About conceptual uncertainty in the development of military small arms in the Russian Federation

139

AK-74M


The need to create one or another sample of combat rifle weapons must be determined by the end user acting as the customer. It is he who, on the basis of his experience and forecast the nature of future military operations, develops tactical and technical requirements for the desired model of weapons. Next - research and development, competition, the definition of a promising model, military tests, elimination of deficiencies and refinement, setting the model for service. Only in this way can the further development of military small arms be ensured.

But the power structures of the Russian Federation, as an end user, from the beginning of 90's, without having their own distinct concept of development, took a position, the essence of which looks like this: “since everything that is available is hopelessly outdated, you do something new, and we will choose that we will like (and not choose - we will buy abroad) ... ".

This position is based on statements in the media, the subjective opinion of individual instructors of elite special forces, relying on "foreign experience", foreign athletes, almost combat sports and foreign-designed small arms, opinions of "experts on small arms" and others.

In this regard, the arms enterprises of state and other forms of ownership, in an attempt to obtain orders, have created and hastily try to create various models of small arms, including and "masterpieces of the latest computer technology." Not having orders for their products and often mistakenly assigning to their model the desired place in the small arms system of the power structures of the Russian Federation, enterprises started to independently promote them to the “market”, based on their own capabilities and concepts of morality.

As an example, you can consider the marketing actions, which are more typical for Western markets, for the promotion of Glock, Strike pistols (aka Swift) pistols and other models in the power structures of the Russian Federation.

In this case, the proposed product is declared the most "pistol" pistol, which will henceforth replace all pistols already in service. And this is despite the fact that the Yarygin pistol is already in use in law enforcement agencies, which is in no way inferior to those offered by various indicators, and by their operational durability and reliability is significantly superior to them.

Thus, almost all delays in firing from this pistol are due to the unacceptably low quality of the manufactured 9x19 Luger and 7H21 domestic cartridges. Returning to the question of already in service and newly proposed models of small arms and ammunition to them, the following should be noted.

Yarygin’s gun is already being produced in the options XYNUMXP6 with steel frame (from forged tools), 35P6-35 software with lightweight (plastic) frame and integrated picattini plate, 02PXNNXX-6 integrated frame under 35XXXXXXXXXXXXXHXXXHXXXHXXXHXXXHXXXHXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX03 under the control of 9XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX21 under the cartridge 150XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXNUMX under the cartridge XNUMXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXNUMX with the help of XNUMXXXXXXXXXXXXNUMX XNUMXXNUMX XNUMXPXNUMX; , and also ПЯ under service traumatic cartridge (XNUMX J). And this allows the user to choose the one that is most appropriate for the execution of a particular task.

Regarding the Makarov pistol, designed to ensure public and personal security, we can only note that in the next 50 years it will be indispensable in its class. It should be noted that for more than a year, the Izhevsk Mechanical Plant (Izhmekh) at all exhibitions demonstrates a PM with a PMM frame intended for using the 12 of the charging shop. At the same time, there is a frame with push-button fixation of the magazine, which allows using the 30-ti charging magazine, which increases its versatility and significantly expands the scope of application.

About conceptual uncertainty in the development of military small arms in the Russian Federation

Stechkin automatic pistol 9-mm


Of particular note is the Stechkin automatic pistol (APS), which enjoys steady popularity in special forces. This gun for 60 years of use not only did not exhaust its capabilities, but did not actually open them, because so far there was no methodology for learning to fire from it in automatic mode with one or two hands, which in modern fleeting combat gives it the advantages of an assault pistol .

To replace the pistol of the concealed wearing of PSM on Izhmeh, the Bars pistol, chambered for 9x18PM cartridge with magazines for 6 and 8 cartridges, was created little inferior to it in terms of dimensions, but significantly surpassing it in the stopping effect of ammunition. But for some reason, in the promoted pursuit of visionary innovations, the truly innovative approach of the Izhevsk Mechanical Plant, which created the 5 (!) Of new designs, is not fundamentally overlooked in quite difficult conditions of existence.

The 9x18PM cartridge, which in 50-70% of cases shows a better stopping effect compared to the 9x19 and 9x21 cartridges, deserves high marks. This is achieved by the fact that all the kinetic energy brought by the bullet of the 9x18PM cartridge is transferred to the target, and the bullets of other cartridges pass through the target tissue and pass it only a part. It is also important that the nomenclature of 9x18PM cartridges includes high-power cartridges, with a small-bore bullet, PBM cartridges for target destruction in individual means of armor, as well as high-stopping cartridges with a lightweight bullet for anti-terror units.


Soldier with a Kalashnikov AK-12.


You should pay attention to history with an AK-12 machine gun, which is declared the most “automatist” machine gun of our time and the “changer” of all automata available in power structures of the Russian Federation. Although the most likely reason for this decision is that the special forces of the Russian power structures, as compared to the linear ones, perform a wider range of tasks and their weapons should most likely be able to accommodate additional equipment.

At the same time, the Kalashnikov assault rifle will remain the main small arms for the combatant units of the power structures of the Russian Federation in the next 50 years. And if the allegations of relatively low AK accuracy when shooting in single-fire mode are considered completely unfounded, and about the accuracy of automatic fire, be guided by the competent opinion of the veteran of the GRAU, professor of the Academy of Military Sciences, retired colonel A. A. Lovi, incompetent and far-fetched.

The situation with high-capacity stores for Kalashnikov assault rifles deserves closer attention. It is well known to all that with the reduction of distances in modern fast-moving combat high-capacity stores play a crucial role. Very eloquent about this fact speaking for itself, for some reason forgotten by many.

Beginning with 1943, more than 190 appeals were sent to the Wehrmacht command from the Eastern Front of the German troops, the essence of which was as follows: “PPSH-41 exceeds MP-38 (40) in store capacity, therefore parts of the Wehrmacht suffer defeats in battles at close distances in trenches and in populated areas, please give the army an automatic weapon with high-capacity stores. ”

At the same Izhmash in 2002, the designer Shirobokov Yu.A. as part of the development work, its employees developed and launched into production 50-i and 60-and charging stores for AK-74, as well as a new horizontal store of high capacity drum-type chambered for 7,62х39. These stores, when using certain methods of firing training, dramatically increase the combat effectiveness of both a single soldier (employee) and the unit as a whole.

Is this not innovation? But for more than 10 for years, no one has been interested in these stores, and many representatives of law enforcement agencies have only heard about them. However, unlike them, directly performing service-combat tasks and being in the line of fire by any means, up to their own money, they seek to get high-capacity stores that are not officially accepted for service.


AK-12 and M-16A3.


As a result of the AK, it should be noted that a number of specialists in the aggregate of characteristics are considered to be the most adapted to the conditions of modern warfare, which has no analogue in the world now and will not be long. Therefore, if we eliminate some personnel errors at Izhmash and adopt a long-term concept for the development of small arms in Russia, the questions about the promising machine gun will disappear by themselves.


ORSIS T-5000 design. Source: Russian newspaper


The sniper rifle "Orsis T-5000" at one time was declared a "tactical sniper rifle" (as if there are "operational" and "strategic"), capable of replacing all sniper rifles, which are in service with the Russian security forces. In this case, it would be quite enough to announce the creation of a domestic high-precision rifle, which can occupy its niche in the small arms system.

In our opinion, in the next 50 years, the SVD rifle both was and will remain the most common and popular sniper system, based on the 3-s level sniper classification offered by us: 1 level - long-range snipers, MTR, FSO , 2 level - anti-terror snipers with SVD rifles and SV-98 and 3 level - snipers of special-purpose and reconnaissance groups (general defense units of the Ministry of Defense, OMON and SOBR MIA) with SVD and SV-98 rifles.




It should be noted the surprising fact that today the “rules of the game” are somehow determined by anti-terror snipers (2 level), which are more than 80 times smaller than 3 level snipers, whose specifics of work differ markedly from the actions of the first. As a result of this redistribution of “roles” today, for use in mountainous and wooded areas with 50-150 firing distances, import rifles with manual reloading and powerful optics, ballistic calculators, meteorological stations, and other specific expensive equipment have become unreasonably purchased.

And this is despite the fact that the technology of manufacturing the barrel of a SVD rifle using the electrochemical method followed by chrome plating (sniper barrel !!!), developed at Izhmash, still amazes all foreign competitors.

The SVD was originally created as a purely army rifle for a regular cartridge with not the best ballistic characteristics, taking into account the requirements of the military doctrine, which entails disabling or defeating the enemy, and not absolute (100%) its elimination. Therefore, in the army course of shooting there are no targets like “terrorist with hostage” and the like.

At the same time, the experience of the sniper movement during the Second World War period was taken into account, when in combat conditions in an open area and in a village 98% of targets were hit from a distance of up to 350 meters. That is why today, just like during the war, when the primary and most dangerous goals of the combat manual are determined by the closest ones, the main qualities of the sniper rifle are its reliability and rate of fire. For the same reasons, there were no exercises in the army course of shooting (KS-CO-86), which involved shooting at ranges greater than 450 m (and from 2010 g. - 800 m).

Today, various “experts on small arms” in their subjective assessments are a factor determining the suitability of a sniper rifle for solving army tasks. As a result, in recent years there has been a kind of “chase” for the MOA’s shares on the basis of non-objectionable opinions of long-range high-precision shooting sportsmen (benchrest, came to Russia from the USA) who have no experience of active and long-lasting hostilities.

Experts know that accuracy and fire efficiency have a relationship only at distances that do not exceed the range of a direct shot. When shooting at long distances, “amazing” accuracy can play a cruel joke when not a single bullet hits the target in case of omission or inaccurate determination of the source data for shooting (distance to the target, wind speed and direction, temperature, pressure, correction for derivation) , which is quite likely in a difficult combat situation.

And to carry with each sniper with him a whole heap of special devices for solving these tasks in combat conditions is hardly justified from any point of view, including and economic. So, for an army rifle, the accuracy of shooting should be optimal, ensuring the implementation of real, rather than contrived, for the sake of something (or someone) combat missions.


But, even starting from accuracy, it should be noted that our snipers with the CB-98 rifle have repeatedly won the first or won prizes in international competitions without excessive pomposity, and the other Izhmash rifle in the 338 Lapua caliber is also not inferior to foreign analogues. However, this fact does not cause interest, because it is not cool, and AW is cool.


CB-98



TTX CB-98


The following fact is very interesting. At the end of 80-x - the beginning of 90-s, the US security forces were left without a semi-automatic sniper rifle, as M-16 did not fit this role for various reasons. Then, using the hunting rifle "Remington-700" with camouflage lodge, blues "Harris" and optics "Naytforts", they started talking about the concept of one accurate shot.

While we, having "pecked" at it, 20 had fiercely argued over the rifles MC-116 and CB-98 for years, choosing the best, they didn’t stop developing and as a result they recently adopted the AR-20T semi-automatic rifle for 10 cartridge . From now on, all key countries of the NATO bloc are armed with their own self-loading sniper rifles. We continue to argue !!!


PKP "PECHENEG"


The situation with the Pecheneg PKP machine gun, also designated the most “machine gun” machine gun, is not completely clear. Today this machine gun, which, despite the strangeness in the name, was and remains a Kalashnikov machine gun, was declared by TSNIITOCHMASH as a fundamentally new machine gun. As a result of replacing the barrel, the resource of which is less than the resource of the two trunks to the PKM machine gun, increasing the mass by 1,5 kg, transferring the bipod to the muzzle (when firing while lying down, the sector of shooting sharply decreased) he actually acquired a new, but not the best, quality.

Therefore, the unanswered question again arises why, at such indicators, Pecheneg completely replaces the PKM machine gun, which was highly appreciated by servicemen and employees who perform operational combat missions in the conditions of mountainous and wooded areas and at a distance from their deployment sites.


Compact machine 9А-91


Special attention should be paid to small arms developed and produced by TsNIITOCHMASH - AS “Val”, BCC “Vintorez” and automatic machine 9А-91. In addition to the surprising ergonomics of these models, especially the latter, the interchangeability of assemblies and parts with the main Kalashnikov machine gun already in service is completely absent.

Moreover, even in 1964, Mr. M.T. Kalashnikov received the Lenin Prize for the creation of a unified complex of small arms as part of a light machine gun, fully unified with the machine gun already in service. In other words, the AS “Val”, the BCC “Vintorez” and the 9А-91 machine gun clearly do not meet the requirement for maximum unification of new weapons with existing ones. Or is this requirement canceled today?

Then it is not clear why the long-existing special machine AK-9 cal. 9х39 Izhmash, in all respects not inferior to the above-listed samples of special weapons, superior in reliability, and still difficult to distinguish from AK-104 when removed, is still unknown? Most likely, this is due to the closer location to Moscow of Klimovsk, compared with Izhevsk.

In connection with the foregoing, there is another question about light machine guns. Do our security agencies, forcedly leading military operations in mountainous and wooded areas, really do not need light automatic weapons with high-capacity stores and a long, thick, relative to the standard machine gun?


Submachine gun PP-90


It is impossible to ignore the question of obvious distortions in the class of submachine guns. Today, this is far from a complete list of these weapons intended for the “Kedr” and “Klin”, “Vityaz” and “Heather” (CP-2 and CP-2М), “PP-90” and “PP-93” , "PP-2000" and "Bison", small-sized automatic machines "Whirlwind" СР-3, СР-3М and 9А91, as well as, more recently, some imported samples, which, as a rule, are used only for "show" .

But it is one thing when the movie shows MP-5 from Heckler & Koch, with which "their tough guys" are fighting a stoned African American who took the hostess of the house hostage, and quite another when our special forces go into the forest or into a building during a counter-terrorist operation, where Kalashnikov assault rifles and machine guns, RPGs and other real weapons await him.

In general, the concept of small arms should be developed, clearly defining what the state is waiting for. In our opinion, it should provide for a sharp decrease in the number of samples of military small arms, their unification and a decrease in the number of calibers used.

So, for example, the cartridge SP-4 for LDC-1, PSS, "WoL", the "Vorchun" revolver, and other samples were originally created for conducting special operations mainly abroad. Suddenly, this cartridge began to be widely implemented, despite the fact that the main advantage of PB pistols (6P9) and APB is precisely the ability to use regular 9x18 munition, which is already widespread and much cheaper than the SP-4 cartridge.

Thus, in view of the above, today we can state that there has been a serious failure in the matter of providing the security forces of the Russian Federation with military small arms. This was facilitated, on the one hand, by the Ministry of Defense’s refusal to purchase a number of samples, incl. PM and AK-74, and on the other - the uncertainty in the matter necessary to equip the troops.


AK-74 after an extended factory upgrade. Photo: NPO Izhmash


As a result, a critical situation has developed for Izhevsk manufacturing plants, which has taken on the character of a trend, the situation with the technological base and skilled labor. To prevent the most gloomy forecast, when any new “miracle weapon” will have no place and no one to do, the state concept of developing small arms and ammunition should be adopted as a matter of urgency.

At present LLC “Polygon” (Chelyabinsk), on its own initiative, has developed a concept for creating a unified system of shooting training in the country, the implementation of which will allow, in addition to solving the main tasks, to load the manufacturers of military small arms with a state order and fill the resulting failure.

The proposed concept includes the 3 stage of interdepartmental rifle training, each of which involves the use of existing models of small arms and its weight and size models. In addition, this concept provides for the production and purchase by the state of a number of models of small arms.

Among the priority measures:

- procurement of an air gun MP-654 (similar to PM) and a pneumatic carbine "Junker" (analogue of AK) - for training pre-draft youth (10-14 years);

- procurement of a pistol PM, a carbine "SAIGA-22" and "SVD-22" (all for a small-caliber cartridge) - for pre-conscription training (14-16 years);

- procurement of sports samples MP-446 “Viking” and “SAIGA-MK” (cal. 5,45 and 7,62), “Tiger” (7,62х54) - for sports training;

- production of the required number of MMG pistols (order No. XXUMX of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation), PM, PJ and AK machine gun - for military and civil universities with military departments, training centers, units and subdivisions, secondary schools, military-patriotic and military sports clubs, DOSAAF in the framework of the implementation of the fire training reform in the power structures of the Russian Federation and educational programs;

- gradual replacement of AS “Val” and VSS “Vintorez” automatic machines with an AK-9 submachine gun, AK-74 assault rifle (cal. 5,45x39) with an AK-103 submachine gun (cal. 7,62 XX39) - for unification of military small arms.

During the preparation of the article for publication there was a change of leadership of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation. President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin at a meeting with his new head, Army General Shoigu SK and the new Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, Colonel-General Gerasimov V.V. noting that the excessive enthusiasm for innovation in recent years has led to difficult, sometimes catastrophic situations in many enterprises of the military-industrial complex, demanded that serious attention be paid to this.

In our opinion, the point of no return by the leading weapons enterprises of the national defense-industrial complex has not yet been reached. However, the state should urgently develop a concept for the development of small arms, taking into account the issues of a unified interdepartmental preparation of its qualified use.

This is confirmed by the speaker’s words at the exhibition of Russian armaments in Nizhny Tagil in 2011, which during the demonstration firing said the following: “... thus, the presented samples of military small arms currently in service with the security forces of the Russian Federation, not only outdated, but still not fully disclosed their combat capabilities. "
Director of Polygon LLC Petrov A.I. "About Russian weapons", 2010

Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

139 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Owl
    +16
    19 January 2013 10: 01
    In the State, the regiment has not yet decided on the calibers and types of ammunition for the security forces. If for army units (but not for reconnaissance and special forces units), 5,45x39 mm ammunition is possible due to good ballistics, which simplifies aiming at distances of 200-400 meters, then AKS-74U assault rifles on the chest of DPS or PPS officers only inspire fear of an ordinary citizen who knows the ability to ricochet a given ammunition and knows the "preparedness" of a given contingent for aimed shooting and simply for actions with weapons. Everything rests on the fact that those citizens who will not carry out their official duties with these weapons are engaged in the choice of samples (they will receive "kickbacks" without weapons, for the signature) and the fact that funds are required to re-equip units with samples of weapons, and money, as always there is not enough money for this (money is more needed for the daughter's weddings abroad, for fishing in Serdyuk's dachas and for "training cranes to fly the course of United Russia").
    1. +2
      19 January 2013 23: 30
      http://www.newstube.ru/media/proshhaj-kalashnikov .
      This is about the re-equipment of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. News 5 years, and things are there.
    2. mvsoldat
      0
      4 May 2013 09: 16
      Absolutely in the hole! The funny thing is that 5,45 is almost impossible to use to stop a vehicle - a car! They tried it - with a rotating wheel at a speed of more than 20 km / h, a 5,45 bullet goes into a rebound. Only 7,62 can penetrate the tire at speed. In the police (I’m not talking about riot police, SOBR, etc. I say, they shoot 1 time a month if you're lucky. Yes, and then with a pistol, and with a machine gun once a year) Yes, I completely agree with everything else. It is interesting to see how Abakan will undergo partial disassembly and cleaning on the go.
  2. bdolah
    +12
    19 January 2013 10: 12
    A good article, still studying in 81, we were given an analysis of foreign experts on the concept of building small arms in the 21st century. So it was directly said there that if a weapon operating on other physical principles than firearms is not invented, all small arms of the 21st century will be built on the model of a Kalashnikov assault rifle. And in 2010, I don’t remember exactly at which small arms showroom (shown on TV), at the stand with our samples, one of the American reporters asked his special forces officer what kind of weapon you would like to receive for operations in the desert, and received a short deadly answer: "Russian PKM" This is how experts who REALLY deal with weapons, and not PR specialists, who sometimes do not understand what they need it for, except for show off, assess this.
    1. +4
      19 January 2013 22: 44
      Quote: bdolah
      if weapons acting on other physical principles are not invented


      We were told about this by the instructor in special equipment in 1976, and literally a month later the same idea was voiced by EF Dragunov in his lecture.

      Much later, when I became interested in the theory of systems, I became convinced of this.
    2. Raven
      +1
      20 January 2013 01: 05
      Listen, is there a video? I want to see the reporter’s face :)
      1. bdolah
        +1
        20 January 2013 15: 27
        It is necessary to search the internet, if I come across - lay out.
  3. anomalocaris
    +6
    19 January 2013 10: 50
    By and large, all "modern" small arms were created in the last century (often 40-70 years ago, and some units even in the century before last). The current situation with hand-held firearms is completely identical to the heyday of the flintlock. Then, after working out the most adequate samples by the end of the 17th century, they were reproduced with minimal changes for 150 years.
    And now, the development limit for systems under a unitary cartridge with smokeless powder has been reached. Virtually all recent innovations are associated either with improved ergonomics (weight reduction by replacing metal with plastic, improved shapes), or with improved aiming and detection systems. But all this does not give a qualitative leap, as was the case with the invention of the capsule or smokeless powder.
    1. Passing
      -2
      19 January 2013 16: 15
      Quote: anomalocaris
      But all this does not give a qualitative leap, as was the case with the invention of the capsule or smokeless powder.

      A deeply erroneous opinion, massively circulated in Russia. Here are some revolutionary improvements:
      1) collimator / holographic sights = sharp simplification and acceleration of aiming
      2) weapons modularity
      a) change of barrel = different roles of weapons - assault carbine, assault rifle, light machine gun, sniper rifle
      b) change of caliber = a lot of things, for example, the operational transformation of a conditional AKM into a conditional AK-9
      c) universal mounting straps = individual adjustment of the body kit for specific tasks and the specific ergonomics of the fighter.
      3) balanced automatic = the only theoretical possibility to combine and even surpass the legendary "dirt resistance" of the AK and the smooth operation of the M16.
      4) sleeveless ammunition = radical, two-fold, reduction in the weight of ammunition
      5) telescopic ammunition in a plastic sleeve = a significant reduction in the weight and length of the ammunition devoid of the disadvantages of sleeveless ammunition
      1. anomalocaris
        +7
        19 January 2013 17: 19
        Here's a snap:
        1. Is there an increase in projectile energy?
        2. The modularity of weapons is not an absolute blessing.
        3. Regarding caseless ammunition, you are again very mistaken, they are very complicated and expensive.
        1. -2
          19 January 2013 17: 59
          Quote: anomalocaris
          2. The modularity of weapons is not an absolute blessing.

          Absolute benefits do not exist. The modularity of the weapon allows you to have several combat systems based on one.
          1. anomalocaris
            +8
            19 January 2013 20: 01
            Yeah. And carry a few combat complexes on yourself ... Well, dear, far away. Such nonsense can only be offered by someone who has never walked in the taiga with a backpack.
            1. 0
              19 January 2013 20: 18
              Do you even understand why this is necessary? At the moment, the unit has several machines for this. Go on a mission with two or three trunks.

              Or, a change of tasks today is work in green or mountains, tomorrow - in development. Do not smack nonsense.
              1. anomalocaris
                +3
                19 January 2013 20: 30
                Today, the unit, department, platoon, company, has three different units of AK, RPK, PKM. All.
                I understand very well why this is necessary - for drank dough.
                1. -2
                  19 January 2013 21: 10
                  Tell me, didn’t you mix machine guns and machine guns? And what kinds of AKs, can you tell? AK for different calibers are used.
                  1. anomalocaris
                    +2
                    19 January 2013 21: 34
                    And what types of weapons are in service with the squad - platoon? Or do you seriously think that complete chaos reigns at this level?
                    1. -2
                      19 January 2013 21: 41
                      So I ask you. Concretize
                      1. anomalocaris
                        +1
                        19 January 2013 22: 55
                        The answer is a typical intellectual.
                        .
                      2. -1
                        19 January 2013 23: 09
                        You think that they insulted me? So no. And I also served in the army for three years on an installment basis and 9 years in reserve, and not as a clerk, not in a very calm place. Therefore, I see what you are carrying here - this is nonsense. Crap ignorant.
                      3. anomalocaris
                        0
                        19 January 2013 23: 39
                        Oh, it doesn't seem. Although, I’m a chaldon, I can say about you kosher.
                      4. +2
                        19 January 2013 23: 46
                        Sounds like it doesn't, I don't know.
                        Are you trying to insult the type and somehow humiliate? You? 8) Do not tell. Write nonsense, and even with your nose up. Don't stumble
                2. bdolah
                  0
                  20 January 2013 15: 34
                  Forgot more SVD to the department.
                  1. 0
                    20 January 2013 16: 39
                    He forgot a lot of things. In particular, the fact that various special forces are now forced to carry two or three machines, for example, for different tasks, for one task.
                    1. +2
                      21 January 2013 15: 39
                      Quote: Pimply
                      In particular, the fact that various special forces are now forced to carry two or three machines, for example, for different tasks, for one task.

                      Sorry, don't you confuse reality with computer shooters? No, I don’t argue, it happens and quite often soldiers take on a mission besides the main one and additional weapons, such as a pistol, and the calculations of group weapons often have an additional "barrel" quite routinely. But idiots carrying extra "iron" on themselves in conditions when you do not work "off the wheels", but stomp on foot, I have not yet met, thank God.
                    2. mvsoldat
                      0
                      4 May 2013 09: 28
                      The modern army does not consist of special forces. and tankers, infantry, pilots, etc. Specialists operate within the framework of SPECIFIC tasks, for which they select weapons. If someone carries 2 trunks with him (the gun does not count) - this is rare. Specials 5-10% in the Army. So far, no reliable modular weapons have been created anywhere in the world. Blind Austrians Steyr AUG - well and to hell? Change of trunks from short to long (from an assault rifle to an automatic target (such as a sniper) rifle and machine gun). So anyway, in the army and the SAV, and snipers are in service, no one removes them. The same crap Heckler-Koch were added. That was 7 years ago. They did not go further. That’s all modularity.
                  2. 0
                    24 January 2013 15: 58
                    Quote: bdolah
                    Forgot more SVD to the department.

                    And RPGs.
            2. mvsoldat
              0
              4 May 2013 09: 19
              Or in the mountains. There every extra gram after 2-3 hours of movement is so crushing.
          2. +5
            19 January 2013 22: 57
            In engineering there is the concept of unification. For such a unification of just a machine gun with a light machine gun, the general designer received the State Prize.
            And the "idea" of "modularity" contains a very dangerous link - a decrease in reliability. And not a single "modular" assembled product will be better and more reliable in its characteristics than a product specially created for this purpose. This is not my speculation, this is history, this is the LAW - an objective reality given to us in sensations. For those who understand a little, you can refer to the GNU Linux vs GNU Hurd dichotomy as an example.
            1. -2
              19 January 2013 23: 10
              Yes? A more coherent example?
            2. Passing
              +3
              20 January 2013 00: 02
              Quote: bunta
              And the "idea" of "modularity" contains a very dangerous link - a decrease in reliability.

              Theorizing a horse in a vacuum. Question from life to backfill:
              What is safer, more practical, more efficient: a punched-card tube computer + a film camera + a typewriter + a tube TV and dozens of two operators for this, or is there a modern computer before your eyes? I hope you will not argue that a modern PC is modularity elevated to absolute.
              Problems arise not from the desire for modularity, but either from the curvature of "integrators", or from technologies that have not yet matured to the required level.
              1. 0
                20 January 2013 17: 03
                Didn't know to develop from clerical accounts to mainframe computers happened due to "modularity".
          3. mvsoldat
            0
            4 May 2013 09: 18
            And why the hell is ordinary infantry Van? To specialists - yes, but to the simple user - superfluous.
        2. Passing
          +3
          19 January 2013 18: 05
          1) There is a point in increasing muzzle energy, but it is not so simple. The food of the times of Ivan the Terrible makes AK muzzle energy, but armor penetration, accuracy and range are incomparably better for AK.
          At the present stage, the task is not just to increase muzzle energy, but to increase the effective fire range, increase armor penetration, without deteriorating the stopping effect. Range and armor penetration can be increased not only by increasing muzzle energy, but with the same muzzle energy, you can reduce the caliber, increase the mass of the bullet, increase the speed of the bullet (increasing the speed of the bullet much higher than 1000 m / s compensates for the loss of the stopping effect of a small caliber by contusion damage to tissues). Those. We come to the caliber bullets. And this, by the way, is another revolutionary improvement to the list above.
          2) This is an indisputable benefit, for those who can afford it financially. Can Russia afford a million sophisticated machines for a couple of thousand dollars apiece? The question is rhetorical, we simply will not build a couple of idiotic-useless Mistrals, or we will put a couple of high-level bureaucrats with the confiscation of "righteously acquired", it is not a problem for Russia to find a couple of billions for the minimum necessary business, there would be a real desire of the top leadership.
          3) Caseless complex and expensive so far are produced individually, in mass production they will be cheaper than sleeve ones, this is obvious. But I am not at all a supporter of shellless ammunition, in principle, they cannot solve the problem of overheating of a chamber with self-ignition of a cartridge, unless they can be used in machine guns with an open shutter. IMHO, the future belongs to the telescopic sub-caliber cartridge in a plastic sleeve.
          1. anomalocaris
            +2
            19 January 2013 20: 13
            1. The effective fire range depends primarily on the physical capabilities of a person. At the moment, it has reached its maximum value. Sub-caliber bullets are very difficult and very expensive, they tried, you know.
            2. I really want to look at you after the march of throw, well, at least 30km with all this attachments.
            1. +1
              19 January 2013 20: 19
              Well, I ran these throws with the same collimator and so on. AND? All this was compensated, for example, by a doubled aiming speed if there was a collimator.
              1. anomalocaris
                +2
                19 January 2013 20: 33
                The collimator does not weigh much. But two or three trunks is essential.
                1. -1
                  19 January 2013 21: 10
                  And how many - you will not tell?
                  1. anomalocaris
                    +1
                    19 January 2013 21: 40
                    A machine gun barrel of at least a kilogram, automatic - 700 grams. And this is for RMB. In some other systems, the barrel is made integral with the box and, accordingly, heavier. So drag, God help you, but I prefer ONE unit.
                    1. +1
                      19 January 2013 22: 59
                      I’m not on a mission, I go fishing, I save every gram! No. And then a whole kilogram!
                      1. -1
                        19 January 2013 23: 12
                        And now, if you realize that under the current conditions they’re carrying not a kilogram, but five to seven. Because they drag two more not the barrel, but the whole machine.
                      2. +2
                        21 January 2013 11: 04
                        Under current conditions, they carry one machine that will ensure the overwhelming majority of tasks. It is in the shootings that the soldiers manage to ride a tank, shoot from a sniper rifle, and then run for an assault with a machine gun. In a real battle, each fighter does his job.
                    2. -3
                      19 January 2013 23: 07
                      Prefer - yes. But in reality, fighters have to carry three assault rifles for different tasks. And that’s what this is all about - removing this need - dragging THREE machines.

                      And modularity is not only and not so much to carry with you, but rather quickly change in the conditions of the unit.

                      http://k-a-r-d-e-n.livejournal.com/17997.html#comments
                      1. 0
                        24 January 2013 16: 00
                        But where did you see a fighter carrying three assault rifles?
            2. Passing
              -1
              19 January 2013 21: 44
              Quote: anomalocaris
              The effective fire range depends primarily on the physical capabilities of a person

              I do not quite understand your idea, I can assume that you are talking about the limit of muzzle energy at which effective automatic shooting is possible, but it has not been achieved at AK! Even with AKM.
              Quote: anomalocaris
              Sub-caliber bullets are very difficult and very expensive, they tried, you know.

              Again, incorrectly compare experimental production and production. Perhaps in mass production they will cost more, about ten percent, well, let a hundred, so what does it change? Black powder is cheaper than smokeless, will we charge cartridges with them, such as cheaper? Sub-caliber bullets solve the main problem - without an unacceptable increase in muzzle energy, sharply increase the range of a direct shot, sharply increase armor penetration, incl. and over long distances.
              Quote: anomalocaris
              I really want to look at you after a throw march, well, at least 30km with all this attachments.

              First, it’s not necessary to carry the entire set with you, it will equip itself sufficiently before leaving, secondly, the base of the army is motorized riflemen, it does not matter how much they carry trunks with them.
              1. anomalocaris
                -2
                19 January 2013 22: 05
                Quote: Passing by
                Again, incorrectly compare experimental production and production. Perhaps in mass production they will cost more, about ten percent, well, let a hundred, so what does it change?

                An office hamster walked by, you very vainly imagine in-line production.
                You also very badly imagine a military unit. And especially how can someone predict what exactly he will need?
                1. Passing
                  -1
                  19 January 2013 22: 19
                  What kind of hamster are you? Sofa? I know, and at the institute, six years of wits-reason were recruited, and in the army I plowed for two years, at the factory directly in production I worked for four years, so you don't have to sing to me arias on the theme "who are you, give goodbye". your credentials.
                  Quote: anomalocaris
                  You also very badly imagine a military unit. And especially how can someone predict what exactly he will need?

                  As I understand it, you know the army system purely theoretically, otherwise you did not write such nonsense. It seems that you have not heard that without the order of the signed chief of staff nothing significant is being done in the army, and this order clearly spells out who, where and why ...
                  1. anomalocaris
                    0
                    19 January 2013 22: 47
                    Well, 6 years of college, this is the term .. And then where did you work? If something I can ask different people. You see, I was carried all over Eurasia, maybe it was brought into your Palestine?
                    Well, as for the order of the head of the headquarters, I would not say that .. The fact that you understand this means that you did not serve.
                    1. 0
                      19 January 2013 23: 12
                      Let’s start by voicing your regalia - it’s more interesting
                    2. Passing
                      0
                      19 January 2013 23: 16
                      Quote: anomalocaris
                      Well, 6 years of college, this is the term .. And then where did you work?

                      6 years taught to make airplanes. Tolyatti, AvtoVAZ, Likino-Dulyovo, LiAZ.
                      Quote: anomalocaris
                      The fact that you understand this means that you did not serve.

                      Baikonur, 95 site
                      Quote: anomalocaris
                      Well, about the order of the head of the headquarters, I would not say that ..

                      That's it, the chief of staff means everything in science is analyzing, calculating, making plans, and subordinates cheerfully do under the hood and then they put it on some strange paper, I recognize my native army ...
              2. +1
                24 January 2013 15: 51
                Quote: Passing by

                First, it’s not necessary to carry the entire set with you, it will equip itself sufficiently before leaving, secondly, the base of the army is motorized riflemen, it does not matter how much they carry trunks with them.

                Yes, probably, there is so much space in the BMP or BTR inside that every soldier has a compartment inside the locker, and there’s still space left on the bed.
            3. +2
              20 January 2013 18: 25
              I’m from the army for 16 years. but so far from 100 meters from ak-74 with three shots I hit 28-30 points. you can't do it from a bad trunk. These curtains often interfere, especially in the bustle
              1. +2
                20 January 2013 20: 12
                Quote: brelok
                These curtains often interfere, especially in the bustle


                "The so-called 'accordion' constructions, stuffed with buttons, latches and other attributes, outwardly spectacular, but in fact causing inconvenience, complicating the pattern, as a rule, are rejected by those who have to operate with these weapons in a combat situation."

                (c) M.T. Kalashnikov. "Notes of the designer-grubber"
              2. +1
                20 January 2013 21: 17
                They are helping. That is why there are more and more of them. Inertness and habit - this really interferes.
          2. +1
            21 January 2013 15: 55
            Quote: Passing by
            1) There is a point in increasing muzzle energy, but it is not so simple. The food of the times of Ivan the Terrible makes AK muzzle energy, but armor penetration, accuracy and range are incomparably better for AK.

            Oh you ... so straight and doing ??? A squeak? Kalasha? Muzzle energy? And on the basis of what "non-Euclidean geometry" did you make such a bold, I am not afraid of the word, "revolutionary" conclusion? For reference, the energy in this case can be easily calculated using the formula - "E = mv ^ 2/2".
            Quote: Passing by
            Those. We come to the caliber bullets. And this, by the way, is another revolutionary improvement to the list above.

            Oh, wei ... Is it okay that such bullets, due to their low mass and specific aerodynamics, are less stable in flight, have greater dispersion, quickly lose speed and, accordingly, energy, require an increase in charge, which ultimately leads to rapid barrel wear? So what can - well, her to they are such "rrrevolution"?
            1. Passing
              0
              27 January 2013 21: 01
              Quote: Rakti-Kali
              Oh you ... and does it so directly ??? Squeak? Kalash?

              Pishchal is a broad concept, caliber up to 30 mm, serfshot only shot with an emphasis on the fortress wall, otherwise the archer was simply demolished by recoil.
              Quote: Rakti-Kali
              ОFor reference, the energy in this case can be easily calculated using the formula - "E = mv ^ 2/2".

              Thank you for telling me this foolish formula, I just felt like a pundit!
              For reference, and a better understanding of the ratios - a 12-gauge gun surpasses AK of any caliber in muzzle energy.
      2. +3
        19 January 2013 22: 40
        Quote: Passing by
        2) weapons modularity
        a) change of barrel = different roles of weapons - assault carbine, assault rifle, light machine gun, sniper rifle
        b) change of caliber = a lot of things, for example, the operational transformation of a conditional AKM into a conditional AK-9

        Nonsense, sorry, doggy. "Changing the barrel" from the carbine "does not make a sniper rifle." When changing the caliber, you need to change not only the barrel but also the entire bolt group.
        1. +1
          19 January 2013 23: 07
          Quote: bunta
          When changing the caliber, you need to change not only the barrel but the entire bolt group.

          If I don’t confuse anything, then the 7,62x39, 5,45X39 and 9x39 families are built on the same sleeve and require only the barrel to be replaced ....
          1. +2
            19 January 2013 23: 24
            Quote: sniper
            on one sleeve

            that the diameter of the muzzle is the same? If only it were that simple.
            The 5,45 caliber has a capillary effect, the 7,62 does not. Details of changes in the design of the chamber and the bolt in connection with this feature alone will you announce or find it yourself? Hint - "Gunsmith's Notes".
            1. +2
              19 January 2013 23: 37
              Quote: bunta
              Details of changes in the design of the chamber and the shutter in connection only with this feature, you voice or you yourself find?

              Dear, you can certainly tell me .... I just think it’s in vain .... The chamber, it’s not strange in the barrel .... But the shutter, it depends on the size of the chamber, i.e. sleeves ... Therefore, it is not necessary to be clever, the sleeve is one, the cartridge length is the same and when replacing the barrel (along with the chamber) there will be no problems with the shutter ... As with the store, etc.
              1. 0
                20 January 2013 17: 21
                The 5,45 cartridge does not touch the walls of the chamber.
              2. sorokin
                +1
                21 January 2013 23: 46
                sniper,
                Quote: sniper
                The chamber, he is not strange in the barrel

                Quote: sniper
                .Therefore, it is not necessary to be clever, the sleeve is one, the cartridge length is the same and there will be no problems with the shutter when replacing the barrel (along with the chamber).

                good
              3. 0
                22 January 2013 03: 04
                Quote: sniper
                one sleeve

                in length, but not only the necks but also the bottoms are different. So, as you correctly put it, your colleague is confused, you need to change both the shutter and sighting devices from different ballistics and shops, in addition to solve even such a bunch of questions about which you even have no idea.
          2. anomalocaris
            0
            27 January 2013 06: 36
            7.62x39 and 9x39 are really built on the basis of one sleeve and differ only in the diameter of the barrel, but the 5.45x39 sleeve has a completely different geometry.
        2. Passing
          +3
          19 January 2013 23: 24
          Quote: bunta
          "Changing the barrel" from the carbine "does not make a sniper rifle"

          In the niche SVD without problems, only of course not from machines with the ala AK circuit.
          Quote: bunta
          When changing the caliber, you need to change not only the barrel but the entire bolt group.

          Well, what’s the problem, trunks + shutter larvae (it’s not necessary to change the entire shutter) + maybe shops with corresponding receivers for them. It's still significantly cheaper than a few more machines. And it’s not only and not so much the price, but the availability of many weapons for each fighter with a very compact size and low weight of all this wealth
          1. +1
            19 January 2013 23: 41
            Quote: Passing by
            (it is not necessary to change the entire shutter

            They wanted to say the bolt frame? :) Will not work. The difference in power ammunition is significant. And wherever grams can be saved, the military jaws will break :) (some hollows on the butt of AK74M are worth it). Plus additional screws, nuts, crackers, cotter pins or other crap for detachable mounting.

            As a result, we have a replaceable one - barrel + bolt group + shops. USM base and control box. The cost of replacement + replacement cost is approximately equal to the cost of the base. And there’s no point!
            Nonsense is shorter in all respects. Nonsense is complete!
            1. Passing
              0
              20 January 2013 00: 49
              Nevertheless, I insist that changing the bolt frame is not necessary, it is enough to change the larva, look again at the design of the AK, it is the larva that sends and locks the cartridge. However, if we change the caliber, i.e. change the energy of the cartridge, it may be necessary to change the entire frame, but if done wisely, it will only be necessary to replace the return spring + add / reduce some weights on the bolt frame.
              Quote: bunta
              And there’s no point! Nonsense is shorter in all respects. Nonsense is complete!

              Let's calculate specifically, individually:
              1) Carabiner + SHV + SV + light machine gun + silent option + SHV under an especially powerful cartridge + SV under an especially powerful cartridge + Machine gun under an especially powerful cartridge = 9 (nine) items long under a meter and a total weight of 4x4 + 5 + 4x5,5 = 43kg.
              2)
              for a carbine, SHV, SV and a light machine gun:
              base weight without trunks - 3 kg
              we change only trunks, 4x1 = 4kg
              for a silent option:
              barrel 0,5 kg + silencer 1 kg + spring, larva, store receiver, for all 0,5 kg = 2 kg.
              for a bore under a particularly powerful cartridge, a beneath a particularly powerful cartridge, a machine gun under a particularly powerful cartridge:
              four barrels x1,5 kg + 1 bolt (we will talk it over, we will change it entirely) 0,5 kg + store receiver with a spring of 0,5 kg = 7 kg

              Total: on the one hand, a solid knit of nine meter pieces of metal weighing 43 kg, and on the other hand, one meter piece of metal + a compact bundle no more than 60 cm long, of eight trunks, a pair of springs and a pair of store receivers with a total weight of 16 kg.
              The first option does not have the slightest prospects at the individual level, the second option is certainly heavy, but it is very compact and quite portable. Naturally, you don’t need to drag the whole bunch on a combat mission, just take a couple of options for additional mass from 1 to 5 kg, which easily fits in a backpack.
              1. +1
                20 January 2013 17: 31
                Quote: Passing by
                Carabiner + SHV + SV + light machine gun + silent version + SHV under an especially powerful cartridge + SV under an especially powerful cartridge + Machine gun under an especially powerful cartridge = 9 (nine) meter-long items with a total weight of 4x4 + 5 + 4x5,5 = 43kg.


                Does it all carry one fighter ?!

                Sorry, but I don’t feel like answering anymore.
          2. +1
            20 January 2013 17: 28
            Quote: Passing by
            In the niche SVD without problems,

            Just in the niche of the SVD. There are differences in the barrel mount. Finally, no sniper would agree to shoot from such a construction set. In any case, until after "re-barrel" is not convinced that the sight has not moved off. That is, it will require re-shooting the weapon.
          3. +1
            20 January 2013 20: 00
            Sorry to interfere, but ...
            Your words - "barrels + bolt larvae (it is not necessary to change the entire bolt) + possibly magazines with appropriate receivers for them", and also - "many options for weapons with a very compact size and low weight of all this wealth", as a result, as me it seems that it is precisely about the "very compact size and low weight" that there can be no question in principle ...
            1. Passing
              -2
              20 January 2013 21: 55
              Quote: bunta
              That is, it will require a re-shoot of the weapon.

              The SVD is not so accurate that the connectors / mounts / trims specially designed for accuracy require that the axes of the optics and barrel are brought down to an unacceptable level. In addition, you can not bother with the special accuracy of the mounts, such as taking into account that the soldier will be too lazy to sweep dust and dirt off the mounting surfaces with a cloth and put the laser system for aligning the axes, this is of course noticeably more complicated and expensive, but the accuracy will be unrealistic, and such an operation as the sighting will disappear like a class.
              Quote: bunta
              Does it all carry one fighter ?! Sorry, but I don’t feel like answering anymore.

              For me, the idea that for each case you need a tool sharpened for this case is obvious and undeniable, it seems to you seditious and unnatural, so the discussion really makes no sense.
              Quote: Waroc
              it seems to me that it is precisely about the "very compact size and low weight" that there can be no question in principle ...

              I have repeatedly emphasized above that you do not have to carry all nine options with you, just select 1 (one) option at the base, before going on a combat mission, or, in case of some uncertainty, choose 2-3 options, maximum!
              And finally, a little touch - a soldier does not fight alone, there is a minimum tactical unit, say, a squad, in this squad, in advance, before going on a mission, we assign roles, say this machine gunner, this sniper, this one with an assault rifle, they carry only one option , i.e. no spare barrels, but the rest of the squad already take a spare set "just in case", ie you can also take, say, "machine gun kit" and "silent", or in any other combination. Those. on the scale of the minimum combat unit, the additional weight of the modules generally decreases significantly, i.e. a compartment is added, say, 5-10 kg of additional modules. Is this an overwhelming extra weight for seven people?
              1. +2
                20 January 2013 22: 56
                Quote: Passing by
                The SVD is not so accurate that the connectors / mounts / strips specially designed for accuracy require that the axes of the optics and barrel are brought down to an unacceptable level.


                A colleague, you probably don’t know, but even the bolt group in the SVD is not declared interchangeable not for the reason that it will not shoot. And for the reason that accuracy will not be ensured.

                The barrel mount (console) is also different from the automatic. (The barrel is mounted at the base of the receiver and is nowhere in contact with the forearm). Unlike AK.

                And the difference in the power of the cartridges and the pressure of the powder gases, in addition to the barrel-bolt group, is pressure regulators or replaceable return springs.

                A milled box, not a stamped one, is also not for technological reasons, but because of providing additional rigidity.

                In short ...
                Do not watch Discovery Channel at night.
                1. Passing
                  0
                  21 January 2013 01: 13
                  Quote: bunta
                  the bolt group in SVD is not declared interchangeable not for the reason that it will not shoot. And for the reason that accuracy will not be ensured.

                  Izhmash is in a deep technological railway station. I read just a month or two ago as the director of a plant throughout the country boasted that they had finally achieved interchangeability of stores for Saiga ... belay
                  Something tells me that SVD, if it had been manufactured at the H&K factory, would have been fully interchangeable, right down to the last pin.
                  Quote: bunta
                  The barrel mount (console) is also different from the automatic. (The barrel is mounted at the base of the receiver and is nowhere in contact with the forearm). Unlike AK.



                  show me with your finger exactly where the barrel "never touches the forend". I do not see any fundamental differences in the "cantilever hanging of the barrel" from the AK.
                  Quote: bunta
                  And the difference in the power of the cartridges and the pressure of the powder gases, in addition to the barrel-bolt group, is pressure regulators or replaceable return springs.

                  In this matter, I completely agree with you, the pressure regulator is yes, but by weight these are trifles, but I wrote about the spring above.
                  Quote: bunta
                  A milled box, not a stamped one, is also not for technological reasons, but because of providing additional rigidity.

                  Insignificant technological details, and stamping can be made tougher than the milling box, it’s not fundamentally all this, but at least plastic, at least aluminum casting, all this has long been used on real weapons, a question of competent design and production.

                  Actually, what do you want to say to me that SVD and AK have a different design? Do I argue? I say that combining them into one device is more than real. It is unrealistic to combine the accuracy of a bolt rifle and AK, because the required design differs radically.
                  And by the way, I don’t need to take my word for it, ask what the American "Marksmans" are armed with, the same M-16 or another ShV, only selected for accuracy, or what special barrel they put. SVD occupies a similar niche, except that it shoots a hundred or two meters further.

                  In short ...
                  Don't watch Military Secret at night.
                  1. +1
                    21 January 2013 09: 57
                    Quote: Passing by
                    point me with your finger

                    Is it possible not anatomically? Part number eighteen freely moves with play through the trunk. There is also a gap between the gas piston and the tube. Thus, the barrel with the weapon does not have a hard touch, except in the place of attachment. Unlike AK.

                    I do not comment on the rest of the nonsense. For the flame is pointless. Absolutely.
                    1. Passing
                      -2
                      21 January 2013 14: 17
                      Excuse me, but they wrote technical nonsense.
                      Firstly, the movable part of the ring (see figure) is locked. Those. hard link available. Although, perhaps, this design somewhat reduces longitudinal stresses.
                      Secondly, whether the thrust ring is sliding there or not, all this is deeply insignificant to the fact of cantilever hanging of the SVD trunk. Because there is a second SUPPORT approximately in the middle of the trunk (this one, whether it is sliding there or not, an emphasis). If you don’t understand this elementary fact, then I recommend that you look at least at the first pages of a textbook on theoretical mechanics, then look somewhere for an explanatory explanation of what it is like - a mysterious console hanging of a trunk, what is its physical meaning, so to speak. After that, I will gladly continue our discussion.
                      In the meantime, your arguments are pointless flame. Absolutely.
                      1. +1
                        21 January 2013 14: 45
                        Sir, my argument is my specialty on diley. I know because I taught. And they taught us very well. The device, design features, the operation of automation 25 systems of small arms had to be told in words without any pictures and fingers.

                        And your reasoning is the essence of the deepest dilentantism. If engineers tell you that it is impossible for technical and technological reasons to replace the barrel and the shutter with AK SVD, then if you do not want to understand, then out of respect for the engineering building, at least take it on faith.
                        By the way, an article about SVDK is next. I quote:

                        "The idea of ​​adapting the SVD to a powerful ammunition with little blood has failed miserably.I had to create actually new weapons similar in design to SVD, but completely recountedwhich is not surprising, since the difference in ammunition for both rifles is huge. If you look at the weapon as a whole, you can easily recognize the SVD in it, but only on a scale, which means that a lot of work has been invested in it, because the automation system is only half the battle, but a well-functioning and calculated automation system is already a finished product. "
                        Well, and then read about the barrel with the forearm too.



                        And I sincerely wish you to reconsider my beliefs and in my reasoning to be guided exclusively by the commandment of Rene Descartes

                        "The first is never to accept as true anything that I would not recognize as such with obviousness, that is, carefully avoid haste and prejudice and include in your judgments only what appears to my mind so clearly and distinctly that in no way can give cause for doubt. "

                        (c) Descartes "DISCUSSION ABOUT THE METHOD,
                        TO TRIEFLY DIRECT YOUR MIND
                        AND TO FIND TRUTH IN THE SCIENCES "
                      2. Passing
                        -2
                        21 January 2013 19: 46
                        Quote: bunta
                        And your reasoning is the essence of the deepest dilentantism. If engineers tell you that it is impossible for technical and technological reasons to replace the barrel and the shutter with AK SVD, then if you do not want to understand, then out of respect for the engineering building, at least take it on faith.

                        I ask Robey, and enti incomprehensible engineers et who? Some incomprehensible divine entities? Type infallible and omniscient ones? Some engineers say one thing, others another, but the one who did the job is better than others. And Western engineers have unequivocally proven the ability to combine an assault rifle and an SVD level rifle. I do not understand how you can argue with iron, well-known facts.
                        Quote: bunta
                        since the difference in ammunition between both rifles is huge

                        This is how I understand the attack in the direction of my prepositional option "under a particularly powerful cartridge"? I have no words. I'll try to explain the obvious to you by analogy using a conditional example:
                        There is a Lada 2101 which was developed strictly for the engine of 64 hp, in the two thousandth a certain enthusiast decided to shove an engine of 128 hp into it, and it didn’t work out, the car just fell apart! Does this fact mean that it is impossible to create a complete set with an engine of 64 hp on the basis of one body? and 128 hp?
                        Quote: bunta
                        And I sincerely wish you to reconsider my beliefs

                        Sorry for not convincing me, forgive me for my knowledge, they taught me like this - two points of application of force = bending, which automatically means not cantilever fixing the trunk. I do not need coordination with certain authorities in order to calculate that 2x2 = 4. Which I wish you too.
                      3. anomalocaris
                        +1
                        25 January 2013 18: 21
                        You have never taken apart SVD. Personally, this feature caught my eye 23 years ago ...
              2. +2
                21 January 2013 16: 28
                Quote: Passing by
                The SVD is not so accurate that the connectors / mounts / trims specially designed for accuracy require that the axes of the optics and barrel are brought down to an unacceptable level. In addition, you can not bother with the special accuracy of the mounts, such as taking into account that the soldier will be too lazy to sweep dust and dirt off the mounting surfaces with a cloth and put the laser system for aligning the axes, this is of course noticeably more complicated and expensive, but the accuracy will be unrealistic, and such an operation as the sighting will disappear like a class.

                Are you serious? Do not joke? And then after that I immediately remembered: - "Beaver! Exhale! Rather exhale!"
                Quote: Passing by
                I have repeatedly emphasized above that you do not have to carry all nine options with you, just select 1 (one) option at the base, before going on a combat mission, or, in case of some uncertainty, choose 2-3 options, maximum!

                Immediately the situation is presented: - part of the alarm is raised, there is fuss in the barracks, the fighters get dressed and run to the gunsmith, and the comrade Passing yawning and scratching goes up to the platoon commander and asks: - "Drag lieutenant! mountains? Or what city? Otherwise, you know, I need to decide which kit to take today. "
                Comrade you write nonsense! In the army, you will have a certain specialty - a shooter, a sniper or a machine gunner, and on alarm, having dressed and receiving a weapon assigned to you in the armory, you will be taken to the formation, where you will receive your share of orders and a kick in the tail and run either for additional supplies and equipment to the warehouse or to the park to prepare the equipment entrusted to you for the campaign and battle. But what you won't have is time to decide which kit / module you should take today. And the situation is very changeable - you go to storm some kind of hill, and you will take the battle in the forest, and continue defending some kind of settlement. And all the modules will be "to you ... uh-uh ... stars."
                Quote: Passing by
                And finally, a little touch - a soldier does not fight alone, there is a minimum tactical unit, say, a squad, in this squad, in advance, before going on a mission, we assign roles, say this machine gunner, this sniper, this one with an assault rifle, they carry only one option , i.e. no spare barrels, but the rest of the squad already take a spare set "just in case", ie you can also take, say, "machine gun kit" and "silent", or in any other combination. Those. on the scale of the minimum combat unit, the additional weight of the modules generally decreases significantly, i.e. a compartment is added, say, 5-10 kg of additional modules. Is this an overwhelming extra weight for seven people?

                Just about to nashisha then these "kits" if in the MS department there is enough specially created for various tasks of personal weapons, and this is not counting group weapons, such as the BMP itself or armored personnel carriers with their own "machine guns and sniper rifles" of 30mm and 14,5mm caliber respectively?
                1. Passing
                  -1
                  26 January 2013 17: 46
                  Quote: Rakti-Kali
                  Are you serious? Do not joke?

                  If you are about the installation of sights without subsequent shooting, then this is officially implied even for the standard side mount AK. Which can not be compared in terms of positioning accuracy on a picatinny rail.
                  if with regard to laser alignment - everything is much simpler than you think, no processors, atomic clocks or other high-tech crap - two optical lines summing up on a certain vizier, then manually combining certain strokes or dots (you can do without a laser at all). So, a little touch - optics today is not something prohibitively technological, as in the days of Stalin.
                  Quote: Rakti-Kali
                  You will be taken to a building where you will receive your share of orders and a kick under the tail and run either for additional supplies and equipment to the warehouse, or in the park to prepare the equipment entrusted to you for the campaign and battle. But what you won’t have is time to pick out which kit / module you should get today.

                  Stamps are evil. Situations when seconds are counted, this is Hollywood, everything is easier in life. And why shouldn't the fighter think before the assignment? What is sedition? even if you are against the fighter thinking, then what prevents you from thinking about what may be required and giving the order to the "stupid" fighter to take this and that in the gun.
                  In general, I do not understand your fanatical dislike of modularity. Don't you want to think and strain with choice? Who forbids you to use only one, "standard" option? What is the problem? You don't need it, and for others, great flexibility, real-time flexibility, that's what the doctor ordered. Choice is better than no choice. IMHO is an axiom.
                  It is in this revolution - in adapting to a specific situation, to a specific fighter. Not a fighter adjusts to a weapon, but a weapon to a fighter.
                  1. anomalocaris
                    +1
                    26 January 2013 18: 17
                    Quote: Passing by
                    Situations when the score goes by seconds is to Hollywood, in life everything is easier.

                    In life, everything is much simpler - the bill goes to tenths of a second. I have been in such situations more than once.

                    if regarding laser alignment - everything is much simpler than you think,
                    Everything is much more complicated. THP has been known for at least 100 years, but this technology (even with the use of a laser) allows you to combine only the optical axis of the sight and the axis of the barrel channel, but there is a big secret where the projectile gets.
                    1. Passing
                      -1
                      26 January 2013 19: 37
                      Quote: anomalocaris
                      I have been in such situations more than once.

                      I didn’t fight, I don’t know. But is it possible that every time it’s direct, explosions, sirens, a company in a gun, forward, forward to attack ... Or maybe, all the same, the headquarters planned the operation incomparably more often, and in strict accordance with the plan, slowly gathered and went to carry out the task ...
                      Quote: anomalocaris
                      but where the projectile hits is a big secret.

                      The barrel is not plasticine, it does not change its geometric parameters from time to time, all other things being equal (without taking into account heating, wear, without taking into account the parameters of the cartridge, how the bullet got in the barrel, etc.), the barrel will send the bullet uniformly. Those. we need to periodically, in advance, real shooting, to make some corrections for the curvature, wear and so on, and then just a simple alignment of the axes with a certain optical device.
                      But all this is not necessary, it is enough to have precision surfaces of the strips and the counter part of the sight, a well-designed sight mount (long "base" of attachment, etc.), a clean cloth, and a properly trained soldier, and everything will turn out much easier for us .. ...
                      Well, if the dirt (which supposedly is obliged to contaminate everything always, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year) still cannot be overcome, such as a rag lost in a swamp in which a fighter sits, then ... we just stupidly shoot the weapon with the traditional method , or, if it’s undesirable, we’ll just not change the modular barrel, we’ll fight by what we’ve already shot, or we’ll spit on catching thousandths of a range, and we will shoot without shooting, because the enemy is twenty meters away and it’s impossible to get into it.
                      IMHO, it’s good when there is a choice, you can choose a more or less acceptable way to achieve a result. And it’s bad when there is only one choice, because it can happen that within the framework of this only option there is no way to achieve the result (for example, you need to quietly shoot someone, but only AK is available)
                      1. 0
                        27 January 2013 02: 01
                        Quote: Passing by
                        Another old song, if you make Kalash in the forge, then it will undoubtedly be inferior in terms of fighting qualities of squealing. Because it’s too complicated and heavy weapon. Therefore, AK is made on modern machines from modern materials. If it is impossible to create an effective system with balanced automation on modern (for Izhmash) machines and materials, then ... I hope the analogy is clear.

                        Sorry, but no, the analogy is not clear.
                        Quote: Passing by
                        Thus, the theory of relativity can also be called "evolutionary", the main thing is to choose the "correct" evaluation criteria. The traditional approach to bullets implies a relationship between caliber / power / range, i.e. a bullet of a certain caliber cannot weigh more than a certain limit (max. limited to about 5, the weight is limited by tungsten carbide), muzzle energy is in direct proportion to the caliber, from here a ceiling is formed, above which you cannot jump. Sub-caliber ammunition allows you to "jump over your head." I wrote a little messy and dotted, it takes a long time to paint everything thoroughly and with formulas, but if you are "in the subject", I hope you will understand.

                        Muzzle energy is directly dependent on mass times velocity squared and divided by two.
                        Quote: Passing by
                        I didn’t fight, I don’t know. But is it possible that every time it’s direct, explosions, sirens, a company in a gun, forward, forward to attack ... Or maybe, all the same, the headquarters planned the operation incomparably more often, and in strict accordance with the plan, slowly gathered and went to carry out the task ...

                        Yeah, and a copy of the plan was sent to the enemy, so that everything was clean according to him.
                        Quote: Passing by
                        The barrel is not plasticine, it does not change its geometric parameters from time to time, all other things being equal (without taking into account heating, wear, without taking into account the parameters of the cartridge, how the bullet got in the barrel, etc.), the barrel will send the bullet uniformly.

                        Well, firstly, when you rearrange the barrel for any weapon, you will have to shoot a new one, and secondly, when you change the length of the barrel, you will still laugh, it will still change its "geometric parameters" and all the corrections for it will have to be made anew in the process of zeroing ...
                      2. Passing
                        0
                        27 January 2013 20: 05
                        Quote: Rakti-Kali
                        Sorry, but no, the analogy is not clear.

                        What I want to say is that many people have a firm conviction that the more complex the machine (mechanism), the less its reliability. This is far from the case. A simple analogy - there was a Ford-T car, conditionally consisting of a thousand parts, and there is a Ford Focus car, conditionally consisting of ten thousand parts. Which one is safer, more durable, more efficient? The answer is obvious. The rule that de more details, less reliability is true only for "frozen time", for one level of technology (design, materials, production). Technologies (in a broad sense) are continuously developing, so in real life this rule most often does not work, exactly the opposite happens, a more complex modern device is superior in reliability to a simpler old device. Naturally, all this is true, provided that the developers were faced with precisely the task of providing an exceeding reliability of the device, i.e. Chinese goods can not be cited as an example)))
                        Quote: Rakti-Kali
                        Muzzle energy is directly dependent on mass times velocity squared and divided by two.

                        You know the main formula, you can already talk substantively.)))
                        Let's take a look at a specific example. there is a cartridge 5,45x39. We need to increase the armor penetration and firing range by two to three times, while ensuring a certain level of armor penetration. How can this be achieved? Increase muzzle energy? It's not easy - the density of the powder and its energy are close to the maximum, the maximum allowable pressure in the barrel is also. But all this can be solved, we will increase the sleeve, make a thick and heavy barrel, but ... we will not increase the armor penetration and range by two or three times, maximum tens of percent. For we run into the pressure ceiling in the barrel. It is necessary either to increase the length and weight of the barrel by a factor of two, and use some especially slow-burning gunpowder, or raise the caliber of the bullet, otherwise there is no way. It is unacceptable to lengthen the barrel so much, the caliber is possible, but ... the weight of the cartridge is growing and growing, the large case, the gunpowder is two or three times more, the bullet is getting heavier, so our cartridge has grown significantly in weight and size. And the trunk also grew, either in weight or in length-weight. This is an unacceptable way for SV / automata. But we can save on the weight of the bullet, we will leave the weight of the bullet the same. And what happens? Armor penetration "point-blank" will increase, the speed of the bullet will also increase significantly, the range of a direct shot will also increase. All just great. So what's the ambush? And in the lateral load of the bullet, i.e. the ratio of the weight of a bullet to its cross-section. The lateral load has sharply decreased, which means that the armor penetration at range either slightly increased, or, on the contrary, fell - because the braking by the bullet's atmosphere increased sharply in proportion to the same square of the radius. thus, the weight of the bullet will have to be increased several times, this is inevitable, these are the laws of physics.
                        Or maybe let it be, let our NW be long and heavy, even if we have 30 rounds in the store instead of 10. Let the wearable ammunition be three times less. But one short line per kilometer range is one corpse. But ... there is one annoying circumstance - increasing the energy of gunpowder twice, we double the recoil when fired. And this, again, is completely unacceptable, unacceptable for NW / machine guns, in the sense of automatic firing. Instead of a CV, we get an automatic .338 Lapua Magnum rifle, or a .338 Lapua Magnum machine gun. A ShV / assault rifle with a range increased by two to three times and armor penetration, we will not receive in the classical way. And he is required.
                      3. Passing
                        0
                        27 January 2013 20: 06
                        So, there is no way to raise the required parameters without increasing the caliber, cartridge size and muzzle energy? There is of course - to increase the lateral load. For example, make the bullet heavier. It will fly further, it is better to conserve energy in range. But, firstly, it is not so easy to make the bullet heavier, it is impossible to do more than a certain ratio of the bullet length to the diameter (about 5) - the rotating bullet becomes unstable. And, secondly, within the framework of a caliber ammunition, with a constant muzzle energy, the bullet speed will drop, which is unacceptable. And the gain in armor penetration in terms of range will be very modest. Or you can "split" a bullet of the same weight into a heavy and hard core of small diameter and a light jacket. Those. the core with a high lateral load will transfer the main energy to the obstacle, but again this bullet will be inhibited by the atmosphere exactly the same as an ordinary one, and what is especially sad - we cannot make the core arbitrarily thin and heavy - we are very limited by the limiting size of the bullet and density of available materials (steel and only steel, tungsten carbide for World War 3 is simply not physically enough), as a result, we still do not get any significant increase in armor penetration, tens of percent, and not times. So what to do? The conclusion suggests itself - to refuse stabilization by rotation, to abandon the light shell, to make a feathered core of small diameter and very large elongation (nothing prevents the use of steel). The braking by the atmosphere will sharply decrease, the lateral load will sharply increase, and within the same muzzle energy we will get an increase in armor penetration and range by several times with a certain level of armor penetration. Those. inevitably we come to the sub-caliber ammunition. There is simply no other way to raise the required parameters at times.
                        You may ask, why actually raise armor penetration at times, and why do I pay so much attention to maintaining armor penetration at a distance? There is only one answer - the soldiers of developed countries became armored. The regular plate of the American armor holds the AK, the helmet holds an automatic bullet from several hundred meters, in other NATO countries it is exactly the same picture as in China I do not know for sure, but it is obvious that they are rapidly catching up with the Western armies in all respects. And given the fact that the traditional bullet very sharply loses its energy in range, literally twice by 300 meters, even a rifle cartridge is no longer enough to confidently defeat the enemy in body armor, there’s already just a little to get into it, you need to get into a vulnerable place. And the level of their reservation will only increase, it is already obvious that in the next decade the armor elements of the vest will hold a rifle bullet, and with the massive introduction of exoskeletons the situation will become simply catastrophic, AK, M16, and so on. traditional designs can be transferred to the shooting range for schoolchildren to indulge.
                      4. Passing
                        0
                        27 January 2013 20: 06
                        Quote: Rakti-Kali
                        Well, firstly, when you rearrange the barrel for any weapon, you will have to shoot a new one, and secondly, when you change the length of the barrel, you will still laugh, it will still change its "geometric parameters" and all the corrections for it will have to be made anew in the process of zeroing ...

                        Here in the machine gun the barrels change, everyone is happy (at least in the west), no one screams that the machine gun is shooting in the wrong direction. There is no problem for a ShV / assault rifle / machine gun to make easily interchangeable trunks that do not require shooting, there may be problems for sniping, but in the same post I listed how they are solved. I repeat once again - if the system was SPECIALLY developed by competent engineers on a modular basis, if the factory did not make it hungover Uncle Vasya, then the replaceable trunks and optics will be installed in the same way, in accordance with the tolerance naturally, which is not millimeters, but hundreds, and of this accuracy more than enough for not very accurate weapons - up to and including the machine gun. For a not very accurate sniper of the SVD level (not cantilever posted), perhaps, I repeat, perhaps, a system of optical axis alignment is required. And I repeat once again - the shooting is needed once every several thousand shots, measure the actual displacement of a particular barrel, then, when changing the barrel-sights, just stupidly enter the measured corrections.
                      5. 0
                        27 January 2013 20: 59
                        Quote: Passing by
                        Here in the machine gun the barrels change, everyone is happy (at least in the west), no one screams that the machine gun is shooting in the wrong direction.

                        Have you written this seriously now? Those. do you see any difference in replacing the barrel with a similar one for single machine guns and in replacing with different guns / modules?
                      6. 0
                        27 January 2013 20: 40
                        Quote: Passing by
                        What I want to say is that many have a strong belief that the more complex an automaton (mechanism) is, the less reliable it is. This is far from the case. A simple analogy - there was a Ford-T car conditionally consisting of thousands of parts, and there is a Ford Focus car consisting of ten thousand parts conditionally. Which one is more reliable, more durable, more efficient?

                        Ford-T: mass-880kg, cost-350 dollars, speed -70km / h. And what is the mass of the Ford Focus? And the cost? And if 90% of situations imply Vmax = 60 km / h, then what about? Is the analogy clear?
                        Quote: Passing by
                        Or maybe let it be, let our NW be long and heavy, even if we have 30 rounds in the store instead of 10. Let the wearable ammunition be three times less. But one short line per kilometer range is one corpse.

                        A "trunk" and ammunition for the fighters will wear a pair of Little Indians? And in general, take any rifle with the specified cartridge and shoot at the chest target at a distance of 1000m. When surprise and disappointment subside, think about the topic - "the need for special training for long-range shooting" and "The effect of errors in the preparation of data for shooting on the accuracy of shooting."
                      7. Passing
                        0
                        27 January 2013 21: 31
                        Quote: Rakti-Kali
                        Is the analogy clear?

                        Cost? 350 dollars in America at the beginning of the 20th century, this is about the same as 20000 dollars in America at the beginning of the 21st century. Approximately, of course, at purchasing power parity of Americans.
                        In addition, the increase in the cost of weapons, even at purchasing power parity, is a reality of 20-21 centuries, any weapon only becomes more complicated and more expensive, this is an objective trend. And in Russia as well.
                        Quote: Rakti-Kali
                        A "trunk" and ammunition for the fighters will wear a pair of Little Indians?

                        I actually talked about how to achieve an increase in armor penetration at times, without increasing at times the weight of weapons-ammunition.
                        Quote: Rakti-Kali
                        And in general, take any rifle under the cartridge indicated by you and shoot at the chest target at a distance of 1000m.

                        And you don’t need to shoot at 1000m. I may have implicitly expressed my thought.
                        I mean that you need to increase armor penetration two to three times at point blank range to pierce any promising body armor and exoskeleton armor. And to provide approximately the same armor penetration (less by tens of percent, not at times!) At a long range, at a range at which there is practically the possibility of warfare, i.e. 300-600 meters. A kilometer leave snipers.
                  2. 0
                    27 January 2013 02: 25
                    Quote: Passing by
                    If you are about the installation of sights without subsequent shooting, then this is officially implied even for the standard side mount AK. Which can not be compared in terms of positioning accuracy on a picatinny rail.

                    Optics is one thing; replacing a barrel with a barrel of a different length with a corresponding change in ballistics is another.
                    Quote: Passing by
                    Stamps are evil. Situations when seconds are counted, this is Hollywood, everything is easier in life. And why shouldn't the fighter think before the assignment? What is sedition? even if you are against the fighter thinking, what prevents you from thinking about what might be needed and ordering the "dumb" fighter to take this and that in the gun. In general, I do not understand your fanatical rejection of modularity. Don't you want to think and strain with choice? Who forbids you to use only one, "standard" option? What is the problem? You don't need it, and for others, great flexibility, real-time flexibility, that's what the doctor ordered. Choice is better than no choice. IMHO - this is an axiom. It is in this revolution - in adaptation to a specific situation, to a specific fighter. It is not the fighter who adapts to the weapon, but the weapon to the fighter.

                    What kind of flexibility? In the MC department there are machine guns, under-barrel grenade launchers, a rifle, a light or single machine gun, a grenade launcher, an automatic cannon or a large-caliber machine gun, a tank machine gun and quite often an ATGM. What other flexibility do you need? And this "one standard version" is enough in 99,999999999999% of cases, so why fence a vegetable garden? Or show-off like "my x .. oh sorry trunk is longer than yours"?
      3. +1
        21 January 2013 15: 27
        Quote: Passing by
        A deeply erroneous opinion, massively circulated in Russia. Here are some revolutionary improvements:

        OK, we will see...
        Quote: Passing by
        1) collimator / holographic sights = sharp simplification and acceleration of aiming

        True, but only partially, for certain distances and shooting conditions. Although, where is the revolution in improving weapons, I did not understand.

        Quote: Passing by
        2) weapons modularity

        And what's good for a fighter? Confused in trunks, stores, ammunition, ballistic tables, and so on. during a fight or a campaign no one wants to, and carry extra pounds just because someone believes that the PP should be used in the city, with a gun in the field, and with a gun with a shortened trunk in the forest, there are no fools.
        Modularity is a convenience, first of all, for companies - manufacturers of weapons, which allows users to sit on their products using one model to close various consumer niches, and to optimize and reduce the cost of production of weapons.
        So the thesis of a revolutionary improvement of weapons with the help of modularity was by no means an axiom, but a theorem that still needs to be proved.
        Quote: Passing by
        c) universal mounting straps = individual adjustment of the body kit for specific tasks and the specific ergonomics of the fighter.

        You know, what is supposed to Jupiter is not supposed to be a bull ... What is vital in small special forces for highly qualified fighters, in a mass (albeit a contract / volunteer army) will lead to ... but it will not lead to anything - its effectiveness will not increase either one iota. In addition, the same AK-74M allows you to hang on itself and PG, and various optics, and bipods, what else do you need? Flashlights, LCC, "tactical" handles and other rubbish? Turn, these "devices" look "cool" only in "shooters".
        Yes ... the most important question is how does this all relate to "revolutionary weapon improvement"?
        Quote: Passing by
        3) balanced automatic = the only theoretical possibility to combine and even surpass the legendary "dirt resistance" of the AK and the smooth operation of the M16.

        Yes, but ... And maybe, in addition to this, it will make heavier and more complicated the weapon, eventually reducing its combat qualities? Any coin has two sides, you know ...
        Quote: Passing by
        4) sleeveless ammunition = radical, two-fold, reduction in the weight of ammunition
        5) telescopic ammunition in a plastic sleeve = a significant reduction in the weight and length of the ammunition devoid of the disadvantages of sleeveless ammunition

        This is closer to the topic, but ... there is a nuance. This is, firstly, not revolutionary, but rather evolutionary improvement, and secondly, such ammunition, at this technological level, is too expensive and unreliable. That is, for use in special units, and in specific, specific conditions, they are IMHO quite appropriate, but as ammunition for mobilization, mass weapons for a large-scale war, when the ammunition consumption for small arms will be determined by the orders of tens / hundreds of millions it’s not very fit.
        1. Passing
          0
          26 January 2013 17: 25
          Quote: Rakti-Kali
          True, but only partially, for certain distances and shooting conditions. Although, where is the revolution in improving weapons, I did not understand.

          We have a weapon that, a certain thing in itself, a mechanism as a value in itself? or is a weapon a device for hitting a target?
          Revolutionary in aiming efficiency. Instead of a long and dreary procedure of aligning three points with three different eye focuses, we combine only two points IN ONE PLANE in depth. Aiming is simplified in a truly revolutionary way. The revolution is about the same plan as the introduction of special mechanical sights on firearms, and not shooting "approximately in the wrong direction", with aiming at the barrel.
          Quote: Rakti-Kali
          Confused in trunks, stores, ammunition, ballistic tables, and so on.

          The old song, the soldier is meant as a dense stupid cattle, who cannot be trusted with anything more difficult than scrap. I will bring you back to reality from the moldy concepts of the early twentieth century - at the moment, the dumbest of the dumb soldiers has not three classes of a parish school behind him, but at least eight classes of a modern school, just think about the obvious - this very "dumb" one had in civilian life, a mobile phone or a computer, which is much more difficult to understand than a pair of barrels and a couple of tables, this very "dumb" one helped bata to repair a tractor / car, this very "dumb" copes well with computer shooters, where there are not 2-3 barrels , but much more ... In short, if you make soldiers out of them, then they will be cattle, if you are interested, then no problem, they will master any complex weapon. How to interest? Money, status, "correct" hazing ...
          Quote: Rakti-Kali
          You know what is due to Jupiter, not allowed to a bull ...

          See above
          Quote: Rakti-Kali
          Or maybe, in addition to this, it will make heavier and more complicated the weapon, eventually reducing its combat qualities? Any coin has two sides, you know ...

          Another old song, if you make Kalash in the forge, then it will undoubtedly be inferior in terms of fighting qualities of squealing. Because it’s too complicated and heavy weapon. Therefore, AK is made on modern machines from modern materials. If it is impossible to create an effective system with balanced automation on modern (for Izhmash) machines and materials, then ... I hope the analogy is clear.
          Quote: Rakti-Kali
          not revolutionary, but rather evolutionary improvement

          Thus, the theory of relativity can also be called "evolutionary", the main thing is to choose the "correct" evaluation criteria.
          The traditional approach to bullets implies a relationship between caliber / power / range, i.e. a bullet of a certain caliber cannot weigh more than a certain limit (the maximum elongation of a bullet is limited to around 5, weight is limited by tungsten carbide), muzzle energy is in direct proportion to the caliber , from here a ceiling is formed, above which you cannot jump. Sub-caliber ammunition allows you to "jump over your head." I wrote a little messy and dotted, it takes a long time to paint everything thoroughly and with formulas, but if you are "in the subject", I hope you will understand.
          1. Passing
            0
            26 January 2013 17: 26
            Quote: Rakti-Kali
            and here as ammunition for mobilization, mass weapons for a large-scale war, when the consumption of ammunition for small arms will be determined by the orders of tens / hundreds of millions are no longer very suitable.

            What exactly is the huge difference in cost between a very complex in design and manufacture of a traditional bullet, between a labor-intensive METAL sleeve to manufacture, and a plastic injection / extrusion sleeve, a relatively simple arrow-bullet design, and four plastic injection-molded pallet segments? I do not see any fundamental difference, IMHO, because sub-caliber ammunition is potentially cheaper.
            1. -1
              27 January 2013 02: 30
              Quote: Passing by
              What exactly is the huge difference in cost between a very complex in design and manufacture of a traditional bullet, between a labor-intensive METAL sleeve to manufacture, and a plastic injection / extrusion sleeve, a relatively simple arrow-bullet design, and four plastic injection-molded pallet segments? I do not see any fundamental difference, IMHO, because sub-caliber ammunition is potentially cheaper.

              I am not a technologist or economist. But ... even if the PCB is cheaper, why the hell are they needed in the shooter?
            2. anomalocaris
              0
              27 January 2013 07: 29
              Well, on points:

              Quote: Passing by
              What exactly is the gigantic difference in prime cost ... between the labor-intensive manufacturing of a METAL sleeve and a plastic cast / extrusion sleeve

              The sleeve of a unitary cartridge performs the following functions:
              1) combines all the elements of a shot,
              2) provides protection of these elements from the effects of the external environment,
              3) provides an obturation of powder gases (only in the case of either an all-metal sleeve, or in the case of a sleeve with a metal tray).
              So, if metal and plastic sleeves cope with the first two functions in approximately the same way, then plastic cannot solve the issue with obturation. In addition, plastic is applicable only at relatively low pressures and only in the case of a composite sleeve, that is, a metal pan is needed. Will it greatly reduce the cost and simplify manufacturing?
              About shellless ammunition, I generally keep quiet. Learn the epic with G11.
              Now about the bullets.
              The sub-caliber bullet-shooter has too little mass and too much elongation, which dramatically reduces its damaging effect and increases energy loss when flying to the target. And the manufacture of ammunition with a detachable pallet is far from such a simple thing as you think. Everything rests on accuracy.
              1. Passing
                -1
                27 January 2013 20: 22
                Quote: anomalocaris
                plastic can not solve the issue of obturation.

                I couldn’t when they tried to do this in the shaggy 60-80 of the last century, now it can, now plastic in terms of specific strength is several times stronger than steel. Just type telescopic ammunition or plastic sleeves in Google, read how far progress has now gone ...
                Quote: anomalocaris
                Learn the epic with G11.

                Studied, studied, everything there turned out very well in the final samples, they were already preparing to deploy mass production, but the USSR fell apart at the wrong time ...
                Quote: anomalocaris
                The sub-caliber bullet-shooter has too little mass and too much elongation, which sharply reduces its damaging effect and increases energy loss when flying to the target.

                Sorry, but what are you talking about? What prevents you from making an arrow 5 cm long with a small diameter? You can have the weight of the arrow as you want, the length of the arrow can be many times longer than the maximum length of the caliber bullet. About supposedly hanging energy losses - such a thing as a transverse load tells you something, or is it the same in terms of aerodynamics - is the inverse dependence of the frontal aerodynamic drag on the cross section?
                Quote: anomalocaris
                And the manufacture of ammunition with a detachable pallet is far from such a simple thing as you think. Everything rests on accuracy.

                I do not argue, the accuracy of the barrel and arrows are extremely important, but our barrel is smooth-bore, providing it with the required accuracy is incomparably easier than rifled.
                1. anomalocaris
                  0
                  28 January 2013 17: 59
                  Oh, baby, I don’t even know how to answer all this nonsense ... But I’ll try.
                  Plastic, it’s called so, because it is plastic. Moreover, its properties are very dependent on temperature. How much and where has progress gone? I know without Google,
                  That's it, that you very badly studied the epic with G11 ..
                  Baby, try to make such ammunition. Personally, my maximum is a sub-caliber bullet for a 12-gauge gun with a diameter of 10 mm. We were able to make a pallet.
                  Baby, it’s important here not so much to make the arrow itself (of which you don’t have a clue about the ballistics), namely the accuracy of the pallet manufacture.
          2. +1
            27 January 2013 01: 51
            Quote: Passing by
            We have a weapon that, a certain thing in itself, a mechanism as a value in itself? or is a weapon a device for hitting a target? Revolution in aiming efficiency.

            Small arms, in which the energy of the gases generated during the burning of a propellant charge in the barrel is used to throw a striking element. Where is the revolution?
            Quote: Passing by
            Instead of a long and dreary procedure of combining three points with three different foci for the eye, we combine only two points ONE PLANE in depth. Aiming is simplified truly revolutionary.

            Who studied what. By the way, aiming with the help of kallimator, holographic and other optical devices is also not as easy as it seems. Without acquiring certain knowledge and skills with ANY scope, you will shoot: -
            Quote: Passing by
            "about the other way",

            Quote: Passing by
            An old song, a soldier is implied by a stupid blunt cattle, which cannot be trusted with anything more difficult than scrap.

            (unkindly flashing an eye and playing with a crowbar) Who said? But seriously - when they shoot at you to play "Lego" you just want to go ... a very narrow-minded person. Wearing excess iron on yourself is similar to the previous paragraph.
            Quote: Passing by
            Bringing you back to reality from moldy concepts of the early twentieth century

            Do not strain, because I’m not accepting drugs that expand consciousness in principle, so I didn’t lose touch with reality.
            Quote: Passing by
            at the moment, the dumbest of the dumb soldiers has not three classes of a parish school behind him, but at least eight classes of a modern school, just think about the obvious - this very "dumb" one had a mobile phone or a computer in civilian life, which can be easily understood harder than a pair of barrels and a pair of tables, this very "dumb" one helped bata to repair a tractor / car,

            Yeah, and the periodic table is remembered by heart and the Bradis tables bounce off the teeth ... but how to make a ballistic table when shooting the same SVD so they run to their uncle (well, not counting those young men who received the specialty "sniper-observer" in the corresponding educational body).
            Quote: Passing by
            this very "dumb" one perfectly copes with computer shooters, where not 2-3 barrels, but much more ...

            Ahhhhh ... so that's where the dog rummaged .... Take a word - computer shooters will not give you a real idea of ​​modern combat.
            1. Passing
              -1
              27 January 2013 20: 48
              Quote: Rakti-Kali
              Small arms, in which the energy of the gases generated during the burning of a propellant charge in the barrel is used to throw a striking element. Where is the revolution?

              An interesting approach. About the same thing:
              There were squeaks, steel rifles. What is the revolution asking here? Some rifling, some kind of nonsense, like they fired gunpowder and shoot. One and the same in essence .;)
              Quote: Rakti-Kali
              But seriously - when they shoot at you to play "Lego" just want to go ... a very narrow-minded person.

              Why, why under enemy fire to change the barrel? I personally always said - we change either before entering the mission, or before the battle (not during the battle), i.e. assessed the situation on the spot, picked up the right trunk. And once again I repeat - you do not want to bother with the change of trunks, so who forces you to do this, go with the standard equipment! I don’t understand what the problem is?
              Quote: Rakti-Kali
              and how to make a ballistic table when shooting the same SVD so they run to uncle

              If a person at school at least learned 1000 tables, and in the army for two years he could not learn even one table, then something is wrong in the army ...
              Quote: Rakti-Kali
              Ahhhhh ... so that's where the dog rummaged .... Take a word - computer shooters will not give you a real idea of ​​modern combat.

              Yeah, yeah, at one time I was fond of it.))) You know, the heart is beating, the nerves are at the limit, the enemies are twisting from all sides, the score goes literally for a split second and for each monster you need to choose your optimal weapon. You see, stress, lack of time, a dozen control buttons, you do not have to fall into a stupor, you need to figure out, have time to find the button, have time to switch weapons, sit down, maneuver. Even a dumb man can cope with such difficult actions in a stressful situation. Because he needs it, he is interested.
              True, the danger is not real, and you do not need to hold your breath, focus your eyes, heal, calculate, put a cross on the plane on the target, click on the button, the enemy fell. This of course greatly simplifies everything. If there is such a weapon in real life, the most stupid of the stupid, the most oblique of the stubby-armed ones, will quite be able to hit a couple of enemies, if you are lucky of course. But he’ll hit someone from AK, even if he’s lucky, because AK requires a lot of skill and even an intuitive understanding for aiming.
  4. +2
    19 January 2013 10: 54
    I saw on TV how the designer of the weapons enterprise complained that the special forces at the arms exhibition crowded around the stand with foreign weapons and were absolutely not interested in domestic developments, but if you continue to introduce the soldier to new weapons, including foreign ones, only at exhibitions in magazines and on the Internet, then what else to expect ?!
    1. anomalocaris
      +1
      19 January 2013 11: 10
      Well, at the exhibitions this is still nothing, there you can even see live, and sometimes they will give a touch. That's when you first try to understand from the pictures and rather meager explanations of what it is eaten with, and then explain to the same fighter on your fingers - this is something ...
  5. +2
    19 January 2013 11: 16
    The article is not one, but two or three pluses! Everything about the case, competently! That's just with the PO I do not quite agree, but for the rest is full approval.
    The lack of a clear military concept, development strategies, lobbying, kickbacks and bribes - all this literally ruins the production of weapons and weapons!
    While there is no one master in the army. as long as there is no full control over purchases, while corruption rules the ball, it is impossible to expect a coherent policy and development strategy.
    I'm afraid the author is already mistaken - the point of no return is today! And the army threatens to stay with a mixed suit, far from always the best and reliable !! weapons!
  6. 0
    19 January 2013 11: 59
    Why not recall the Atoms, sniper rifles and other weapons of Baryshev? There was an article on the site about him and his weapons.
    By the number of parts and the reliability of automation, it is not inferior to AK. The accuracy of automatic fire exceeds AK at times. In this case, the fire is conducted in long bursts, and not cut-offs of two / three.
    Moreover, it is possible to conduct aimed automatic fire (also long) with better accuracy than AK even with the powerful 7,62x54 rifle cartridge. This is impressive!
    I heard that Baryshev also had a pistol developed, though he did not find it on the net ...

    Links:

    http://ballistik.3dn.ru/index/0-33

    http://weapon.at.ua/load/321-1-0-826

    http://video.mail.ru/mail/schuka83/4269/10933.html?autoplay=1
    1. +1
      19 January 2013 16: 02
      With all due respect to Baryshev, his scheme is very complex and not as reliable as that of AK.
      There is a breakthrough of densely ground surfaces, all on friction.
      Doesn’t take off, in general.
    2. Passing
      -1
      19 January 2013 16: 28
      Quote: Torus
      Why not recall the Atoms, sniper rifles and other weapons of Baryshev?

      I heard the opinion that Baryshev’s automation is very sensitive to the energy of the cartridge. Those. gunpowder was underbalanced in the cartridge at the factory - the automation malfunctions, outweighed - the mechanics break. Or let's say there is a need for silent weapons - a silencer was screwed on a regular Kalash, charged with US ammunition, everything works, but such a trick will not work for the Baryshev assault rifle.
      1. anomalocaris
        +1
        19 January 2013 20: 16
        Not only. This is a very difficult thing to make.
  7. +8
    19 January 2013 13: 08
    The 9A91 assault rifle (nine) was developed at the Tula Instrument Design Bureau (KBP), and the Val and Vintorez were developed in Klimovsk. And, accordingly, they have different tasks. This is one of the inaccuracies made by the author in the article. For example, at the Pecheneg in modern its version of the bipod moves from the beginning of the barrel, which makes it possible to use it more efficiently (including in urban battles), the svol has a declared resource of 25000 shots, while on the PKM 12500. Well, a lot of things are mixed. Fake in my opinion. I will not judge intelligibility or indistinctness, since I do not have complete and reliable information about the plans of the Ministry of Defense. Perhaps, if the author is admitted to state secrets, then he is aware, and perhaps all his information is from the institute. In general, it is not clear.
    1. Daydreamer
      +3
      19 January 2013 13: 28
      denkastro,
      I support, some statements of the author sound at least strange. For example, about AC Val, etc. with 9x39 cartridge.
      The shaft and Vintorez were created as a special weapon for special tasks, as a complex of an automatic subsonic cartridge with a heavy bullet.
      Of course, they have certain disadvantages, for example, a small barrel resource, but given the advantages and scope, this is quite justified. In addition, the same AC Val is noticeably smaller and lighter than AK.

      Or this:
      replacement of the AK-74 assault rifle (cal. 5,45x39) with the AK-103 assault rifle (cal. 7,62x39) - for the unification of small arms.

      This is what at all?

      The statement about SVD and self-loading rifles still looks strange.
      According to the modern foreign classification, SVD can be attributed not to sniper rifles but to the "Marksman" weapon, i.e. something between an ordinary soldier with an assault rifle or carbine, and a full-fledged sniper. The SVD is undoubtedly an excellent weapon, and no one in their right mind will remove it from service, however, its accuracy is greatly lacking for sniper missions at long distances.
    2. aleksandrik
      -1
      19 January 2013 14: 39
      There was an impression that, according to the author of the article, the customer is to blame for all the troubles, that is, the Ministry of Defense, either they refuse to buy what the military-industrial complex is doing, or it orders from the military-industrial complex such developments that the military-industrial complex is not profitable!

      It really resembles the situation with AvtoVAZ ... they say you are a bastard if you have something against the Lada, they really say that you are not a patriot, we’ve been doing it for 50 years that doesn’t suit you! And similarly, you’ll be a bastard if you want us to produce Mercedes for you .... we need to rebuild the whole enterprise, technologies and so on request

      So my conclusion is the same - the author is against competition! )))) Apparently this is the whole point!
      1. +1
        19 January 2013 23: 57
        It seems to me that the customer is to blame. They did what they ordered. And if he didn’t order anything, or he couldn’t figure out what he needed, it’s his own fault. Will behave in a similar way, will lose the national producer. Already, two-thirds of the military-industrial complex have either died or lost their technology. They (these enterprises) will no longer be able to produce anything worthwhile, even if everyone is overwhelmed with money. At the same time, the money will be "used".
        The customer must order from the military-industrial complex what he needs (confidently knowing what he needs). And then it’s hard to keep track of what they ordered. We need to firmly understand that beyond the hill we will not sell anything worthwhile.
        The situation with Avtovaz is different. Everything that is produced is sold out. Warehouses are not overwhelmed with unsold products. And the prices for it rise regularly. It's just that people don't have enough money to buy foreign cars. Not everyone has Moscow salaries.
        1. 0
          20 January 2013 00: 38
          There is such garbage - inertia. And with her, the customer is always to blame. Yes, anyone but himself will be to blame - evil enemies, Serdyukov, etc.
  8. AK-47
    +1
    19 January 2013 13: 19
    Quote: Torus
    I heard that Baryshev also had a pistol developed, though he did not find it on the net ...

    Baryshev pistol 1947
    http://shotgun.com.ua/fire/pm/pm_hist.html
    1. pum boom
      0
      21 January 2013 14: 04
      Mistake came out! In the photo, the gun K.A. Barysheva, and the question was asked by A.F. Barysheva.
      Anatoly Filippovich did not succeed, to put it mildly.
  9. +3
    19 January 2013 13: 43
    Daydreamer,
    "+" That's right, the AK of the hundredth series was not put into service precisely because of the balanced automation (the reliability is not very good), and the SVD will quite perform the tasks that it faces for a very long time, but these are not the tasks of a sniper, this is exactly the same "well-aimed shooter" who is more needed by a unit in battle than a sniper with a bolt that hits at long distances. In this question, the author seems to be saying everything is correct, only the accents are placed somehow differently.
  10. toguns
    +1
    19 January 2013 13: 46
    drinks Thanks for the article, but what else would I like to say
    the soldier must also be well trained in new methods of firing various types of weapons.
  11. +3
    19 January 2013 14: 07
    Well, this is already a much more sensible article, not complaining that they require improving quality. So what's the problem? In customer system degradation. The highest level is not debugged, as usual, the highest leadership of the country with analysts attached to it. Industry can, for today, produce almost anything. But the top level of the state has an understanding of what it, this state itself, really needs - no.
    There must be a concept for the conduct of hostilities by our state. And not a brick of a hundred thousand pages, ordered by anonymous writers in the bowels of ministries and departments "shob bulo", but a short (and top secret) document in which the management must list the threats that really exist. On this basis, some analysts (I really hope that they exist, these analysts ...) must set extremely general tasks for designers, and for military scientists - the task of monitoring performance. For example, the designers (just give me funding) are happy to pile some kind of catfish out of the AK. So it is necessary to check whether it is necessary to change the AK at all. Etc. etc....
  12. 0
    19 January 2013 15: 41
    Lord, this is what Petrov writes. In general, he always treated my uncle ambiguously, but what a heated delirium and how many stamps. "There are no analogues", "it is surprising." Damn, is it really that hard to write a normal analytical article? They want more of a war between firms. Izhevsk is exalted, Tochmash goes down in full
    1. +1
      19 January 2013 16: 06
      Pimply,
      I agree, "corporate wars" are detected. But there is a healthy grain in the article, you can't argue. The crisis in this industry is long overdue, but the solutions are all convulsive, there is no clear plan.
      1. +2
        19 January 2013 17: 35
        The article left a very mixed impression, it seems that the right questions were raised, but nevertheless ... Information on a number of types of weapons was not given correctly, an emphasis was placed on parts of the technical characteristics, and the other part was silently ignored, it seems that there was nothing to complain about but on another barrel other characteristics are already given. And the comparison is not entirely correct ... Moreover, not a word is said about the quality of the ammunition, and after all, our ammunition very seriously worsens the characteristics of the weapon, what can I say, even the Americans, who are doing much better with this than we do not disdain to independently equip cartridges, so as not to be unfounded: http: //warfiles.ru/show-21678-pksk-9-mm-portativnyy-korotkostvolnyy-sluzhebnyy-
        karabin.html
      2. +5
        19 January 2013 17: 39
        You see, healthy grain - it’s not difficult to throw it. But if you pour it with garbage, then garbage will grow.

        Petrov, of course, an associate - no doubt. But he has a bunch of his interests. For example, there is a technique of automatic shooting - he promotes it, actively pushing drum shops, etc. And the fact that automatic shooting is really effective only with a fairly narrow range of tasks - he is silent.

        As with the concept, one shot at the Americans, in whom it was born not yesterday and not today, but during the war of independence. And automatic sniper rifles were, not just the M-24. There was an old woman M-14, which was used very successfully in that capacity. And there were and are Marxmen with M-16.

        Petrov lies a lot, cunning a lot and often pulls a blanket over himself. That's all.
        1. +2
          19 January 2013 18: 44
          Quote: Pimply
          he is a lot of cunning and often pulls a blanket over himself.

          So I have such an impression ... I have no data on military trunks, but even at the dawn of the appearance of Saiga 7,62, there were a lot of complaints about the workmanship, up to crooked and rusty barrels, not to mention that almost all the parts had to be finalized manually ... But after all, Saiga was made on the same technological equipment as the automatic machines, and its handles were made the same ... So how can you try to reinvent the wheel in the form of new, "unparalleled" products at a qualitatively new level to do Kalash? The hundredth series was not bad at all, and if you achieve stability and quality of ammunition, then maybe nothing else is needed, but the same SVD, is it good ???
          1. +2
            19 January 2013 18: 55
            On Saiga, a separate topic, including non-interchangeability of parts, curved trunks and other jambs.

            As for the rest - I do not agree. If you think like that, they would still shoot from muskets, or even from bows.

            Because the world does not stand still. While digging with the AK-12, the same Galil ACE has long been released



            Although he, in fact, is a dead end - there is nowhere to develop especially.
            1. 0
              19 January 2013 19: 18
              Quote: Pimply
              . If you think like that, they would still shoot from muskets, or even from bows.
              No, I probably didn’t put it that way ... the holiday is all the same ... I definitely need to create a new one, no doubt, I just don’t see any reason for haste here, like with ships and planes ... For conscripts, especially those of the same age I don’t need the barrel is more complicated than Kalash, another thing is double bass, but this is a separate issue, but for now, if you clean up the cartridge industry, Kalash will still fight and not bad ... But to create new types of small arms, you really need competent TK in the first place, however, as for everything else ... Well, something like that, in my opinion ...
              1. -1
                19 January 2013 19: 25
                I do not agree with this. That's the thing that is needed. Needed, and should be. The barrel must be new, accurate, with a collimator. Because this is an advantage over the enemy. This primarily concerns infantry units.
                To create new types of weapons, we need to escape from inertia, and not competent TK. Because there it is, competent TK in all arms markets of the world.
                1. +1
                  19 January 2013 19: 47
                  Quote: Pimply
                  The barrel must be new, accurate, with a collimator.

                  Eugene, we are talking about the same thing, only in different words. It's like with a Zhiguli car ... The headlights have been changed and they are reporting about the new model ... But for me, how was Fiat! 96? years, so it remained, nothing new has been introduced into it, the design is the same machine ... So in the weapon, in my opinion ... The barrel should be constantly improved, but the fact that it was hung with Picatinny strips does not mean that this is something fundamentally new ... We need to lengthen the barrel - lengthen, we need new sights - please. Another step of rifling, but not a question, but it's still the same Kalash, only they worked on it and brought it up ... I wrote in the first post "at a qualitatively new level" ... And of course you need to create something new and look for new solutions ... And if to be honest that Galil fundamentally different from AK?
                  1. 0
                    19 January 2013 20: 21
                    It is important because it originally thought about ergonomics, and solved the issues that 40 years ago should have been solved in the AK-74M. This is a fundamental difference.
                    1. +2
                      19 January 2013 20: 26
                      Zhenya, I'm sorry, but in my opinion, it’s still brought AK ....
                      1. 0
                        19 January 2013 20: 35
                        And what to apologize for. That's what I'm talking about. It's just how, in principle, the AK should have developed if the developers did not move on to the topic "has no analogues". ACE, in fact, overtook the AK-12 by several years, while comparing them, at least externally.
                      2. 0
                        19 January 2013 20: 41
                        Quote: Pimply
                        It’s just how AK, in principle, should have developed,
                        So I'm writing about this that the potential of the AK is not exhausted and there is no reason to tear your hair out and shout: "Chief, the truncated is gone ..." (c) We need to calmly continue to work and bring to shine what we have, but we have the most reliable a typewriter in the world ... And to search, create, invent, so it is necessary ...
                      3. +1
                        19 January 2013 21: 12
                        De facto, he is on the edge at the moment. The real development potential is practically exhausted. We need a new machine, which will be produced according to new standards. It is possible that part of it will be based on the AK design. But it should be just a new "trunk"
                      4. +1
                        19 January 2013 21: 34
                        Quote: Pimply
                        De facto he is on the edge, at the moment.

                        I do not argue with this, but the situation is not yet critical and there is no point in statements: "Either this year they will show us something super-duper, or we will start shopping abroad" Haste is needed when catching fleas ... And about the TK, here I disagree, ergonomics costs the same, so this moment should be voiced ...
                      5. -2
                        19 January 2013 21: 42
                        It is critical in terms of real, actual lag. Already behind.
                2. anomalocaris
                  +4
                  19 January 2013 20: 36
                  Quote: Pimply
                  To create new types of weapons, we need to escape from inertia, and not competent TK.

                  Wow ... But how can one portray something without competent TK?
                  1. +1
                    19 January 2013 21: 13
                    Yes, they somehow understand. It's just that the "absence of technical specifications" has recently become too beautiful excuse. The basic requirements for a modern automaton have long been known.
                    1. anomalocaris
                      +1
                      19 January 2013 21: 43
                      Well, I personally can portray a lot of things. But does anyone need this?
                      1. -1
                        19 January 2013 21: 56
                        This is the trouble. In Russia, everything is closed to AK - a huge number of promising developments ruined this.
            2. 0
              20 January 2013 21: 44
              But these pimples in all directions on the butt, protrusions with extensions throughout the fixture, is that what? No, I understand, Kalashnikov - he was stupid. Therefore, he used the experience of many other gunsmiths, which says senselessly - weapons should not be confused in uniforms and cling to anything. Because with such weapons people manage to catch on ...
              But then smart Jews uncompromisingly stupid grandfather corrected. Just grab this seven-billed cat from a pea coat - and a pea coat will explode after it, be sure. How will this end? Yeah ... Maybe a good weapon ... if you take an ax and chop off at least part of the hooks, even from the butt ...
              1. 0
                20 January 2013 22: 09
                Well, for starters, I would recommend to study a topic on which you are going to argue.

                1) On the fore-end notch - there is displayed a button of the laser sight, which is communicated with the collimator.
                2) On the butt, a removable hood - for better aiming.
                3) Notches are made to reduce weight

                What else do you care about? Gate?
                What kind of recesses and pimples bother you?
          2. +2
            19 January 2013 23: 09
            Quote: sniper
            But Saiga was made on the same technological equipment as the automatic machines, and its pens were made the same

            Everything is true for the lack of one small detail - military acceptance. This time. It just so happened - the details that did not pass the acceptance requirements - go to the citizen. These are two. Have you seen this equipment? These are three.
  13. +4
    19 January 2013 15: 59
    The author's opinion on this issue has been heard ... it seems that the bureaucrats from the Ministry of Defense do not know the history of the development of small arms ... why the calibers changed, why the requirements for this or that barrel changed. "... The 9x18PM cartridge, which in 50-70% of cases showing the best stopping effect in comparison with the 9x19 and 9x21 cartridges ... "respected for this, he once replaced the cartridge for TT ... back to square one again." ... From now on, all the key countries of the bloc NATO is armed with its own self-loading sniper rifles. ... "This was the same thing, even during the Second World War, many snipers preferred weapons based on SVT, but the Mosin rifle was more accurate ... but the time for a second shot, as they always say, Sometimes the bureaucrats from the Ministry of Defense remind ... sorry, not quite distant people ... who accidentally fell into their positions ... and drooling when considering Western advertising brochures for weapons living in their ... a kind of virtualworld ... far from reality.
  14. skychnii
    0
    19 January 2013 16: 48
    The machine remains automatic when it shoots so let it shoot the AK and shut up the M16.
  15. Passing
    -3
    19 January 2013 16: 51
    In this case, the Kalashnikov assault rifle will remain the main small arms for combat units of the power structures of the Russian Federation in the next 50 years.

    The author is a terry conservative, just think, seriously offering in the 21st century 100 years not to change the main small arms. The nature of warfare ten years ago changed radically, and the author stubbornly does not notice it.
    The time of a technically illiterate peasant, millions of enemies standing in the way, has irrevocably gone, and not because such people have ended, but because they simply have no chance to protect the country's independence from a high-tech army. Now professionals with high-tech weapons are required. A different approach guarantees us a repeat of 41 years, or rather it will be much worse, the blitzkrieg in this case will succeed.
    The author titled his article "On Conceptual Uncertainty ..."
    The article is fully consistent with the title, no analysis of present and future tasks that are intended to solve weapons, no concept arising from these tasks. Instead of etgo, something slurred at the level of middle manager - let's buy training pistols and machine guns for the whole country, and everything will be fine with us.
    1. -1
      19 January 2013 17: 58
      The author is cunning a lot and often, in fact. And Izhmash also actively promotes its "Petrov method" based on automatic shooting - there are many spears around it and its real effectiveness is broken.
    2. 0
      27 January 2013 02: 34
      And what is the radical change in the nature of infantry fire fighting in 2013 from him in 2003?
      1. Passing
        0
        27 January 2013 21: 47
        Not in 2003, but in the 90s of the last century, it was then that the United States massively tested a new concept of warfare - betting on ultra-accurate long-range weapons, on a fundamentally better situational awareness. With regard to the infantry - bulletproof vests appeared with kevlar helmets complete with optical sights and NVD, i.e. the Americans, as it were, emerged from the zone of certain defeat by enemy weapons. While maintaining the effectiveness of its application. Those. Americans know where the enemy is, they see him, and they can strike from a safe distance for themselves, but the enemy sees nothing, understands nothing, and even if he sees an American enemy, he cannot hit him - far away, it’s impossible to aim, body armor helmets do not penetrate such a range. And he can’t get closer, they kill him faster, because he isn’t armored, his shot in milk or armor, and the American is right on target, and if he hit, it means 100% hit. Hence the simply ridiculous losses of American soldiers in the war with the millionth army.
  16. andrey903
    +1
    19 January 2013 17: 14
    There are still reserves in the modernization of AK and SVD due to quality, ease of shutter with a gas piston. Again the poor quality of ammunition
    1. 0
      20 January 2013 22: 23
      Quote: andrey903
      due to ... facilitating the shutter with a gas piston.


      Everything is already lightened to the limit there. Further ultimate strength. Relief is possible only with the use of new material in terms of strength and low cost of equal steel. As soon as it appears, by all means.
  17. +2
    19 January 2013 17: 51
    Quote: Passing by
    Now professionals with high-tech weapons are required

    weapons from star wars and computer toys have not yet been invented. And when almost the entire male population of the country served in the army and has experience in handling weapons, in which case you will take AK, PC and SVD
    1. Passing
      +1
      19 January 2013 19: 18
      Quote: nalexx
      star wars guns and computer toys have not yet been invented

      It’s better to study the world’s world achievements, all this is in the gland, although it has not yet been taken into mass use.
      Quote: nalexx
      And when almost the entire male population of the country served in the army and has experience in handling weapons

      He served, shot ... twice. War will come, I will go again ... already really learn to fight, paying for experience in blood. For this blood to be enemy, and not mine, I would prefer to receive, upon arrival, a high-tech machine gun, with a collimator sight that does not require falcon sight and persistent practice and talent for accurate targeting, a laser rangefinder that does not require long practice to determine the range "on eye ", with a thermal imaging sight, which allows you to fight on equal terms with the enemy at night, and not be a blind puppy beaten with impunity by an all-seeing enemy, with cartridges for this machine gun, piercing any enemy body armor for half a kilometer, with balanced automation to shoot immediately and accurately, and do not spend ten years mastering secret techniques Shaolin Petrova for confident shooting from AK.
      1. +1
        27 January 2013 02: 41
        Quote: Passing by
        Quote: nalexxweapons from star wars and computer toys have not yet been invented. Better study the world’s world achievements, all this is in hardware, although it’s not yet accepted into mass use.

        Dear Buddha! Please give me a green little lightsaber, a blaster like Han Solo's and X-wing like Luke Skywalker! wassat
        Quote: Passing by
        I would rather receive, upon arrival,

        And in addition to the above, add a high-tech shovel and two high-tech blacks, because I don’t want to learn not only to shoot, but also to correctly equip a position. tongue
        1. Passing
          0
          27 January 2013 22: 08
          Quote: Rakti-Kali
          And in addition to the above, add a high-tech shovel and two high-tech blacks, because I don’t want to learn not only to shoot, but also to correctly equip a position.

          Of course, the thought is sensible, I would not refuse ....
          But not because I don’t know how to dig-shoot. Just why is it difficult to do something, with an anguish, when you can make everything simpler (easier for the end user, and not in the sense of easier construction of the shovel).
          So, note - I have not bad natural shooting abilities. At school, he scored 29 points out of small things more than once. He fired from AK four times in his entire life, thirty rounds of ammunition. At the same time, the army was shooting at the shooting range not bad, so right away, without sighting, generally without theories and practices (only at school, scanty snatches), they told the tired me who was returning from the outfit, like run to the training ground to catch up with a platoon, take a gun in my teeth , and shoot the bucks, but I do not care, hit without straining, all the bullets in the chest target. Even the beginning. approvingly patted the landfill, they say, Eagle!)))
  18. +1
    19 January 2013 20: 25
    And I have a question for respected members of the forum. There are two completely identical units (quantity, preparation, and armament), the only difference is that some have picatini with Shakhin on the Kalash, others have the usual (no picotini). In case of clash with poor visibility (smoke, fog etc.) who will win and with what chances ??? I’ll answer right away that those guys who have sights of Shahin will win, if you do not take into account circumstances of force majeure. We did not come up with an arms race because of boredom. Developing a weapon is not an empty phrase, but necessity. Although there is no need to allow excesses, the same AK has not yet completely come out. I think AK 12, if it is possible to realize everything stated, will completely satisfy the needs of the Moscow Region (like a mass machine) at this stage.
    1. anomalocaris
      +6
      19 January 2013 20: 48
      I can immediately say that the mortar battery of the battalion will win.
  19. +1
    19 January 2013 22: 25
    anomalocaris, In this case, force majeure circumstances).
    1. anomalocaris
      +1
      19 January 2013 22: 35
      These are circumstances of the organization, not surmountable force ...
  20. 0
    19 January 2013 23: 29
    A good article. And if a mean male tear breaks between the lines, this is because the author, praise the Almighty, takes to heart the problems of creating and introducing new small arms. But what remains behind the scenes seems to me more interesting and exciting. Who is driving so much in the Moscow Region, who is creating plans for the creation of new weapons, who is pushing foreign models, who is crushing his talents to please the shy ones who open the doors to the offices of power with their feet?
  21. Valboro
    +2
    19 January 2013 23: 48
    I carefully read both the article and the comments. It’s good that everyone is rooting for the weapons system. But, in my opinion, having examined in detail certain aspects of the article, they did not pay attention to what, in fact, the article is devoted to.
    And this: the army has completely eliminated the search and adoption of new weapons systems. The army had dozens of military institutes and special training grounds, thousands of highly professional officers. They conducted research, prepared TTZ and TTT for samples, analyzed industry materials, conducted tests. At least the same AK. I remind you that he passed the tests in the 40s only after military engineers worked with him. It was they who carried out the calculations of the dynamics of the moving parts and the necessary gaps. It is this that largely ensures the reliability of AK, most precisely the family, starting with AKM.
    Now, in my opinion, it is necessary to restore these institutions in all forms. Only then can we talk about truly advanced weapons again
  22. +1
    20 January 2013 05: 24
    Curious, how can you change the barrel on a carbine to get a sniper rifle? We shot every new batch of ammunition, and then a whole barrel. The same collimator, the unit equipped with it, is not yet omnipotent, here, too, there is a double-edged sword, the sight needs to be taken care of, it needs to be serviced, you won’t mess with it on the asphalt, i.e. you’ll blur if it’s impractical, but you’ll also break the scope, then the collimator simplifies aiming, but in smoke, fog, and darkness, it also does not help, like an ordinary one. It seems to me that the question is not that there is no concept, but that small arms have rested at their upper limit and not sights can change it, but some kind of breakthrough in this area. Well, military officials and designers, as well as journalists, you can understand, we need money, then there’s nothing you can imagine ....
    1. 0
      20 January 2013 06: 54
      Well, modern sights are quite high-strength. And just the mass appearance of low-sights and collimator sights dramatically increased the capabilities of weapons
  23. +2
    20 January 2013 07: 11
    9 Good article. But about the "Val" line, "Vintorez" disagrees. This is a specific weapon. In addition, the author forgot about the OTs-14 "Groza"
  24. +1
    20 January 2013 13: 12
    The Shahin sight is not kallimator! The Shahin thermal imaging sight, consisting of small arms such as a rifle, carbine, assault rifle, provides round-the-clock target detection and aiming when shooting from prone, knee-high and standing in any combat situation (smoke, dust, etc. ) This is a passive device: it does not require any artificial light sources. The installation of the sight on the weapon is carried out using a special bracket.

    The Shahin thermal imaging sight is the only uncooled thermal imaging sight of a completely Russian design and production.

    FEATURES:

    not "blinded" by any light interference
    when using the remote video eyepiece, shooting can be conducted “from around the corner”
    when using improvised means of camouflage (plastic bag) is not detected by anti-sniper systems
    can be used as a portable surveillance device
  25. SEM
    SEM
    +2
    20 January 2013 13: 28
    I tried a lot of the presented samples personally, about the 9mm VAL, VSK, 9A91 I can say that they are a very good weapon, but at distances of 25-150 meters it is rarely up to 250 meters which is connected with the design features.
  26. +1
    20 January 2013 18: 57
    Plusan, Bo saw confirmation of his thoughts. feel
  27. capral-32
    0
    22 January 2013 14: 16
    like a moot article. I agree with something, but I would argue with something feel
  28. 0
    28 January 2013 01: 06
    1 level - long range snipers


    All these divisions are the essence of the longing of the spirit (IMHO). A man or a sniper or not.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned), Kirill Budanov (included to the Rosfinmonitoring list of terrorists and extremists)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"