Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

IF the US wants to change is standard battle rifle they already have a ton of options.

FN, SIG, HK, and a lot of other arms manufactures are ready to cash in. The Scar is probably the leader in this race. It's a lot easier to buy new guns than rebuild old ones.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I hadn't heard of the 6.5mm calibre. It sounds interesting, though I notice it's a modern version of a 0.276 inch round proposed in the 1920s.

This really supports the argument that small arms development has come as far as possible without a major improvement in technology. The USA will have gone around the circle twice from 7.62mm to 0.276in to 0.30-06in, to 7.62mm, to 5.56mm, to 0.276in.

It has though. Yes the round is similar, but everything else has evolved.

This is a substantially more accurate and faster acquiring weapon.

has different materials, shorter barrel, adjustable furniture, modular rails allowing attachments of optics, lasers, lights, and your cell phone.
The sights available are red dot optic / magnified as standard, with the addition of night scopes on the same rail or even the same scope.

This is the original.

That red dot seems to be blocking the scopes field of view.

 Grey Templar wrote:
That red dot seems to be blocking the scopes field of view.

See the dot through the scope i believe. .

Needs more gribbles for maximum tacticool advantage.

 Xenomancers wrote:
IF the US wants to change is standard battle rifle they already have a ton of options.

FN, SIG, HK, and a lot of other arms manufactures are ready to cash in. The Scar is probably the leader in this race. It's a lot easier to buy new guns than rebuild old ones.

In the case of something like an AK, its true that its often easier to buy new than to rebuild, but not so an AR.

Replacing a barrel on an AK for instance needs a machinists shop and requires drilling out a pressed pin and then repressing a new barrel and pin into the trunnion and headspace checking. On an AR you just need a vice and a torque wrench, and thats about the most intensive thing you can do on an AR (aside from trying to pin and press a gas block).

Current prices on the SCAR are absolutely insane (3-5x what an equivalent AR/M4 goes for, and hang out at ~$3k on the commercial market while LE6920's are sub1k and the .mil pays about $650 for an M4 and Ruger AR carbines can be had for $400) while SOCOM dropped the 556 version after realizing it doesnt do anything an AR does not, and FN is already making gobs of M4's for the US military now that Colt lost its sole-source contract.

There's a lot of alternative options out there, but none that really have any killer feature that makes it worth moving away from the AR, in fact, even companies like Sig and HK are primarily pushing AR pattern or AR derviative designs these days, and there are AR's made for just about every conceivable cartridge. With the AR's aftermarket and modularity, its hard for other platforms to compete when you can slap parts on an AR to make it just about anything one wants.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
IF the US wants to change is standard battle rifle they already have a ton of options.

FN, SIG, HK, and a lot of other arms manufactures are ready to cash in. The Scar is probably the leader in this race. It's a lot easier to buy new guns than rebuild old ones.

In the case of something like an AK, its true that its often easier to buy new than to rebuild, but not so an AR.

Replacing a barrel on an AK for instance needs a machinists shop and requires drilling out a pressed pin and then repressing a new barrel and pin into the trunnion and headspace checking. On an AR you just need a vice and a torque wrench, and thats about the most intensive thing you can do on an AR (aside from trying to pin and press a gas block).

Current prices on the SCAR are absolutely insane (3-5x what an equivalent AR/M4 goes for, and hang out at ~$3k on the commercial market while LE6920's are sub1k and the .mil pays about $650 for an M4 and Ruger AR carbines can be had for $400) while SOCOM dropped the 556 version after realizing it doesnt do anything an AR does not, and FN is already making gobs of M4's for the US military now that Colt lost its sole-source contract.

There's a lot of alternative options out there, but none that really have any killer feature that makes it worth moving away from the AR, in fact, even companies like Sig and HK are primarily pushing AR pattern or AR derviative designs these days, and there are AR's made for just about every conceivable cartridge. With the AR's aftermarket and modularity, its hard for other platforms to compete when you can slap parts on an AR to make it just about anything one wants.

I agree that there really isn't much incentive to do it. The 5.56 is fine. Previous post from Grey Templar made it seem that 5.56 is so inferior it needs replacing. While true you could rig M4's with 6.5mm barrels and all other necessary riggings for somewhat less but I think a better solution would be to start with a new profile which had all the best features. Even if we bought 2 million new scars at 3k each (much more than we would bye and for a lot more than wed pay) That is only 6 billion dollars. That is nothing for the USA military budget over probably the 10 or more years it would be paid off and delivered. Then we'd have a proper stopping power round on the most advanced and accurate and rugged modern battle rifle platform IMO. Then again I don't think it will happen because the 5.56 is fine. It would be much more price effective to produce a better projectile for the weapon. I've seen some pretty amazing videos showing how destructive 5.56 can be with some special loads.

5.56 is fine, if you aren’t facing anyone with body armor. But body armor is becoming more prolific and 5.56 just doesn’t cut it.

Most rifle rounds won't combat modern body-armour (which, admittedly still doesn't cover too much of a soldier). Unlike tanks vs. anti-tank tech...body armour is more or less capable of stopping all major rifle rounds in common service.

However, heads, necks, thighs and other extremities are still plenty viable for taking a soldier out of the fight.

I didn't feel like reading the whole thread, but I will agree with some of the other people ITT and say that the AK-47 is simply a very well-designed weapon. I think it will only become truly obsolete if and when we start equipping soldiers with energy weapons or something like that. Energy weapons are still years away from being practical though, at least on the handheld scale.

M4/AR types have evolved. For example, the HK and SIG offerings use a gas piston rod instead of direct impingement like Mr. Stoner designed. That is one of the reasons many special missions forces use HKs.

I don't know as much about this topic as a lot of you but it'll probably last until another huge revolution in gun making comes along like the rifled barrels in the civil war, automatic, semi-auto weapons.

I think magnetic technology is pretty cool. If we can figure out how to do that well enough we may see a huge replacement with our weapons.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
I don't know as much about this topic as a lot of you but it'll probably last until another huge revolution in gun making comes along like the rifled barrels in the civil war, automatic, semi-auto weapons.

I think magnetic technology is pretty cool. If we can figure out how to do that well enough we may see a huge replacement with our weapons.

While super cool i cant see it happening until something close to the men of iron or literal amazon drone uprising happens.

While not perfect the simple rifle is still fairly well rounded in the case of logistics. you could go with those really cool million boollet per second caseless guns but you are also carrying basically multiple very heavy blocks of metal and gun powder which isnt good for a soldiers back. (but i think caseless guns might be a very cool tech to keep an eye on.) less moving parts is generally better for long term use of equipment imho.

The AK is in itself is simplicity.

 Vaktathi wrote:
With the AR's aftermarket and modularity, its hard for other platforms to compete when you can slap parts on an AR to make it just about anything one wants.

Except be as rugged as an AK.

Which I'll grant you is only one part of a weapon system's functionality.

Indeed, as others have pointed out, AK have been updated a lot of times, there are lots of patterns now. A bit like the M16 M4 etc... It's just they look alike, so we tend to mix them, especially the media (they are god awful at that, for so called reporters) and the general public.
Why do so many armies in the world change weapons so often then ? Idk for others countries, but the French Famas is about 40 years old now and the factory simply doesn't exist anymore, so no more Famas, no way to get new ones, thus the HK 416 (btw, what do you think about this rifle ?).
The AK I found was very difficult to aim, I wasn't comfortable with it while with a FAMAS I could hit my target at about 220 yards.

I think with any firearm discussion like this you also need to look at the weapon itself on a global scale. Look at a rifle from the perspective of a purchasing organization for a major government/military or a large law enforcement agency.

I think the AR is rightly the king of the civilian market, particularly in the US. It's just a wonderland of quality rifles, wonderful components, and a lot of these are being created/tested/proven by "BTDT" types whom you can trust most of the time.

But, if I was arming a military, I would see very little difference between the AR platform and the AK. Both factory produced, mass-issued service rifles. The basic infantryman might be equipped with one rugged combat optic per rifle. In this instance there's almost zero difference between this:



And this:



There would be zero noticeable difference in the performance of an army based on the differences of the rifle. They're still popping a little 55-62 grain projectile down range around 2900-3100 FPS, poking a similar sized hold. Special forces would handle both rifles equally well and produce similar results, etc.

You have to go down to a much more narrow focus to start arguing points for either one.

 Elbows wrote:


There would be zero noticeable difference in the performance of an army based on the differences of the rifle. They're still popping a little 55-62 grain projectile down range around 2900-3100 FPS, poking a similar sized hold. Special forces would handle both rifles equally well and produce similar results, etc.

umm... No.

The lightest AK rounds I have even heard of were 70 gr training rounds that had a plastic core. An actual combat round is usually around 123gr, while 5.56 is usually around 70gr.

You are mostly correct that the overall big picture between the two would be minor, but I know I personally would feel much safer if I knew I had a much heavier projectile and was less prone to malfunctions.

ummm...Yes?





Though I believe the standard military round was...52-55 grain? My memory is fuzzy. I'm comparing a modern AK-74/AK-105 and the equivalent M4/M4A1.

You guys have got to start making the distinction between 7.62x39 and 5.45x39.

Good point, I take for granted that someone can distinguish an AK-104 from an AK-105. Also that when discussing a modern service AK, we're talking the 5.45x39 rifle (though, as mentioned before, Spetsnaz and other special units maintain a stock of 7.62x39 guns by choice).

Given the Russians are going back to 7.62 assuming 5.45 is a mistake.

They're not changing the standard service rifle to 7.62x39, it'll be 5.45 for another couple of decades at least (they have a surplus of rifles and ammo).

 Elbows wrote:
They're not changing the standard service rifle to 7.62x39, it'll be 5.45 for another couple of decades at least (they have a surplus of rifles and ammo).

The AK-15 was recently announced. Evidence strongly indicates it will become Russia's next service rifle. Though as you say, it will take a while. One of the reasons given for the change was also quite explicitly because Russia has a massive stockpile of ammunition for it, and just like 5.56 the 5.45 cartridge is rather weedy.

Yeah, the AK-15 (if it ever happens, it's been canceled/changed/swapped/re-designed a dozen times in the past 4-5 years) is not the general service rifle. It'll only be intended for police and special forces use etc. The basic infantry rifle will remain 5.45 for a looong time.

The replacement to the current AK-100 series was originally going to be a completely new rifle...basically an ambi-AK with a bunch of modern tricks. Then it was downgraded to an upgrade-package to normal AK-74Ms, etc. Then it became a kind of mix of the two (a heavily modified/upgraded normal AK). They can't make up their mind. Like all of their recent military investments, they're back-pedaling after the income from oil/energy decreased compared to their boom 10 years back.

But yes, there will be a 7.62x39 rifle in existence (there is a modern one as well, just not a standard military issue, AK-103 is the normal length model, I think?). Of course the FSB/MVD/etc. all have their own budgets and procurements. Bog-standard Russia military soldier though still has an AK in 5.45 - many of them originals, some even still rocking wood furniture.

I would be very curious to know how many 7.62x39 guns are exported though to foreign countries. There are plenty of countries (outside of Russia) who still do run 7.62x39 guns.

 godardc wrote:
the HK 416 (btw, what do you think about this rifle ?)

From what I've seen - sadly, only from videos - they did a lot of work to make the basic AR more rugged and abuse-resistant. As good as the AK is supposed to be? Good question; I've not handled either to make the comparison.

 Vulcan wrote:

 godardc wrote:
the HK 416 (btw, what do you think about this rifle ?)

From what I've seen - sadly, only from videos - they did a lot of work to make the basic AR more rugged and abuse-resistant. As good as the AK is supposed to be? Good question; I've not handled either to make the comparison.

I have the civilian version of the 416. I love it. Recoil feels a bit different than a DI gun, not harder, just different. I don't abuse it, but don't baby it either. Never had a problem with it. I'll be taking it and my HK-91 out this Saturday.

 CptJake wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 godardc wrote:
the HK 416 (btw, what do you think about this rifle ?)

From what I've seen - sadly, only from videos - they did a lot of work to make the basic AR more rugged and abuse-resistant. As good as the AK is supposed to be? Good question; I've not handled either to make the comparison.

I have the civilian version of the 416. I love it. Recoil feels a bit different than a DI gun, not harder, just different. I don't abuse it, but don't baby it either. Never had a problem with it. I'll be taking it and my HK-91 out this Saturday.

How does it compare to other AR's for accuracy and ease of shooting?

I had a number of high-dollar piston ARs (mine were LWRC). Nice rifles. The piston idea is neat but I'm not entirely sure it's necessary unless you're doing a lot of suppressed shooting (where it really shines). Accuracy and ease of shooting were identical to an AR outside of a minor difference in recoil.

The recoil was a little stronger, and different feeling (it was a quicker cycle and you didn't get the "sproing" from a normal DI AR). The rifle was obviously a little heavier than a normal DI gun. Proper AR-15s right now are so incredibly good, that outside of a couple of unique circumstances, I don't think a piston gun should be priced at a premium (as they frequently are).

Different type of gun, definitely. Early piston ARs had a lot of teething problems (had my first ones back in '09). I'm sure they've made some headway by now.

 Vulcan wrote:

How does it compare to other AR's for accuracy and ease of shooting?

The rifle is more accurate than I am. As for ease of shooting, it is the same as any other AR really. Maintenance is a bit easier since piston guns don't get as dirty as DI. It is heavier, but you quickly adapt to the weight in my opinion. I have an Aimpoint PRO with a Vortex 3x flip out magnifier on mine, and Magpul MBUS Pro sights for back up. The recoil has more of a 'thunk' to it than my DI rifle, but again, it is just different to me, not really more.