"Every frog praises its own swamp," or from the legendary FAL to the legendary AR-10

14 292 127
"Every frog praises its own swamp," or from the legendary FAL to the legendary AR-10
The classic FN FAL battle rifle in all its glory. Photo: Jim Grant


[right]He fired once, and fired twice, and the bullet whistled into the bushes...
"You shoot like a soldier," Kamal said, "show me how you drive."




The Ballad of East and West by R. Kipling[/right]

stories about weapons. I've always found it fascinating to read what's written about something somewhere "in the West." The manner of presenting information there is somewhat different from ours, and the commentary is quite different from ours, but the content itself is quite interesting. After all, everyone is biased. In your own country, even a dirty puddle is red, but in another, a palace is peeling, puddles of urine flow near the Louvre, and black people sleep right on the sidewalks. And, by the way, this isn't a cliché from Soviet times, but reality today—I've seen it all with my own eyes and smelled it. And when my wife turned down one such "black" and overly pushy souvenir seller, he immediately muttered in perfect Russian, "Racist, racist!"

And yet, both what they write and how they write it are interesting. Especially since every frog praises its own swamp. And recently, I happened to read an interesting article in one of the local gun magazines, which was devoted to the genesis of American small arms. I found it quite fascinating, so I decided to offer it to the readers of "VO," rewriting it in my own words, while fully preserving the meaning and content.

The purpose of this English-language article is to show why the AR-10 rifle is still very popular, that you “need” an AR-10, and to understand how one of the most fearsome combat rifles in history has evolved. stories Firearms. The history of modern automatic rifles in the West began with the iconic FN FAL, known as the "right hand of the free world." And it remained that "right hand" for quite some time, until the arrival of the reliable and versatile AR-10. Each rifle along the way reflected advances in power, accuracy, and adaptability, which for decades determined the effectiveness of their use.

Thus, the origins of the modern combat rifle "there" date back to the early 1950s and the introduction of the FN FAL (Fusil Automatique Léger)—a rifle that became one of the most widely used combat firearms in history. Originally developed by the Belgian arms manufacturer Fabrique Nationale (FN), the FAL quickly gained a reputation for its reliability, durability, and powerful 7,62 NATO cartridge. Its semi-automatic and fully automatic firing modes, combined with its robust design, made this rifle popular among NATO countries, and it was adopted by over 90 countries.

The FAL's role in the post-World War II era was vital, allowing Western troops to fire in the most challenging conditions and engage targets at long range. Its rugged design, ease of use, and compatibility with the 7,62x51mm NATO cartridge earned it the status of "the right hand of the free world"—a nickname it earned for its widespread use during the Cold War. Naturally, the FAL has also become an iconic firearm in popular culture. In the 1995 crime thriller Heat, the character Michael Cheritto (played by Tom Sizemore) carries a 20-inch FN FAL Paratrooper with a folding stock. And in military circles, the FAL's influence continues to this day. British and Australian SAS units sometimes use the FN FAL for special missions, taking advantage of its powerful caliber and reliability.

However, as military tactics and combat needs evolved, the FAL's design began to reveal not only its strengths but also its weaknesses. While it was manageable in normal combat conditions, its length and weight became a liability in close combat and jungle situations, where the weapon's maneuverability and rate of fire were crucial.

As a result, the search for a more versatile battle rifle continued, leading to a number of innovations that influenced the design of future rifles, including the M14 and, ultimately, the AR-10. As the FAL gained popularity worldwide, the United States sought to develop its own battle rifle to replace the aging M1 Garand. This is how the M14 was born.

Adopted in 1959, the M14 rifle combined elements of the proven M1 Garand design with modern improvements, including a detachable magazine and compatibility with the 7,62 NATO cartridge. This allowed soldiers to fire for longer periods while maintaining accuracy and power at relatively long ranges. The M14 performed well in open combat, such as in Europe, but it also had its drawbacks. Weighing over 4,5 pounds with a full magazine, the M14 was a heavy weapon and difficult to handle in close combat.


A sniper with an M14

The powerful 7,62×51mm NATO cartridge also made it difficult to control its fire in full automatic mode. Despite all its strengths, these shortcomings became particularly apparent during the Vietnam War, when dense jungle environments required lighter, more maneuverable rifles. Consequently, the M14 saw limited combat use, and its shortcomings prompted the US military to search for a new rifle that could meet the requirements of both close- and long-range combat.

And then it happened that in the late 1950s, firearms designer Eugene Stoner began working on a revolutionary rifle that would challenge traditional design norms for combat rifles. The result of his work was the AR-10—a lightweight, gas-operated rifle chambered for the 7,62 NATO cartridge. Manufactured by ArmaLite, the AR-10 was a breakthrough in materials and technology: it utilized aviation aluminum and other unusual solutions that significantly reduced its weight compared to the FAL and M14.


Eugene Stoner, the father of the AR-15, is a masterpiece. The Armalite AR-10. Brownell's has recreated the original with the retro version, the BRN-10A. Photo: Graham Baats

One of the AR-10's distinctive features was its direct gas system, which contributed to weight reduction and ease of operation. This system diverted gases from the barrel directly into the bolt carrier, eliminating the need for a heavy piston and improving the rifle's balance and control. Combined with its ergonomic design and modular construction, the AR-10 offered greater flexibility and ease of maintenance, a hallmark of the modern combat rifle.

Despite the excellence of its design, the AR-10 faced stiff competition and failed to achieve widespread adoption in the 1960s. Ultimately, the US Army chose the M16, a smaller-caliber, lighter version of the Stoner rifle. However, the AR-10's reputation as a powerful and versatile rifle was not forgotten. Over the decades, it was periodically revived, improved, and adapted, eventually becoming one of the most versatile combat rifles of our time.

Although the AR-10 initially lost its place to its younger sibling, the M16, it has found new life in the 21st century. As firearms technology advanced and the nature of warfare changed, the AR-10 was redesigned, modernized, and adopted by civilian shooters, law enforcement, and the military. Modern improvements have maintained the AR-10's relevance and effectiveness, particularly as a dedicated marksman or sniper platform.

Modern AR-10 models feature improved materials, increased manufacturing precision, and modularity, allowing users to customize the rifle to their specific needs. Many updates are aimed at reducing weight and recoil, making the AR-10 more controllable than its earlier versions. Rail systems allow for the installation of optics, lights, and other accessories, turning the AR-10 into a versatile platform for precision shooting at long ranges and making it comfortable in close combat.

One of the significant innovations in modern AR-10 platforms is the availability of higher-quality barrels and muzzles, which improve accuracy and control. Furthermore, thanks to adjustable stocks, improved triggers, and modernized bolt carriers, modern AR-10s can be easily customized and used for extended shooting. The rifle's ability to chamber large-caliber cartridges such as .308 Winchester and 6,5 Creedmoor has also increased its appeal, as it maintains the stopping power expected of a combat rifle while meeting the demands of precision shooting.


Palmetto State Armory's AR-10 Saber chambered in .308

A fine example of the modern AR-10 revival can be seen in Palmetto State Armory's .308 AR-10 Sabre, a combat rifle that combines affordability with serious firepower. Featuring a 20-inch barrel, 12,5-inch Quad Rail, and A1 stock, the PSA Sabre is designed for those who want the reliability of a classic AR-10 with some modern enhancements. Complete with three magazines, a Magpul bipod, and a carrying case, the Sabre is a field-ready weapon for shooters seeking a reliable .308 platform. Its rugged billet construction and adjustable Quad Rail make it an attractive choice for those looking for a versatile and powerful modern AR-10 without breaking the bank.

The AR-10's advantages as a combat rifle extend beyond its sheer firepower, making it an effective means of enhancing combat readiness in tactical and defensive situations. Designed to fire powerful cartridges like the .308 Winchester and 6.5 Creedmoor, the AR-10 combines these cartridges with a semi-automatic mode, allowing for quick and effective shooting in emergency situations.

• Enhanced Combat Readiness: The AR-10's semi-automatic design allows for rapid repeat shots and the ability to engage multiple targets. This capability, coupled with the powerful .308 or 6.5 Creedmoor cartridges, makes the AR-10 highly effective in situations where sustained firepower is critical. This combination of power and velocity provides a significant advantage to tactical teams, law enforcement, and civilians in self-defense situations. Superior Firepower and Penetration: The .308 and 6.5 Creedmoor cartridges deliver significant ballistic energy, allowing the AR-10 to penetrate certain types of body armor at close to medium ranges. This means the AR-10 can effectively engage shielded targets that smaller caliber rifles might struggle to penetrate.

• Extended Range: Powerful ammunition gives the AR-10 superior accuracy at long ranges, making it a reliable choice for engaging targets out to 800 yards or more. The ballistics of the .308 Winchester and 6.5 Creedmoor cartridges provide flatter trajectories and consistent accuracy at longer ranges, positioning the AR-10 between traditional long-range rifles and close-quarters weapons.

• Modularity and Adaptability: The AR-10 platform's modularity allows users to tailor the rifle to specific applications, whether hunting, target shooting, or tactical use. Adjustable stocks, optics, grips, and forends make it easy to customize the AR-10 for improved ergonomics and fit, increasing control and shooting comfort. This flexibility allows the AR-10 to function as a versatile platform for a variety of roles, from a sniper rifle to a general-purpose rifle.

• With its powerful armor-piercing rounds, rapid-fire semi-automatic fire, and adaptability, the AR-10 has established itself as more than just a battle rifle, but as a modern, high-performance weapon. In the ever-evolving world of firearms, the AR-10 proves that reimagining and refining older designs sometimes produces weapons that stand the test of time.


Sig-Sauer MCX "Spear." Will it outperform the AR-10 in every way?

An impressive text, isn't it? And it's clear there's something to all this, beyond any doubt. But to what extent is all this actually true? This question, as always, is the most difficult to answer.
127 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -11
    29 November 2025 03: 36
    I don't want to start a holy war between the Ark and the Kalashnikov. Tactics and combat show that the design is already outdated. Accuracy, ergonomics, and so on matter now. The evolution of the AK-12 has shown the folly of trying to build something like that. As a result, the 12 mod. 4 has essentially returned. The Upper and Lower designs are now unrivaled. Alas and alack. You can certainly criticize me. What a bunch of armchair crap, I guess. But I used the CM4A1 for a month and a half (yes, I'm not arguing, it was not cheaply equipped), and it's noticeably better. But it requires training. A change in tactics, equipment, etc.
    1. +5
      29 November 2025 08: 01
      Dear Alexey! You're right. Moreover, the command of first the Soviet and then the Russian army agreed with you. Why then, with a persistence worthy of better causes, did they organize competitions to... replace the Kalashnikov? And they've been going on practically one after another, practically since the late 50s. That's saying something, right? It was seen as a temporary and inexpensive weapon, meant to last until something better and more expensive appeared. But... nothing is more permanent than something temporary. It's easy to find online how many competitions to replace the AK were organized during its service life. So, these aren't just me making things up.
      1. +8
        29 November 2025 08: 50
        It was seen as a temporary and cheap weapon until something better and more expensive appeared.

        You're talking nonsense. Quite the opposite—you wanted "better and cheaper"? But it's not working. Better and more expensive, yes, but there's no money for mass armies. And back then, it was a time of mass—people's—armies, not small, professional ones. It's clear that military concepts are constantly changing—this is evident in every major war—but still, at the core of any weapon, "better and cheaper" remains unchanged.
        1. IVZ
          +6
          29 November 2025 09: 09
          just the opposite - you wanted "Better and Cheaper"?
          More like "better, but not much more expensive." The primary requirements have always been increased combat effectiveness (accuracy, effective firing range, bullet impact) while maintaining reliability and ease of use. Cost was also a factor.
        2. 0
          29 November 2025 09: 30
          Quote: Alexey_12
          "better and cheaper"

          Of course, I wrote the wrong word in my sleep... But that doesn't change the point—the military held competitions to replace the Kalashnikov with enviable regularity. I'll write about that sometime.
          1. -2
            29 November 2025 10: 55
            Heh - how many minuses they gave me laughing But. In fact, no one had anything to say other than a minus. I cast my line. We'll wait. wassat lol
            1. 0
              29 November 2025 12: 51
              Quote: Alexey_12
              Zhdems

              Alexey! I don't give downvotes on principle...
              1. -2
                29 November 2025 13: 27
                I know Vyacheslav! We've known each other for a while now. hi drinks good soldier

                I just have my own opinion. I've had the chance to handle an ark, use it for its intended purpose, and can compare. And to my surprise, I've shifted my stance a bit.

                By the way, everyone forgets about the microwave oven, for example. I haven't used it myself, but I've heard the reviews. I think everyone knows that it's built with an arched design (upper/lower). But as always, they wanted the best, and what they got was... The quality is so terrible that it's completely useless compared to the classics.
        3. -2
          29 November 2025 10: 58
          Quote: Ivan Ivanych Ivanov
          professional armies

          That's what I was saying, that the Arka isn't a weapon for a one-year-old conscript. They don't attack in droves these days. And you need a specialized weapon, not a general-purpose one. Nowadays, every Kalashmat is collectively owned, depending on the soldier's financial resources and volunteer support.
          1. +1
            29 November 2025 12: 11
            Are you 100% sure about this?
            1. -5
              29 November 2025 12: 15
              I see you are an adherent that in our SVO only conscripts fight?
              1. +2
                29 November 2025 12: 28
                During the Patriotic War of 1812, contract soldiers with long service terms fought.
                And domestic factories coped with arming the army during the Napoleonic Wars until 1812.
                But when the "French and Co." came to the lands of the Empire, it turned out that there was nothing to arm the "new contract soldiers" and militias with.
                We had to buy "fusils, muskets and carbines" in Great Britain...
                What I'm getting at is that AR platforms aren't the best option.
                Many foreign armies burned their hands on it, both literally and figuratively.
                1. -1
                  29 November 2025 12: 34
                  Maybe we should also remember the Crimean War? When the British and other invaders had rifles, and we had, you know what?
                  1. +5
                    29 November 2025 12: 48
                    Those invaders already had revolvers.
                    Bought with my own money!
                    By the way, the question always arises: "Why weren't reinforcements sent from Central Russia to Crimea?"
                    There were probably problems with the mobilization reserve, as well as with the weapons of that reserve...

                    Let me repeat: the entire European "weapons genius" has been making, remaking, and re-purposing the components of AR platforms for a long time.
                    Some people make good products, others make bad products.
                    Scandals in the arms world happen from time to time.
                    Our country has its own problems.
                    Both design and production plans.
                    If you don't like the Kalashnikov, buy yourself an Ark and you'll be happy.
                    Probably.
                    Just make sure you buy foreign-made cartridges for it.
                    Many people are not satisfied with domestic ones.
                    They write that they produce a lot of gunpowder carbon deposits and that the "arched" mechanisms have to be cleaned very carefully and diligently.
                    But no one knows what's "waiting around the corner"!
                    1. -1
                      29 November 2025 13: 15
                      Quote: hohol95
                      Just make sure you buy foreign-made cartridges for it.
                      Many people are not satisfied with domestic ones.

                      There are trophies there. There were at least 5 Stanags, eat them.
                      Regarding civilian use, I don't hunt anymore—my health doesn't allow me to renew my license and hunting permit. But who's to stop me? IZH-27 and Saiga 7,62mm, so to speak, for use.
                      As for the Kalashmat itself these days, everyone knows the 200 series. But they still eat the Kaktus 12 because Kalashmedia is pushing all this stuff on people. The quality of the workmanship... Ummm... well, I'll use a classic quote. An untranslatable pun (c)
                      Quote: hohol95
                      They write that they produce a lot of gunpowder carbon deposits and that the "arched" mechanisms have to be cleaned very carefully and diligently.

                      The Kalashnikov and the can are in the same situation. In case you didn't know. wink Have you ever fired one? Or, for example, the VSS/VAL family? They're based on the AK design.
                      Quote: hohol95
                      But no one knows what's "waiting around the corner"!

                      My job involved handling non-combat weapons, so cleaning, lubricating, and loving my guns are second nature.
                      Yes, there is a drawback to the arches. In the field, when servicing, you still have to deal with small parts like pins and the like. But again, skill is required. But then again, without skill, who are you? That's my starting point.
                      1. 0
                        29 November 2025 14: 00
                        Have you ever fired one? Or, for example, the VSS/VAL family? They're based on the AK design.


                        He was declared unfit for active military service before the First Chechen War.
                        I wasn't into shooting either.
                        I had nothing to do with weapons.
                        I heard about the 200th episode a long time ago.
                        But, as usual, everything comes down to money (according to rumors) and various “technological difficulties.”
                      2. -5
                        29 November 2025 14: 19
                        Quote: hohol95
                        I heard about the 200th episode a long time ago.
                        But, as usual, everything comes down to money (according to rumors) and various “technological difficulties.”

                        These are export options for both our own and other Stanags. The quality is very high. Because downstairs, it's exclusively for export. It's just business, nothing extra. (c) Those who have them there almost exclusively either have trophies or connections and opportunities.
                      3. 0
                        29 November 2025 17: 06
                        I don’t think the 200th was more expensive for export than various “arched” ones!
                        The Vietnamese have chosen a production line from Israel.
                        Maximum milling and minimum stamping.
                        But the Vietnamese army is not comparable to the Russian army.
                        Neither you nor I occupy offices in the quartermaster departments of the Russian Ministry of Defense.
                        And we can only "shake the air" in the comments!
                        In the 1930s, Swiss gunsmiths created an "interesting" light machine gun, but they were only able to sell 6,000 copies to Chiang Kai-shek's army in China.
                        According to various unverified sources, the Chinese either failed to reproduce this "handbrake" or, with great difficulty, produced 6,000 of them and switched to copying the Czechoslovakian ZB-26.
                        Everyone is looking for the "golden mean".
                        But for each country and its army, this "middle ground" is unique and may not be suitable for the armies of other countries.
                      4. +1
                        29 November 2025 17: 15
                        The fact that it (the 200x) was exclusively for export is a well-known fact—I got a ton of downvotes. What does that have to do with me? I was simply stating the fact.
                        I'm just saying that their quality is much higher than the regular AK-74Ms that the Ministry of Defense supplied to the troops. Go ahead and give me another thumbs down. What's the problem?
                        Quote: hohol95
                        In the 30s, Swiss gunsmiths created an "interesting" light machine gun.

                        Our Kalashnikov media outlet also released a rather interesting RPL, tried to sell it to the Ministry of Defense, and they were sent on a romantic trip. It was designed from scratch (at least I spoke with representatives and there are reports of this) - that the RPL-20 was developed from scratch (and the fact that it was borrowed simply did not raise any objections).
                        More than 10 are trying. It seems like it's happening. But I wrote about it in a separate thread.
                        1. The tape binds the RPL to the PCM class.
                        2. It's difficult to share a ribbon in battle.
                        3. Fighters can share ammo, but who's going to load a belt without a machine? Especially since manual belts, statistically, have a much higher rate of jamming and delays, even with the PKM. And in the RPL, this was one of the main problems. The 249 was widely used specifically with loose belts made in factories. The same goes for the stanags, which are practically disposable. It's a different story there. And here, damn, it's like Petrosyan. If you ate a sausage and have the plastic wrap from it, don't throw it away—you can mend it and use it! (c) 88-89, if I remember correctly.
                      5. +1
                        29 November 2025 18: 36
                        I didn't give you any minuses.

                        If you are not satisfied with the "Kalash" system itself, then the RPK, like many others, should also not suit you!
                        It was precisely the "ill-wishers" of the Kalashnikov Light Machine Gun who advocated for the appearance of a domestic "Minimi" or a "revived" RPD!
                        They shouted that a machine gun with a belt feed was the most necessary thing for the domestic army!
                        And we got the RPL...

                        I haven’t heard of cellophane from sausages.
                        I saw Soviet condoms in transparent film.

                        The M249 was probably used only by the Yankees and only in short-term combat.
                        It is especially beautifully shown in the film "Black Hawk Down".

                        In some armies, the canvas belt for the Maxim or Browning may have been disposable.
                        And Russian soldiers stuffed these ribbons again and again...
                      6. -2
                        29 November 2025 18: 47
                        Quote: hohol95
                        Meanwhile, the "ill-wishers" of the Kalashnikov Light Machine Gun advocated for the appearance of a domestic "Minimi" or a "revived" RPD!

                        I've been writing here from the very beginning that the RPK-74 dual-purpose rifle is far more effective than the PKM. I explained why (with an axe). I just don't want to repeat myself. And the 5.45mm caliber isn't needed at all. Absolutely. And the Ministry of Defense never ordered it as such! The first RPL was developed by Kalashnikov Media on its own initiative, and then they tried to recoup the money for it. But it didn't work out. In the end, they redesigned it, and the Ministry of Defense finally caved in to the RPL-20. It's stillborn. No.
                        Quote: hohol95
                        The M249 was probably used only by the Yankees and only in short-term combat.

                        I can't remember off the top of my head. But definitely in counter-revolutionary, inflated feces, etc. laughing But I have described the fundamental problems of low-pulse RPs in general.

                        Quote: hohol95
                        I haven’t heard of cellophane from sausages.
                        I saw Soviet condoms in transparent film.

                        Attached lol
                      7. +1
                        29 November 2025 19: 26
                        Hello, Alexey. In my opinion, the problem with the AK isn't so much the mechanics themselves as the low-quality ammunition, and the misalignment of the buttstock with the barrel. Of course, the weight of the moving parts is also a factor, but you could always make the piston like the SVD's. A short piston stroke with a long bolt carrier stroke would definitely reduce muzzle flip. And, of course, improved ergonomics thanks to better grips, etc. I've never fired an AK-74 or AK-12, although I've handled both (I've only fired an AKS-47, although I haven't fought with it). I've also handled an M-4. I haven't fired it either, but it didn't seem particularly more comfortable than the AK-74. Although, as you say, it's a matter of skill and preference.
                      8. -1
                        29 November 2025 23: 11
                        Decent ammo is made in Russia (I don't like the Ulyanovsk ones; they form some kind of scale on the piston and undershoot the 7.62x39). I have no complaints about the Barnaul ones at all. I don't know anyone who would have any complaints about the AK's accuracy, even in 7.62. The AK is a fairly accurate assault rifle. The barrel and stock are at least aligned, made of steel and wood with plastic. Recoil is almost nonexistent.
                      9. -2
                        30 November 2025 00: 14
                        Quote: ssergey1978
                        Decent ammo is made in Russia (I don't like the Ulyanovsk ones; they form some kind of scale on the piston and undershoot the 7.62x39). I have no complaints about the Barnaul ones at all. I don't know anyone who would have any complaints about the AK's accuracy, even in 7.62. The AK is a fairly accurate assault rifle. The barrel and stock are at least aligned, made of steel and wood with plastic. Recoil is almost nonexistent.

                        I don't know. Firstly, the buttstock of both the AKM and AK-74 isn't aligned with the barrel, although the AK-74's is parallel to the barrel, not slightly angled like the AKM's. And I don't even want to talk about the AK-47. It jumps around so much it's unbelievable. Although the AK-47 can be quite accurate. Even with a two-round burst, although God only knows where the second bullet lands, especially in unstable positions. laughing But it's not me, but those who practice target shooting with assault rifles, who say that Russian cartridges are inferior in quality to foreign ones. Even 7.62x54C, i.e., sniper cartridges, don't fully meet the stated characteristics. There was even a post here on the site with a photo showing sniper cartridges from the same pack that even had different heights. I hope I don't need to explain what this means for shooting accuracy. I've fired a lot of rounds from an AK-47. I fired about 800 rounds back in the day. As for the accuracy of Kalashnikovs, I think it's sufficient. Especially on the modern battlefield, where firefights rarely take place at distances greater than 200 meters. But I was talking about how, in principle, it can be improved (especially since under stress, sometimes people hit a full-length figure from 10 meters). laughing ) and not that it doesn't exist!!! And to achieve this improvement, you don't even need to hack an AK-12 with your comrades. Incidentally, the AK-74 has almost no recoil due to the muzzle brake and low-impulse cartridge, not the buttstock, but that doesn't mean it has almost no recoil with a canister!!! The canister is installed in the place of the muzzle brake.
                      10. 0
                        30 November 2025 03: 18
                        Both the AKM and the AK 74 and 100 series have a gasket along the barrel line.
                      11. +1
                        30 November 2025 03: 25
                        See for yourself. Even the AK-47 stock is aligned with the barrel. It's borderline true, but still.
                      12. 0
                        1 December 2025 21: 36
                        Hello. I'm no expert on this. But I remembered an old article about the accuracy of the AK and M16. And yes, it mentioned that the AK has more muzzle rise than the M16. And as it said, it wasn't due to the alignment of the buttstock and barrel. It was due to the alignment of the M16's heaviest moving part, which is aligned with both the barrel and the buttstock, which also contains the spring, all in the same line.
                        As mentioned, the AK's heavy moving part is raised higher toward the top cover, and the action doesn't move above the buttstock mount. This results in a greater imbalance.
                        I don’t remember what kind of article it was, some kind of engineering one.
          2. +1
            29 November 2025 19: 11
            Quote: Alexey_12
            The ark is not a weapon for a one-year-old conscript.

            The Americans got the AR during the Vietnam War, when they didn't have a professional army.
            They're currently training recruits for this ARC in three months, and there are no problems. There's nothing complicated about it, it's just a little different to take apart and assemble; in some ways, it's even simpler. It's a matter of getting used to, but there's no fundamental difference—any soldier can figure it out in a couple of weeks (if they're taught, of course). It's not differential equations.
            1. -2
              29 November 2025 19: 18
              Quote: Sergei S
              in some ways it's even simpler

              I agree, although there are plenty of small things.
              Quote: Sergei S
              These are not differential equations.

              I'm just saying that yes. A conscript can. But you can't teach an old dog new tricks. Retraining is much more difficult. And it's clear that a conscript won't do it. Unless they force him to. I'm generally quite proficient with both the AK and the AR.
            2. 0
              29 November 2025 20: 14
              The AR is much more ergonomic, with a magazine release and a bolt cocking system that's easy for both left- and right-handed shooters. It's also easier to carry and, consequently, shoot, as it's less tiring. Cleaning takes a bit longer, but a full disassembly is needed once a week. A partial disassembly doesn't involve as many parts as an AK. A decent rifle kills people just like any other.
      2. +5
        29 November 2025 12: 10
        There were competitions, there were new samples.
        And how did those competitions end?
        Or how much money was wasted on the attempt in the USSR to create an "automatic rifle" firing arrow-shaped sub-caliber bullets?
      3. 0
        29 November 2025 20: 22
        Quote: kalibr
        It was seen as a temporary and cheap weapon until something better and more expensive appeared.

        This is truly a revelation. This is the first time I've heard that the AK was considered a "temporary" or "cheap" weapon. I wonder on what grounds? Let me remind you that the AK has gone through several different versions chambered for two significantly different cartridges, 7.62x39 and 5.45x39. There were plenty of reasons to propose a replacement.
        1. +1
          29 November 2025 23: 15
          The AK is also produced in 5.56x45, 7.62x51 and, I think, 6.5 Gendel in both military and civilian versions (I'm not sure about the 6.5 in the military version).
        2. 0
          30 November 2025 07: 00
          Quote: Saxahorse
          Let me remind you that the AK has gone through several different versions chambered for two significantly different cartridges, 7.62x39 and 5.45x39.

          Yes, and every time, a competition was announced for the "best assault rifle." If the AK was already the best, then these two versions would have been accepted without any competition. By decree! The savings would have been significant!
          1. 0
            30 November 2025 13: 46
            Quote: kalibr
            Yes, and each time, a competition was announced for the "best assault rifle." If the AK was already the best, then these two versions would have been accepted without any competition. By decree!

            This is pure voluntarism! laughing
            What if they come up with something better? That's why they're announcing it. Just like today, a competitive bid is mandatory for any government contract. There's no limit to perfection!

            The PPS, for example, was a temporary design, as was immediately stated. Despite its many shortcomings, it was accepted as the cheapest and most technologically advanced. And they immediately began developing a replacement, both in the form of a new, intermediate cartridge and by initiating a competition for rifles chambered for the future cartridge. There's no reason to consider the AK, which won all the competitions, a temporary solution.
            1. -1
              30 November 2025 16: 40
              Quote: Saxahorse
              There is no reason to consider the AK, which won all competitions, a temporary solution.

              It seems so to you.
            2. -1
              30 November 2025 16: 42
              Quote: Saxahorse
              That's why they announce it.

              Not because of that. Any weapons competition involves money, and quite a bit of it. It has to pay off. And if they announce it and don't skimp, it means there's a reason. And there can only be one reason: the base model has flaws that they want to address.
              1. 0
                30 November 2025 21: 05
                Quote: kalibr
                There can only be one reason: the presence of shortcomings in the basic model, which they want to eliminate.

                The downsides aren't mine, but as you can see, I'm not the only one who disagrees with your statement. If you know of any serious flaws in the AK design, please name them.

                Every design has its pros and cons. For example, the AR-10's gas-operated design, which vents the propellant gases directly into the receiver, is generally considered a major drawback. It's worth recalling the massive scandal surrounding the M-16's numerous failures in Vietnam.
                1. 0
                  1 December 2025 07: 11
                  Quote: Saxahorse
                  The downsides are not mine, but as you can see, I am not the only one who disagrees with your statement.

                  The downsides tell me the least about anything... a single last name irritates many people. So that's not an indicator. And how many of them are there? So forget about that nonsense. There will be an article where every competition for the best slot machine is reviewed. That's all...
    2. +6
      29 November 2025 13: 26
      Quote: Alexey_12
      Tactics and combat show that the scheme is already outdated.

      And in what way is it outdated?
      Quote: Alexey_12
      Nowadays, precision, ergonomics, etc. are important.

      What kind of accuracy? Technical or actual combat accuracy? The American military's own comparative tests of the M16 and AK-74 showed parity in single-shot fire and the Soviet assault rifle's complete superiority in burst fire.
      Nowadays, everyone fires in bursts. No one (except snipers) hits clay pigeons at 400 meters. Firefights are fleeting and occur primarily at close range (up to 200 meters). What good is the M-platform's superior accuracy (the weapon is clamped in a vice) if 90% of your shots are fired "into the wrong place"? That is, without directly observing the enemy, but firing at their presumed location. Again, firing in bursts.
      Quote: Alexey_12
      But I wore CM4A1 for 1,5 months (yes, I don’t argue that it was not a cheap kit) - but it is noticeably better.

      The M4 carbine has one major advantage over the AK: lighter weight. All other advantages are already available to varying degrees on the AK-74M and AK-12.
      1. -4
        29 November 2025 13: 34
        You're trying to hammer home everything, down to the banal fact that right now a bunch of soldiers are shooting at each other "in the direction." Yes, that's true. But other things are true, too.
        Specifically, I was taught not to shoot in a direction, but to hit with one shot, even at 300-400 meters and at short range "in a corner." Nowadays, it's hard to call combat combined arms or fit it into existing regulations. The AK, I admit, more than complies with them. And what's the point of these old NSDs and regulations now? Absolutely nothing—unofficial regulations have been in effect for a long time, sometimes even within the confines of not just a company, but even a platoon. People gain experience, and no one remembers the regulations anymore. And you're telling me, "What about the proviso?" For what kind of combat? That's where the discrepancy lies. hi
        1. +1
          29 November 2025 14: 18
          No, really, what exactly is wrong with the AK's design? What specific flaw in the AK is determined by the weapon's fundamental design, not its manufacturing technology?
          1. -2
            29 November 2025 14: 24
            There are no specific questions about the AK-74, but you know the points
            1. Quality suffers
            2. We have to adapt to current realities.

            Instead of giving the factory-made collective farm a decent, in-demand, plus-quality product, Kalashmedia started creating outrageous things, like double-shotting, welding muzzle brakes with a blowtorch, and so on. You could use the butt of a Kalashnikov before, but now you're afraid to breathe on it, lest something bend or break.
            1. 0
              29 November 2025 14: 36
              Yes, I'm talking specifically about the AK's basic design. The author wrote that it's outdated. I disagree. Most modern weapons designs were conceived nearly a hundred years ago, some even longer. So why exactly is the AK's design outdated? That's what I don't understand. A design is simply a principle of operation; everything else depends on the manufacturing technology and the cartridge.
              1. -3
                29 November 2025 14: 46
                The upper lower scheme guarantees without any tricks:
                1. The alignment of Picatinny mounts (well, that's the standard and there's no getting around it. The Dovetail mount has a 14mm base (like the SVD, for example), while the Picatinny mount is 21mm. The same goes for the Weaver, a civilian Picatinny mount, and even with lower manufacturing precision, it's an order of magnitude better than the Dovetail mount.
                2. Recoil is delivered exclusively without a vector, directly to the shoulder. Increases shot repeatability, including in automatic fire.
                3. Recoil can be adjusted using a buffer mechanism (depending on the stock used; there are many commercial options, including [one/ ...

                This is in general terms, as I wrote above - there are a lot of commercial implementations. For our AK, unfortunately, partly due to legislation and "charters," customization is much more limited.
                1. +2
                  29 November 2025 14: 56
                  What you've listed (except for point 2) has nothing to do with the weapon's basic design. All of this can be done on an AK, too. Regarding point 2, the AK isn't much worse there. The top edge of the buttstock is almost level with the barrel, just like on the AR-15. And if desired, the buttstock can be raised higher, but you'll have to increase the sighting line above the barrel, as is done on foreign models. This, too, has nothing to do with the basic design.
                  1. -3
                    29 November 2025 15: 03
                    Quote: Warabey
                    All this can be done on AK

                    In commercial variants. At the Ministry of Defense level, things are still the same.
                    Basically, yes, you can. And it exists. It's called the AK-200/205 (if we're talking about the 7N6 caliber, etc.) and the RPK-74 (in terms of manufacturing).
                    1. +3
                      29 November 2025 15: 10
                      At the Ministry of Defense level, the AK is made for war, not for shooting at the range in good weather. And there, it's better to choose reliability, slightly sacrificing accuracy, which isn't always possible with enough breathing room. To me, this issue is similar to the knife issue—"the harder, the more brittle." A hard blade is good for cutting, but it's easier to break (likely chipping a RK) and harder to sharpen. The same applies to shooting. The more accurate a weapon, the more sensitive it is to dirt. It's a constant search for compromise, which is impossible to achieve.
                      1. -3
                        29 November 2025 15: 20
                        Quote: Warabey
                        AK is made for war

                        Warfare has changed. They no longer fight with infantry lines, etc. When a weapon should be tied to the shooter, not lying around in an armory. The AK was created for the old war. And the manuals need to be changed and the regulations rewritten.
                        Quote: Warabey
                        The more accurate the weapon, the more sensitive it is to contamination.

                        Well, let's fight with axes; they don't need sights and dirt doesn't matter. If you're thinking it's cool to not have to clean your weapon after a fight... Well, that's just so-so. It's stupid and a myth.
                        For example, did you know that the VSS, especially in rainy weather and high humidity, MUST be cleaned no more than 2-3 hours after firing or a certain number of rounds? Give it to a conscript or even a double bass without training – it'll be out of action within 24 hours. And as I said, we need to not just understand it – we need to accept it. There will no longer be any more backyard-to-back combined arms combat.
                      2. +1
                        29 November 2025 15: 37
                        War has changed, but every soldier in the field hasn't run any less and still gets exhausted. And this directly impacts accuracy.

                        Well, you're going from one extreme to another for some reason. The AK is a compromise between accuracy and reliability.
                      3. -2
                        29 November 2025 15: 40
                        Quote: Warabey
                        Well, you're going from one extreme to another for some reason. The AK is a compromise between accuracy and reliability.

                        I'm not exactly torn between the two—I had the opportunity and time to evaluate the opposite camp, so to speak. Given my knowledge and skills, the downsides didn't bother me. And the upsides outweighed them. But as the saying goes, all markers aren't always purple.
                      4. +1
                        29 November 2025 15: 44
                        Well, "fighting with axes" and "not cleaning weapons after a fight" are clearly extremes.
                      5. -3
                        29 November 2025 15: 51
                        As for the fact that weapons need to be cleaned after every battle. We were taught simply - calm
                        1. dig in at bayonet height/organize a position.
                        2. Clean the weapon
                        .....

                        I understand that this is also somewhat outdated. But I'm hinting at the procedure.
                        2-3 stores per can - there could already be potential problems with the automatic transmission. Moreover, as I mentioned above, it's not just the wheel arches that suffer, but the entire automatic transmission as well. Read up on people who've worked with those same VSS/VAL cars - real people, not YouTube sites with bloggers and the like. There are some online, if you don't believe me.
                      6. 0
                        29 November 2025 16: 38
                        Even during combat, a weapon can malfunction due to external dirt. In this regard, the AK is more reliable due to its design (play) and construction. The trigger mechanism itself is "floating." You'd have to dump a lot of debris into the AK receiver for it to malfunction. There have been cases where the rifle operated with a torn shell casing hanging inside the receiver.
                        Well, I'm not talking about the VAL and its derivatives. After all, these aren't weapons for ordinary infantrymen.
                      7. -2
                        29 November 2025 17: 57
                        Quote: Warabey
                        from the same trigger mechanism "hangs in the air"

                        Have you even seen the wheel arches? Let alone taken them apart? Incidentally, there are no issues with it at all, just like with the AK.
                        Quote: Warabey
                        Well, I'm not talking about the VAL and its derivatives. After all, these aren't weapons for ordinary infantrymen.

                        So, I've been hinting to you in my tenth post that I'm not cut out for combined arms combat. And that's where it's all heading. DRGs, small-group assaults, and so on—doesn't that ring a bell? Nowadays, during assaults, they abandon equipment because no one's stupid enough to bring it back—so you're 100% dead; the drones will kill you under operational control, or you'll be blown up by a mine.
                        That's why I'm trying to convey to you that in the current reality, combined arms weapons are the second line of defense. Border guards, conscripts, engineers, and so on.
                        Quote: Warabey
                        In this regard, the AK is more reliable due to its execution (play) and the design itself.

                        Play wasn't intentional, by the way. Now you might as well tell me why the SVD is called a whip. The AK has that, too, precisely because of its design, which causes longitudinal vibrations. You wanted an answer? Well, I wrote to you. The ark is almost completely free of such properties.
                      8. -1
                        29 November 2025 18: 04
                        That's why the Kalashmat's secondary rudder always points upward and to the right when firing in full automatic mode. This is less noticeable in the 74, but more pronounced in the AKM and SVD. This must be taken into account when firing at angles, both on the left and right sides. This requires practice and shooting practice.
        2. +4
          29 November 2025 18: 03
          Alexey_12, your reasoning about the merits of weapons is very similar to an art enthusiast trying to appreciate the beauty of a great artist's painting based on an amateur black-and-white photograph. The AK is a widely used automatic infantry weapon, the best in its class in the world. And that's a fact; it's no wonder it's in service with over 60 armies worldwide. The problems you're discussing have nothing to do with the weapon's design. The first reason is that the combat methods used in ground combat aren't typical for modern warfare; they're used for special operations, not offensive combat. The second reason is the addition of all sorts of newfangled gadgets to the weapon, like collimators, night vision devices, and all sorts of "canisters" that alter or distort the weapon's balance. All of this is suitable for special forces soldiers, but is generally completely unnecessary for the average soldier. The third reason is the rather poor 5,45x39 cartridge. If you recall, NATO uses the 5,56x47 caliber; its ballistics significantly outperform the 5,45. Western assault rifles, however, surpass the AK in build quality and the use of non-chrome-lined barrels (in terms of accuracy), but this is also their weakness. The lack of chrome plating requires more thorough and frequent barrel maintenance. I encounter this constantly: when cleaning an Italian-made rifle, I have to use four types of specialized chemicals.
          1. -3
            29 November 2025 18: 12
            Quote: bug120560
            The AK is a mass-produced automatic infantry weapon, the best in its class in the world.

            Under the old battle, NSD and regulations. I didn't argue with that.
            Quote: bug120560
            This is how special operations are conducted, not how offensive combat is waged.

            Counter-terrorist operations, 1st and 2nd Chechnya. The effectiveness of reconnaissance groups (DRGs) with special weapons sometimes surpassed that of combined arms forces of multiple size. Therefore, some particularly gifted generals began using only reconnaissance and paratroopers. When they had to engage an enemy three or four times larger in numbers, and often with a significant lack of supplies and support, especially in the mountains and in dense vegetation. There are many stories of this.
            Quote: bug120560
            All this is suitable for a special forces soldier and, by and large, is completely unnecessary for an ordinary soldier.

            There aren't many rank-and-file fighters. There are volunteers. But there are many who have been somewhere and more than once.
            Quote: bug120560
            The third reason is the not entirely successful 5,45x39 cartridge.

            It's better than the Stanag 855 for targets without personal protective equipment and not in urban combat or in green areas. In an assault, it's generally indifferent.
            Quote: bug120560
            The absence of a chrome coating requires more careful and frequent maintenance of the barrel.

            That's why I mentioned the VSS. Its barrel is black, unlike the VAL. If you haven't cleaned it after a fight, especially if the humidity is high, you can throw it away in about a day.
            P.S. Well, finally, some reasonable comments. Greetings, colleague! hi drinks
            1. +1
              29 November 2025 18: 50
              Alexey_12, I agree with you here. However, all the combat operations you mention don't fully reflect modern warfare. Judging the merits or demerits of small arms for infantry based on what happened or is happening with them is like declaring that there's no better protection for vehicles than a "grill."
              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. The comment was deleted.
      2. -1
        29 November 2025 20: 17
        Not really, you have to invest a ton of money into an AK to make it as comfortable as a factory M4.
    3. +1
      29 November 2025 15: 31
      Good afternoon. Please check out the AKV-521.
      With respect.
      1. 0
        29 November 2025 15: 37
        hi Mutually!

        Well, you can watch it and drool. But it's pointless. It's both civilian and commercial, essentially. And where the Ministry of Defense will take it next, no one knows.
        1. +1
          29 November 2025 16: 36
          There are known cases of people arriving at the SVO with their own, purely civilian weapons. Sniper rifles and shotguns.
          But that's not what I'm talking about. The AKV-521, in my opinion, is a good attempt to marry these two systems. Just like what happened with the PPS-43 back in the day, when they married the PPSh and MP.
          If we are already considering it “purely academically”.
          1. +1
            29 November 2025 17: 51
            Well, again. I can't judge that. The carbine appeared before the Second World War. I don't have any friends or colleagues who have one. Well, it's kind of within walking distance (Moscow and the Moscow region). So, I haven't used one myself, but I've only watched YouTube and reviews. It's so-so.
            .
            Quote: Izotovp
            If we are already considering it “purely academically”.

            As an idea, yes. Not bad. I agree with that. good
            1. +2
              29 November 2025 19: 21
              Alexey_12, I apologize for intruding on your conversation with Izotovp. But I think you're both misunderstanding the problem. The main issue is that Russian arms matters are being "run by highly effective people" from Rostec, who are completely disconnected from the army's actual needs. As one Belarusian journalist put it after an interview with Bekkhan Ozdoyev, Industrial Director of the Armaments, Ammunition, and Specialized Chemicals Cluster at Rostec, with a Krasnaya Zvezda correspondent: "...This is the apotheosis of Rostec's incompetence, idiocy, and savage greed. There won't be any protected heavy infantry fighting vehicles or even reactive armor—you'll just have to eat what you get." And if we return to small arms, then we need not "lick" and redesign what works like a Swiss watch, but rather adopt new modern ammunition and expand production of existing small arms systems for it, as is being done in the US Army, where an assault rifle and a light machine gun chambered for the excellent 277 Fury (6,8×51 mm) cartridge are being rapidly introduced.
              1. -1
                29 November 2025 19: 28
                Quote: bug120560
                The main problem is that arms issues in Russia are "ruled by highly effective people" from Rostec

                Well, I just didn't dare write about it directly. But yes, that's the problem. Some people can solve this problem for themselves on the spot. And others end up "gobbling it up." sad
          2. 0
            30 November 2025 02: 05
            When the PPSh and MP were married.

            What did they "marry" there? The PPS has the same design as the PPSh, just with a longer bolt stroke and a different magazine well. There's nothing from the MP there.
            1. +1
              22 December 2025 21: 01
              The PPS has a different design. Unlike the PPSh, it lacks a receiver bottom. The PPSh's bolt moves the projectile back and forth across the receiver bottom until it jams. The PPS's bolt rests on narrow, small-area bends of the trigger receiver, at two points. It's impossible to jam. All the dirt falls to the bottom of the trigger receiver, which has no long-stroke reciprocating parts. The AK has a similar design.
              1. 0
                23 December 2025 12: 51
                Structurally, both the PPSh and PPS are blowback-operated automatic weapons with rear-sear firing, and in this respect, they are fundamentally similar. Their primary difference is the bolt stroke—the PPS has a much longer stroke, which reduces the rate of fire. The PPS is a submachine gun, typical of World War II as a distinct class of weapon, while the PPSh is a light machine gun chambered for pistol cartridges with a high rate of fire, a large magazine capacity, and relatively heavy weight. This concept was typical of the PPD and Suomi in the 1930s.
                1. 0
                  23 December 2025 21: 32
                  The "automatic weapon designs" are the same, but the designs are different. I've already explained the difference to you. The increased bolt travel isn't a fundamental difference. Both have a bolt. The difference is the lack of a receiver bottom on the PPS. This accounts for its reliability when dirty. That's why it's considered the best submachine gun of WWII. If the PPSh had a longer receiver and a bolt travel like the PPS's (142 mm instead of 83 mm), only the rate of fire would have decreased. Its reliability when dirty would have remained the same. The rationality of the overall design of the Sudayev design (primarily the receiver design and the layout of the moving mechanism) gave it advantages over the Shpagin design and other systems not only in combat and operational qualities, but also in production and technological terms. It is the receiver design that distinguishes the PPS from all previous submachine guns worldwide.
                  1. 0
                    24 December 2025 23: 27
                    The increased bolt travel is not a fundamental difference.

                    This is the fundamental, key difference between these types of weapons - the pre-war light machine gun chambered for a pistol cartridge with a high, machine-gun-like rate of fire, and the classic submachine gun of the Second World War with a moderate rate of fire.
                    The difference is the lack of a receiver bottom in the PPS. This results in its reliable operation even when dirty.

                    PPS is a typical wartime mobilization weapon, made extremely simply.
                    That's why he has
                    The difference is the absence of the bottom of the receiver

                    and the barrel was not covered by a casing from below, and the edges of the metal were so sharp that they cut my fingers.
                    That's why it is considered the best submachine gun of WWII

                    Yes, this story is circulating online. I don't know who made it up. The PPS is a wartime mobilization weapon, simplified and cheapened to the maximum possible extent. The relatively thin metal reduced the weapon's structural rigidity and overall reliability, but allowed it to be manufactured on simpler equipment.
                    created advantages for it over Shpagin's model

                    That's why the PPS was produced in much smaller quantities than the PPSh; such are the advantages.
                    1. AMG
                      0
                      29 January 2026 13: 45
                      The PPS isn't a typical mobilization weapon, but a more advanced model that later allowed M.T. Kalashnikov to mount the bolt carrier on guide rails, ensuring resistance to fouling. Compared to the PPSh, it's lighter and smaller, has a simple magazine, and lacks a wooden stock. Fewer were produced because production began later. The equipment has nothing to do with it.
                      1. 0
                        30 January 2026 00: 45
                        The PPS was lighter, although even to the naked eye, it contained significantly more metal than the PPSh. It's simple: it's much thinner, resulting in lower strength. They slightly tweaked the PPS-43, but the problem remained. This allowed for the use of significantly simpler equipment, but it didn't improve quality. It's a typical mobilization weapon compared to the PPSh.
                        Less was produced because production started later.

                        It was supposed to be released instead of the PPSh, but this did not happen due to its shortcomings.
                      2. AMG
                        0
                        30 January 2026 08: 45
                        Dear Sergey, don't just eyeball it. If the metal is thinner, it's only 0,5 mm. The equipment didn't make things easier; it's the same press. No one would have dared to restructure production during the war, but it's possible to produce them in parallel. Especially without the large wooden part, which was also a hassle. An indiscreet question: have you handled both samples?
            2. 0
              25 December 2025 13: 41
              As for the MP-40, it was the first mass-produced compact submachine gun. The January 1942 competition specifications called for a compact and lightweight submachine gun to complement the PPSh. Therefore, almost all of the designs submitted to the competition followed the MP-40 design, including the PPS, although it entered the competition from the second stage. Incidentally, the MP-40 had a bolt stroke of 140 mm. Structurally, the PPS shares nothing with the MP-40 except its general layout.
              1. 0
                26 December 2025 01: 21
                The MP40 had a rate-of-fire retarder, so it didn't need a long bolt stroke. Technically, it was more complex than the PPS. The MP40 wasn't a mobilization submachine gun. A German mobilization submachine gun was, for example, the MP-3008.
                But it should be noted that the principles of organizing the German infantry did not require a large number of submachine guns; everything was based on a single machine gun, so the Germans did not produce submachine guns in large quantities.
                According to the terms of reference for the January 1942 competition, it was necessary to create a compact and lightweight PP in addition to the PPSh.

                Nothing of the sort. The competition terms required a PP. to replace PPSh. The competition itself is a primer on how not to hold a weapons competition. Behind-the-scenes squabbles and intrigues plagued it throughout. Despite the fact that the PPSh design was being selected, a significant portion of the testing was actually conducted on the manufacturing process, which varied greatly among different PPSh models. In particular, some models were poorly tempered and manufactured to low quality, leading to premature wear, and this had nothing to do with the design. Many of the tests were blatantly contrived, bearing no resemblance to actual weapon operating conditions and aimed at highlighting the merits of specific models. Both sides vigorously denounced each other through all the relevant authorities, spreading mud; some models had high-ranking "patrons." Many of the criticisms leveled at the weapons were also, in many cases, far-fetched. By the end of the competition, it became clear that military-issue cartridges can cause a significant number of delays and other problems, literally several times higher, simply due to the quality of the cartridges themselves. And only then did they give it recommendation Conducting tests with pre-war ammunition was something no one had paid attention to before, so it's unknown how many of the delays and other problems were caused by the weapon's design, how many by the ammunition, and which specific cartridges were used to test specific PPSh models. Some models, including the PPS, were openly favored. For example, when compared to the PPSh-2, the PPS suffered fatigue wear of the recoil spring. So they replaced it, and pretended it was the way it should have been. This isn't surprising—the PPS was submitted by the NIPSVO, and the tests were conducted by that same NIPSVO. Serial production of the PPS began in Leningrad even before the competition ended. As a result, no PPSh replacement, the archaic design of which was clear to everyone, was ever chosen.
                Structurally, the PPS has nothing in common with the MP 40, except for the general layout.

                The folding stock is taken from the MP-40. It also has the same problem with its mounting becoming loose. The Germans tried to get around this by installing a rigid stock on the simplified version with a rigid stock, the MP-41, but they had their own squabbles, and it didn't work out, as it was only produced in small numbers. Pictured is the MP-41.
                1. 0
                  3 January 2026 18: 45
                  And what was the MP-40's retarder like? A telescopic recoil spring? Provide documentation! The MP-40's bolt travel is 140 mm—it was and is. No more and no less, to reduce the rate of fire. Compare it to the PPSh bolt travel. Provide documentation of any squabbles during the competition stages.
                  In January 1942, at a meeting of the Artillery Committee of the Main Artillery Directorate, a number of shortcomings of the Shpagin submachine gun model 1941 were identified and the task was formulated
                  "to create a submachine gun that is lighter, more portable, easier to use in combat, with an easily replaceable magazine, reliable in any service conditions and significantly easier to manufacture, but not inferior to the PP-41 in combat qualities and accuracy."

                  "to create a submachine gun that is lighter, more portable, easier to use in combat, with an easily replaceable magazine, reliable in any service conditions and significantly easier to manufacture, but not inferior to the PP-41 in combat qualities and accuracy."
                  In January 1942, at a meeting of the Artillery Committee of the Main Artillery Directorate, a number of shortcomings of the Shpagin submachine gun model 1941 were identified and the task was formulated
                  "to create a submachine gun that is lighter, more portable, easier to use in combat, with an easily replaceable magazine, reliable in any service conditions and significantly easier to manufacture, but not inferior to the PP-41 in combat qualities and accuracy."
                  1. 0
                    11 January 2026 23: 54
                    Compare it with the PPSh bolt stroke.

                    Why? What's the point? They have different rates of fire. Compare them to PPS.
                    "to create a submachine gun that is lighter, more portable, easier to use in combat, with an easily replaceable magazine, reliable in any service conditions, and significantly easier to manufacture, but not inferior to the PP-41 in combat qualities and accuracy."

                    And where is it written here?
                    According to the terms of reference for the January 1942 competition, it was necessary to create a compact and lightweight submachine gun in addition to the PPSh.

                    as you claimed?
                    What do you think, if it is supposedly in stock?
                    Lightweight, portable, easy to use in combat, with an easily replaceable magazine, reliable in any service conditions and significantly simpler to manufacture, but not inferior to the PP-41 in combat qualities and accuracy

                    But they continue to mass-produce the PPSh - were the saboteurs and Abwehr agents sitting in the People's Commissariat of Armaments?
    4. +1
      29 November 2025 18: 57
      Quote: Alexey_12
      I don't want to start a holy war between the Ark and the Kalashnikov. Tactics and combat show that the system is already outdated.

      It makes sense to develop something new for the new ammunition. Until it's available, any replacements will have minimal effect. Not to mention that personal small arms currently inflict minimal damage relative to overall damage: the majority of damage is fragmentation, burns, and concussion injuries from aerial bombs, MLRS, cannon artillery, and drones. Only then does damage from sniper fire come, then machine guns, and only lastly from personal automatic weapons.
      So, in modern conditions, there is no particular difference between an outdated AK and the most modern barrel on the AR platform.
      1. 0
        30 November 2025 09: 25
        There's new ammunition! And there's an AK for it. It's the 5,56 AK-19!
        Following the 9x19, the soft-.308 Win and .338 LM are used by snipers.
        "Optimization" rules.
        Although, in my opinion, the 6,02x41 and 6XC are more promising as intermediate calibers. But that's my personal opinion, and I'm not going to force it on anyone.
        With respect.
    5. +2
      29 November 2025 19: 44
      Lyokha, the Kalashmat has no equal up to 300 meters, and beyond that, you won't be able to hit it yourself... So your exhaust is a waste of time, and besides, the cost of an AK for the army and its reserves is lower than ordering AR-15s...
      1. 0
        30 November 2025 02: 40
        Alexander hi 300-400 meters is the maximum effective range of a rifle squad, even against a self-propelled gun. Machine guns and company (infantry) snipers operate beyond that. This zone is actually the point-blank range for both calibers (okay, I'm exaggerating a bit: the 5.45 is 440 meters). Many shoot with a 4mm caliber, just to avoid any mishaps, and aim lower—the front sight doesn't cover the target that much (well, if you're using a manual).
    6. -4
      29 November 2025 22: 51
      How many faggots have you killed with the VSU?
  2. +6
    29 November 2025 08: 36
    And when my wife turned down one of those “dark-haired” and overly pushy souvenir sellers, he immediately muttered in pure Russian: “Racist, racist!”

    As they say, "Every normal person hates two things: racism and blacks."
  3. +3
    29 November 2025 08: 59
    Impressive text, isn't it?

    No.
    If we are going to write about the history of the development of the AR10, then it should be through the SR25/MK11 and MK110.
    In the meantime, this is a little about blacks, Stoner, and the Palmetto State Armory commercial.
    Alas.
    But not in the sense that it's completely bad as a fantasy "About a gun for Saturday night bar crawls", but simply bad.
    request
    P.S. Well, I've written about it many times—there's FoggothenVeapon, where they explain in plain language what's nowhere else on the RuNet. As the saying goes, "Do well, and good will come."
    request
    1. +1
      29 November 2025 09: 33
      Quote: Wildcat
      Well, I've written about it more than once - there's FoggothenVeapon

      You like this source, I like another one - Ganz International... It also has everything that is not on the RuNet.
      1. 0
        29 November 2025 09: 48
        Vyacheslav Olegovich, have mercy!
        I have nothing against Guns International!
        Well, you can’t take the history of the Arches, about which Mont Blanc books have been written, and describe it using the method “A little personal information and the current state of affairs of one of the hundreds of AR-R manufacturers, according to an article from Ganz International".
        It's clear that the patents for the AR-10 designs have long since expired, and in the US, anyone who has received a gunsmith's license (and this is not always the case, not just Palmetto State Armory or one or two manufacturers) makes their own versions at the speed of market demand.
        And if you're writing about standard issue weapons and you enjoy funny stories, then for some extra spice you could add something about "once again disappointed with the 'direct action' system, the military briefly switched from the Mk11 to the FN SCAR, but then karma took its toll and the M110 appeared."
        request
        1. +2
          29 November 2025 09: 54
          Quote: Wildcat
          And if you're writing about standard issue weapons and you enjoy funny stories, then for some extra spice you could add something about "once again disappointed with the 'direct action' system, the military briefly switched from the Mk11 to the FN SCAR, but then karma took its toll and the M110 appeared."

          Anything is possible! But... I see it this way, you do it your way - to each his own, said the devil, taking off his pants and sitting in the nettles. I'll like the material from Ganza... Do you want something different? Write your own material, better and more complete...
          1. +3
            29 November 2025 09: 56
            Touche!
            I give up!
            You know, it's a matter of taste, said the devil, taking off his underwear and sitting in the nettles.

            laughing good drinks
          2. +2
            29 November 2025 10: 29
            Quote: kalibr
            To each his own, said the devil, taking off his underwear and sitting in the nettles

            + + +
            Super! I didn't know that, I'll take note, it's a very capacious expression :)
            1. 0
              29 November 2025 10: 36
              Quote: Rodez
              Super! I didn't know that, I'll take note, it's a very "capacious" expression:

              It sounds like this in full: To each his own: to some the priest, to some the priest's wife, to some the priest's daughter, said the devil, took off his underpants and sat in the nettles!
              1. +1
                29 November 2025 10: 44
                Quote: kalibr
                In full it sounds like this

                I didn't know the second half... thanks for the education :)
                P.S. By the way, the well-known saying "a healthy mind resides in a healthy body" is completely taken out of context, not to say distorted, - "we must pray that a healthy mind resides in a healthy body."
              2. +3
                29 November 2025 11: 07
                Kalibr (Vyacheslav), it looks like they came up with something new in Penza in the 20th century with the panties and the devil. Ever since preschool, I've known the ending: "...someone calls it the priest's daughter, someone calls it the priest's Beetle."
                1. +2
                  29 November 2025 11: 23
                  laughing
                  "The priest, the priest's wife, the daughter, the nettle, the bug..."
                  wassat
                  How interestingly people spent their time!!
                  belay
                  Maybe someone will write an article laughing He'll write in the History section!!! About the traditions, so to speak, of the Central Russian Upland...
                  I'll warn you right away - I won't be able to...
                  crying
                  P.S. More comments, let's get to at least 50!!!
                  good
                  1. +1
                    29 November 2025 12: 55
                    Quote: Wildcat
                    I'll warn you right away - I won't be able to...

                    I can't either, and I don't see much point in it.
  4. -2
    29 November 2025 11: 27
    A fine example of the modern revival of the AR-10 can be seen in the Palmetto State Armory AR-10 Sabre, chambered in .308.

    Of all the "wonderful examples of the modern AR-10 revival," the author of the "impressive text" chose the most trivial. The Colt CM901 or Smith & Wesson M&P10 are more interesting in this regard.
  5. +1
    29 November 2025 13: 29
    In the 1995 crime thriller Heat, the character Michael Cheritto (played by Tom Sizemore) is armed with a 20-inch folding-stock version of the FN FAL Paratrooper.
    It reads as if it were a caliber, not a barrel length.
    1. 0
      29 November 2025 13: 52
      I read it that way too. laughing Well, he's not an expert, so I guess he can be forgiven. And one more thing: the SAS guys did use their L1a1 rifle, not the FN, although it's almost, but not quite, the same thing.
    2. 0
      29 November 2025 14: 22
      The most interesting thing is that there's no such thing as a "20-inch version of the FN FAL Paratrooper with a folding stock." The SA58 OSW (Operational Specialist Weapon) has an 11- or 13-inch barrel, the SA58 CTC (Compact Tactical Carbine) has a 16,25-inch barrel, and the SA58 SPR (Special Purpose Rifle) has a 19-inch barrel. Shpakovsky, as usual, rewrote the first text he came across without bothering to quality-check it. And the quality, as is often the case, is seriously lacking.
      1. -1
        29 November 2025 15: 25
        Quote: Nikname2025
        And the quality, as often happens, is very poor.

        It somehow didn’t occur to me to check Ganz International as well, especially for such a trivial matter.
        1. -2
          29 November 2025 18: 59
          Check Ganz International too

          Are some apostles writing the materials there? You don't have to check the manufacturer's documentation.
          1. -1
            29 November 2025 19: 16
            Quote: Nikname2025
            There is no need to check the manufacturer's documentation.

            Mistakes can happen there too. No one is immune from them.
            1. -1
              29 November 2025 19: 25
              There may be errors there too.

              Theoretically, yes. In practice, I've never encountered it.
              1. -1
                29 November 2025 19: 27
                Quote: Nikname2025
                There may be errors there too.

                Theoretically, yes. In practice, I've never encountered it.

                Of course, that's true. But I'm used to trusting magazines with high ratings...There's nothing I can do about it.
      2. +1
        29 November 2025 16: 01
        The most interesting thing is that the “20-inch version of the FN FAL Paratrooper with a folding stock” does not exist in nature.


        Most likely the author is right.
        IMHO, the source of his knowledge is a Google translation of an excellent, respected website:
        FN FAL 50.61
        During the armored car robbery, Michael Cheritto (Tom Sizemore) uses a 20" barreled FN FAL 50.61 Paratrooper version with a side-folding stock. He uses this weapon to execute the third guard with a double tap to the sternum and a third shot to the head. This is a military tactic known as a Failure Drill or Mozambique Drill, and is a prominent feature in Michael Mann's films (it appears twice in Heat - this incident, and then at the end of the film, when McCauley executes Waingro in his hotel room)."

        "FN FAL 50.61
        During an armored car heist, Michael Cheritto (Tom Sizemore) uses an FN FAL 50.61 Paratrooper rifle with a 20-inch barrel and a side-folding stock. With this weapon, he kills the third guard, shooting him twice in the chest and a third time in the head. This is a military tactic known as "Denial Drill" or "Mozambique Drill," and it appears frequently in Michael Mann films (it appears twice in Heat—in this incident and at the end of the film, when McCauley kills Waingro in his hotel room).

        https://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Heat#FN_FNC

        P.S. Let's add 50 comments to the article!!!
        1. +2
          29 November 2025 18: 51
          Most likely the author is right.

          Incorrect. The FN FAL 50.61 has a 21-inch barrel.
          1. +1
            29 November 2025 19: 04
            Hmm, Wiki also says 21 inches...
            Oh, how awkward it turned out...

            P.S. Congratulations to the author on 70 comments and tons of views!
            good
  6. +3
    29 November 2025 15: 56
    The AK's main drawback is that, despite its "cheapness," its production requires an entire factory. A single CNC machine is sufficient for the AR. So, if you calculate the cost at the factory level, the AK seems cheaper to produce, but if you factor in the cost of the factory into the AK's cost, it becomes more expensive. And if the enemy bombs that factory, restoring production will be very difficult! This also makes it difficult to innovate on the AK or produce specialized small series. For those interested in more detail, check out Konstantin Konev's channel (available on YouTube and Rutube); he has a video where he talks about this in detail.
    1. +4
      29 November 2025 20: 23
      Quote: Melior
      The AK's main drawback is that, despite its "cheapness," its production requires an entire factory. A single CNC machine is sufficient for the AR. So, if you calculate the cost at the factory level, the AK seems cheaper to produce, but if you factor in the cost of the factory into the AK's cost, it becomes more expensive. And if the enemy bombs that factory, restoring production will be very difficult! This also makes it difficult to innovate on the AK or produce specialized small series. For those interested in more detail, check out Konstantin Konev's channel (available on YouTube and Rutube); he has a video where he talks about this in detail.

      In general, you're not entirely right. Arkas, like Kalashnikovs, also require a factory. How do you make a rifled barrel on a CNC machine? Of course, there are such machines, but you can't make them on a CNC milling machine. They're made on specialized machines. Magazines are made the same way. They're made of plastic, and that requires a forging machine with special dies. Not to mention everything else. For example, the firing pin and the extractor need to be heat-treated. The springs also need heat treatment, and so on and so forth. The only real difference is the receiver manufacturing technology. The Arka's is milled, while the Kalash has been stamped since the AKM era. Everything else is manufactured either on milling or turning machines (even on CNC machines, especially in modern CNC factories). Oh, and I forgot: the Kalashnikov's gas tube and receiver cover are stamped, while the AKS-74 also stamps the buttstock!!! The cost issue is that for small-scale production, milling is cheaper (precisely because there's no need to develop stamping equipment or the technology itself; it's much easier to simply write a CNC program). For large-scale production, it's just the opposite. Stamping is cheaper because a large series, due to lower production costs, more than covers the costs of stamping equipment and technology development. As for the higher cost of stamping equipment, I'll disappoint you. It's several times (if not an order of magnitude) cheaper than CNC machines or even a conventional milling machine (with stamping equipment, the dies themselves, their development, and production are more expensive). A simple example: PPS (Pulp-and-Pattern) pistols were produced during the war in the most provincial cooperatives (not a single state-owned plant produced PPS). And for PPS, essentially everything except the barrel and bolt (excluding bolts, axles, and springs) was made on pressing equipment! You can make a simple press yourself at home using a regular jack. Try making a simple milling machine yourself? You'll be exhausted. (Of course, you can't make a receiver on such a simple press, but I just wanted to demonstrate the principle!!!) Stamping also has another advantage: it produces far less waste and requires less energy. Think about it. Stamping involves taking a sheet of metal and, after a few stampings, creating a receiver into which you insert whatever you need. During milling, 30 to 60-70% of the metal is turned into shavings!!! This is waste, and milling itself requires far more energy. hi
      1. -3
        29 November 2025 22: 04
        On the one hand, you're right, but on the other, it took over 10 years to create a stamped receiver for the AK, despite the help of German specialists. Incidentally, making a milling machine from an electric drill isn't a problem at all:
        1. 0
          30 November 2025 00: 34
          Quote: Melior
          On the one hand, you're right, but on the other, it took over 10 years to create a stamped receiver for the AK, despite the help of German specialists. Incidentally, making a milling machine from an electric drill isn't a problem at all:

          Well, first of all, what's shown in this video isn't a milling machine, but a hand-held wood router. As they say in Odessa, there's a big difference between that and a milling machine. laughing Still, a steel milling machine offers slightly different precision and power. (I work with wood and milling cutters (I have four of them), and I also occasionally dabble in metalworking, so I'm well aware of the differences.) I once saw milling machines (hobby ones, of course) made from drilling machines, but they weren't particularly precise or productive. While I agree that it took 10 years to make the Kalashnikov receiver, it's worth remembering that the USSR didn't have many good technologists back then. And stamping itself wasn't used in gunsmithing until just before or during the war, and even then, anywhere in the world. So they wasted 10 years, but once they got the hang of it, they churned out 70 million Kalashnikovs. Incidentally, the metal shop also took a toll on the technologists. It's unlikely that today's technologists would need that much time (an example is the RPL, if I'm not mistaken (although the machine gun itself is said to be complete crap, but I haven't seen it myself, so I don't know)). But in cases where large-scale production isn't planned, milling is used right away. An example is the Kovrov AEK with balanced automatics. Meanwhile, the PK also seems to have a stamped receiver, but it's unlikely they've been milling it for 10 years. Unfortunately, I don't know the history of the PK. laughing
          1. 0
            30 November 2025 10: 43
            The PC receiver is a whole other story: when they tried to establish PC production in Ukraine, even Kyiv's Arsenal couldn't! It turns out that not everyone can build a PC! laughing
            1. 0
              30 November 2025 10: 47
              Quote: Melior
              The PC receiver is a whole other story: when they tried to establish PC production in Ukraine, even Kyiv's Arsenal couldn't! It turns out that not everyone can build a PC! laughing

              Well, stamping technology isn't that simple, especially for something as complex as a PC case. It requires some experience (and considerable amounts of it). hi
      2. 0
        30 November 2025 23: 28
        Quote: nedgen

        For stamping, you take a sheet of metal and after several stamps you get a receiver into which you insert what you need. hi
        Today stamp needed only for bending and forming, for cutting and piercing operations - today they use laser metal cutting machine - they load a whole sheet of metal and a program - the machine cuts out the outline and holes with a laser (or plasma, which is more correct?).
        A stamp and press (a stamp won't work without a press...) are only needed for bending or forming a part. Although a bending machine, which can be reconfigured for different parts, is also used for bending at a simple angle... a forming die is needed for creating complex shapes with circles and radii.
        hi
    2. 0
      30 November 2025 12: 53
      To put it mildly, it's simply untrue. It's enough to remember that in various "Pakistans," local craftsmen churn out Kalashnikovs in their garages, but they don't even think about copying the M-16 or other "Famas."
      And the fact that more Kalashnikovs have been produced in the world (well over 100 million) than Western assault rifles of all makes and models hints at something.
  7. -3
    29 November 2025 17: 03
    In fact, the FN FAL was called "the left wing of the free world."
    1. +1
      29 November 2025 19: 06
      ...or "a pathetic excuse for a right hand."
      laughing
  8. -2
    29 November 2025 22: 56
    How many faggots from the Armed Forces of Ukraine have you killed to say that this or that scheme works?
  9. +1
    30 November 2025 02: 12
    Near the Louvre, puddles of urine flow, and blacks sleep right on the sidewalks.

    I think the author is exaggerating. I haven't seen anything like it there. And why are they sleeping on the sidewalks? There's a big park next to the Louvre. It's more comfortable in the park if you want to sleep, and both locals and tourists can sit there. There are restrooms in the park, too. And as for the vendors' persistence—that's Turkey. The French are a far cry from them.
    1. Lad
      0
      30 November 2025 12: 05
      The author dragged an article "from there" and praises Western weapons. That's sedition. It wouldn't take long for someone like that to be branded some kind of cosmopolitan (God forgive me) or even a traitor to the Motherland. So the author has to justify himself by describing all the horrors of capitalism, how "Negroes are lynched" there, and how bad it is to live in the Western world. Although he himself enjoys going there—look, with his family, and constantly borrows articles from there, begs for photos... but let's not talk about that. Otherwise, the man will get into trouble. So, consider such passages about "Negroes" and other horrors as an inevitable tribute to patriotism. Otherwise, "the guys just won't understand."
      1. -2
        30 November 2025 16: 47
        Quote: Lad
        begs for a photo... but let's not talk about that.

        Why? I'll let you in on a terrible secret: I don't have to beg for it. They give it to me, and gladly. And do you know why? Because knowledge belongs not to people, but to God, and spreading it among the less-informed and simply less-intelligent is a sacred duty.
        Quote: Lad
        Otherwise the person will get into trouble.

        You're quite the dreamer, though. Have you ever tried writing science fiction?
        1. Lad
          0
          30 November 2025 21: 02
          I'll let you in on a terrible secret: I don't have to beg for them. They give them to me, and with joy.

          Yes, I know they give you things "from there" with pleasure. That's why I wrote how you speak "with gratitude" about those places. What do some ungrateful blacks and other homeless people have to do with this article? After all, every article you write probably has a nice fly in the ointment, not even a fly in the ointment, but a fly in the ointment, which has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. After all, you're writing about guns, not about the plight of black people.
          No, no... Don't get me wrong, I'm not at all opposed to being reminded once again of the decaying, crumbling, and inhumane Western society. God himself has decreed this. But you, as they say, either put on your underwear or take off your cross.

          Have you tried to write fiction?

          There's nothing but social science fiction here without me. Enough.
      2. -2
        30 November 2025 16: 51
        Quote: Lad
        And this is already sedition.

        The 30s were a time of sedition: criticizing everything Western and praising everything Soviet. And how did it end? 41... You have to know all your enemy's strengths firsthand; only then can you come up with something better.
        1. Lad
          +1
          30 November 2025 21: 08
          The 30s were a time of sedition: criticizing everything Western and praising everything Soviet. And how did it end? 41... You have to know all your enemy's strengths firsthand; only then can you come up with something better.

          I have to pay you a compliment. You're a clever man, though. You manage to extract information from your enemies in such a way that they even give it to you "with joy." ))) You're clever at... tricking them.))) I respect you!

          Just don't tell them about it. Otherwise, their attitude towards you will immediately change and the fun will be over.
          1. 0
            1 December 2025 07: 09
            Quote: Lad
            Otherwise, the attitude towards you will immediately change and the free ride will end.

            Even if I say it, nothing will change. The laws of publicity are unbreakable and immutable. They grew up with them and simply don't know how to think any other way. Just like us... with our traditions and "laws."
  10. +1
    4 December 2025 19: 41
    Americans really know how to sell crap. They're really good at marketing. A+ for the advertising copy.
  11. 0
    18 January 2026 18: 34
    I liked the digression about urine near the Louvre. My father was there in 2015 (his dream of seeing the Louvre's collection came true).
    The blacks lying heaped up in the streets struck him deeply.
    It's surprising there are still Parisians left in Paris (it's not Moscow, after all!). A kind Parisian woman helped my father, who got lost on the metro, find the right route.
    The topic of the FN and AR10 is simply inexhaustible. But your presentation is more engaging than dry recitations of performance characteristics and recollections of Waterloo veterans.