Gun Porn!

^ The Russians have been making 5.56mm AK's of various builds ever since The Great Politics Mess Up. Ranging from simple remanufactured AK-74s with new furniture like the AK-101 to next-gen shit like the AK-108 and AK-12.

And they have been selling them on multiple markets. It makes perfect sense to make the latest model to do the same.

On that Insas rifle. It was based off of the AKM weapon with a piston. The M-16 can operate in cold weather without too much fuss provided you use cold weather lubricant instead of the standard stuff. Cracking magazines is a problem for plastic magazines in cold weather not exactly unique to that weapon. From the sounds of it they really messed up their weapon. When your issues include the selector mechanism moving not correctly selecting burst that is a pretty serious issue. Sounds like a mix of failure to test it properly in all conditions and issues with quality control in production.

edited 4th May '15 7:42:26 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Of course. The Russians are pretty much at the juncture of telling the world "This is how you assault rifle!". Their best Viktor Reznov impression or Polandball comic optional.

The AK-12 in worldwide sales would give new vigor to the AK lineage that's somewhat seen as a relic of the Cold War in many places but kept simply because most alternatives are either too expensive, too shoddy, or possess some other debilitating factor that prevents acceptance.

edited 4th May '15 7:40:46 PM by MajorTom

Cost is usually the biggest hurdle. Even developing your own weapon is expensive. Then there is manufacturing the weapon and it's ammo. Not everyone has the US or Russian military budgets for weapons and ammo dev and procurement. I wonder how much they will sell the AK-12 for?

The biggest reason to buy Ak-47's, AKM's, and AK-74's is they are reasonably cheap and their ammo very plentiful.

edited 4th May '15 7:46:44 PM by TuefelHundenIV

To India? Probably pretty cheap. They're bros.

Not necessarily. India is the worlds biggest arms and military equipment importer at the moment. They are literally buying up weapons, equipment, and other related kit from all around the world. The two biggest importers to India is the US and Russia.

Not so cheap if they want to recoup costs.

The problem with the new AK is that the market for Kalashnikovs is oversaturated, what with every two-bit workshop churning out perfectly functional AKM clones. IIRC, three-quarters of assault rifles on the planet are AKMs or clones thereof. So the AK-12 has to bust into the high-end rifle market simply because there's no space for it elsewhere, and that will limit sales.

^ Not necessarily. The AK-12's biggest draw would be it's better than the tinshop shit that floats around places like Somalia but vastly less expensive than German or American shite that requires a Doctorate in Engineering to operate.

There are a lot of places that can't afford things like the HK-416 or the FN FNC but CAN afford the AK-12.

Plus it'd occupy the same space that crowds out the Chinese crap like the Type 03 or QBZ-95-1. Which would you rather have the Third World armed with? AK-12s? Or Chinese crap?

edited 4th May '15 7:55:58 PM by MajorTom

The ubiquitousness of the AK is related to how easily it was for any Second and Third World workshops to receive the blueprints and start making their own.

How the Soviet Union exported weapons en masse to everyone also helped.

Even if it is cheap, it is availability that sets how it is going to be adopted, even if the AK-12 is a bit cheaper than most NATO block weapons but more expensive and harder to manufacture and get than the AKM don't expect it to see it beyond a few importers like India or under Russian service.

Unless everyone gets to manufacture them locally or cheaply anywhere with the bare minimum, it won't be as prevalent as the current A Ks are.

Most guerrilla fighters don't give a damn how well their weapons work or where they are from as long as they get weapons. Bloody hell, there are warlords in Africa still using WWII German and British weapons left over after the war.

And the main reason everyone and their grandmother has an AKM is because the Soviet Union did not care if it was losing money by churning out Kalashnikovs and handing them out like candy; there were often enough political goals to meet by doing so. Not that the US was much better, given its habit of buying up Type 56s from the Chinese and distributing them to groups that often as not lost them, or sold them off, or the like. The world arms market, which was already not lacking for Kalashnikovs, got even more each time some two-bit state collapsed and the state armories got looted.

(C. J. Chivers' The Gun is an excellent resource, here.)

Plus, there's the self-reinforcing cycle: lots of Kalashnikovs = lots of 7.62x39 ammo = more people settling on Kalashnikovs because of easy ammunition availability. I'm pretty sure there's an economics term for that.

Tom: Actually even HK weapons are fairly simple to operate. The M-16 is very easy to operate and maintain at the user end. Just like the Ak lines. Honestly there are very few weapons that are really complicated to learn how to work. Most of them you can learn how to work them in a day or less.

Well, as long as it isn't the SA 80. That thing had two FORTY MINUTE lessons in how to put on the sling. The sling!

Mind you it is a complicated,useless, saw your shoulder off as soon as look at you piece of shit so I suppose having two lessons that long isn't really all that unusual.

ETA

More insanity from those fruit loops on Capitol Hill. No new pistol for you!

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/05/05/house-threatens-to-cut-funding-for-armys-m9-replacement-program/

I mean, it's not as if the M9's have been used so much in the thirty years that they have been in service for that they are falling apart or anything like that.

edited 5th May '15 4:42:46 AM by TamH70

You know I was in half jest right? I know it doesn't take a doctorate but it is far more complicated in use and maintenance.

Which along with their higher cost has been a big factor why such weapons aren't found as commonly as the AK. A literally illiterate Third World conscript can figure out how to AK on his own, it takes a lot more to teach him M-16.

That's a load of tripe and you know it. AK's are not maintenance intensive finicky bitches that need constant upkeep and cleaning. Plus with fewer parts, they are a lot easier to fix and maintain when it is needed. (That and there's a lot less to lose in the process of field stripping and reassembling.)

Not really, when I handled an AR-15 for the first time it was very intuitive, even more simple when I got to fiddle with a FN-Fal.

Virtually any rifle is easy to use and doesn't take much to figure out how to.

Eh, just make the officers carry M4s instead of M9s. Better in practically all aspects.

And here I found a great difference in handling an M16A4 assault rifle while at Ft. Benning. The sightline was neat and clear and very straightforward and easy to use and adjust as was the trigger and fire selector switch. (Ergonomics are good too.) The charging handle was only about half-intuitive, you didn't realize the first time you pulled it that the bolt doesn't completely reset.

Meanwhile the magwell was unintuitive and the forward assist was easy to miss or forget why it was there on the first look over. Conversely re-engaging the safety after switching to Semi or Burst was not the reverse of switching from Safe to Semi/Burst. (It requires you to press the bottom of the forward assist and flip the fire selector switch back to Safe.)

Overall it's a platform that takes some practice to get used to. It doesn't require a doctorate but it's not something you can pick up as your first weapon and be able to use it in less than 5 minutes. (Stuff like the AK or Mosin Nagant can.)

Tom: You do know even the AK's do need regular cleaning right? Rust, carbon build up, and other common foulings exist in all weapon systems. The AK's performance drops off the dirtier it gets. I hate to tell you even the Russians keep their weapons fairly clean when not in the middle of using them. The picture of dumb conscripts of the Russian military are pretty overplayed to a point.

The M-16 is very easy to use. You would have to be a complete idiot to not be able to figure it out. The kinds of people who find the M-16 "too complex" or "too hard to use" are the kind of people you should not be giving guns to in the first place.

Tam: That is depressing. In 40 minutes we took apart our rifle and learned what all the bits do, put it back together, learned to clean it properly, and how to do everything short of 2nd echelon repairs.

Yes, it just isn't so in need that you'd need to carry much of a cleaning kit in the field. You could go weeks without cleaning it even in combat conditions. While at the end of that weeks the AK in question might needs some really thorough scrubbing and oiling and a good parts inspection it can still handle it.

It's a mud gun, plain and simple.

Which happens to be about 2/3's of the world's people in uniform. (And a lot of those who don't wear one.)

There's a reason beyond cost why the AK series is/was the weapon of choice for peasant and Third World (and even some First/Second World) armies during the Cold War. In a major war of attrition stuff that was more complicated was less practical than simpler stuff. In some conflicts you might not even have a week to train conscripts/volunteers on rifle usage before shipping them to the front. An M16 takes about that long to become proficient at.

The Russians in particular had no belief there was going to be time to train proficient soldiers in the 1950s and 1960s if the Cold War went hot. Anything that took time was inefficient, especially since nukes would likely have destroyed anything resembling a training facility.

Not the smartest battlefield logic, but valid. And seen many times in history even in the US. (For example the M3 Grease Gun had vastly simpler training and use than the M1 Thompson.)

Tom: Once again you prove you know dick about what you are talking about.

On average even the baseline Ak needs cleaning once a week to keep it in good condition more so if it is being fired regularly or in harsh field conditions. They do constantly carry a cleaning kit namely there is a space in the butt stock of the AK specifically for it and the cleaning rod is up front. Soldiers also had little bottles of lube. The cleaning tools are in this neat little metal tube with the tools. You would think you would start to pay attention to those details after they bit you in ass so many times.

It is not a mud gun it is meant to be durable in a pinch not to constantly run dirty. That was one of the chief differences between the actual disciplined forces of actual militaries with the AK vs the disposable guerilla forces. That is regular upkeep and training with the guns. All of its parts suffer the same consequences of not being cleaned as all rifles do. You run it for it week without cleaning under field combat conditions you likely degraded its accuracy and effectiveness. The Russians contrary to your personally held mythology did regularly train upkeep of their weapons.

Just because it can operate in those conditions does not mean it is even remotely as effective as a well kept Ak never mind there is a vast world of difference between it can do this and this is what you should be doing instead. A concept you never seem to be able to grasp. You constantly conflate capability vs actual practice.

On the mythical complexity of the M-16 no 2/3rds of the worlds people in uniform doesn't apply. That has to be one of your biggest ass pulls to date. It simply is not complicated no matter how desperately you try to spin it tom. Considering civilians have no trouble figuring out an M-16 without special training it really is not complicated at all. It takes you less then an hour to figure either an Ak or M-16.

No the chief reason for the ak proliferation is it is cheap and plentiful. It is cheap because literally anyone can set up a tooling shop and churn out aks and have been doing so for quite a while. It is cheap and plentiful because of a high production rate. That little fact was pointed out for you already. Add in its ammo is everywhere thanks to the same conditions that lead to the easy proliferation of the AK. The Moison Nagant shares that. Large production run means lots of rifles means lower cost. This is pretty much straight up supply and demand.

If you want a nice and well made Ak that didn't come from sweat shop in Asia or tin roof manufactory in the middle east it isn't going to be as cheap as the ones scattered all over the world. You want the good ammo same thing. Higher quality lower quantity costs more.

I hate to break it to you becoming proficient even with the AK takes about as long as the M-16. Proficiency of learning the points of how to shoot with passable accuracy is pretty much the same on nearly all weapons. You learn how to use the sights and practice shooting at the various ranges. It takes about a week for both. Neither weapon has any feature that negates the need for simple practice. Even the M-16 can be used at close ranges just like the AK without any real training. The barest amounts of knowledge you need to operate both the AK and M-16 is this. How to clean them, how load and chamber them, how to unload them, how to work the selector switch/lever, and how to pull the trigger. That is literally it. In fact you can do that with pretty much any weapons system that does not have something like optical sights and electrical components.

The bit about the Russians is absolute horse shit. They did believe there was time to train namely before they needed to. They had this thing called a standing army. You know something that requires regular troop training to field. Astounding an other detail that escaped you. They trained their troops before they needed to and they did not plan on just throwing a gun out to a conscript plucked off the street with no training and hope for the best. Even in short term they would have been shown how to work their gun before being sent into the grinder. The only time that wasn't the case was during periods of extreme desperation.

The Thompson's final iteration was reasonably cheap and reliable in the field. It saw limited use in general same with the Grease Gun. The Grease gun was made to make manufacturing cheaper that is pretty much it. The bulk of the guns design was built around that concept. Part of the point behind the M 3 was it could be supplied to allies cheaply issued as a PDW more cheaply then the M-1 Carbine or the Thompson. The entire point was reduced cost. Same reasons behind the design of the Sten, MP-40, and the Ppsh-41. That is to be able to cheaply mass produced.

edited 5th May '15 6:46:35 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Jerry Miculek He injects politics in a bit too much sometimes but the man is world record setting shooter and fast as hell. He doesn't need a semi-auto pistol he blazes with revolvers like you wouldn't believe.

edited 6th May '15 11:19:37 PM by TuefelHundenIV

And now for something completely different.

The German Defense Minister is now claiming that a government official tried to assist H&K in covering up the G36's problems.

The M249 SAW Goes On A Diet.

Now allow me to be #42 in the queue saying "That's an LSAT numbnuts! Not a 249!".

Krieger:Wow that thing is not going to end pretty at all. It was ugly already.

I had seen that Dorkly vid before. Amusing.

Tom: Rolls eyes. Oh good lord that again.

edited 12th May '15 6:30:09 PM by TuefelHundenIV

M1911A1s....For Everyone! (Arabic cheering)

Authentic US military issue M 1911 A1s, wartime issue refurbished and readied for sale by the CMP.

I wonder if I could get one.