NS infantry discussion thread. Mark II

[Puzikas]

I figured the barrel would eventually be replaced at the end of it's service life.
Good point, at which point Russia being Russia would pack it with Cosmoline and throw said AKM into a warehouse to wait out the rest of eternity.

For what it's worth, Puzikas encountered some AKMs in Chechen hands from the 1960s, if I remember correctly, while serving in Chechnya.

Yep, but thats not particularity surprising by way of the reason that if you go to any warzone today you would encounter AKs made in the 50s and 60s without issue.

Also, to add: Upgrading an AKM to AK-103 standard would be a more labor intensive process than simply building a new AK in the manner that you describe. However, simply updating certain parts was looked at as a modernization of the AKMs in storage (and the AK-74s) to bring them to some modern standard. It was only, to my knowing, done for a small number of AK-74s because it was just easier to make them overall.

[Premislyd]

1960s Experimental rifle:

Bullpup
Twin-barreled (muzzle booster for dat RoF) with 20 mm integral grenade launcher
chambered in 5x45mm duplex rounds
bakelite furniture
3.5x integral scope with AR-15 rear sight-style BUIS, and flip down front BUIS.

[Bezombia]

1960s Experimental rifle:

Bullpup
Twin-barreled (muzzle booster for dat RoF) with 20 mm integral grenade launcher
chambered in 5x45mm duplex rounds
bakelite furniture
3.5x integral scope with AR-15 rear sight-style BUIS, and flip down front BUIS.

that's a nice statblock you got there

[Premislyd]

Not really a stat block, but glad you feel that way nonetheless.

[Black Hand]

If My National Armament Manufacturer were to build AR-15's would it be reasonable to use a polymer lower Receiver. or would KRFP or aluminum be better

[Triplebaconation]

This is rifleman training, not spec ops training/shock troops.
I guess that the windage and optics part would be a good final test, but as far as actual battles go, I don't think the wind is going to change dramatically during the battle.
But difficult testing is still good testing.
You should also time them.
They should get a chance to know what sort of terrain they'l be engaging in though.
For shock troop testing, I would stuff them in a casket and open it up in a "battlefield" they have not yet observed.

Yes this is rifleman
Optics are standard issue so The fact that they train with Iron sights first is merely to reinforce the basics.
(also I mislabeled my optics. its 1.5/4.5X not 2.5/4.5X) Wind is dependent on the range though given the environment for my infantry training center high winds are a given. The whole point of my marksmanship tests is that it gets soldiers adapted and comfortable with all of the equipment that both their armor and weapons allow them but removes the crutch by forcing them to test and finish both with and without all of those advantages.

Special forces training? for Enlightened at least(my combat Special forces, more akin to SEAL's and Ranger analogs) have very harsh training. for the final test, Special forces trainee's are dropped from aircraft over the test zone with minimal supplies and limited simulation ammo and are hunted by Instructors leading two assault(airborne/naval) infantry company's. (since my Special forces units are trained by platoon this is a serious numerical disadvantage). They must coordinate rendezvous, establish some form of FOB, and perform a variety of tasks (no two final tests are ever the same) and then extract. All hits are logged by the soldiers armor and the prevailing battlefield network. all Casualties are "permanent" and and result in the failure to pass of said Trainee (wounds are allowed as due to the suits power armor may be accurately simulated in regards to immobility) the final test takes place over the course of multiple weeks during which the trainee's must evade patrols, eliminate a variety of objectives, maintain a communication with command and coordinate successful extraction. The opposing force has access to section of artillery as well as 2 flights of both attack and transport Rotor-aircraft. (explosive kills are assigned using Sensor rounds that Ping Armor units within a given radius and Assign wounds accordingly.) and must protect those assets accordingly there are no restrictions as to their behavior and or tactics they may use. they simply must eliminate as many of the trainee's as possible while protecting strategic and tactical objectives (strategic objectives such as a small signal corp relay installation, supply depots, Bridges, roads and railways, a and tactical objectives such as their motor pool, their own supplies, aircraft, artillery and such)

So ridiculously easy for the special forces and nearly impossible for the defenders?

[Cote dSoleil]

If My National Armament Manufacturer were to build AR-15's would it be reasonable to use a polymer lower Receiver. or would KRFP or aluminum be better

Aluminum.

Unless you were to do something like the old Cavalry Arms lowers... And then you'd still be better off with aluminum

[Premislyd]

If My National Armament Manufacturer were to build AR-15's would it be reasonable to use a polymer lower Receiver. or would KRFP or aluminum be better

[Black Hand]

Yes this is rifleman
Optics are standard issue so The fact that they train with Iron sights first is merely to reinforce the basics.
(also I mislabeled my optics. its 1.5/4.5X not 2.5/4.5X) Wind is dependent on the range though given the environment for my infantry training center high winds are a given. The whole point of my marksmanship tests is that it gets soldiers adapted and comfortable with all of the equipment that both their armor and weapons allow them but removes the crutch by forcing them to test and finish both with and without all of those advantages.

Special forces training? for Enlightened at least(my combat Special forces, more akin to SEAL's and Ranger analogs) have very harsh training. for the final test, Special forces trainee's are dropped from aircraft over the test zone with minimal supplies and limited simulation ammo and are hunted by Instructors leading two assault(airborne/naval) infantry company's. (since my Special forces units are trained by platoon this is a serious numerical disadvantage). They must coordinate rendezvous, establish some form of FOB, and perform a variety of tasks (no two final tests are ever the same) and then extract. All hits are logged by the soldiers armor and the prevailing battlefield network. all Casualties are "permanent" and and result in the failure to pass of said Trainee (wounds are allowed as due to the suits power armor may be accurately simulated in regards to immobility) the final test takes place over the course of multiple weeks during which the trainee's must evade patrols, eliminate a variety of objectives, maintain a communication with command and coordinate successful extraction. The opposing force has access to section of artillery as well as 2 flights of both attack and transport Rotor-aircraft. (explosive kills are assigned using Sensor rounds that Ping Armor units within a given radius and Assign wounds accordingly.) and must protect those assets accordingly there are no restrictions as to their behavior and or tactics they may use. they simply must eliminate as many of the trainee's as possible while protecting strategic and tactical objectives (strategic objectives such as a small signal corp relay installation, supply depots, Bridges, roads and railways, a and tactical objectives such as their motor pool, their own supplies, aircraft, artillery and such)

So ridiculously easy for the special forces and nearly impossible for the defenders?

Mind Explaining how? 56 men vs over 500? and the 500 have a full communications array, 4 attack helicopters and 4 Transport/gunships as well as an artillery section. the special forces trainees receive only basic survival provisions and 3 Magazines of ammunition or 2 belts per MG
the test area is only a 25KM2 area.... so I fail to see how hard this would be for the defenders.

[Triplebaconation]

I guess if they're being chased around an area that can be crossed with an hour's stroll for weeks that changes things.

[Aqizithiuda]

1960s Experimental rifle:

Bullpup
Twin-barreled (muzzle booster for dat RoF) with 20 mm integral grenade launcher
chambered in 5x45mm duplex rounds
bakelite furniture
3.5x integral scope with AR-15 rear sight-style BUIS, and flip down front BUIS.

Needs more SSB or less duplex. I'm not sure which.

(to clarify: duplex 5mm rounds are going to be light as)

I'd suggest using a tracer/fumer to reduce drag in a conventional 5mm projectile.

[Triplebaconation]

Redoing my assault rifle - I've never been entirely happy with it. The Smith Riflette, an early ancestor:

[The Archangel Conglomerate]

Is lacking selector switch (the design of which hasn't been finalized) and grip textures. Anything wrong past that?


I think it looks a hell of a lot better than the last iteration.

[Triplebaconation]

How does that slide work?

[Imperializt Russia]

http://store.magpul.com/product/MAG980/100
does this seem like a worthwhile improvement/modification?

Only if you're a Tier 0 Operator.

"BAD lever"

Oh, that's clearly coincidental.

What's the standard large caliber round in your country for AM purposes?

I use 12.7x108 and 14.5x114

I don't even know anymore.
I definitely use 14.5, but I've always had BMG rather than 12.7mm Russian. For reasons I never invented. That I'm considering revising.

(Image)

Now with more.. stuff.

It looks a tad off to me, though. Should that stock be longer? Barrel shorter?

The stock does look a little anaemic. Not in length so much, but more in its general profile.
Are cheek rests much of a thing of MGs from the wood-panelled era? I figured most of them just used the stock itself.

The only thing really PKM is the ejection port (and the sights when I get around to drawing them. The rest is basically an MG42/MG3 with a DP-28-esque flapper locking system, and a sort-of-Vickers-like muzzle booster.

So, it's an MG42 but with a completely different operating system, and thus not an MG42?

In the grand scheme, I'm not sure exchanging rollers for flappers consists an enormous divergence in the design direction.

I thought that was for tactics/stuff/things? I just want a few comments on my big-ass mortar.

MilRealism thread is for everything that doesn't fit in any of the other threads

Also the Navy. And quite a lot of AF stuff.

Can someone explain to me what I'm even looking at here?

Almost Olympic-style bolt-action.
Yep?

Also I'm fairly certain that if you give 7.7x58 some modern powder it'd outperform 7.62x51 NATO.

M80 ball, maybe.
M80's loading spec IIRC isn't really much younger than 7.7 Arisaka.

If I'm not mistaken 7.7x58 is very similar to .303, I know it could be fired from Lee Enfields at least.

IIRC they could even use the same bullet

The 7.7x58mm rimmed cartridge designed for machine guns certainly did, because IIRC it was in fact copied from .303 (and the Type-96 and 99 machine guns were both BREN-derived in part)
The rimless rifle cartridge, I've no idea.

...well the sten and the MP40 were using the same exact cartridge (9x19 Parabellum) so that really isn't that surprising

Which I believe was on purpose. Why make your own ammo when you could burn through the enemies?

Which brings me the AK74 series. It fires the 5.56 NATO, right?

The AK-101 rifle and AK-102 carbine, both AK-74 type rifles, can fire 5.56mm NATO.

Why let the enemy use your ammo?

(Image)

Say an enemy force captures your ammo dump and they figures out that their weapons fire the same cartridge.
They aren't going to blow the dump and waste all that, right?

They will if you intersperse booby-trapped explosive cartridges when you know you're to abandon a position without ample time to destroy it yourself.
Or just shell it.

A nice way to do it would be like the Russians in WWII. Build a gun that can fire your enemies' ammunition, but they can't fire yours.
7.63x25mm Mauser can be safely fired in a 7.62x25mm Tokarev weapon, but not the other way around.

They still do that with their mortars, I believe; I heard they chose 81mm as their standard mortar calibre after NATO/the US (can't remember which atm) standardised 80mm.

Then again, I could be chatting out of my rectum.

I have been told this is not correct, before.

NATO standardised 81mm and the Soviets used 82mm well before NATO was even a thought. If anything, 82mm would have been selected to be one-way compatible with German 81mm mortar stocks, which predated Russian 82mm mortars by a couple years.

It's entirely likely that it's a complete coincidence.

I believe he just said "AKs" as a catch-all since the AKM and AK-103 are likely both being used.

Of course. that makes sense.
the question remains am I overlooking anything that would make it impossible to convert an AKM to an AK-103

AK-103, as an AK-100 series weapon, may be built on the AK-74 platform with modifications.
Not sure quite how compatible the design is with the AKM. There are tolerances, but maybe not close enough.

Puz was a soldier?

No.

In your opinion the Naval Infantry is... what, exactly?

[The Archangel Conglomerate]

How does that slide work?

. . .
. .
.

I honestly cannot think of a way that it could. Thanks for pointing it out.

[Puzikas]

In your opinion the Naval Infantry is... what, exactly?

Its prem.
Xe just says things for the lels.

[Imperial isa]

Would Kel-tec RDB in 6.8 mm be good for a small security force ?

[Yakzistan]

Do you think use different calibers for standard issued rifles of my military a good idea ?

AK-74: 5.45x39
Kz 5.56(M16A1 clone): 5.56x45 NATO
H&K G3A3: 7.62x51 NATO
Type 56: 7.62x39

[Nua Corda]

Would Kel-tec RDB in 6.8 mm be good for a small security force ?

M43>RDB

Do you think use different calibers for standard issued rifles of my military a good idea ?

AK-74: 5.45x39
Kz 5.56(M16A1 clone): 5.56x45 NATO
H&K G3A3: 7.62x51 NATO
Type 56: 7.62x39

No. You have too many rifles and too many calibers. Your quartermasters will start a Revolutioon.

Stick to one service rifle in an intermediate, and then have a high powered round for GPMGs and DMRs. Two rounds, three weapons. Use carbine variations on the service rifle instead of SMGs.

[Spirit of Hope]

Do you think use different calibers for standard issued rifles of my military a good idea ?

AK-74: 5.45x39
Kz 5.56(M16A1 clone): 5.56x45 NATO
H&K G3A3: 7.62x51 NATO
Type 56: 7.62x39

Nope, you should stick to one caliber for your small arms as much as possible. I would suggest either 5.45x39, 5.56x45 NATO, or 7.62x39, I am have a personal preference for one of the first two but it is your choice.

[United states of brazilian nations]

Can someone explain to me what I'm even looking at here?

According to the description its a SV-99. Looks like a integrally suppressed, blot action, take down, compact, sniper rifle. Or something like that.
EDIT: I found the page on modern firearms, its a .22 http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sniper-rifl ... v99-e.html

late reply is late, but damn, gotta do something based on this. dat silence.

could i make a .44 or .357 Magnum version of it? of course it'd require a bigger supressor (with subsonic loads, since supersonic loads would go bam anyways), but i suppose i could get quite a bit more stopping power, right? maybe even spitzer bullets of some sort.

as for the .22 version, would it make any sense to equip speshul forces with it? i figure it would have a hard time kiling military targets since body armor is widespread, unless the shooter can get an accurate shot to an unprotected part of the head, which i believe would be difficult with subsonic ammo salvo for short-range shots.

[Puzikas]

.22 is lethal enough. The SV-99 is only intended for special forces and police as it is, so its not like your going to be issuing an integral suppressed marksman rifle to snipers on the frequent.

[Mozria]

True but if you combined my total votes with the total votes of everyone that isn't Aqiz...I'd be winning.

And I'd be a monkey if I wasn't a human.


What's the standard large caliber round in your country for AM purposes?

I use 12.7x108 and 14.5x114

15.34 x 122 mm

[United states of brazilian nations]

.22 is lethal enough. The SV-99 is only intended for special forces and police as it is, so its not like your going to be issuing an integral suppressed marksman rifle to snipers on the frequent.

gotcha. .22 LR it is then.

i figure that it could also make a decent ant-riot gun if issued with extremely low-pressure, rubber rounds. but that is out of military context. actually, this is an idea i've been thinkering with since i saw a modern .22 biathlon rifle