September 17, 2014

In the News::

Respect the Gun, Respect the Person — Teaching New Shooters -

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

The .38 Special (+P) and Full-House Wadcutter Loads -

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

Sig Sauer ATF Lawsuit Back On -

Monday, September 15, 2014

A Rebuttal to Dan Foster M.D. -

Monday, September 15, 2014

Missouri Governor’s Veto Overridden -

Friday, September 12, 2014

Russian Military May Soon Adopt New Kalashnikov Assault Rifle

ak-12

(GunNews.com) — The fate of a new Kalashnikov AK-12 assault rifle developed for the Russian army will be decided during the state acceptance trials due to begin in June 2013, clargest firearms manufacturer, Izhmash, said to the Russian International News Agency RIA Novosti.

“In the interests of the Defense Ministry, Izhmash is working on the modernization of the AK-74 and AK-100 assault rifles in service with the Russian army, as well as developing a [new] standard assault rifle on the AK-12 platform which will undergo state acceptance trials in June 2013,” Izhmash’s chief designer, Vladimir Zlobin said.

If the trials are successful, the new assault rifle will be put in production and will be adopted as a service weapon for the military.

Development of the AK-12 began in mid-2011. The new weapon retains the overall layout and features of the AK-74, in service with the Russian army since the 1970s, but features several modifications and ergonomic changes.

The new assault rifle has being developed as a basic platform for nearly 20 different modifications of the weapon. It could be adapted for cartridges varying from 5.45×39 mm to 7.62×51 NATO.

Read more

Comments
11 Responses to “Russian Military May Soon Adopt New Kalashnikov Assault Rifle”
  1. Fuzzbean says:

    Awesome… complete with Picatinikov rails.

  2. charles frame says:

    why are they given up what Works. if they change does anybody have an idea as how Meany AK’s will hit the market and at what cost ?

  3. George K. says:

    One wonders what the new AK-12 brings to the table that the venerable AK-47 or AK-74 did not. It certainly could not be enhanced reliability since anyone who knows military style rifles knows that the AK series delivered on reliability in spades. This story didn’t really expand on how this AK-12 was improved over the older model. I would think the folks in the Russian military would be asking the designers at Izhmash to enhance the effective range of the older AK while also working to develop better ergonomics on the AK-12. As far as accuracy I believe that would come with the enhanced range of either a new & improved 7.62×39 or a all together new cartridge. We gun folk are aware the 7.62×39 or 5.45×39 coming out of an AK-47 or AK-74 is not the tack driver the 5.56×45 is coming out of a M-16 A2. But those Russian rounds have proved themselves accurate enough for the 300 meter range that most combat occurs in. Maybe they ( Izhmash ) have found a round that delivers the range + knockdown power of a 7.62×54 bullet with the recoil of a 7.62×39. Or could be that their trying to go with what the NATO troops are currently using. Either way I know what ever the case may be I will want one ( AK-12 ) in a semi-auto version as impossible as that may be.

  4. W.S. says:

    The AK 74 and AK 47 is still, in my opinion, THE premier battle rifle. Tough, inexpensive to make and it goes “BANG” when you pull the trigger!!
    And they’re available for about $50.00 USD in any third world country.

    IF IT AIN’T BROKE DON’T FIX IT!!!!!

    • SoWhatBubb says:

      You say, “The AK 74 and AK 47 is still, in my opinion, THE premier battle rifle.”
      Nothing can penetrate the lunacy of the AK fanatic.

      Russia, and Mikael Kalashnikov disagree with you.

      The new commie weapon is another effort by them to compete with the M16/M4.

      Nothing new here.

  5. Wayne says:

    I’ll take one in 7.62×51 NATO. Similar to 308 for those not in the know.

  6. Why mess with a good thing unless you can improve it. . . . The AK47 has been a worthy battle weapon for many years and I hear folks say that they are superior to the M16. . . I have owned several AK’s and several AR 15′s and a AR10. . . . The M16 had many faults in the A1 configuration, or so at least it appeared. . . The problems that beset the M16 were that the wrong type of powder (ball vs. stick powder) was used in the early days. . . This and the close tolerances led to jamming problems more so than exterior contamination. . . The BIG kicker was also the instructions that claimed the M16 was SELF CLEANING, therefore neglected by guys who had mostly never even fired a rifle before basic training and had no understanding of the internal workings of the weapon they were issued. . . . The M16 is a direct impingement configuration as opposed to the AK’s piston driven system. . . The AK’s will climb horribly on full auto and even in semi auto mode the recoil is directed upward and pulls you off target due to the “piston” being located above the barrel plane. . . . The M16 is also much more accurate than the AK. . . I’ve shot matches against Match Barreled AK “Race Guns” with pretty standard (other than 2 stage triggers) AR 15′s and AR 10′s. . . . . and always came out on top of the AK guys. . . . . The direct impingement is better in every way except for cleanliness in the BCG area. . . This has also been solved by using Nickel Boron coated BCG’s (Bolt Carrier Groups) or even the Chromed ones and chromed chambers. .After 1000′s of rounds these just wipe clean with a rag . . . Again, I’m a huge fan of AK’s, but let’s put all the cards on the table. . . The biggest drawback I can see to the M16 is the caliber. . . The 30-30 performance of the AK 7.62 x 39 gives it more knockdown performance than the 5.56, but you can’t haul as much ammo with you either. . . There are those that prefer one over the other, but usually a lot of information is lacking. . . . . There’s a reason why the military has hung with the M16 for over 50 years now. . . . They keep testing other battle rifles (FN-SCAR comes to mind)(also H&K) but they haven’t found a replacement yet. . . Heck, I suppose we could change over to AK’s if they thought them superior. . . . If and when they come out with something better, I do know I want our boys to have the very best battle weapon money can buy !

  7. Vernon J. says:

    Bill in Mizuri is very good in the assessment. However, I have 2 AR-15s chambered in 6.8 SPC with the improved chamber aka 6.8 X 43. It has a 0.050 longer leade in the chamber for the bullet to engage the rifling, hence the designation 6.8 SPC 2 . It was what the “original” designers had blueprinted, but an error in Remington in submitting it to SAAMI resulted in a “tight” chamber that did not handle increased powders for velocity and the resulting increased pressures. The relaxed dimensions of the new SPC II or SPC 2 chamber allows the bullet to be loaded further out, reduces pressure therefore allowing more powder and increased velocity in all bullet weights. With a 0.277″ caliber bullet (.270) from 90 up to 120 grain as normal (some use 130 gr as well) it puts the AR-15 in the 30-30 performance range, with flatter trajectories. 6.8 SPC2 has about 33% more down range knockdown power than the 7.62 x 39 Soviet aka AK-47 round. In reloading books the 7.62 x 39 Soviet was never a great performer for accuracy, even out of bolt actions rifles. That does not hold true to the 6.8 X 43 round though. Very accurate and able to take down game like larger hogs and deer rather effectively. It is valuable in that it is not that much larger in weight, so the military can carry just about as many of the 6.8 SPC rounds as the 5.56 NATO. However it has a great effective range and better penetration and knock down than the 5.56 NATO.

  8. Jake C. says:

    It looks like they made several small enhancements to the ergonomics. Looks to have an ambi safety/selector that is reachable with a thumb and it looks like maybe the bolt handle is on the left side for weak hand manipulation without having to reach under or use your firing hand. Also, notice the sight radius looks to be increased with the rear sight moved backwards. Not sure how stable and repeatable it will be on the back of the top cover. I wonder if what look like ports on the top of the gas block are comp ports to help keep the muzzle down on full auto. Maybe as the piston moves back, it uncovers the ports and vents gas upwards. If that is the case, I wonder if it’ll let substantial amounts of debris in or maybe they don’t care because the gas pressure will blow anything out that gets in. Interesting.

Leave A Comment

CAPTCHA Image
*



IFrame Widget