Russia must replace Kalashnikovs with American and French rifles?

[Rey C.]

I can tell you've never been to Russia. In some ways their tech is ahead of ours; they have gen 5 plasma stealth while we're in gen 3 (Plasma stealth isn't the worlds greatest thing, but that's the first example that springs to mind...)

Russia has more millionaires than any other country. But most Russians are very poor.

Russia's military has some problems, maintenance, investment, etc... but also some excellent stuff.

Nah, as I said, I don't really follow the news about Russia. I used to work with a couple of Russians and I might catch a story on Bloomberg from time to time. That's about it.

But when you said that Russia had more millionaires than any other country, that didn't sound quite right. I mean, considering their ongoing economic and social issues. With 62 billionaires (2009), Russia ranked 4th on the global list of countries with the most billionaires, behind the U.S. (403), China (128) and India (69). Russia had been at #2 for a time, but the global recession hit Russians harder than the global average. But now that's for billionaires. For millionaires, Russia isn't even in the top 10 for any year that I saw. For 2009, it was the U.S., Japan, China, the UK, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, France, Taiwan and Hong Kong.

I'm not dogging Russia. But as I said, I do think they need to finally get ahead of their tendency to have these boom & bust economic cycles every few years. That's not healthy and it erodes (future) investor confidence.

And unless the U.S. goes completely brain dead and Sarah P@lin wins the POTUS (and sends her Palinista Thought Crimes storm troopers after me), I have no intention of fighting any wars anytime soon. But if I did, my trusty, rugged AK is the first thing I'd reach for. But as for small arms strategy, I just don't think that a *****, or even major change in small arms, would make any real difference in a modern war.

 

[maildude]

The only thing the Russians are doing wrong is not deploying a 20MM anti-material rifle.

That's probably because they have enough trouble getting sufficient 12.7mm for their KSVK. As usual with Russia it's cost and availiblity.

 

[LaLiLuLeLohan]

That's probably because they have enough trouble getting sufficient 12.7mm for their KSVK. As usual with Russia it's cost and availiblity.

Why don't they just use the M-29/M-388 that The Boss gave to Colonel Volgin??

Yeah, nerd high five!!!! Uhh...right? Guys? High five anybody...?

Fuck Russia. Americans invented the light bulb, spaghetti and the internet. Ya'll just jealous.

 

[PlasmaTwa2]

Why don't they just use the M-29/M-388 that The Boss gave to Colonel Volgin??

Yeah, nerd high five!!!! Uhh...right? Guys? High five anybody...?

*Nerd high five*

 

[LaLiLuLeLohan]

*Nerd high five*

*miss*

Try again!

*miss*

Try again!

*miss*

I hear it's amazing when the famous giant purple stuffed worm in flapjaw space, with a tuning fork, does a raw blink on Hara Kiri Rock!

Try again!

*connects!*

I need scissors. 61!

 

[Death-Proof-69]

personally i find it ridiculous that big, strong, manly soldiers carry guns chambered for a high velocity .22 but that's just me...they are great fun to shoot, but for combat? no...if i get a choice i'll take a .30 caliber RIFLE, thank you...:2 cents:

 

[xfire]

In a real war where the object is to **** as many enemy as possible a weapon chambered in at least 7.62x51 would be a necessity. I prefer my Service Grade Garand in 7.62x63.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

Some of you guys have overlooked the fact that the AR/M4 is based on predecessors that have been around for a long time, but they are completely new, redesigned in the 90s and the current version compared to the Vietnam era rifle is like comparing a Porche 911 Turbo to an Edsel.

For a sniper rifle, you still can't beat a nice .308 bolt action with good optics. :2 cents:

I disagree. They've been getting some seriously bad ass results from the .338Lapua magnum. A bigger slug, flying a lot faster, reaching out further/farther...and all in a cartridge only a little lager then .308, and not nearly as cumbersome as a .50BMG. I do agree however that the .308 is a great round, and I can see it's value for many reasons, one of the most important being, it's a standard, and plentiful caliber.

I know I'm not one of the "some of you guys"...so I have no comment

In a real war where the object is to **** as many enemy as possible a weapon chambered in at least 7.62x51 would be a necessity. I prefer my Service Grade Garand in 7.62x63.

That was the purpose of the M14. An improved M1 Garand action, higher capacity, and the same round as the new medium size machine *** (the M60). If you look at the stats, the .308, and the 30-06 have an almost IDENTICAL performance, when the same weight bullets, and powder loads are used. The only reason they picked the .308 is, it holds a slightly flatter trajectory at 1000 yards.

 

[maildude]

Fuck Russia. Americans invented the light bulb, spaghetti and the internet. Ya'll just jealous.

The Chinese invented spaghetti. The Americans just put it into a can with a fat chef on the label.

 

[xfire]

That was the purpose of the M14. An improved M1 Garand action, higher capacity, and the same round as the new medium size machine *** (the M60). If you look at the stats, the .308, and the 30-06 have an almost IDENTICAL performance, when the same weight bullets, and powder loads are used. The only reason they picked the .308 is, it holds a slightly flatter trajectory at 1000 yards.

Three-round burst added to the selective fire switch on an M-14 would have solved a lot of the "uncontrollable" issues. I love both the .308 and aught-six. Those rounds are meant to **** the enemy.

 

[sayvara]

People who start that kind of discussion are the same kind that without batting an eyelash go out and dance on hornet's nests.

Speaking of russias and dancing...



/S

 

[Mr. Daystar]

Three-round burst added to the selective fire switch on an M-14 would have solved a lot of the "uncontrollable" issues. I love both the .308 and aught-six. Those rounds are meant to **** the enemy.

They didn't have that then...they didn't even have that when the M16 first came out. They added that after Viet Nam, I believe.

With today's firearm technology, there is no reason that a reliable, easy to manage, 7.62x51, or even 63, can't be produced. The thing is, it would require major cash to rearm all of our soldiers. That's why they're looking into the 6.5SPC...same length, same lowers, same uppers...just new barrels and bolts, and followers in the magazines.

From what I've read, the round is a great compromise between capacity, and power...much like a .40 S&W falls nicely between a 9mm and a .45ACP, the 6.5 does the same with the .223 and the .308.

 

[vodkazvictim]

Nah, as I said, I don't really follow the news about Russia. I used to work with a couple of Russians and I might catch a story on Bloomberg from time to time. That's about it.

But when you said that Russia had more millionaires than any other country, that didn't sound quite right. I mean, considering their ongoing economic and social issues. With 62 billionaires (2009), Russia ranked 4th on the global list of countries with the most billionaires, behind the U.S. (403), China (128) and India (69). Russia had been at #2 for a time, but the global recession hit Russians harder than the global average. But now that's for billionaires. For millionaires, Russia isn't even in the top 10 for any year that I saw. For 2009, it was the U.S., Japan, China, the UK, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, France, Taiwan and Hong Kong.

I'm not dogging Russia. But as I said, I do think they need to finally get ahead of their tendency to have these boom & bust economic cycles every few years. That's not healthy and it erodes (future) investor confidence.

And unless the U.S. goes completely brain dead and Sarah P@lin wins the POTUS (and sends her Palinista Thought Crimes storm troopers after me), I have no intention of fighting any wars anytime soon. But if I did, my trusty, rugged AK is the first thing I'd reach for. But as for small arms strategy, I just don't think that a *****, or even major change in small arms, would make any real difference in a modern war.

Not sure where you get your stats, but I said mlionaires and I remember number 1.
But that's aside from te point; there's a LOT of money in RUssia, but unfortunaltey it's just poorly distributed.

Why don't they just use the M-29/M-388 that The Boss gave to Colonel Volgin??

Yeah, nerd high five!!!! Uhh...right? Guys? High five anybody...?

Fuck Russia. Americans invented the light bulb, spaghetti and the internet. Ya'll just jealous.

You know that periodic table you used in school? Lomonosov invented that.
You know the rockets which the Soviets used to beat you into space? Korolev made them...
I could go on.

personally i find it ridiculous that big, strong, manly soldiers carry guns chambered for a high velocity .22 but that's just me...they are great fun to shoot, but for combat? no...if i get a choice i'll take a .30 caliber RIFLE, thank you...:2 cents:

7.62 full auto just does NOT work. it's been proven.

In a real war where the object is to **** as many enemy as possible a weapon chambered in at least 7.62x51 would be a necessity. I prefer my Service Grade Garand in 7.62x63.

See above.

Three-round burst added to the selective fire switch on an M-14 would have solved a lot of the "uncontrollable" issues. I love both the .308 and aught-six. Those rounds are meant to **** the enemy.

True.

They didn't have that then...they didn't even have that when the M16 first came out. They added that after Viet Nam, I believe.

With today's firearm technology, there is no reason that a reliable, easy to manage, 7.62x51, or even 63, can't be produced. The thing is, it would require major cash to rearm all of our soldiers. That's why they're looking into the 6.5SPC...same length, same lowers, same uppers...just new barrels and bolts, and followers in the magazines.

From what I've read, the round is a great compromise between capacity, and power...much like a .40 S&W falls nicely between a 9mm and a .45ACP, the 6.5 does the same with the .223 and the .308.

You thinking what I'm thinking?; 6.5 AKM?

 

[D-rock]

What a lot of people are forgetting is that the smaller rounds that a lot of military rifles went to they did it for the lighter weight with the same amount of ammunition. This is a bigger issue for the U.S. than any other country with the way our military travels around. For militaries that don't meddle like we do in everything it's much less of an issue. Sure it's less effective in a lot of circumstances, it's sucks, and might get our soldiers ******, but from a overall military strategic standpoint (Which is always the first concern for the people at the top of it.) and not the individual soldiers it saves a lot of weight and a lot on logistics totting that much ammo around. When you can potentially have ship after ship carrying around supplies halfway around the world and have supply convoys upon supply convoys it really adds up after a while. Even for the ammo bearers out in the field it adds up to more rounds carried when other somewhere decide that's the ammo is good enough for you.

 

[xfire]

7.62 full auto just does NOT work. it's been proven.

Are you referring to the 7.62x51? M60 begs to differ.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

Are you referring to the 7.62x51? M60 begs to differ.

That's a heavy ***...handles the recoil much better. The BAR weighed a ton too. Full auto .308 works, just not as well with a lighter rifle, and sustained fire. With today's technology in suppressors, muzzle brakes, and compensator's, it can be achieved.

What a lot of people are forgetting is that the smaller rounds that a lot of military rifles went to they did it for the lighter weight with the same amount of ammunition. This is a bigger issue for the U.S. than any other country with the way our military travels around. For militaries that don't meddle like we do in everything it's much less of an issue. Sure it's less effective in a lot of circumstances, it's sucks, and might get our soldiers ******, but from a overall military strategic standpoint (Which is always the first concern for the people at the top of it.) and not the individual soldiers it saves a lot of weight and a lot on logistics totting that much ammo around. When you can potentially have ship after ship carrying around supplies halfway around the world and have supply convoys upon supply convoys it really adds up after a while. Even for the ammo bearers out in the field it adds up to more rounds carried when other somewhere decide that's the ammo is good enough for you.

This is true to an extent...much more in the past. They figured 14, 5.56, is the same space and weight as 9, 7.62's...and an M16 weighs less then an M14, so it was easier for a soldier to carry a rifle and more ammo. But in today's situations, it seems that soldiers aren't out on patrol for weeks at a time, or separated from their bases like they were in previous wars. Although, that was the original premise of the idea. It's also a very valid point, and lets face it, all you really need, is enough to get the job done...why carry .44mag, when a .38spl can do what you need it to.

 

[Red Spyder]

Selling small arms to Russia is like selling sand to Saudi Arabia or snow to eskimos. An outdated AK is still pretty good, it's not like a G3 or an M14, those are outdated, good for a designated marksman but not really for standard issue.

 

[Death-Proof-69]

7.62 full auto just does NOT work. it's been proven.

a real rifleman with any skill wouldn't be using full auto anyway, that's just ridiculous, wasteful and ineffective in most situations...a small group of well trained riflemen with good semi-automatic rifles would decimate a much larger group of goons blazing away on full-auto...suppressing fire? single well placed **** shots would do as much, if not more to ruin the morale of the enemy and, if mass fire IS needed that's where belt-fed light machine guns come in, nothing with 20 to 30 round magazine is going to keep heads down for long, you run out pretty quick that way, a real machine ***, on the other hand will do more than a whole squad of troops blazing away with their 5.56's...back the machine gunners up with decent riflemen closely covering the enemy position and they're in a bad spot...if it comes to clearing a house semi-auto or small bursts are still better than full-auto, more controllable and again with well-trained troops, far more effective...not saying there's anything wrong with select-fire assault rifles for troops, they're a great general purpose combat weapon, unfortunately they're stuck using versions chambered with horribly inadequate rounds

 

[vodkazvictim]

What a lot of people are forgetting is that the smaller rounds that a lot of military rifles went to they did it for the lighter weight with the same amount of ammunition. This is a bigger issue for the U.S. than any other country with the way our military travels around. For militaries that don't meddle like we do in everything it's much less of an issue. Sure it's less effective in a lot of circumstances, it's sucks, and might get our soldiers ******, but from a overall military strategic standpoint (Which is always the first concern for the people at the top of it.) and not the individual soldiers it saves a lot of weight and a lot on logistics totting that much ammo around. When you can potentially have ship after ship carrying around supplies halfway around the world and have supply convoys upon supply convoys it really adds up after a while. Even for the ammo bearers out in the field it adds up to more rounds carried when other somewhere decide that's the ammo is good enough for you.

False economy:
Troops that survive longer become more experienced.
More experienced troops are better.
Therefore it makes economic sense to give 'em the right gear.

And thats not even mentioning moral aspects and propoganda value.

Are you referring to the 7.62x51? M60 begs to differ.

That ******* procurement action of an unreliable MG? Get it outta here!

a real rifleman with any skill wouldn't be using full auto anyway, that's just ridiculous, wasteful and ineffective in most situations...a small group of well trained riflemen with good semi-automatic rifles would decimate a much larger group of goons blazing away on full-auto...suppressing fire? single well placed **** shots would do as much, if not more to ruin the morale of the enemy and, if mass fire IS needed that's where belt-fed light machine guns come in, nothing with 20 to 30 round magazine is going to keep heads down for long, you run out pretty quick that way, a real machine ***, on the other hand will do more than a whole squad of troops blazing away with their 5.56's...back the machine gunners up with decent riflemen closely covering the enemy position and they're in a bad spot...if it comes to clearing a house semi-auto or small bursts are still better than full-auto, more controllable and again with well-trained troops, far more effective...not saying there's anything wrong with select-fire assault rifles for troops, they're a great general purpose combat weapon, unfortunately they're stuck using versions chambered with horribly inadequate rounds

You have a point... I'm not sure why the never just put 3 round burst on all their 7.62 battle rifles. Maybe they didn't wanna pony up the cash to H&K?

 

[Mr. Daystar]

Selling small arms to Russia is like selling sand to Saudi Arabia or snow to eskimos. An outdated AK is still pretty good, it's not like a G3 or an M14, those are outdated, good for a designated marksman but not really for standard issue.

I disagree. The AK isn't really outdated...it's still a well made, reliable weapon. The round however is a major issue.

I think the operating mechanism of both the G3 and the M14 are also still a couple of the best designs ever made, the only reason they aren't really viable, is the weight of the weapons.