How private owners transformed a museum exhibit into a modern machine gun.

33 330 102
How private owners transformed a museum exhibit into a modern machine gun.
A DMP with a CNC Guns custom belt feeder and a "moderator" installed during demonstration shooting.


CNC Guns Custom, a manufacturer of custom guns, presented its development – ​​a removable belt feeder for the DPM (Degtyarev Infantry Modernized) rifle. Essentially, it's a removable part that installs in place of the standard 47-round magazine using the same mounting points. The belt feeder has its own cover. The feed mechanism is activated by moving the cocking handle, to which it is connected by a clip. The cartridge is "pulled" rearward from the belt feeder, a spring on the belt feeder cover feeds the cartridge into the chamber, and after firing, the cartridge case is extracted downwards in the usual DPM fashion.




A close-up of the CNC Guns custom tape receiver on the DMP in the closed position.

Although the tuning is marketed as suitable for the DPM machine gun, this tape receiver also fits the older DP machine gun. The tape receiver fits standard disk mounts, so, like the RP-46 tape receiver, it can easily be installed on the original Degtyarev machine gun.

Essentially, private developers have created their own kit for converting a DPM into an RP-46. The belt feeder on the RP-46 is also a separate component. Essentially, the RP-46 is a DPM with a belt feeder. True, the belt feeder from CNC Guns Custom is a bit simpler than the one on the RP-46, and it lacks a carrying handle, but these are minor details.


A close-up of the CNC Guns custom tape receiver on the DMP with the lid open.

Incidentally, this isn't the first such design on the market. The legendary Zenitka also offers its own belt feeder for the DPM. Their design is more complex, with a Picatinny rail on the belt feeder cover. The Zenitka belt feeder is sold complete with a muzzle brake for Degtyarev machine guns. However, all this results in the traditional characteristic of Zenitka tuning – a high price. The CNC Guns Custom product is simpler, without a muzzle brake included, but costs tens of thousands of rubles less.


A partial disassembly of the RP-46. It's clearly visible that the tape receiver is a separate component.

Essentially, this relatively small detail allows you to transform a late-World War II-era machine gun into a fully functional machine gun. It features a belt feed system and standard military rifle ammunition, which is perfectly fine. It will, however, lack the standard ammunition box mount under the receiver… There won't be any box mount on the machine gun at all. But given the potential specifics of its use, this isn't particularly relevant.


A close-up of the RP-46 tape receiver

Why is this interesting and important to us? It's all because Degtyarev machine guns are increasingly being used both in the SVO zone and beyond.


DP with an installed tape receiver from RP-46

Degtyarev machine guns, both DP and DPM, are increasingly being photographed by soldiers directly in the SVO zone. But all of these machine guns have a Ukrainian connection. They are either captured standard issue weapons from Ukrainian territorial defense battalions that found themselves at the front, or were stored in former Soviet warehouses. The latest such large warehouse to fall into the hands of our soldiers is military unit A-4176 of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, or, more simply, an underground warehouse in Artemovsk.


DP and DPM are still rare items at the front, and our soldiers mostly get them as trophies. But they exist, and why not take advantage of the opportunity to transform them into a belt-fed machine gun?

It seems like the previous owners were still trying to take out some "useful" things from there. But weapon Faulty and rare items like the Thompson submachine guns and DPs were simply abandoned. But Degtyarev machine guns, at least for now, are only used sporadically in the SVO zone. Here, an upgrade in the form of a belt feeder would be more likely to provide a "free" boost to a unit's firepower if soldiers were to come across a captured machine gun. Fortunately, there's no talk yet of sending these machine guns to the front, as is happening with our opponents.


But in the rear, DMPs are appearing more and more frequently. Photos from the training exercises of fighters from the battalion for the protection of important state facilities in the Northwestern District of the Russian Federation.

But in the rear, these machine guns have definitely already begun to serve and, perhaps, are already fighting.

Machine guns first came to public attention when the Russian National Guard published a photo of a battalion training for the protection of important government facilities in the Northwestern District of the Russian Federation. It's perfectly logical that these units, which at some point essentially found themselves on their own front lines, needed to be armed with machine guns. And, apparently, nothing but machine guns was available. Or rather, nothing was available. On the front lines, the RPD, which has long since been decommissioned, and North Korean-made clones of the PKM (we've written about them several times) are actively used. Machine guns simply aren't available to arm all the mobile fire teams and paramilitary security forces in the rear.


One of the first documented attempts by the Russian National Guard to use the DPM twin-links as a means of combating dronesThe photo shows a structure from a department with a budget of hundreds of billions of rubles.

Although the first footage of the DPM showed Rosgvardia personnel firing at conventional stationary targets, it was clear that this weapon would be used to combat a new threat deep in the rear of the Air Defense Forces – drones. And so it turned out. First, photos of semi-homemade turrets for the DPM appeared, then more advanced designs, and then the Kalashnikov Concern proposed its own versions of converting Degtyaryov machine guns into anti-aircraft ones.


DPMs are already guarding the airspace over strategic facilities. As we can see, they are still supplied by rotary magazines.

All these designs had one thing in common: the machine guns themselves hadn't been touched, and no one had thought about upgrading them. The availability of upgrade kits from private manufacturers clearly demonstrates that the old systems still have potential for modernization and can become effective weapons in the new reality, tackling missions they're not designed for. Let's hope that the relevant agencies will take notice of this private commercial initiative and draw the right conclusions.


The Kalashnikov Concern also proposed its own version of an anti-aircraft mount with a dual-barrel DPM. Although the mount was highly technologically advanced, the arms manufacturer failed to consider a relatively simple and logical upgrade for the machine guns themselves.
102 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. + 17
    27 July 2026 05: 12
    And why all this? Because "the army is provided with everything and needs nothing!"

    Now I believe that people can fight "in spite of Stalin." Oh, oh...
    1. +8
      27 July 2026 05: 18
      Degtyarev machine guns, both DP and DPM, are increasingly appearing in the shots of soldiers
      Where is Maxim? Shosh? Lewis? feel
      1. +6
        27 July 2026 07: 42
        "Where's Maxim?" After the conflict at Damansky, Maxim machine guns were remembered. In Siberia, at junction stations, pillboxes were built and they were armed with Maxims.
        There were publications about this. It seems to be on the website too.
      2. +4
        27 July 2026 08: 30
        Quote: Uncle Lee
        Degtyarev machine guns, both DP and DPM, are increasingly appearing in the shots of soldiers
        Where is Maxim? Shosh? Lewis? feel
        In the photo, the Banderites' anti-drone design
      3. +2
        27 July 2026 11: 32
        There are still Maximkas in stock, but mostly in the 404. The Shoshi, Lewis, and Hotchkiss rifles were apparently destroyed on the front lines of the Great Patriotic War. The thing is, Maximkas were manufactured in our country during WWII. All the others were purchased before 1917, and their stocks were exhausted not even by 1945, but even earlier. More likely, the German MG43 will emerge from oblivion. However, its descendants are still used in Leopards and Marders.
      4. +1
        28 July 2026 21: 24
        What's all the fuss about... DA-27 aircraft machine guns were double-barreled, with 63-round drum magazines, no stock, and a pistol grip and spent cartridge collection sleeve. They were equipped with aircraft sights and were installed primarily on R-series reconnaissance aircraft. They were equipped with an aircraft turret, and the observer pilot fired the guns.
      5. +1
        2 August 2026 19: 36
        Where is Maxim? Shosh? Lewis? 
        ... Madsen, Hotchkins, Gatling...
    2. -6
      27 July 2026 07: 52
      "The army is fully provided for"—during war, they often mention outdated weapons systems. This has always happened everywhere. There are plenty of examples—WWII, Vietnam, and Afghanistan—of outdated small arms systems.
      1. +8
        27 July 2026 08: 03
        Quote: vladcub
        both in Vietnam and Afghanistan

        Come on, the Americans used Thompsons and Stuarts in Vietnam, and our PPSh and T-34s fought in Afghanistan?
        1. +3
          27 July 2026 09: 52
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          Come on, the Americans had Thompsons and Stuarts in Vietnam, and our PPSh And did the T-34 fight in Afghanistan?
          Iraq
          1. + 12
            27 July 2026 10: 04
            Pff, these are lucky! laughing The particularly unlucky ones didn't even get a PPSh!
        2. 0
          27 July 2026 10: 52
          The Vietnamese used the PPSh, in Afghanistan they often used the DShK and the Bur (Lee Enfield) rifles.
          In Donetsk, the rebels used the T-34/85 and the ISU 100mm. There was a lot of material about this on the website.
          1. +6
            27 July 2026 10: 58
            Quote: vladcub
            The Vietnamese used the PPSh, in Afghanistan they often used the DShK and the Bur (Lee Enfield) rifles.
            In Donetsk, the militia used: T-34/85, ISU - 100 mm.

            So, you think that the Russian Army is now fighting against the Ukrainian Armed Forces in a similar way to the Vietnamese Army against the US, the Mujahideen against the Soviet Army, or the LPR/DPR militia against the Ukrainian Armed Forces? Do you think so?
            1. +2
              27 July 2026 16: 28
              1) No need to distort things, I didn’t say anything like that.
              It has long been known that PPSh were used in Vietnam.
              2) The examples given are the use of weapons by the regular army. I hope you don't consider the DPR fighters some kind of highwaymen?
              1. +1
                28 July 2026 03: 08
                Quote: vladcub
                No need to distort things, I didn't say anything like that.

                Actually, you justify it.
                Quote: vladcub
                "The army is fully provided for"—during war, they often mention outdated weapons systems. This has always happened everywhere. There are plenty of examples—WWII, Vietnam, and Afghanistan—of outdated small arms systems.

                "remembering obsolete systems" - which army are you talking about?
                And Vietnam and Afghanistan - which armies are you talking about?

                Quote: vladcub
                The examples given are the use of weapons by the regular army.
                Yeah, right, right, the armies of leading arms-producing countries, right? Let's reiterate: in Vietnam and Afghanistan, the US and Soviet armies DID NOT fight with obsolete weapons from long-term storage depots.
                What are you persistently getting at?

                Quote: vladcub
                I hope you don't consider the DPR people to be some kind of highwaymen?

                Unlike you, I understand that the LPR/DPR fighters are a militia armed with what was available here and now.
                1. 0
                  28 July 2026 17: 32
                  "US Army...
                  "I'm talking about the Viet Cong army.
        3. +8
          27 July 2026 11: 34
          The T-34s in Afghanistan weren't ours anymore, but were in service with the Afghan army, and had been handed over long before that war. The PPSh, apparently, were given to the mujahideen by the Chinese. Ours didn't fight with them. There was no point. The USSR manufactured a lot of modern weapons... It's still fighting in the North Military District.
          1. -2
            27 July 2026 14: 42
            Quote: futurohunter
            Our people didn't fight with that. There was no point. The USSR manufactured a lot of modern weapons...

            I already know about this, you got the address a little wrong.
            1. +3
              27 July 2026 16: 09
              Vladimir_2UI wasn't replying to you, but that's how the site posts...
          2. 0
            27 July 2026 16: 45
            The T-34/85 tanks used in the DPR were of Soviet production.
            DShK machine guns were used by the Afghan government army, and rifles were used by various Islamists and pro-government militias. This is also mentioned in the film "A Tree in the Center of Kabul" by Prozyukhanov, published back in the Soviet era.
            Our contract soldiers use three-line rifles with optical sights.
            Front-line units use modern AKs, while rear-line units also use small arms from the WWII era.
            This is in Sladkov's "Military Program".
            1. 0
              28 July 2026 09: 42
              The T-34/85 tanks used in the DPR were of Soviet production.
              A monument removed from its pedestal isn't considered a weapon... And the IS-3 was also removed from its pedestal. On the contrary, it's a shame about the monuments... Although neither one nor the other is hard to find these days.
              DShK machine guns
              You won't believe it, but the DShK was produced in the USSR until the early 1970s, and was probably installed on some tanks until the 90s, and there are still plenty of them in warehouses today.
              various Islamists
              They used Chinese weapons, as well as Soviet weapons purchased for them by the United States and Pakistan through third countries.
              Our contractors use three-line rifles.

              The Mosinka, in a shortened version, was produced until 1965 and was used by hunters and private security forces. I even saw revolvers in the 80s with the VOKhRU...
              rear units also use small arms from the WWII era
              Any weapon (don't take it to the extreme, not flintlock rifles or Berdan rifles) is a weapon. Especially if it has ammunition. Many types of machine guns never go out of style. The Germans, for example, still use the MG42, and the Americans still use the M3 machine gun. There are modern versions of the shortened three-line rifle with an ergonomic plastic forend and buttstock, Picatinny rails, and other bells and whistles. If a rifle has a reliable and easy-to-maintain mechanism, ballistics, and other characteristics that meet modern requirements, and it has ammunition, then why not?
              But the time of the T-34, TT, and many other weapons of the past is gone forever. They are only used out of necessity, during a weapons shortage.
              I don't understand what you're trying to prove here? That our troops are fighting with ancient weapons?
              1. 0
                28 July 2026 17: 11
                Let's put it this way: the TT is still good. It's more powerful than the Makarov.
                1. +1
                  28 July 2026 23: 31
                  The Makarov is considered obsolete and is gradually being phased out of the Russian Armed Forces, remaining in the police, the Ministry of Emergency Situations, and other rear services. The Yarygin pistol is the primary pistol in the army.
                  The main thing about a pistol isn't power, but stopping power. Simply put, it knocks the enemy off his feet, preventing him from responding. Excessive power in a pistol bullet means it penetrates the enemy, but even if he's wounded, he can still respond. This is the TT's main drawback. For this reason, everyone switched to the 9mm caliber. 7,62 and smaller calibers are reserved for civilian weapons and compact models.
    3. -3
      27 July 2026 08: 39
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      And why all this? Because "the army is provided with everything and needs nothing!"

      Now I believe that people can fight "in spite of Stalin." Oh, oh...

      In 1941, the army was also provided with everything - but despite the mobilization of the economy, it was still armed with old stuff (for example, the same 3-inch guns).
      But now there is no mobilization of industry, and the rifle industry for the front is just dust.

      In fact, all the photos have typos in the captions. It would be better if they weren't there...
      1. +3
        27 July 2026 09: 15
        Quote: your1970
        In 1941, the army was also provided with everything - but despite the mobilization of the economy, it was still armed with old stuff (for example, the same 3-inch guns).

        Are weapon losses in the early years not taken into account? Were tanks and planes also from the First World War? The 76,2 model 1902 guns were perfectly adequate, and had reasonable shelf life for 41-45. And the militia, being what it is, is armed with whatever is readily available.
        What kind of militia is this now?

        Quote: your1970
        In fact, all the photos have typos in the captions underneath them.
        Typos or factual errors?
        1. -2
          27 July 2026 11: 14
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          Typos or factual errors?

          Please decipher the words "DMP" and "closed" in the photo with the open one.

          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          What kind of militia is this now?
          And now there are military operations going on that have long exceeded the standard reserves for storing new machine guns.

          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          76,2 model 1902 are quite adequate guns, also with reasonable shelf life, for 41-45.
          Baranovsky's guns in Moscow too?
          1. -1
            27 July 2026 15: 09
            Quote: your1970
            Please decipher the words "DMP" and "closed" in the photo with the open one.
            The text is clearly a DPM, meaning there's a typo, and the wrong photo could have been inserted by mistake. Do you think proofreaders and editors just work for publishing houses? If you have nothing better to do, help VO by pre-moderating articles.


            Quote: your1970
            Standard stocks for storing fresh machine guns.

            The words seem clear, but the overall meaning eludes me...
            Wait a minute, so it turns out there aren't enough modern machine guns to conduct the OPERATION?

            Quote: your1970
            Baranovsky's guns in Moscow too?

            Are you talking about the militia's armament - did you skip it out of pure innocence or on purpose?

            Oh yeah, and in the 4th year of the war, were Baranovsky's guns also used? (And in the first, no.)
            1. -1
              27 July 2026 17: 10
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              The text is completely DPM, which means there is a typo, and the photo could have been inserted incorrectly by mistake.

              For you personally
              Quote: your1970
              photo с TYPOGRAPHS in the captions underneath them. It would be better if they weren't there...
              - didn't notice????



              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              Wait a minute, so it turns out there aren't enough modern machine guns to conduct the OPERATION?

              Lacks.
              And?
              There are never enough of them in any war - here's a photo for you NOT should we add the militias with Lewis?
              Given the exorbitant cost of weapons and overall spending right now, it's no surprise that there's a shortage. And considering Timur, it's not surprising at all.
              The salary of a soldier today is greater than the salary of an entire motorized rifle battalion in 1941, no matter how you calculate it.

              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              Oh yeah, and in the 4th year of the war, were Baranovsky's guns also used? (And in the first, no.)

              BT-2s fought (burned) in the war with Japan - this is certainly not Baranovsky, but also scrap material...
              1. -1
                28 July 2026 03: 20
                Quote: your1970
                - didn't notice????

                Well, help VO as a proofreader, since you are so principled.

                Quote: your1970
                I would like to attach a photo of NOT the militiamen with the Lewises.

                What year is this photo from?
                The losses of the first years and the evacuation of factories, as usual and this time deliberately, you missed out on.

                Quote: your1970
                Given the exorbitant cost of weapons and overall spending right now, it's no surprise that there's a shortage. And considering Timur, it's not surprising at all.
                During the War, there weren't enough, understandably. And even then, weapons were OK by the third year. But with the OPERATION, there aren't enough, and not just any weapons... Timur's side of the story isn't an excuse.

                Quote: your1970
                The salary of a soldier today is greater than the salary of an entire motorized rifle battalion in 1941, no matter how you calculate it.

                Is this how you justify retrieving obsolete and extremely inconvenient weapons from long-term storage warehouses?

                Quote: your1970
                BT-2s fought (burned) in the war with Japan - this is certainly not Baranovsky, but also scrap material...
                The BT-2 can certainly be considered an armored vehicle. The BA-64, for example, was much less well-armed and had less maneuverability. Oh, and the BT-2's involvement is disputed even at Khalkhin Gol, and it's not even mentioned at all during the Strategic Nuclear Forces.
                1. 0
                  28 July 2026 07: 31
                  Quote: Vladimir_2U
                  Oh yes, the participation of BT-2 is disputed even at Khalkhin Gol, and at the SNA it is not mentioned at all.

                  Here's a joke: at the start of the fighting they were available in the states of some units, but after 3 weeks they were gone - just dashes remained.

                  Quote: Vladimir_2U
                  Is this how you justify retrieving obsolete and extremely inconvenient weapons from long-term storage warehouses?

                  What I'm saying is that the cost of war today repeatedly higher than in WWII.
                  What makes you think that I am I justify Is this old stuff? Taking Timur into account, the country simply can't cope economically—they've been writing about machine guns since almost the very first days that there aren't enough of them.

                  Quote: Vladimir_2U
                  During the war, there weren't enough, understandably. And even then, by the third year, the weapons situation was fine.

                  This is generally quite understandable - the mobilization of industry, with all its charms, began even before the war. The ban on dismissal was introduced a year before the war.

                  Quote: Vladimir_2U
                  Well, help VO as a proofreader, since you are so principled.
                  - Should I help them?
                  Or should they work for their own salaries?
                2. 0
                  28 July 2026 09: 58
                  BT tanks—all series, except those armed only with machine guns—were very effective in the wars against the Japanese. Even in 1945, BTs performed very successfully. Firstly, the Japanese possessed only light armored vehicles, which even the BT's weak guns easily destroyed. Secondly, the flat, easily passable, dry terrain allowed for rapid advances of tank columns. As is well known, the BT is a fast tank, moving faster than other tank types on such terrain. So, the BTs performed very well there.
        2. +2
          27 July 2026 16: 55
          "What kind of militia are we seeing now?" In the Kursk region, militias operated alongside the regular army, and they had AK-47s and PPS pistols. You can read about this in "Reporter."
          1. 0
            28 July 2026 03: 25
            Quote: vladcub
            "What kind of militia are we seeing now?" In the Kursk region, militias operated alongside the regular army, and they had AK-47s and PPS pistols. You can read about this in "Reporter."

            Ah, well yes, although I don’t remember at all that the militias were armed - in my opinion strictly with their own weapons, but I could be wrong.
            1. 0
              28 July 2026 09: 49
              The LPR/DPR militias were initially semi-partisan formations, and they were armed with whatever they could get (from warehouses, from the police, seized or bought from the Ukrainians).
          2. -2
            28 July 2026 09: 52
            Half a million PPS pistols were produced, and they remained in service in the rear until almost the 70s. And there were plenty of them lying around in warehouses, along with ammo for them. They were all useful. Incidentally, it was a perfectly decent weapon for assault troops. Not for trench warfare, but specifically for assault and security. A distant ancestor of the "Ksyukha."
      2. +3
        27 July 2026 11: 06
        Quote: your1970
        In 1941, the army was also provided with everything - but despite the mobilization of the economy, it was still armed with old stuff (for example, the same 3-inch guns).

        The army also calculated the weapons loss rates for the first year of the war, which were used to determine weapons stockpiles and production capacity. What they ordered is what they got.
        On April 29, 1938, the Decree of the Defense Committee under the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR No. 73ss approved new standards for the combat expenditure of artillery ammunition.
        The same Resolution approved new standards for expected irretrievable losses of weapons during the first year of the war: 125% for tank guns (half the standard for tank losses was taken), 100% for rifles, large-caliber machine guns, 82-mm mortars, 122-mm and 152-mm guns; 80% for light machine guns and anti-aircraft guns; 75% for 120-mm mortars and 45-mm guns; 68% for 76-mm divisional guns; 60% for 76-mm regimental guns, 122-mm and 152-mm howitzers and 152-mm howitzer-guns; 50% for heavy machine guns and 203-mm howitzers; 45% - for 76 mm mountain guns.

        In fact, in 1941 the Red Army managed to exceed these standards by almost half:
        At the beginning of the war there were:
        Anti-tank 45-mm guns - 14900.
        Divisional 76-mm guns - 8513.
        122 mm howitzers - 8124.

        In two months the following was lost:
        7766 45mm anti-tank gun - 52%.
        3094 76-mm divisional guns - 36%.
        3512 122mm howitzers - 43%.

        In six months the following was lost:
        12015 45mm anti-tank gun - 81%.
        6463 76-mm divisional guns - 76%.
        5952 122mm howitzers - 73%.

        And this is not even mentioning the mass formation of new units, which were completely absent from the Red Army’s pre-war plans.
        ...by July 1941, 71 divisions (56th rifle division and 15th cavalry division) were required; in August, 110 divisions (85th rifle division and 25th cavalry division); and in October, 74 rifle brigades. New rifle, cavalry, tank, and airborne units, artillery, anti-aircraft artillery, guards mortar, engineering, transport, and other units, marching battalions, etc., were rapidly being formed.

        Source: "Artillery supply in the Great Patriotic War 1941-45", Moscow-Tula, GAU publishing house, 1977
      3. 0
        28 July 2026 09: 48
        In 1941, much modern equipment and weaponry was lost in battles and retreats. Given the intensity of the fighting, a great deal of weapons and ammunition was needed.
        old stuff (for example, the same 3-inch ones)
        Isn't it true that the Mauser rifle—roughly equivalent to the Mosin rifle—was the Wehrmacht's primary weapon until the very end of the war? The Sturmgewehr-44 assault rifle (the precursor to the Kalashnikov) only appeared in 1944. The notorious MP-40 was a secondary weapon, had numerous shortcomings, and was mostly featured in movies. Although "Saving Private Ryan" did a great job of showing what weapons the Germans actually used...
        rifle for the front - dust
        Don't worry, there are no problems with small arms these days... In the USSR, and even after, they produced enough of them to last for decades of wars...
        1. -1
          28 July 2026 11: 07
          Quote: futurohunter
          There are no problems with small arms now... In the USSR and after, they produced enough of them to last for decades of wars...

          Haven't you read the article and our discussion above?
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          Is this how you justify retrieving obsolete and extremely inconvenient weapons from long-term storage warehouses?
      4. 0
        2 August 2026 22: 24
        The 1941 army was also provided with everything - but despite the mobilization of the economy, it was armed with old stuff (for example, the same 3-inch guns).

        Three-inch gun model 02/30. In service by 41.
        1. 0
          2 August 2026 23: 10
          Quote from Ponimatel
          The 1941 army was also provided with everything - but despite the mobilization of the economy, it was armed with old stuff (for example, the same 3-inch guns).

          Three-inch gun model 02/30. In service by 41.

          In 1998 there was an order about decommissioning and write-off means of communication.
          The first item was "A two-wheeled cart on a bicycle chassis for transporting homing pigeons", adopted into service in 1928.
          Then there were all sorts of devices from Baudot, Krieger and all sorts of other equipment.
          But the cart, by virtue of its of special importance and top secrecy - eprst, on a bicycle belay let's go!!!!- remained in service for exactly 70 years.
          1. 0
            3 August 2026 19: 16
            was in service for exactly 70 years.

            The three-inch gun was actually used by the military. So what's the difference?
    4. -2
      27 July 2026 13: 17
      Are we reading the text paragraph by paragraph or something?! It says these are either captured DPMs from the front, or from the National Guard in civilian use—where did you see that the Ministry of Defense is arming its armament with these machine guns?! Or are we printing this automatically?! The main thing is to get it out there, right?!
      1. +7
        27 July 2026 14: 40
        Quote: Victor Alien
        Are we reading the text paragraph by paragraph or something?! It says these are either captured DPMs from the front, or civilian ones from the Russian National Guard—where did you see that the Ministry of Defense is arming the army with these machine guns?!

        And the TV is absolutely beautiful, why aren't you screaming about TV? Channel One, direct line with the president, no need for Telegram, the wounded are being evacuated from the front lines within an hour. What?
        1. -1
          28 July 2026 10: 01
          Degtyarev light machine guns remained in service until the early 70s, and a lot of them remained in warehouses. Why waste them? They were perfectly adequate machines, if updated to suit modern requirements.
  2. +3
    27 July 2026 05: 12
    This only goes to show that, in the fifth year of the Soviet Military District, no one is thinking about providing machine guns. They still have Gatling guns.
    1. IVZ
      + 11
      27 July 2026 06: 13
      This only shows that in the fifth year of the SVO, no one is thinking about providing machine guns.
      You're mistaken. The current situation is the fault of the defense industry's current state, driven by effective managers who, despite their failures and the thunder and lightning of their superiors, continue to cling tenaciously to the troughs because they know nothing else. Rebuilding what has been destroyed is a very difficult and costly process, as the collapse began with "personnel decisions" convenient for this very same snake pit.
      1. +3
        27 July 2026 12: 35
        Yes, the only question that remains is: who appoints these "effective managers" to high positions? For example, one was recently mentioned on television – Ms. Skrynnik. A cardiologist, she was appointed Minister of Agriculture. She was involved in leasing schemes and theft. Now she lives peacefully in France. She owns real estate and several manufacturing companies in Russia. "Life is good!"
      2. -4
        28 July 2026 11: 11
        Quote: IVZ
        The current situation is due to the state of the defense industry

        In this particular case, machine guns were produced in the RSFSR by two factories, both of which were operating at full capacity.
        What do the managers have to do with this? They're to blame for not building the third plant. just in case?
        1. IVZ
          +1
          28 July 2026 17: 45
          Are you so well informed about the state of affairs at these enterprises? The managers themselves are convinced that everything is fine, but their "full capacity" is now significantly different from what they once produced, and it's not due to equipment wear and tear.
          1. 0
            28 July 2026 18: 09
            Quote: IVZ
            Are you so well informed about the state of affairs at these enterprises? The managers themselves are convinced that everything is fine, but their "full capacity" is now significantly different from what they once produced, and it's not due to equipment wear and tear.

            Hmm, what's wrong with the Degtyarev Plant and Kalashnikov?
            1 plant (NSV-12,7) remained in Kazakhstan - in Uralsk.
            1. IVZ
              +1
              28 July 2026 18: 51
              Yes, read the reviews of employees of these companies. Honestly, your ignorance is a bit strange. Either a provocation or, hmm.
              1. 0
                28 July 2026 23: 39
                Quote: IVZ
                Yes, read the reviews of employees of these companies. Honestly, your ignorance is a bit strange. Either a provocation or, hmm.

                And what do they write?
            2. 0
              2 August 2026 22: 26
              The plant (NSV-12,7) remained in Kazakhstan, in Uralsk.

              Instead, KORD has been produced in Kovrov for a long time now.
    2. 0
      27 July 2026 07: 57
      "Gatling guns," but no matchlocks? 😀
      1. -1
        27 July 2026 11: 36
        In Afghanistan, peasants still had flintlock rifles. Arquebuses disappeared from all use more than 300 years ago...
      2. -1
        27 July 2026 12: 28
        Why not? The matchlock was the right caliber. How much large shot could they "send" to the drone?
        1. -1
          28 July 2026 10: 02
          ...once. If the drone misses, it attacks again.
    3. -6
      27 July 2026 08: 43
      Quote: fiberboard
      There are also Gatling guns there.

      Under socialism in 1941, there were no oligarchs, but Baranovsky's guns were still in full use. And the three-inch guns were absolutely new and quite good.

      Although everyone was beating their chests with their heels: “The Red Army is provided with everything it needs!” (C)
      1. -4
        27 July 2026 11: 09
        It was not only in 1941 that obsolete weapons systems were used.
        According to veterans (my mother and aunt were WWII veterans), and I've met many WWII veterans. In the spring of 1945, units of the 2nd echelon of the 1st Ukrainian Front were armed with three-line rifles. My boss, he served in the Far East in the late 50s, and his unit had 1916 carbines (!)
    4. -1
      27 July 2026 11: 35
      Gatling guns are used on Soviet-made helicopters. And the Americans don't disdain them either, even calling them "Gatlings"... Only these aren't the same "Gatlings"...
      1. -2
        27 July 2026 16: 13
        "Not those Gatling guns, of course. I think these installations are a continuation of the mitrailleuses."
        1. -1
          28 July 2026 10: 03
          No, they only used the IDEA of automatic weapons with rotating barrels. The weapon itself was a completely new design. But the Americans still produce the Nazi shell for their Gatling guns.
  3. 0
    27 July 2026 05: 32
    A great upgrade. A mount for the box would be great, too. Plus, when using a DP tape, you can pair them, or better yet, quadruple them, like they did with Maxims during WWII, which greatly increases the area of ​​effect. Perfect against drones.
    1. IVZ
      +1
      27 July 2026 06: 18
      If only there was a mount for the box, it would be awesome,
      The DP-15's ejection is straight down. You can't hang the receiver there, unless you angle it or hang it off to the side, but that has its own drawbacks. The charging handle would also get in the way.
      1. +1
        27 July 2026 07: 36
        Wouldn't it be easier to make a plastic one instead of a steel disk magazine, empty weight 1.6 kg, for example 250-300 g
        1. -2
          27 July 2026 08: 44
          Quote: agond
          Wouldn't it be easier to make a plastic one instead of a steel disk magazine, empty weight 1.6 kg, for example 250-300 g

          The amount of cartridges in the disk is negligible, so there is no point
        2. 0
          27 July 2026 11: 39
          The discs were abandoned because they empty unevenly, causing the machine gun to "rock" relative to its longitudinal axis as the disc empties. The advantage of a belt is that new sections can be continuously added to it, but care must be taken to prevent the barrel from overheating. Furthermore, belt-based firing accuracy is higher than with any magazine.
      2. -1
        27 July 2026 11: 37
        Couldn't the cartridge ejector be positioned to the side, with the receiver underneath it? It would, however, cause the barrel to pull slightly to the side during prolonged firing.
  4. +4
    27 July 2026 09: 16
    What kind of state must the army be brought to that there aren't even enough rifles, of which there has always been an innumerable amount?
  5. +2
    27 July 2026 09: 57
    Why is this interesting and important to us? It's all because Degtyarev machine guns are increasingly being used both in the SVO zone and beyond.

    Yes, that's right: upon arrival "on site" they gave me an RPD, manufactured in 1947...
    just like the AK - from the same years of production...
    1. -1
      28 July 2026 10: 05
      What's so bad about that? They don't fire? They probably gave it to me greased up. Well, the RPD is a bit heavy.
      1. 0
        28 July 2026 10: 07
        They probably gave it out in grease.

        no, there was no lubrication
        What's wrong with that? Aren't they shooting?

        That's what I was talking about
        I said that they issued RPD and AK - "from the time of Ochakov and the conquest of Crimea"
  6. 0
    27 July 2026 10: 15
    As I understand it, a 7,62mm machine gun is only effective against small drones and only at low altitudes.
    They're of little use in the rear, and don't work well against large drones. The ZU-23-2 and its automated, remote-controlled variants are more useful there. Basically, a Tunguska on wheels is what's needed in the rear.
    But on the front lines and near the front, it is better to have something more modern, the Pecheneg or the GShG-7,62 with a rotating barrel block.
    1. -2
      28 July 2026 10: 11
      What you've written is complete nonsense. Research the characteristics of small arms bullets. For your information, even one well-placed bullet can bring down any drone. For example, one that destroys the engine, the control board, punctures the gas tank, or destroys the servo. And if a drone's wing or tail is punctured by a burst of bullets, the drone won't fly very far at all.
      ZU-23-2
      Its main advantage over the 7.62 is its longer firing range. A 7.62 bullet fired from a machine gun will retain its lethal effect at a range of just over a kilometer, while a Zushka's bullet will be effective at a range of almost 2,5 kilometers.
      A shotgun, of course, is useless against the "planes" attacking our cities. But an AK can definitely shoot them down. You need different weapons.
  7. +2
    27 July 2026 10: 35
    The press periodically reports that there's a shortage of PKM. But they don't say why?!
    It seems like it's a kingdom of drones, it seems like the army isn't the size of the Red Army, it seems like all the factories are still on Russian territory.
    Strange.
    1. -2
      27 July 2026 12: 01
      Quote: Zaurbek
      The press periodically reports that there's a shortage of PKM. But they don't say why?!
      It seems like it's a kingdom of drones, it seems like the army isn't the size of the Red Army, it seems like all the factories are still on Russian territory.
      Strange.

      Well, for example, because in WWII the crew of a broken/abandoned gun had to bring a sight/lock.
      Grandpa was getting out of the encirclement - they were dragging the removed sights of the 152 mm artillery regiment in their duffel bags (and, I think, locks - I don’t remember exactly)
      Otherwise, they could have recalled the Criminal Code of the RSFSR of 1926:
      193.13. An unauthorized deviation of a military commander from the disposition given to him or other orders given for combat, the surrender of the troops, fortifications, or military vessel entrusted to him to the enemy, as well as the destruction or rendering unusable of fortifications, ships, guns, weapons depots, food supplies and other objects belonging to the means of waging war, in those cases where they were committed for the purpose of assisting the enemy, entail
      application of the highest measure of social protection.
      And now there are no punishments for abandoned guns, tanks, and small arms...
      1. 0
        27 July 2026 12: 13
        But the army that fought there was several million strong...and now it's 100-200. Of those, there aren't many machine gunners.
        1. -2
          27 July 2026 14: 30
          Quote: Zaurbek
          But the army that fought there was several million strong...and now it's 100-200. Of those, there aren't many machine gunners.

          Back then, even small cooperatives were producing rifles; now, only 1-2 factories produce them.
    2. +3
      27 July 2026 13: 06
      Because we only have one factory that produces PKMs. And there weren't many orders for them before the SVO. Furthermore, this factory isn't owned by the Kalashnikov Concern, which will likely exclude it from government procurement.
      1. +1
        27 July 2026 13: 09
        And in government procurement we only have Kalashnikov?
        Moreover, it is suitable for all types of equipment.
  8. +3
    27 July 2026 10: 35
    It's strange they don't use the DT (Degtyaryov tank) round; they should be in stock, too. It has a 63-round magazine, and there should be a huge number of them: the T-34-85's standard magazine was 50. It also has a standard air sight.
  9. +4
    27 July 2026 11: 21
    Yes, Repin’s painting “They’ve Arrived”!
    A four-gun silo-fire mount was developed in 41 based on the DP-27. The Degtyarev-Fedorov aircraft machine gun was also developed in two- and three-barrel versions. Today, the Kalashnikov Concern…
    Sadly….
    1. -2
      27 July 2026 11: 31
      Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
      On the basis of the DP-27, a barrage fire installation was developed in 41 with four machine guns.
      Use of PPSh in aviation
      1. 0
        28 July 2026 10: 14
        One plane. After testing, everything was disassembled, and the plane was sent to the front. After the war, they tried something similar on the Il-28.
    2. +1
      28 July 2026 10: 13
      What's so sad? Surely there's no fire? Does it matter that your home's heat is quite possibly supplied by a combined heat and power plant or boiler room, possibly built under Stalin?
      1. 0
        28 July 2026 15: 16
        Quote: futurohunter
        What's so sad? Surely there's no fire? Does it matter that your home's heat is quite possibly supplied by a combined heat and power plant or boiler room, possibly built under Stalin?

        I'll start with the boiler room!
        The house has two gas boilers and central heating. The city's gas boiler house was commissioned five years ago. Previously, it used fuel oil—the factory-built one was built under Brezhnev.
        The apartment gets hot water from the Novouralsk Thermal Power Plant. The old turbines, including those recovered as reparations, were decommissioned 10-15 years ago. One is on display as a museum exhibit for curious citizens.
        Now to Degtyar. Rifle-caliber machine guns against UAVs are a last resort. On jeeps with quadruple and twin Degtyar guns…
        The Maxim model 1945 with a metal disintegrating belt is better here. Ammunition, liquid cooling, etc. And the PShG-7,62 aircraft-grade gun with a rotating block is also better.

        Barrage fire installations have a long history, but it is more effective to put them on a production line rather than make them yourself.
        1. 0
          28 July 2026 15: 30
          Well, I can only be happy for you that everything you have is modern)) And I wish that everything works smoothly for many years))
          Regarding rifle-caliber machine guns. Well, there are actually several air defense zones, or circles. Assault rifles and 7.62mm machine guns are, admittedly, weapons of last resort, unless the drone is shot down by something with a longer range. But there's always a chance...
          The Maxim is a bit heavy... An average pickup truck can carry a twin mount of three or four air-cooled machine guns. But I'm afraid even two Maxims would be a bit heavy. And it needs a water reserve. It's a good shot in the snowy winter, though. The Gatling gun from an aircraft is good, but where can you get one? Unless you're using one decommissioned from a helicopter.
          I'm all for industrial products. It seems like we've got a multiple-launch rocket system now. But if industry can't keep up, we're left with the collective farming...
  10. 0
    27 July 2026 11: 25
    CNC Guns Custom, a manufacturer of gun tuning, presented its development – ​​a removable tape receiver for DPM.

    Yeah, RP-46……
    1. The comment was deleted.
  11. +3
    27 July 2026 11: 43
    This is further proof that in a serious military conflict, anything will be used, even weapons from eighty years ago. There's no need to make a tragedy out of this, as some commentators have. We need to understand that weapons must be cheap and widely available, each in its own niche.
    1. 0
      28 July 2026 10: 16
      Finally, a sensible idea! Does the weapon fire? Are the ballistics adequate? Is it easy to shoot and maintain? Is there enough ammunition? That means it's fit for the front!
      The Americans still produce Browning machine guns, and the Germans still produce MG42s. And the Yugoslavs too.
  12. +2
    27 July 2026 14: 37
    Making weapons simpler and more technologically advanced isn't the Kalashnikov concern's style. They don't care about simple weapons; they just want the money. Example? They turned the AK-74M into the AK-12.
    1. -3
      28 July 2026 10: 17
      What's not to like? The AK-12 is more convenient in every way. It even has Picatinny rails. Technological progress can't be stopped!
      1. +1
        28 July 2026 11: 59
        Quote: futurohunter
        What's not to like? The AK-12 is more convenient in every way. It even has Picatinny rails. Technological progress can't be stopped!

        On the latest model of the Ak-12...?, no longer available.
        1. -2
          28 July 2026 15: 32
          Perhaps... But still, the AK-12 will be more convenient and practical than the old Kalashnikov...
          1. +1
            28 July 2026 15: 45
            Quote: futurohunter
            Perhaps... But still, the AK-12 will be more convenient and practical than the old Kalashnikov...

            Have you ever fired an AK-12? Then tell me what...
      2. +2
        28 July 2026 18: 15
        Disassemble an AK-12 to fix the cartridge case failure in a trench or in rubble. Where do you look for this technological advancement? Under what piece of crap? Or under what pile of plaster?
  13. 0
    27 July 2026 23: 12
    In war, it is impossible to "provide the Armed Forces with everything" by definition...
    1. 0
      30 July 2026 20: 59
      The Degtyarev with its 47-round disc magazine did not have a high practical rate of fire of only 80 rpm, although you can find data on 150 rpm, for example the Bren 120 rpm (30-round magazine), the Madsen 180-200 rpm, for comparison the easel Maxim 200-300 rpm.
  14. +1
    3 August 2026 08: 57
    Now the question is: in case of mobilization, will Mosin rifles be used?
  15. 0
    3 August 2026 22: 14
    "Spanish shame"...apparently has no national origin.
  16. 0
    5 August 2026 15: 09
    without a muzzle brake included, but costs tens of thousands of rubles less.
    This sentence from the article is downright annoying. If I understood correctly, it's about the unit whose photograph is captioned
    A close-up of the RP-46 tape receiver
    ?
    I assume there are plenty of these machine guns in stock. I honestly don't understand what's stopping them from creating a proper belt feed kit with a mount for the receiver, a muzzle brake, and a sight rail?
    Well, it can't be expensive even for medium-scale production.
    And considering the sharply increased need for this type of weapon in connection with drones, I don’t understand why this hasn’t been done yet.
  17. 0
    5 August 2026 20: 10
    Quote: fiberboard
    ...There are also Gatling guns there.

    What a weapon against drones. Sarcasm.