9 réponses à ce sujet

[Volus Warlord]

 Mikhail Kalashnikov, lead designer behind the AK-47, passed away at age 94.  A military veteran and self-taught engineer, he was a legend in firearms design-perhaps surpassing John Browning or Eugene Stoner. Later on, he served as larger a promoter for the international market.

The use of his designs were incredibly prolific and the results far reaching. I'd put him up for most influential engineer of the 20th century.

Rest in peace.

Source

Modifié par Volus Warlord, 24 décembre 2013 - 01:43 .

[modjospinnin]

Guns are bad. Bad guns, bad!!!!!

I hear you can't go wrong with an ak though! Bury it in mud for 20 years, it will work as well if not better then brand new,

[mybudgee]

Guns don't kill people, Krampus kills people

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

In previous thread which gone political and locked, I said I've shot with AK47 and it's awesome. RIP.
Master Warder Z said this is the developed 44 assault rifle of Natzi Germany. I wanted to reply no it's much more powerful (caliber and stuff) than you claim.

[bEVEsthda]

Kaiser Arian wrote...

In previous thread which gone political and locked, I said I've shot with AK47 and it's awesome. RIP.
Master Warder Z said this is the developed 44 assault rifle of Natzi Germany. I wanted to reply no it's much more powerful (caliber and stuff) than you claim.

The caliber, cartridge, charge and bullet is pretty much almost perfectly identical to the German original. And so are, of course, ballistics.
As an engineering concept it's inferior to the .223 aka 5.56 NATO. Which is why the Russians later changed their mind and semi-copied this too.

The mechanism is nothing special, technically. It's adapted to be very idiot-proof, reliable, rugged and cheap & easy to manufacture though, that's all. And heavy.

As a shooting instrument it's good enough, but relatively speaking lousy. Judging only that quality, it's hard to find a worse rifle.

[vometia]

bEVEsthda wrote...

The caliber, cartridge, charge and bullet is pretty much almost perfectly identical to the German original. And so are, of course, ballistics.
As an engineering concept it's inferior to the .223 aka 5.56 NATO. Which is why the Russians later changed their mind and semi-copied this too.

The 7.62x39 used by the AK has nothing in common with the German 7.92 Kurz other than the basic concept of a sub-rifle-calibre cartridge.  I think there's no doubt that Kalashnikov was influenced by the general idea of the StG 44 but other than that the similarities end there.

The 5.56mm NATO round is still extremely contentious all this time after its initial appearance, and it's likely the only reasons it hasn't been replaced by something better are the inertia of its ubiquity and the sort of political shenanigans that saw both it and the previous 7.62x51's introduction in spite of better alternatives being available.

Modifié par vometia, 26 décembre 2013 - 03:26 .

[bEVEsthda]

vometia wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

The caliber, cartridge, charge and bullet is pretty much almost perfectly identical to the German original. And so are, of course, ballistics.
As an engineering concept it's inferior to the .223 aka 5.56 NATO. Which is why the Russians later changed their mind and semi-copied this too.

The 7.62x39 used by the AK has nothing in common with the German 7.92 Kurz other than the basic concept of a sub-rifle-calibre cartridge.  I think there's no doubt that Kalashnikov was influenced by the general idea of the StG 44 but other than that the similarities end there.

They're ballistically very similar. Certainly the very same idea. But you're right, they're not identical.

The 5.56mm NATO round is still extremely contentious all this time after its initial appearance, and it's likely the only reasons it hasn't been replaced by something better are the inertia of its ubiquity and the sort of political shenanigans that saw both it and the previous 7.62x51's introduction in spite of better alternatives being available.

"Contentious"? Really? Outside the fantasy world of certain gun magazine writers and their fans? What's supposed to be wrong with it? And what are the "better alternatives"?

I have no doubt that we'll see an even smaller and lighter cartridge one day, but it sort of depends on the role of infantry and how tactics and support weapons evolve. Clearly, the Russians decided an even smaller and lighter cartridge was appropriate when they standardized the new 5.45mm. In fact, all newer experimental military rifle cartridges that has been developed (but not adopted) are smaller.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

The only reason these weapons are still in use is because they can fire and kill the enemies well enough. If they were inefficient, they would be replaced in less than 5 years of their production with another weapon from the other part of the world.

[NeonFlux117]

6.8SPC tramps the **** outta 5.56. The 5.56 tumbles and get affected by wind at longer ranges. And guess what. In Afghanistan you are fighting in the mountains and long ranges. Where there is wind. Also even in the best of conditions the rounds kinetic energy-i.e knock down power, is lame. It kills but it doesn't knock the **** out it's target. This is why many SF operators are choosing to go with the SCAR-H line of rifles in the field- again,a .308 will just knock the crap outta any human being even at 700 or 800 meters. As does the 6.8 SPC. Like someone said, the reason why NATO doesn't move away from the 5.56 is because of politics and weapon contracts. Cause the platform of the M-4 line of assault weapons can be modified in 6.8 SPC pretty easily without having to retrain troops in a completely different weapon system.

5.56 sucks. It's highly accurate and "light" but in terms of shear combat effectiveness it always was lacking. This goes back to Nam.

And RIP Kalashnikov. He created a rifle that changed the world. Maybe I'll take mine for a spin this weekend and cap off a few clips in his honor.

[bEVEsthda]

NeonFlux117 wrote...

6.8SPC tramps the **** outta 5.56. The 5.56 tumbles and get affected by wind at longer ranges. And guess what. In Afghanistan you are fighting in the mountains and long ranges. Where there is wind. Also even in the best of conditions the rounds kinetic energy-i.e knock down power, is lame. It kills but it doesn't knock the **** out it's target. This is why many SF operators are choosing to go with the SCAR-H line of rifles in the field- again,a .308 will just knock the crap outta any human being even at 700 or 800 meters. As does the 6.8 SPC. Like someone said, the reason why NATO doesn't move away from the 5.56 is because of politics and weapon contracts. Cause the platform of the M-4 line of assault weapons can be modified in 6.8 SPC pretty easily without having to retrain troops in a completely different weapon system.

5.56 sucks. It's highly accurate and "light" but in terms of shear combat effectiveness it always was lacking. This goes back to Nam. 

The thing to do, IMO, diregarding finances, would be a limited adoption of 6.8spc right now, for M4 carbines and for deployments to theaters like Afganistan. But it's not going to happen, because it doesn't fit into bigger pictures.

The 5.56 has never demonstrated any lack of *normal* combat efficiency. On the contrary, its wounding capacity was originally an ethical, PR and possible war-crimes problem. It was somewhat corrected by a new bullet, M855, and higher spinrate of the rifling. But at impact velocities above 760 m/s it will still cause horrific wounds. The wounding power and incapacitation effect on a human, from a rifle barrel, is superior to both the 6.8spc and the 7.62X39, on normal ranges. As several studies with controlled comparisons have concluded, the sometimes claimed lack of lethality of the 5.56 is myth and personal perceptions, not facts. It's likely that these misperceptions are so enduring because they are sponsored by a group of ignorant writers who mistake recoil energy for "stopping power".

300m and beyond have not been normal engagement ranges for GI rifles since before first WW. Which is why ammo of lower weight and lighter recoil, as well as arms of lighter weight, has much greater military value. Saying that the 6.8spc tramps the *** outa 5.56, is factually wrong - as a general statement, it's perfectly true in case of the M4. Saying that the .300 WM tramps the *** outa the 6.8spc is factually correct, but utterly pointless as in regard of military value.

The problem area that resulted in the 6.8spc, is that 9 out of 10 SF soldiers choose the M4 as personal weapon. And regardless of how well the 5.56 performs from a full rifle barrel (it doesn't tumble in air for instance, that's nonsense), the situation is different when it's fired from the short M4 barrel. The light bullet does not become stable enough, nor soak up enough energy, to perform well downrange. This problem is considerable, since the M4 is less terminally effective at 50m than the M16 is at 200m. The 6.8spc is a specific solution to the M4 + range problem.
Thanks to the larger sectional area and lower sectional density, the bullet becomes both more stable at a lower spin rate as well as absorbing more energy from a short barrel (the general engineering idea is exactly the same that results in typical pistol cartridges). Unfortunately, the problem area, the M4s, seem to be too small, and the problem duration (Afganistan) too short to lead to any official adoption. In regard of special forces and the M4, I think this is lamentable. Meanwhile, the new M855A1 cartridge performs better in M4s too (higher pressure), as a bandaid.

Apart from that, the cartridge, 6.8spc, does also perform better downrange, from a rifle too. But then, heavier, lower muzzle velocity bullets always do (in relation to energy), just as they perform worse at short ranges. The right way is still not .300 WM. There was no requirement for a general rifle calibre to be accurate and highly lethal at 700-800. Those guys who were tasked with engaging at such distances, already fire the .308, and have done so since .30-06 was scrapped, from machineguns and sniper rifles.

There is however a longstanding requirement to replace .308 weapon systems with lighter weapons, firing lighter cartridges. In that regard I think we will see something like the 6.8spc, but slightly different, longer, thinner bullets, more specialised to perform well at long ranges, than to perform well from a short barrel.

The question then is, do you replace the 5.56 with this as well? Maybe, Afganistan has for a moment in time put that on the agenda. A 6.5mm GP calibre is pursued. But Afganistan is Afganistan, and making such a cartridge light enough for general use (fitting in 5.56 class weapons) would compromise its intended long range performance. I also think it's eventually inevitable that an even lighter, smaller cartridge is developed for general use instead. A 6.5mm (.308 replacement) system might be officially adopted as a general purpose cartridge. But as its performance from shortbarreled weapons would be poor, it's short range incapacitation effects would be undramatic, and the weapons and ammo would tend to be a wee bit heavy, sooner or later someone will come up with a better (=smaller, lighter, hi velocity) arm for the typical up to 200-300m engagement ranges. It always happens, by the same inevitable logic that made the submachineguns popular, the M1 carbine, the M16/5.56, the M4. And then we'd be stuck with a too anemic long range cartridge again. The .308 situation all over again, repeated exactly.

Eventually, most soldiers will carry some light piece of plastic that fires 4.3mm steel needles at horrific velocities, anyway. Something along those lines, is what I see as replacement for 5.56.