Quote: NEXUS
      Modular-shmodulnoe ... all the same, until the individual weapon of a combatant soldier is better than Kalashnikov.

      Technology, innovation and requirements for infantry weapons do not stand still, the AK series was ideal for its time, but today it is not so. At the moment, AK retains leadership in two of the most important parameters.
      1) resistance to the mess on the battlefield - the same dust \ dirt \ bumps \ scratches
      2) resistance to the mess in wartime - production errors of BP, manufacturability of production (the ability to produce in non-specialized plants)
      On this, in fact, everything goes problems and shortcomings
      3) inability to work with one hand
      4) too large dimensions - problems during assault operations
      5) poor accuracy of automatic fire
      6) small BK
      7) the impossibility of the full use of an underbarrel grenade launcher (damage to weapons due to impacts from the GHG)
      8) non-integrated noiselessness / flamelessness - even larger dimensions
      9) body kit problems for the current LDP
      Here, for the sake of fairness, it is worth noting that at the moment, AK competitors are doing one thing better than AK, but everything else is worse than AK or just like AK. Therefore, while there are no worthy alternatives suitable for launching in the series.
      1. Droid
        Droid 21 August 2019 08: 24
        0
        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
        3) inability to work with one hand

        There are no machines with which you can work with one hand.
        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
        4) too large dimensions - problems during assault operations

        Everything is normal with dimensions.
        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
        5) poor accuracy of automatic fire

        The AK74 is better than all foreign competitors.
        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
        6) small BK

        More than foreign competitors. Because the 5,45 mm cartridge has the smallest weight of all machine guns.
        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
        7) the impossibility of the full use of an underbarrel grenade launcher (damage to weapons due to impacts from the GHG)

        Quite an opportunity. Here is a limited resource, yes.
        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
        8) non-integrated noiselessness / flamelessness - even larger dimensions

        There are no other than special samples.
        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
        9) body kit problems for the current LDP

        There are no problems for motorized rifles for which it was created.
    5. 3danimal
      3danimal 17 August 2019 23: 18
      0
      There is a Swiss Sig-552, a German HK-416. Reliable and accurate.
      About the price - who earns how much.
  2. riwas
    riwas 15 August 2019 05: 22
    +1
    Modular weapons have been known for a relatively long time. Something the world’s armies are in no hurry to switch to it. Maybe they think that it is not advisable?
    1. Red_Baron
      Red_Baron 15 August 2019 08: 20
      -1
      :) You are a little confused. Firstly, we are not talking about the whole army. Secondly, the transition is not a transition is not at all a matter of expediency. First of all, this is an economic issue. Even just buying a few million units is a lot of money. And to buy rem kits and spare parts for them, to introduce them into the troops, so to speak, so that there would be opportunities to fix, repair and equip them. Rearmament is generally a very rare process.
      1. riwas
        riwas 15 August 2019 08: 38
        -1
        That's when a real need arises, for example, the transition to a caliber of 6,8 mm, in the USA they go for it.
        1. Red_Baron
          Red_Baron 15 August 2019 09: 03
          -1
          you are killing me :)))
          First, why are you running ahead of the engine? Nobody has gone anywhere yet. As will be then, and we will talk.
          Secondly. the arms business is one of the most profitable if not the most. All US wars brought a lot of money to the arms business, because an unprecedented amount of weapons was riveted. In addition to its effectiveness, the new caliber is, first of all, huge contracts and billions of dollars in revenue for which lobbyists are fighting so they can’t eat.
    2. 3danimal
      3danimal 17 August 2019 23: 19
      0
      The armies of developed and rich countries are moving in this direction.
  3. Talgat I.
    Talgat I. 15 August 2019 05: 25
    -8
    Modularity is the future !!!!
    Western weapons are easy to mount trunks, and even in the field! There are no special problems. But the versatility of fighters with modular weapons is increasing!
    1. Same lech
      Same lech 15 August 2019 05: 42
      0
      Modularity is the future !!!!

      Naturally, the future ... but only in the environment where it can be applied.
      In some cases, there is nothing more universal than simple scrap and sledgehammers.
      After a series of revolutionary experiments, the U.S. Navy thought about returning to the traditional layout of the ship's hull.
      https://topwar.ru/161286-chestno-govorja-ne-sovsem-poluchilos-vms-ssha-vozvraschajutsja-k-tradicionnym-korpusam.html
      1. Talgat I.
        Talgat I. 15 August 2019 06: 27
        -2
        In the "collective farm" environment, of course, AK .....
    2. Aerodrome
      Aerodrome 15 August 2019 06: 48
      +1
      Quote: Talgat I.
      Western weapons are easy to mount trunks, and even in the field! No special problems

      the "Kalash" DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO CHANGE, in any conditions.
      1. 3danimal
        3danimal 17 August 2019 23: 23
        0
        So this is from hopelessness, they still will not give another.
        And the convenience of a shortened (not to be confused with the 200-mm stub AKSU-74) at close range (in the city) has not been canceled.
    3. Red_Baron
      Red_Baron 15 August 2019 08: 24
      +2
      And in what versatility increases? Changed the barrel to a longer one and immediately became a sniper, defeated the enemy unit easily? or changed the trunk to a shorter one and you feel dry and comfortable in the city?
      Have you read anything interesting?
      Can there be examples when Western armies in the field changed barrels increasing their versatility?
      Can examples of how this can become at least some key factor?
      By the way, many machine guns have interchangeable barrels - the future has already come!
      1. AUL
        AUL 15 August 2019 23: 04
        -1
        Quote: Red_Baron
        By the way, many machine guns have interchangeable barrels - the future has already come!

        Do not confuse warm with green! Modularity is something else. And the barrel in the machine gun changes to exactly the same not from a good life, but so that the previous one cooled down from intense shooting. Everyday thing!
        1. Red_Baron
          Red_Baron 16 August 2019 03: 11
          +1
          Quote: AUL
          Do not confuse warm with green! Modularity is something else. And the barrel in the machine gun changes to exactly the same not from a good life, but so that the previous one cooled down from intense shooting. Everyday thing!

          Ahh, here it is. Changing the barrel is just an element of modularity. Yes, in machine guns it is used not for modularity but for cooling, but the goals in this case are not important. It is important that it can be replaced for other purposes. The very fact of the design allows this.
          1. AUL
            AUL 16 August 2019 06: 33
            0
            The barrel was changed when the word "modularity" had not yet been invented! Modularity is the ability to change design in order to changes in its characteristics. Single barrel replacement on exactly the same reserve product characteristics does not change! In this case, it is a spare part.
            Changing the trunk is only one side of the principle of modularity, and it involves the use of a set of different trunk parameters. Although the technical solution is used, perhaps the old one. So your example is incorrect!
            By the way, many machine guns have interchangeable barrels - the future has already come!
            Hurry up, IMHO!
            1. Red_Baron
              Red_Baron 16 August 2019 11: 44
              0
              Quote: AUL
              Replacing one barrel with exactly the same reserve product characteristics does not change! In this case, it is a spare part.

              So what. You yourself wrote about AK earlier that quick change requires a design change and it will be worse. And in this case, a design change is not necessary. The node is already made with the possibility of replacement. If at the moment this is not modularity - that's okay. I'm trying to tell you that the node is ready for replacements. If there is a need for another barrel, you can put it.
              Quote: AUL
              So your example is incorrect!

              even as correct. You yourself see what you write. Modularity - not modularity determines only the PURPOSE of replacement. OK. Let’s suppose, and somewhere it’s possible it was that the machine gun was supposed to use barrels with a different type of cooling. Plain, water-cooled and air-cooled with an extended rip. And if necessary, then change the length of the barrel with a different type of arrester. Do the characteristics change? of course. But then, due to low demand and feasibility, the remaining sets did not release or ceased. That is, at some point in time they essentially disappeared. By your logic, in a magical way, a modular design suddenly turned into a non-modular one? This does not happen.
              not only that - even this example is not needed. you yourself write - an opportunity, which means that having it ready is not necessary, it is enough to have it in intent. And when necessary, then .. wow!
              1. AUL
                AUL 16 August 2019 12: 49
                0
                Something I do not understand your logic!
                Let’s suppose, and somewhere it’s possible it was that the machine gun was supposed to use barrels with a different type of cooling ...
                Is this an assumption or a statement? Such facts are unknown to me. And to appeal to the assumption is not serious!
                But then, due to low demand and feasibility, the remaining sets did not release or ceased. That is, at some point in time they essentially disappeared.
                Then the removable unit would be removed from the structure. And for the sake of the uncertain opportunity to produce products that are deliberately unjustifiably complicated (with all the consequences), and even in mass production, and even for the army - no one will!
                1. Red_Baron
                  Red_Baron 16 August 2019 13: 14
                  0
                  Quote: AUL
                  Is this an assumption or a statement? Such facts are unknown to me. And to appeal to the assumption is not serious!

                  I wrote everything in a previous post. Ok, I repeat again.
                  Quote: AUL
                  Modularity is the ability to change the design in order to change its characteristics.

                  You yourself write that this is an opportunity with a goal. That is, the obligation and some technical solutions do not appear anywhere. If you continue this logic, according to my words to which you refer, it just turns out that there is an opportunity, and if necessary, you can set any goals that are required by the situation. Not necessarily today, maybe tomorrow.
                  "The PKT differs from the PC in its heavy smooth barrel, electric trigger, the design of the gas regulator, the absence of its own sights, butt and grip, as well as changes in the external parts of the receiver."
                  Here you are, the nodes that are being replaced. The trunk, by the way, is different.
                  https://topwar.ru/16203-sovetskiy-edinyy-pulemet-pkpks.html

                  Quote: AUL
                  Then the removable unit would be removed from the structure.

                  Why is this. It is used AND for quick replacement of a heated barrel.
                  Quote: AUL
                  And for the sake of the uncertain opportunity to produce products that are deliberately unjustifiably complicated (with all the consequences), and even in mass production, and even for the army - no one will!

                  Yes? https://topwar.ru/159209-bmp-1-kolesnica-jadernogo-poboischa.html here is a relatively recent article. Where design features and disadvantages are described in detail. The possibility was quite uncertain. Although probable. And they released several thousand pieces and this is not a weapon.
                  1. AUL
                    AUL 16 August 2019 13: 53
                    -1
                    You know, you bore me! I stop the dialogue unilaterally due to its complete futility.
                    1. Red_Baron
                      Red_Baron 16 August 2019 14: 15
                      -1
                      You yourself just drove into the head the correctness of some of your ideas. And you do not want to think or accept anything else. I referred to your own words. You, thoughtfully written. But this does not suit you either. It turns out interestingly when it is beneficial for you to take them into account, and when not, then it is impossible. Everything is clear, complete hopelessness, I agree.
      2. 3danimal
        3danimal 17 August 2019 23: 28
        0
        A long trunk - in the desert, in short - in the city.
        More convenient, therefore, the efficiency will increase slightly. For this "few" are willing to pay. The “specific” (in relation to strength) army budget allows.
        1. Pauladin
          Pauladin 20 August 2019 18: 58
          0
          If you drag the second trunk on yourself, then the effectiveness is leveled because of the weight, and if you leave it at the place of deployment, it is more profitable to have either universal or several for all occasions. for all its modularity, the same glushak is worse than a specialized weapon complex + cartridge.
    4. Vitaly Tsymbal
      Vitaly Tsymbal 15 August 2019 08: 37
      +5
      For Talgat I. (Talgat I.) Any clash is very short-lived in time, and the situation in battle changes very quickly and unpredictably, so the time to replace not only barrels, etc. - does not remain. It is not a weapon that fights a man !!! It is only in Hollywood that they came up with a "universal fighter"))) In life it is different: they teach a machine gunner separately, a sniper separately, a grenade launcher separately, a submachine gunner separately. Of course, you can be able to handle all these types of weapons, but it is better to entrust this to a narrow specialist who does not just shoot, but acts on the machine by himself defining the target and automatically takes into account all amendments to external conditions. I repeat the clash is very short in time, and the fighter will simply have no time to apply his versatility if he wants to stay alive !!!
      1. Red_Baron
        Red_Baron 15 August 2019 09: 04
        0
        Well, he told you that this is in your collective farm environment. But the elves are different.
      2. Talgat I.
        Talgat I. 15 August 2019 09: 47
        -4
        For any battle, you can prepare in advance. It's not about transience. What are you discovering America to me. We are talking about the separation of small arms from short to long from small to large.
        What's in Rosarmia - PM, AKSU, AK-74, AKM, RPK-74, RPK, PC and NSV.
        And the enemy can add to the assortment easily and simply especially for the MTR. From barrel length to optics.
        But here you can’t tell everything. This must be seen.
        And you conservatives natspatriotam damn what to prove.
        You all UAZ best car and PM with Kalash they are 50-60 years old but they are the best for you.
        1. Red_Baron
          Red_Baron 15 August 2019 10: 10
          +2
          Quote: Talgat I.
          But here you can’t tell everything. This must be seen.

          Surely beauty, do not tear your eyes :)
          Quote: Talgat I.
          And you conservatives natspatriotam damn what to prove.

          Everything is in order with conservation. Here are cans of 15 cucumbers canned, then we will follow a different recipe.
          Quote: Talgat I.
          You all UAZ best car and PM with Kalash they are 50-60 years old but they are the best for you.

          And where does the age. Colt 1911 what year of development? And a great weapon. Yes, and the AR-15 is not very young.
          In some ways, UAZ is the best car. What do you want to say, what do we, showers, cabbage soup claw to? Well, ok, they didn’t talk about us like that. Only not everything in life is measured by the number of varieties of sausage.
          1. Talgat I.
            Talgat I. 15 August 2019 12: 25
            -1
            AR-15 modern modifications generally have gone a long way.
            Cabbage soup do not slurp. But you do not need to overestimate yourself.
            Now there are good trends in the Russian defense industry. For example, I put an end to the armored industry, but after the publication of Armata, Boomerang and others, I applaud loudly!
            But with the arrows, everything is not so rosy .. although there are Lobaev systems and Orsis. But with a gun for the army and the police there’s still no way to decide on the picture ....
            1. missuris
              missuris 15 August 2019 19: 24
              +1
              Nova is stable shell-free ammunition for weight reduction, Nova is stable telescopic polymer shells for weight reduction, Nova is self-shooting optical modules at the right time, Nova is large-caliber bullets in an air blast, Nova is managed large-caliber bullets, Nova is an attempt to increase the speed of a rifle bullet of the future up to 3km per second - and modularity is simply a several-fold increase in the cost of weapons, because under the guise of one weapon, a soldier is literally selling several weapons.
        2. Vitaly Tsymbal
          Vitaly Tsymbal 15 August 2019 10: 24
          +2
          For Talgat I. (Talgat I.) I outlined my position below ... but I’m making a copy especially for you
          For Red_Baron (Andrey). Not everyone can become a sniper, a sniper is a natural gift, plus a phlegmatic-melancholic personality psychotype. A real sniper should shoot only to kill, he, a sniper, can miss 100 targets and only shoot at 101, because he will be 100 percent sure that he will hit. In addition, the sight on the same SVD differs from those on AK, RPG because it takes into account the peculiarities of firing. So far, a universal sight has not been invented, or maybe there is, but I have not heard of it. And finally - the sniper must be taught both theoretically and psychologically and practically. So I don’t believe that one soldier can be made a “universal soldier” ... Many officers are trained in shooting from all types of weapons, including myself, but I fired worse from PM and AK than from RPG and SVD. Even for EFFECTIVE shooting of their AK and PKK, different skills and knowledge are required, although the difference is in the "elongated barrel".
          Conservatism and patriotism have nothing to do with it, here is "cold" rationalism .. At one time I had to train soldiers for Afghanistan and Ethiopia in the training. So I always told them that the main task of a soldier in battle is not to destroy the enemy, but to remain alive and whole !!! But the "model approach to INDIVIDUAL weapons" which is described in the article greatly reduces the likelihood of a soldier staying ALIVE AND WHOLE ...
          1. Talgat I.
            Talgat I. 15 August 2019 12: 21
            0
            I did not say anything about snipers.
            SVD for me is just a good automatic rifle with an optical sight.
            Marxman! If you know what I mean. But about sniping in general is another topic.
      3. Talgat I.
        Talgat I. 15 August 2019 09: 57
        -3
        In general, all disputes about weapons immediately become useless after comparing the ammunition to them.
        In particular gunpowder !!!
        Imported weapons do not require diligent cleaning after firing, only slightly rub and grease only rubbing parts, and besides, complete disassembly is not carried out. Well and the sleeve !!!!!
        They have brass, with a life cycle of 10 overloads. Accuracy is high due to brass, a soft bullet exit from the sleeve and less chip removal from the barrel. Accordingly, the resource of weapons increases. But Russian cartridges with poor greasy, wet and coking gunpowder, cleaning turns into torture, steel sleeves coated with brass or a tampac from carrozia, the bullet’s output is hard, the impact on the antenna is stronger, the barrel’s survivability is reduced, the accuracy is worse, etc. etc.
        So, first you need to solve the problem with ammunition, then sensible weapons.
        1. Vitaly Tsymbal
          Vitaly Tsymbal 15 August 2019 11: 14
          +2
          For Talgat I. (Talgat I.) ... Talgat, do you by any chance work as a manager in a "foreign" arms dealer?))) And try to "get suckers" into expensive imports? If everything was the way you write about imported, then the whole world should have been only with "imported" weapons and ammunition ... It's just strange why the "natives" of the jungle and deserts prefer Kalash and ammunition to it, rather than "imported" gilded shells and gunpowder from "Versace"))) Practice is the best engine for the arms trade, not advertising !!! Yes, even the "great American importers" have established the production and export of KALASH and ammunition, stupidly "stealing" the development of the Soviet designer Kalashnikov, and they are not alone.
          1. Talgat I.
            Talgat I. 15 August 2019 12: 19
            -3
            I am not a manager. I am an operator.
            I was previously convinced of the superiority of Soviet weapons. Now having traveled and got acquainted with foreign samples, I don’t think so. I tried and learned a lot. Especially unpleasant with heavy weapons, aviation and air defense all the past half century, the West and the United States in particular, easily cope with the maid in Russia systems .....
            That's what you need to think about.
            1. Vitaly Tsymbal
              Vitaly Tsymbal 15 August 2019 13: 22
              +1
              You are certainly right that we have lagged behind technologically in some types of weapons. But the weapon is tested by battle and not always what "easily copes with the main in Russia" at the training ground can cope in a real battle - a question. In the American military-industrial complex, weapons are, first of all, a commodity. A lot of what the US is offering is advertising to promote goods, not weapons; advertising one is supplying another. We and Europeans treat weapons, for now, as weapons (sorry for the tautology). That is why the United States is the leader in the arms market.
              As for air defense, I disagree with you - we are ahead. It seems that Israel makes systems equal to ours, but these systems are good in Israel (taking into account their conditions, these systems were developed), but how will these systems lead in other latitudes, with another enemy (not with Arabs and Iranians) when they face a new missile weapons and aircraft with which the Israeli Air Force last encountered in the 70s of the last century is not known. Yes, some samples of our weapons are technologically outdated, but they have been tested by real combat experience (not always new is better than the old). The situation in the Air Force is changing - old ones are being modernized, new models and technologies are being created ... Our AK is still considered the best weapon for COMBAT USE. Our helicopters are also not in last place ... Ballistic missiles (taking into account hypersound, which so far only the Russian Federation has) - we are technologically ahead of everyone. Electronic warfare systems - the Americans only resent them, and their allies complain when faced with the operation of such systems, not even in combat conditions. We can continue to enumerate ... I hate our government, but I fully support their approach - so that in the military-industrial complex we would not be chasing in an attempt to "catch up and overtake America" ​​in all directions, but create what our army needs, and not the arms market. As the saying goes: not all that glitters is gold !!!!
              1. 3danimal
                3danimal 17 August 2019 23: 54
                0
                Hypersound is not only with us - ATACMS missiles, up to 5M in the trajectory. Suspend it on the F-15E and get their "Dagger".
                And no one has scramjets, although only the United States conducted certain serious tests. So far, everything is quiet.
                Zircon (yeah, in the caliber case) has been waiting for "just about" for about 7 years.
          2. 3danimal
            3danimal 17 August 2019 23: 34
            0
            This is obvious - the indigenous beggars, they need cheaper and so that it does not break quickly. (Chinese Kalash Ann competition). Killing tribesmen will do.
          3. 3danimal
            3danimal 17 August 2019 23: 37
            0
            Private companies that overwhelmingly sold civilian weapons "stole". Because there was a legal opportunity, they wanted to get more profit. What would you do if you were the director?
        2. bunta
          bunta 15 August 2019 15: 07
          +2
          Quote: Talgat I.
          They have brass, with a life cycle of 10 overloads.

          Yes, they would gladly switch to steel. But the steel sleeve in the AR-15 will not work as brass. :)
  4. Stas1973
    Stas1973 15 August 2019 05: 35
    0
    It seems to me that the term is incorrectly defined - modularity. The article deals with "constructors". And there was only one "modular" photo - a skar with a grenade launcher module. Instead, they can screw a module with a tactical shotgun. That's all. And the ability to change the barrel by dismantling / installing individual structural elements is a Lego kit, nothing more.
  5. Amateur
    Amateur 15 August 2019 05: 53
    0
    Of course, for such a reassembly, it is necessary to replace the barrel, shutter, lower receiver, that is, leave the butt forend and upper receiver.

    The main ideology of modularity - the butt and forend - the most expensive thing in weapons. I would add a belt with swivels here. wassat
  6. The comment was deleted.
  7. Earthshaker
    Earthshaker 15 August 2019 07: 36
    +2
    To begin with, the SCAR is in the arsenal of the MTR forces (green berets, NAVY SEAL, etc.) there is no doubt in their professionalism. They know in advance in which region which opponents they will face, therefore they have the opportunity to prepare the trunk in places of constant deployment. Private Jim from the KMP, still runs with the conditionally modular m4a1. And nobody even stutters about Jim’s re-equipment with modular SCAR, since even for the USA it’s expensive. Py. Sy. SCAR-L 5.56, by the way, was rejected by the MTR, since it has no advantages over the m4.
  8. Vitaly Tsymbal
    Vitaly Tsymbal 15 August 2019 07: 51
    +4
    For some reason, I always believed that the main thing for a fighter in combat is not the number of barrels and other "bells and whistles", but the amount of ammunition that he can carry with him ... and in a real battle, the cartridges, oh, how quickly run out. In the meantime, all these modular "shooters" are only suitable for generals, and then only at the training ground and in the presence of a bunch of "money-changers" ... I don't see the point of making individual weapons modular. dead-end direction ...
    1. Red_Baron
      Red_Baron 15 August 2019 09: 09
      -1
      I completely can not agree. Even in terms of the individual. Although here it is least noticeable. Issue a hundred thousand base sets for them a certain number of long barrels and sights, which will allow some of the fighters to arm a little differently. And to release two types of different types of weapons is a big financial difference.
      1. Vitaly Tsymbal
        Vitaly Tsymbal 15 August 2019 09: 38
        +1
        For Red_Baron (Andrey)... Andrey, believe me, when they shoot at you, you least of all think about finances ... although there is such an example in my life. 1983 or 84, I don’t remember exactly, I then drove in a column from Shindand to Turagundi (Afghan) with 126 autobaths. Herat greenery, the spirits set up an ambush and fire at the crawling column (the concrete in those places has already been broken - you cannot accelerate). Accordingly, the column snarls with fire - a machine gun through the window, one hand on the steering wheel, the other on the trigger. It is clear that the effectiveness of this shooting is only psychological (to scare the spirits so that life does not seem like honey to them). I was driving in the passenger seat in a ZIL-130, and the shelling from the driver's side. It seems that he should shoot, and I watch and not interfere with him, but he does not shoot. I (officer) at him - why aren't you shooting? The answer of this private, 19-year-old driver from the Ukrainian SSR surprised me: "So I still won't get in. But the political officer said that one cartridge costs 8 rubles, so why waste people's money !!!" and all this was said in Ukrainian. This was the only time the fighter remembered about finances during the fight. )))
        1. Red_Baron
          Red_Baron 15 August 2019 09: 47
          -2
          And laughter and sin, as they say. But I am by no means about such situations. And when in a calm environment they order weapons, spare parts for them. And a lack of finance will mean that procurement will be simplified. And somewhere it could help. For example, 2-3 fighters in a platoon with more long-range and accurate weapons. Not being snipers.
          1. Vitaly Tsymbal
            Vitaly Tsymbal 15 August 2019 10: 11
            +1
            For Red_Baron (Andrey)... Not everyone can become a sniper, a sniper is a natural gift, plus a phlegmatic-melancholic personality psychotype. A real sniper should shoot only to kill, he, a sniper, can miss 100 targets and only shoot at 101, because he will be 100 percent sure that he will hit. In addition, the sight on the same SVD differs from those on AK, RPG because it takes into account the peculiarities of firing. So far, a universal sight has not been invented, or maybe there is, but I have not heard of it. And finally - the sniper must be taught both theoretically and psychologically and practically. So I don’t believe that one soldier can be made a “universal soldier” ... Many officers are trained in shooting from all types of weapons, including myself, but I fired worse from PM and AK than from RPG and SVD. Even for EFFECTIVE shooting of their AK and PKK, different skills and knowledge are required, although the difference is in the "elongated barrel".
            1. Red_Baron
              Red_Baron 15 August 2019 10: 26
              -1
              Quote: Vitaly Tsymbal
              Not everyone can become snipers, a sniper is a natural gift, plus a phlegmatic, melancholy personality type.

              That's why I say - not being snipers. There, the difference in the barrel is a little more than 15 cm. + A sight with a higher magnification will not make the weapon sniper, it will simply allow you to slightly push the battle distance. In the American army there is even such a thing as marksman.
              1. Vitaly Tsymbal
                Vitaly Tsymbal 15 August 2019 11: 34
                +2
                Americans are not lovers of close combat ... Even for those small analyzes of the causes of the death of Americans in Afghanistan, it becomes clear that the tactics of spirits in close combat are more effective than the Americans, despite the superiority in weapons and equipment. But in the days of our Afghanistan (1979-89), the spirits were afraid to engage in close combat with Soviet soldiers who were 18-20 years old and who were not professional contract soldiers)))), preferring to fight long-distance. An example is the well-known battle of the 9th company of the 345th RAP, but such battles were at the end of our stay in Afghanistan, in the initial period such clashes took place more often, but the spirits quickly learned ... Each has its own tactical traditions))) Therefore, an example from American tactics is not indicator to follow and copy ....
                1. missuris
                  missuris 15 August 2019 19: 31
                  0
                  in fact, the current MTRs of the Russian Federation are not lovers of close combat, it must be completely repelled in order to love close combat in a modern shootout)) people are expensive even in Russia
              2. bunta
                bunta 15 August 2019 15: 24
                0
                Quote: Red_Baron
                there is even such a thing as marksman.

                to be honest, we already got it with these "concepts". Concepts are operated in a different environment. Not military. Marksman is a bit, a warrior class, he stands right after a full teapot. Highest bit depth - expert. There is a "term" (not a concept) Designated Marksman Rifle - which refers to a weapon and its design features. So the M27 of the Yusa marines belongs to the IAR - Infantry Automatic Rifle, they install optics on it and this is already DRM, bipod and it turns out LMG.
                1. Red_Baron
                  Red_Baron 15 August 2019 16: 12
                  0
                  To be honest, I was no less bothered by the word "concept" to translate in accordance with the specific slang that is closer to them. The word "concept" has its own meaning, and if someone does not know it and replaces it with a similar word from another subject, then this speaks in many ways about him and not about the word. I will reveal a big secret.
                  "A concept is a general idea about an object, which includes a number of interrelated features. Sometimes an idea of ​​something" Indeed, the topic is not military, but not the one you think about in the first place.
                  Quote: bunta
                  Marxman is a bit, a warrior class, he stands immediately after a full teapot. Highest bit depth - expert.

                  Similarly, Designated marksman is collectively called Marxman.
                  "The designated marksman (DM), squad advanced marksman (AD), or squad designated marksman (SDM) is a military marksman role in an infantry squad."
                  And here we use exactly the concept that I spoke about.
                  "The DM role differs significantly from that of a specially trained sniper. A sniper is a specialist highly trained in fieldcraft, who carries out a range of ISTAR-specific missions independent of others, and more specialized than standard infantry tasks. In contrast, a DM is a soldier who has received additional marksmanship training. Within a fireteam, the DM's role is to provide an additional capability to the infantry platoon, which is the ability to engage targets at greater ranges than the other members of the squad or section. "
                  1. bunta
                    bunta 15 August 2019 17: 21
                    0
                    General thoughts are inherent in people of creative work - botanists and lawyers. No decent discipline will operate with "concepts", but only with definitions, categories, classes. The foundations were laid by Aristotle, and Monsieur Ockham (actually not Ockham, but oh well) formulated his principle, which was called a razor. In the definition, the term can not have any interpretation requiring additional clarification. Thus, the "gun" is "short-barreled small arms, structurally intended to be held and controlled when firing with one hand" (state standard), not "hand-held short-barreled small arms designed to engage targets (manpower and others) at a range of up to 25-50 meters. There are both firearms and pneumatic weapons." (wikipedia). The difference is felt. So that
                    Similarly, Designated marksman is collectively called Marxman.
                    You can not even comment. Not any text in a foreign language is the ultimate truth, much less matched in an amateur forum.
                    1. Red_Baron
                      Red_Baron 15 August 2019 18: 50
                      0
                      Quote: bunta
                      No decent discipline will operate with "concepts", but only with definitions, categories, classes.

                      Sorry, but what nonsense!
                      Is physics a decent enough discipline? Now I’ll give you the first thing that came to hand. "Absolutely solid body is the second reference object of mechanics along with a material point. The mechanics of an absolutely rigid body is completely reducible to the mechanics of material points (with superimposed constraints), but has its own content (useful concepts and ratios that can be formulated within the framework of an absolutely rigid body model), which is of great theoretical and practical interest. "" There are several definitions of an absolutely rigid body:
                      Absolutely Solid - Model notion classical mechanics, denoting a set of points, the distances between the current positions of which do not change, no matter what influences this body is subjected to in the process of movement (therefore, an absolutely rigid body does not change its shape and keeps the mass distribution unchanged). "
                      "An absolutely rigid body is a body (system) for the points of which {here the formulas} are satisfied. notion represents a mathematical model of a rigid body. "
                      The word concept I highlighted in bold. In the same way, you can open any other decent discipline. For this, leave your pathos for other cases.
                      Quote: bunta
                      In the definition, the term can not have any interpretation requiring additional clarification. Thus, a "pistol" is a "short-barreled small arms

                      More nonsense. "The pistol is a bright blue variable, one of the brightest stars in our galaxy." "A gun is an electromechanical device for melting and dispensing molten glue." Naturally, there may be interpretations requiring additional clarification.

                      Quote: bunta
                      Not any text in a foreign language is the ultimate truth, much less matched in an amateur forum.

                      Well, give at least some justification for the fact that the statement is not true. Your words, in the light of your own posts, are absolutely not enough.
                      1. bunta
                        bunta 15 August 2019 20: 44
                        0
                        You with your examples only confirm my innocence. Sorry, but it’s not interesting for me to discuss with an opponent operating Wikipedia clippings.
                      2. Red_Baron
                        Red_Baron 15 August 2019 21: 12
                        0
                        It is a pity that your correctness is not reflected in science. Perhaps this concept is too mystical for you.
        2. KP8789
          KP8789 15 August 2019 10: 56
          0
          Vitaly Tsymbal
          ........... And the political officer said that one cartridge costs 8 rubles, so why waste people's money !!! "........

          Maybe 8 cents? For today's money, the cartridge 7.62x39 in retail in the region of 10-12 rubles.
          1. Vitaly Tsymbal
            Vitaly Tsymbal 15 August 2019 11: 35
            +1
            Thank you, not rubles, but a penny ... getting old)))
          2. bunta
            bunta 15 August 2019 15: 25
            0
            At all times, one cartridge cost a loaf of bread.
        3. 3danimal
          3danimal 18 August 2019 00: 00
          0
          The Ministry of Defense is trying to save money, since the budget is still limited, there are many programs, and the Senate will give an extra money.
          And yes, for him, one expensive machine with two arches is better than two different ones. Although, conservatism is also present.
  9. gregor6549
    gregor6549 15 August 2019 07: 55
    0
    In my unenlightened view of the "couch expert" all these dice games, i.e. modules are good only for peacetime, i.e. when there is where to store all these modules, and there is time to play with them, etc. In a real war, both small arms and its user quickly turn into "items" of one-time or short-term use, and here the combat effectiveness of weapons comes to the fore, its simplicity, manufacturability, ease of maintenance, reliability in a given range of conditions of use, and, of course, efficiency / cost ratio. Therefore, in spite of all the tricks of the "gloomy geniuses", nothing better than battle-tested weapons like the Kalashnikov assault rifle has not yet been invented.
    1. Avior
      Avior 15 August 2019 09: 27
      -1
      How would you need to compare the comparable, if the price is domestic with domestic, then, in principle, in the West, weapons are more expensive, it’s no secret to anyone, they have other salaries.
      And then the question becomes, what is easier, to carry the ak-74m, aks-74u and svd, or ak-74, two additional barrels and an optical sight?
      It is clear that this weapon is not for everyone, but for certain categories it may well be useful.
      1. missuris
        missuris 15 August 2019 19: 39
        -2
        and for any 3 to carry or carry. 1 barrel AK-12 5.45 assault rifle, 2 barrel dmr microwave oven under 308. 3 barrel bolt mount under 408. If you run into modularity, then you will have to reassemble the rifle every hour for the operation. and you have to drag the assembly kit and the weight savings will be 30 percent of the force.
  10. The comment was deleted.
  11. Red_Baron
    Red_Baron 15 August 2019 08: 16
    +4
    Maybe I'm wrong about something, but I got the impression.
    Talking about carrying trunks and sets of spare parts with you is media talk and advertising slogans of manufacturers. In reality, this is completely unnecessary. Maintenance services must do everything and hand over the finished one before the operation. If necessary.
    There is only one point in modularity. Man sharpen his skills in handling weapons to automatism. And he always has the same machine with him. Which he knows like the back of his hand. Which has grown into his hands, all its capabilities and shortcomings are also well known and in some difficult conditions you will not have to think about how and why and be smart.
    The issue of cost and approach defines a niche. These are only special forces, and not the whole army.

    The first line we see
    "The Russian media, and we together with them, are discussing the statement of TsNIITOCHMASH on the development of modular weapons for the Russian army."
    And that’s all. no more discussions about this and about this topic in general, only a listing of existing and further tales that the US military is well. Very informative article.
    Ideally, there should be a lot of equipment options for a fighter, just like there should be a lot of special forces, just like many climatic zones we have and so on. What would be something to be guided by when choosing. Considering that the issue is needed not large in thousands, and sometimes hundreds of units, this will not be a big burden.
  12. Strashila
    Strashila 15 August 2019 08: 16
    0
    “Tellingly, the Heavy version can even be rebuilt for our domestic 7,62x39 with the ability to feed from stores from AKM.
    Of course, for such a reassembly it is necessary to replace the barrel, bolt, lower receiver, that is, to leave the butt of the fore-end and the upper receiver ", it is not easier to pick up the enemy's weapon, saving your own and ammunition.
    1. Red_Baron
      Red_Baron 15 August 2019 09: 11
      +1
      Quote: Strashila
      Actually this is done.

      where is done in battle?
      And if the enemy’s weapons were not cleaned at all, some of the parts were worn out, and the scope was not shot. It seems to me to perish with your weapons preserved oh how stupid.
      1. 3danimal
        3danimal 18 August 2019 00: 03
        0
        This is done in computer games, CS, etc. )))
  13. Jurkovs
    Jurkovs 15 August 2019 08: 22
    -2
    But nevertheless, Kalashnikov’s time inexorably leaves. I see the new machine as a bullpup 7,62 in microwave architecture.
    1. missuris
      missuris 15 August 2019 19: 43
      +1
      bulpups have a problem with recoil and slow reloading. Although I don’t really like the AK, their design is technologically advanced and reliable, and they will be massively changed only if something completely UX appears
  14. Strashila
    Strashila 15 August 2019 08: 39
    -1
    Modularity is good in times of peace, when everyone is in the workshops and not on their knees in the field. Yes, for special forces, it is easier to take a ready-made weapon than to fiddle with and redo something. Yes, and carrying a "suitcase" of components with you from the principle, and suddenly it comes in handy, the same is not the case. All the oddity is that in the West they are trying to optimize the weight worn by a fighter, but here there is a pile of iron behind his back, but whether it will be useful or not is in question. The main benefit is for the manufacturer, which uses basic elements supplemented at the request of the customer in one final version, without an additional set of baubles.
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal 18 August 2019 00: 05
      0
      So for large parts of the FN-s and do not buy. Special Forces is running.
      IMHO, major land battles in the spirit of 2MB are not expected.
  15. skinar
    skinar 15 August 2019 09: 00
    +2
    I remembered a moment from a naked pistol: when Nordberg using modularity from a 9mm pistol, he received anti-aircraft gun using modularity (like 40 mm Bofors)
  16. Butchcassidy
    Butchcassidy 15 August 2019 09: 03
    0
    Even when I was playing computer games, I did not use mall sets like OTs-Groza or SCAR. I could use it more precisely, but I definitely did not carry a suitcase with modules, which took a lot of time to replace (games like the E5, 7.62 Brigade are made quite realistically). And in the sense of one module, weapons of this type do not have any real bonuses compared to non-modular counterparts.
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal 18 August 2019 00: 07
      0
      So trunks change Mechanics, this is their job. To give a computer game as an example is not comme il faut.
      1. Butchcassidy
        Butchcassidy 18 August 2019 00: 32
        0
        Maybe not comme il faut, but in real life, few have come across live with modular weapons.
        Yes, and the article says about it - the modular weapon does not have any special advantages compared to conventional weapons. I'm not talking about modularity in terms of body kit.
        1. 3danimal
          3danimal 18 August 2019 01: 27
          0
          The article presents the opinion of the author, with whom you can argue.
          The benefit is in cost savings and in a single machine, which is easier to learn to use than different 2-3.
          1. Butchcassidy
            Butchcassidy 19 August 2019 17: 14
            0
            For special forces - it probably makes sense. For all the rest, the benefits are controversial.
            1. 3danimal
              3danimal 20 August 2019 17: 07
              0
              So for specialists, these weapons are acquired.
              1. Butchcassidy
                Butchcassidy 22 August 2019 08: 31
                0
                If they are purchased purely for small special units, then then there is no point in discussing whether modularity is needed or not? As I understood it, it was a question of modularity as a massive (combined-arms) ubiquitous trend, with a future for it.
  17. M. Michelson
    M. Michelson 15 August 2019 09: 06
    -1
    The usual overwhelming skepticism with the advent of new military ideas. A bullet is a fool, and a bayonet is well done, etc.
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal 18 August 2019 01: 28
      0
      Why checkers were canceled? How famously it was to cut into the enemy infantry on horseback))
  18. Sancho_SP
    Sancho_SP 15 August 2019 12: 19
    -2
    Modularity is good.

    But who will carry the extra modules and by whose order to issue?

    Is there a need to simultaneously make 100% of the fighters "snipers" or "paratroopers"? If not, then isn't it easier to change the fighter for the task (of which there are several equipment options in the squad), and not the weapon of a particular fighter?
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal 18 August 2019 00: 09
      0
      The modules will be carried by the workshop.
      Not by snipers, but by Marxists. Weapons for specially trained units, where shooting training is at a high level.
      1. Sancho_SP
        Sancho_SP 18 August 2019 11: 57
        0
        Well, maybe these fighters can immediately give a full-fledged long-barreled weapon? Why would they change caliber or length?

        If you really want to, it’s easier to carry a second weapon. Given the fact that the “workshop” will not be needed - this is even easier.
        1. 3danimal
          3danimal 20 August 2019 05: 45
          0
          It is likely to carry (and buy) a second unit is more expensive. And the workshop is always nearby. We are talking about the army with the best equipment. But where possible, try to save.
  19. beeper
    beeper 15 August 2019 12: 24
    -4
    In principle, there is nothing particularly difficult in the design of weapons, especially if there is already a "good cartridge" for it! winked
    Even with the same Kalashniko-Zaitsevsky "locking unit", in my opinion, "oversized" in radial dimensions (in comparison with the manufacture of "multisymmetric" lugs directly in the body of the breech part of the barrel!), Due to an understandable simplification of its design (for the sake of simplification of the production technology!) by "winding (and then, starting with AKM, and a threadless connection, by pressing, with pinning)" on the breech of the "intermediate link" -milled liner, which perceives, closing in itself, all loads locking unit when firing (and additionally has the function of a shock "turn" of the bolt before the start of locking and extinguishing the inertia of the bolt at the end of the bolt locking, attaching the barrel to the receiver, mounting the sight parts, closing the gas tube and bolt guides, bolt carrier, gas piston with a stock and a cartridge fed from the store, the stop of the free end of the ramrod ...) it is quite possible, "in Sudaevski (PPS), in Dragunov (MA) "having assembled the weapon, create a lightweight" reconfigurable "design.
    Although this, more than a century and a half ago, "double-shoulder" scheme of locking the bore, I do not consider optimal at the current (much higher than even in the mid-1940s, and not the middle of the century before last!) Stage of development of materials and engineering technologies. To me, as a designer and technologist, "mentally closer" is the Dragunov "three-point" locking scheme! But I do not shy away from the widely used "multisymmetric" one, for example, "six-point"! smile
    With the correct preliminary conceptual solution of the "system" of such "reconfigurable" weapons and "realistic (organizationally, financially and resource-secured) problem setting", there are no insurmountable design and technological obstacles (except for insufficient qualifications and experience of developers, alas, it is a tendency!) Russian gunsmiths should not have light and compact operating models (unless, of course, there are goals of "an elementary cut of the budget!). yes

    PS IMHO But hopefully, just like that quickly (by simply changing the barrel-bolt, cartridge and trigger mechanism with the butt and changing the sight), get also, obviously "piece" in its characteristics, sniper weapons from such a mass production, soldier's "transformer" -this is a notorious "idefix" winked ! Meticulous adjustments and adjustments will be required, as well as zeroing - "bringing to a normal battle"!
    1. garri-lin
      garri-lin 15 August 2019 14: 13
      +2
      Sniper sniper strife. It has been surprising me for a long time that in the Russian language there is no division into precise shooting at medium and long distances. In the west there is a Marksman of 600-800 meters and fast shooting and a Sniper of 800+ meters and preparation of a shot. Conventional weapons by upgrading can be adapted to the needs of Marxmann. But under the sniper, in this I swear
      1. bunta
        bunta 15 August 2019 15: 34
        +1
        Quote: garri-lin
        It has been surprising me for a long time that in the Russian language there is no division into precise shooting at medium and long distances.

        And thank God! :)
  20. garri-lin
    garri-lin 15 August 2019 14: 07
    -1
    Modularity is like a toy. As prtzhmet so immediately and enough. But I want to throw an idea. The barrel ground for work in the premises of an ordinary cartridge. So that the supersonic bullet gives much less sound and flame when fired. Oddly enough, nobody seemed to care about such issues, although there are theoretical works.
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal 18 August 2019 00: 13
      0
      What can push? Dramatically impoverished and not be able to contain MTR?
      Tactical silencers have long existed and are used.
      1. garri-lin
        garri-lin 18 August 2019 01: 50
        0
        Well, it was a banter. But seriously tell me the muffler which when firing with an ordinary cartridge reduces the sound to a muffler.
        1. 3danimal
          3danimal 18 August 2019 03: 13
          0
          There is TGP-A, it reduces the noise level to 102 dB, removes the flash, the shooter in an open area is more difficult to determine.
          1. garri-lin
            garri-lin 18 August 2019 08: 28
            0
            A good thing, but rare, massive and still loud. Buildings with Kalash with Takots Pribluda are not clean. He is only in the field. According to reviews of airsoft players who use a similar length of nozzles with them, even in the forest it is inconvenient. Cling. Alas, I did not see the military reviews. Therefore, I remembered about airsoft players and only in terms of convenience.
            1. 3danimal
              3danimal 18 August 2019 12: 48
              0
              In a field, in a forest, fire from cover. By the sound they don’t immediately understand where the fire is coming from.
              About the "convenience" I agree. Immediately + 20% of the weight to the machine, a change in balance.
              1. garri-lin
                garri-lin 18 August 2019 13: 03
                -1
                The worst thing is indoors. A couple of short bursts and deafness for a couple of minutes. If the target is not hit then it becomes very unpleasant. Figs laughs running away or preparing a grenade or something. That's what fun lovers of modularity need to worry about, as it is a short barrel with an integrated silencer, similar to the Valais. But to eat regular cartridges. And the erhonomics and ears are not clogged with cotton.
                1. 3danimal
                  3danimal 20 August 2019 05: 54
                  0
                  There are tactical headphones. They let in (if necessary, amplify) the surrounding "quiet sounds", but they greatly muffle sharply loud, like the sounds of shots. Enough of a charge of 16 hours.
                  21st century, many useful gadgets.
                  1. garri-lin
                    garri-lin 20 August 2019 12: 31
                    0
                    It was discussed. To crush such headphones by noise will not be a problem. Like EW only in the audio range.
                    1. 3danimal
                      3danimal 20 August 2019 17: 14
                      0
                      Oh, that almighty reb. And he sneaked into the acoustics) Crush, how did the Su - 24 "crush" the American destroyer? )) (If so, it will only work on a few TV channels.)
                      Are you going to place five-meter speakers in a clean field?
                      In addition, headphones cut off specific frequencies heard by a person. Knock out their EMP electronics? But then too.
                      Isn’t it easier for both parties to calmly use the achievements of civilization without suffering such questions? And then we will agree before the search for ways to disable the collimators (we ourselves don’t need them for nothing);)
  21. aries2200
    aries2200 15 August 2019 14: 49
    -1
    simple cheap .. and modular weapon breeders have a good fat ............. no need to be carried out by Russian gunsmiths on these "innovations"
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal 18 August 2019 00: 15
      +1
      Although having a small "specific" budget (in comparison with rich countries), the Russian army can afford to expensively equip special forces.
    2. garri-lin
      garri-lin 20 August 2019 18: 55
      0
      Sound crush. And not EMP. Modulated beep. They start to drizzle. A large, complex weigh like a helmet.
  22. Undecim
    Undecim 15 August 2019 14: 51
    +1
    In principle, the author can be understood. Issuing an article every day to the mountain, taking into account the fact that the subject matter of the articles covers a range of all nine octaves, is a very difficult task, I will tell you from my own experience. Even more than that. Here, the author can only take off his hat.
    The downside of such fertility is that there is no time left to sort out every issue that you have to write about. For authors struck by excessive perfectionism, this is an insurmountable barrier. But authors who are not deprived of a sense of militant amateurism and possessing the corresponding FAC are not an obstacle. Therefore, the Internet is overflowing with materials that have little to do with reality, and searching the network for quality information has become a process akin to the process of searching for pearls in a dunghill described by the storyteller Andersen.
    A vivid example is today's article. The author did not even bother to deal with the history and meaning of the issue, but immediately proceeded to the process of bringing the idea to the point of absurdity to discredit it.
    What is a modular weapon in general? This is a weapon, the design of which allows to obtain samples for various purposes on one base or to increase the operational properties of the weapon by facilitating the replacement of a node (module). A classic example is the quick-change barrels (modules) of machine guns, carried out by forces of calculation with the use of simple devices or without any.
    But progress does not stop, and in 1963, Eugene Stoner showed the world what real modularity was by constructing his famous Stoner 63 (aka M63, XM22, XM23, XM207 or machine gun Mk 23 Mod 0).

    The specified sample made it possible on one base, using modular elements, to get an assault rifle, a carbine, a light machine gun with magazine feed, an machine gun with tape power.
    It cannot be said that the first step was very successful (about 4000 copies were produced, used by "fur seals and" green berets "in Vietnam and Grenada), but it was not exactly a failure either. Rather, the idea was ahead of its time. Periodically, some manufacturers returned to For example, the 1978 Steyr AUG, from which a set of modules could be used to obtain weapons from a submachine gun to a sniper rifle.
    Today, the idea has reached a new level and has become a global trend. Modern technologies make it possible to implement those design ideas that 20-30 years ago caused difficulties.
    Therefore, "the statement of TsNIITOCHMASH on the development of modular weapons for the Russian army" suggests that this very TsNIITOCHMASH follows the leading trends in the world arms market and thinks about supplies not only to a rather limited domestic market and not only about arming the Papuans and Somali pirates for whom "kalashmat is our usio", but also about the markets of "high-tech" countries, that is, it works for the future.
    As for the content of the article, everyone can evaluate it himself to the best of his knowledge. One thing is clear - the author has absolutely no idea about the organization of the repair of small arms in the troops, either in a historical context or at the present stage. Hence the remarks like "even Jane's soldier is incapable of filing such a thing in the field." A soldier, yes, not capable. For this, the troops were and are specially trained and equipped people.
    From the same line and the replica "In our case, all the dances on the topic of modularity, changing barrels, calibers, dimensions of cartridges are from the evil one." If we assume that in the future the country will rely on the army "from the plow", with a year-long training of the "military", which takes quantity - then, of course, any modularity is pure cunning. For a year, it would be good to at least shoot in the right direction to teach, what kind of modularity there is.
    But if in the future we have high-quality growth and professionalism, then it is not out of place to think about modularity. But if you don’t think about it today, then tomorrow, as experience shows, will have to be for a completely different price.
  23. WapentakeLokki
    WapentakeLokki 15 August 2019 19: 19
    -3
    Kalash is good when a whole KAMAZ with BC goes behind you .. then you can play in bursts (to melt the barrel - maybe at least one bullet from the whole (WHOLE CARL, WHOLE STORE) store hits the target .. But the NATO people prefer single fire and their weapons (albeit terribly capricious and afraid of dust, and ..) but the EXACT one and even equipped with relatively cheap optics allows aimed fire ... No, I agree, they often spit at a distance and then accuracy and integrity do not steer like that anymore .. . Why are they M - .. and HC - .. weapons of professionals and our AK (not even 74 and 12) is the weapon of a draftee (who didn’t shoot before service, often even from small things ... or a firearm to Rassei (unlike the mattress amendment) the strictest TABU ... and from such a contingent in 2 years make an arrow..WELL VERY EXPENSIVE..that they rely on the Russian Armed Forces on the shaft .. but not on the individual .. and under this case, at the same time , hi everything and everything behind the hill .. of course, because our AK can even use a stupid nigg-er or mahmud, but .. a decent assault rifle ..
    1. nedgen
      nedgen 16 August 2019 23: 57
      +3
      Sorry, WapentakeLokki, but I'm very interested, have you ever served in the army? Or how many of the Kalash were shot? I really had to. And not from 74th but from 47th. And although I was not a motorized rifleman, I fired 800 shots with extra shots at the targets. But how did the motorized rifle fire? It should have been seen !!! And this was in the backward BNA (Bulgarian People's Army) before the arrival of dermocracy. In just six months, ordinary guys began to hit targets at a distance of 300-350 meters, and then not even from an AKM, but from an ordinary AK even in motion !!! I have personally observed this more than once. And it's all about the "inaccurate AK" :). In fact, it all boiled down to good shooting training and excellent range conditions. And more REGULAR shooting !!! Our targets moved, appeared, disappeared, moved obliquely, etc. When we were pushed into NATO by our own politicians and the Usovites saw the shooting ranges, they simply gaped their mouths with weariness !!! Their shooting range of the usual infantry ji ai is expressed (although he is a professional) in shooting from a prone position at fixed targets at 100 yards. And then he count how many points he knocked out !!! And this despite the more sophisticated and accurate M-ku hi ! So they took from our bastards the largest military training ground in Bulgaria "Novo Selo" and now use it for 100%. So it all comes down not to the bad qualities of the AK assault rifle from 47th to 12th, although in my opinion the latter has an unnecessarily complicated design ... Why the hell do you need a 3-shot cutoff? and even this "brilliant" idea with a plug on the gas tube, which is NOT a problem to lose when cleaning in the field !!! About more accurate western rifles. This is only partially true. Firstly, the difference is no more than 5-10% (and half of these percentages due to the higher quality of cartridges) and secondly, in a BATTLE even a fighter with the best rifle in the world does not show even half of what is shown at the training grounds !!! The human factor has not yet been circumvented. As for the fact that NATO members prefer to conduct accurate fire ... Well, my grandmother said in two. If you consider HOW to prepare an ordinary shooter, you can't say that. If an infantryman can hit with 100% accuracy ONLY stationary targets and not shoot at all moving targets in peacetime?
      1. WapentakeLokki
        WapentakeLokki 17 August 2019 18: 10
        0
        In general, I'm talking about the `` culture of handling firearms '' because (despite all attempts, while the mattress makers have their amendment to the constitution, and, at least, the inhabitants of the provinces) use a firearm since childhood ... and this imposes its own the whole ideology of their firepower training (by the way, it's not a secret for anyone that when the fuse is switched down, the first goes to the AK and then One, and the Americans, on the contrary, are a trifle but .. it says a lot) .. and also .. training with <0> the arrow is VERY EXPENSIVE (both in time and in $$$) and if this is not a special forces then ... alas ... well, you can disagree with me and in your case they taught you in the CA well, but ... I myself was engaged in shooting with schools and remembering how many packs of small pieces I translated while I learned ... at least not to blink when fired (but look at the militants, both ours and the enemy, and how the actors squint there and how they shake the BP ... and ... it's all laid down with STRONG TRAINING) ... I will summarize until SERIOUS BABKS are invested in pre-conscription training ... the only way out of our infantry ... automatic fire .. yes, not the whole horn .. even though something like that ..
        1. nedgen
          nedgen 17 August 2019 22: 03
          +3
          Hi WapentakeLokki, I was not talking about training in the SA, but about training motorized rifles in the SUA. It's all the same different armies laughing although both were in the police department. For example, I heard that in the SA before Afghanistan the shooting training of all but the airborne forces, marines, explosives and special forces was greatly curtailed. I do not know why. Specialized branches of the armed forces, such as tank, missile, artillery, etc., were especially hard hit (I mean shooting from personal weapons). I read somewhere that this happened because of the insufficient capacity of the cartridge factories in the USSR in the 80s, but I don’t know if that is so. In the fact that the Yusovites are more likely to become faster better shooters because of the great opportunities (even huge) before the army in this, I absolutely agree with you. But even they cannot become good foot soldiers without regular and focused training. In other words, without regular shooting at ranges and then on moving targets from a variety of positions. And this is probably only taught in the Usov Army from rangers and special forces, I’m not sure that even the Marines can be taught it. And here in Bulgaria during the time of Sots, ALL motorized rifles were taught. Now I do not know. Now in the BA (Bulgarian army) the influence of NATO is too strong. Including shooting training. And about the Russian army, I have no data at all request As for pre-conscription training in I agree. I went through this myself. The good thing was. But the main thing is not to SAVE combat shooting in the army. Moreover, the AK-74 in accuracy of shooting and accuracy from unstable positions is a cut above the AK-47. With regular shooting at least once a week for 6 months you get a good shooter. I saw it myself. And for the year is very good. Of course not a sniper, but a sniper is not sure that he will be able to hit a machine-gun target in motion the first time for 200-300 meters. This is worth the money, BUT WHERE HUMAN LIFE IS MUCH MORE.
          1. 3danimal
            3danimal 18 August 2019 00: 22
            0
            About training for the Yusovsk infantry: look, there are many channels on YouTube where people (including from the former Union) talk about training in the field and shooting training. It is clear that with cartridge factories everything is fine there.
          2. WapentakeLokki
            WapentakeLokki 18 August 2019 19: 13
            0
            Brother .. eh .. for ... yes, when in Russia they valued .. soldier’s lives ... we don’t have the State Department and the Senate request for losses .. and the journalists and TV .. they play on our side (it seems that ..they are not good people on the balance sheet of the CIA ... and as a result ... and as a result - a Fool bullet .. a bayonet YOUNG ... and this does not play in the 3st century .. there is certainly a replacement for fire training such as airsoft and pentball but .. the shotgun can not be replaced with a virtual mouse and joystick .. and the Matrix .. until .... so what to learn to shoot in a year .. I don’t know .. I remember me (with a 12-time trip to the shooting range) they taught only stances and the right descent (without a jerk) for almost a month .. well, maybe somewhere there are born Chingach Guks but .. it’s better to learn at 18 years old and not XNUMX .. maybe but .. EXPENSIVE ..
            PS And I continue to assert .. TTX riflemen are a direct derivative of the quality of the soldier using it .. and so the destiny of Russia is ABT, and under that also TTX AK .. where accuracy .. not important .. main reliability (Schaub stupid draftee Could not ( if he wants to) to destroy state-owned weapons by the lack of proper care (an example of SVT-40 .. in a new round of development .. alas ..)
      2. 3danimal
        3danimal 20 August 2019 06: 01
        0
        Take an interest in the training of infantrymen in the USA and the number of firing that takes place during it.
        A person who often trains is well prepared. This principle works everywhere.
        In addition, many recruits already have shooting skills, Texans, for example (like Chris Kyle).
  24. LastPS
    LastPS 16 August 2019 10: 03
    +3
    - why do the authors consider modular SCARs as if they were a massive weapon for every soldier, as far as I remember, they are very limited in service with special forces? With this approach, all these "drunken Johnny reassembled something wrong" does not work - one would think that the special forces would entrust the operations on weapons before the operation to drunk Johnny, and then how do you know where in the assembly it is possible to mess up? In FN, the designers do not even say that there are bottlenecks during reassembly is incorrect, maybe there, in principle, it will not work out crookedly - protection against a fool during assembly is quite logical and is massively used everywhere, and the level of gunsmiths, I think, is higher than in the army as a whole. The argument "and if a hummer with modules bangs" is the same attracted, a shishiga with Kalash can bang. Modularity is good for unification, it's not only about adjusting the weapon for a specific task, but the authors also don't say a word about this. Price - yes, expensive, but never massively, so again, no argument.
    1. Red_Baron
      Red_Baron 16 August 2019 11: 55
      +2
      I already wrote above - the authors came up with or picked up from other media the idea that since the modular and the manufacturer are sure that they can replace them right in the field, then everyone will do it right away or that someone will suddenly need it. In fact, they themselves came up with the thesis, and they themselves mock it.
  25. cat Rusich
    cat Rusich 17 August 2019 01: 11
    -2
    Modularity - a car dealership offers a car with different motors (the make and model is the same). But, but again, but ... Nobody offers to buy one car and 2 (two) different engines (for example, gasoline and diesel). No one offers to carry a replacement motor with you (for example, in the trunk). Those who advocate modularity (change of calibers, for example) - change the "diesel" to "gasoline" at each gas station (at one gas station I refueled with diesel fuel, at the other gasoline), you can also change the "engines" of different power (in the city - 1,2 liters, and outside the city - 2 liters). I know that the military has "omnivorous" engines - but they are a separate topic.
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal 18 August 2019 13: 58
      +1
      Not entirely correct interpretation. The salon here is a workshop. And we decided to buy cars with a set of engines for all occasions.
      1. cat Rusich
        cat Rusich 18 August 2019 21: 27
        0
        First 1) We go to a car dealership and buy a car and 5 (five) engines "for all occasions", 2) we leave on a "business trip", together with a mechanic and engines "for all occasions". The question is, how appropriate would it be to change the engine "in the field", "in the middle of the road"? Real life example: what will we buy? - a set of different screwdrivers or 1 (one) basic handle with a set of interchangeable heads? Everyone decides for himself what is more convenient for him ... In the army, everything is chosen for us, let the users of these "products" express their opinion ... hi
  26. cat Rusich
    cat Rusich 18 August 2019 00: 59
    0
    When the king-priest in RIA was a modular Mosin rifle. 1) Long barrel - infantry, 2) Medium barrel - Dragoon, 3) Short barrel - carbine. Ended up with what? In 1944 they adopted the Mosin carbine in 1944 - one barrel length at all ... The Germans in 1935 adopted the Mauser 98k (K98k). You can still recall - particularly accurate, selected Mosin rifles turned into SNIPERS (put the PU scope and that's it). Everything is new - well-forgotten old ...
  27. zombee
    zombee 18 August 2019 15: 35
    0
    Quote: Red_Baron
    And mechanized - it turns out a jackhammer, for which there are interchangeable stings :)
    and with which you will work with the standard 4-sided lance, and all sorts of flat ones will roll around in the warehouse until they are lost
  28. zombee
    zombee 18 August 2019 15: 56
    0
    Quote: Talgat I.
    But with a gun for the army

    Excuse me, but why the heck is the gun in the army? shoot yourself? so it is and from a Nagan ..
  29. Dmitry Hamburg
    Dmitry Hamburg 19 August 2019 07: 26
    +1
    To produce 6 automatic machines, or 6 barrels for automatic machines and 2 shutters - which is cheaper? You can, of course, complain that our ak is much cheaper, and indeed no one canceled the squeak - but skar could have been much cheaper if it had not been a commercial product. And so, during the war, even the cheapest ammunition, private traders can sell at the price of a train loaded with them. Take an interest in the situation during the First World War.
  30. grumbler
    grumbler 29 August 2019 12: 47
    0
    > Modularity is a wonderful thing. But you have to pay for modularity - PAIRING.
    Modularity works great where the "price" of interfacing is relatively low - this is electrical engineering, electronics, IT (and how many problems and gross errors in organizing interaction: from large-scale architecture to private problems "with contacts").
    In mechanics, pairing is quite "expensive". Pairing fee: complication, decrease in reliability.
    The modular mechanical design in total will be less optimized in terms of mass dimensions,
    than a "licked" monolith. Rise in price. Increased requirements for qualifications and care.

    As was correctly noted in the comments above, it is important at what level of the design hierarchy we are talking about modularity. And where we draw the boundaries between the modules. Examples of the natural boundary: "Weapon-source of ammunition" (is it possible to attach the "horn" from the machine gun to the machine gun, if the tape runs out, power the "maksman" rifle from it?). "Weapon-man" border (handles, butts, bipods, sights, silencers, flame arresters). Border "Weapon-weapon" (removable grenade launcher). The ability to replace the machine gun barrel on your own - yes, it can be useful for the Operator. This modularity is similar to the use of interchangeable working bodies in multifunctional tools (machine tools, hammer drills).

    The auto industry is a good example. Modularity at the level of components and assemblies. A "spare" is a module that encapsulates a hub, tube, tire. This allows the user to quickly restore the performance of the entire system (car) by replacing a critical functional element (wheel). The concept of a "platform" based on which different configurations can be assembled at the manufacturer's plant. But so far it is impossible to buy a set of blocks, from which you can assemble a 3-door yourself. hatchback, 5-door sedan or minivan, depending on whether you are going to work, take your family to the cinema or transport building materials for the renovation of the summer cottage. The "price" of pairing is too high.
    And by promoting modularity in weapons, we are called upon to do just that: "with the help of a set of modules it was possible to get weapons from a submachine gun to a sniper rifle." This modularity goes much deeper into the design and does not follow "natural boundaries", i.e. potentially dangerous.

    And the second observation. The farther we are from commercial vehicles and approach the sports ones, the stronger the integration of components and assemblies will be. Mass dimensions dictate. Continuing the "car" analogy, we can say that small arms are between a "racing car" (in terms of requirements for mass dimensions) and a "commercial van" (in terms of the required endurance, simplicity and low cost of maintenance).

    We often read that a monolithic AK is a weapon for "village idiots" - recruits, and modular structures are for "smart fighters" of the XNUMXst century. But they rarely remember that a "smart fighter", but very tired, in the dark, in the cold and mud, in the pouring rain, with stiff fingers from the cold, perhaps wounded - in terms of "competent exploitation" will differ little from the notorious "deer. rookie ". And how will mates behave? But even in this situation, the weapon should remain reliable, it should be intuitively easy to use (on this basis, I would give a "smart fighter" a well-optimized monolith of the AK type, rather than a deep-modular design. And the efficiency of the fighter was increased by ammunition, communication and surveillance equipment , light and comfortable shoes, clothing and equipment)

    It is clear that the modularity is interesting for Designers as a beautiful solution. Manufacturers are interested in it - it is more profitable for them to produce a set of modules. From them to assemble product lines that flexibly cover different niches of a dynamically changing market. Without the need to maintain production facilities for niche monolithic solutions. This is a reduction in business costs, a quick response to market demands - yes, cool. In this area, modularity is good.

    But Production and Operation are different subject areas. Their requirements may contradict each other.
    If in the field of "combat use" modularity contradicts the operator's expectations (reliability decreases, weight increases, maintenance requirements increase), then modularity is evil. Before widely implementing modular solutions, you need to make sure 10 times that this does not reduce the parameters of the product in the most important area of ​​"combat use" and will give a noticeable overall increase in efficiency and reduce costs in the areas of "storage and logistics", "supply of ammunition", "repair "etc.
    In general, such a good task for system engineers.
  31. prosto_den
    prosto_den 1 September 2019 20: 07
    0
    Sorry a lot of bukff.
    Hmm. Strange article. I'll start from afar.
    In the USSR, in 70-80 years, 3 main tanks were in service. T-64, T-72 and T-80. Generally incompatible with each other. The fact that this nonsense is recognized by all. The costs of design, equipment for repairs, etc. everything had to be multiplied by 3. Sheer waste. But the same situation in the armory for some reason does not surprise or bother anyone.
    So, modularity is needed first of all for manufacturers and the state, as the main customer, because modularity firstly drastically reduces production costs, secondly it significantly facilitates logistics, and only thirdly allows fine-tuning of weapons on site for specific operations.

    And the first thesis of the author is that modular weapons are more expensive than usual. That is, the author claims that the FN SCAR is more expensive than Kalash. Perhaps I will not teach the author marketing, saying that the retail price is not an indicator. For comparison, you need to know COST, as well as make adjustments for salaries, taxes, the number of products manufactured (I hope it’s no secret to anyone that the more products produced, the cheaper this product), the costs of developing and organizing mass production. So about the cost, the author clearly missed.

    The second thesis is that he cannot do a complete alteration of soldiers in combat conditions. I will not remind the author that in any unit there are such things as support companies, which include and weapons workshops (it is surprising that the author didn’t say anything about this, he didn’t serve in the army). I recall only that the same FN SCAR disassembled with the removal of the barrel is no more difficult than disassembling the AK. Only here you can’t remove the barrel from AK. He pressed in there tightly. And yes, FN SCAR can also be rebuilt in a tent. Do not believe me, watch the video, they are in bulk on YouTube. Yes, God bless him with SCAR. But in PCM, the barrel is quickly replaceable and without any workshops. Right on the battlefield in a few seconds. There, the truth is this was done not for the sake of modularity, but because of overheating, but the fact remains that a quick barrel replacement is not only possible, but also actively used in various weapons. Including domestic.

    Well, for dessert. How is AK-12 different from AK-15? Yes, nothing. Replace the store, the identity of the shutter (although the identity of mine is also the same) and the barrel and one machine turns into another. But the problem is that the trunk cannot be replaced. But if you need another caliber - buy the whole machine.
    And how AK differs from SVD. Fundamentally nothing. Nevertheless, not a single interchangeable part. But if you have a quick-detachable barrel unified with the rest of the shooter, as well as a single receiver, bolt group and replaceable magazine receiver, then with an easy movement of the hand we turn the machine into a sniper no worse than SVD. After all, there is ICS. Oops, again not modular. Same thing with BCC. At the same time, not full weapons, for which you also have to pay, will be stored in the warehouses of a regiment or battalion, but a few details that are still needed, because the resource of the barrel is limited and it needs to be changed from time to time. Oh yes, now they don’t worry about it and change the whole machine. :-)

    And finally, everyone remembers (or at least knows) the transition to a new caliber in the 70s. And how much money was spent on this business. And imagine, they’d now want to replace 5,45 with some kind of grendel. Now this is a replacement for the entire rifleman. And with modular weapons, only a barrel replacement. Savings however.

    That's just none of our arms manufacturers need this modularity. It’s one thing to sell a machine gun or a rifle, and a completely different barrel to this machine gun. And on the economy, logistics, etc. all do not give a shit. So we’ll run around with Kalash and SVDeshkami.

    By the way, if someone cannot imagine why weapons are needed in the troops, remember the Second World War. For urban operations, entire units were rearmament from mosin to PPSh. At the same time, they are not talking about the number of involved freight trains. But in vain by the way.
  32. czes
    czes 8 October 2019 23: 03
    0
    Cheap trolling of small arms of the future as an apology for the AK Forev thesis.
  33. tracer
    tracer 12 October 2019 00: 41
    -1
    Probably a sniper would really like the company of flashlights in the dark at a distance of 600 meters. Why did I misunderstand from which apricots, when replacing a rifle with a long barrel, which will set itself up to a hundred meters to a precise battle? Well, you can, of course, set "about" there with a special device .. But an accurate shot must be accurate and not approximate ..