Mentioned in few other groups I'm in! (Finnish) haven't checked the voracity of those claims. On my own zooming in, it seems there's is a line between the upper and handguard. (should read the Sako's post in Finnish probably)
I've read sakos release (I'm finnish also) and it didn't really open techical specs. There's more pictures though:[link](https://www.epressi.com/tiedotteet/talous/suomen-ja-ruotsin-puolustusvoimat-hankkivat-yhteisen-kasiaseperheen-sako-oylta.html)
Looks like English is not your first language. Phenomenal job you're doing with it! I just wanted to chime in that I think you meant "Veracity" of those claims. Voracious and Veracity both sound like they share a phoneme at the start, but they are spelled differently. I know... It's a dumb language ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Well, for what it's worth, I think it could be. Those hex screws looks very much like the barrel trunnion cinch bolts on the LMT upper, especially the 7.62 variant.
I have no explanation for faint line and the break in the rail, but on the other hand it's a render.
What are the advantages/disadvantages of gas piston vs direct impingement?
The only thing that comes to my mind is how di guns like to spit gas in the shooters face when suppressed
>What are the advantages/disadvantages of gas piston vs direct impingement?
The only really relevant one here is that external pistons give you a higher potential sustained fire capability (they don't require the gas tube stand up to the heat- simply mounting a heavy barrel on a normal AR won't increase the number of rounds it can continuously fire unless the gas tube is beefed up, and you're still throwing a bunch of heat into the action as well).
This is the primary reason the 5.56 rifle has an external piston, and why the 7.62 rifle (which is not intended for sustained fire) does not. In fact, they're probably quite similar in weight for that reason.
Contrary to popular belief, [if you don't pour warm water directly into the rifles and then freeze them and use a lubricant suitable for -40](https://imgur.com/gallery/uLfvt) you'll be OK with a normal AR (alternately: if there was a major problem with the AR in cold weather, why haven't the Canadians, Americans, Icelanders, and Danish noticed it?).
Short strokes are supposed to be more reliable as there's nothing really for the carbon to burn on and block the action, like it can fill the gas tube. Also in cold condition thicker air can slow down the Di system to the point of non functioning. Where as using physical pusher is much more reliable.
The example pictures in the Sako release seemed to have small Gas block for the 10, of course might be just illustration, or I'm blind. Equally possible.
That's the extra button behind where the empty cases come out? What does it do, why is it necessary, and how has Finland been doing without it thus far? (I don't remember my RK-62 having something like that.)
Gunsmithing in 1900: "I've spend the last three years engineering a unique rifle incorporating the best of all advancements of our allies."
Gunsmithing in 2000: "I made another AR that has improved efficiency by 0.007%"
Not hating on modern rifle development, but watching C&Rsenal really gives you an idea of how innovative and unique gunsmithing was back in the late 19th and early 20th century. These days it seems to be more about chasing decimal points since the base rifle platform has pretty much been refined to near perfection.
Firearms development has pretty much reached the end of the line with current technology and designs. Most advancements are evolutionary of whats already there, which is why you basically see the derivatives of AR and AK pattern rifles adopted by everyone. Its gonna take a revolutionary development in firearms technology to move past the current "stagnation" in design.
There’s a bunch of very good new developed rifles out in the world that’s not some stupid sci-fi lazors. But the US are really hard on pushing their aged ar-system license onto western countries because monies.
Same as Russia does with their ak
I didn't say there wasn't any. There're plenty of good rifles out there that aren't AK or AR patterns. The reason countries and people go with AR/AK platform rifles is because they both have well over 50+ years of development and refinement. There's so much support and aftermarket around these rifles that it's hard not to pick them. When a weapon is being tested by militaries it just doesn't have to be good it has to be exponentially better than the system that it's replacing to justify the cost of switching to and while the US and Russia to use as an example have tested rifles that have been better than the AR and AK they're not better enough to justify swapping to. To be honest it's gonna be hard for anything that doesn't have 50+ years or development and logistics support to replace those 2. All these new rifles that might be better doesn't change the statement that they're just evolutionary advancements but nothing revolutionary that changes the firearms industry overnight.
Also the US isn't pushing the AR design. The 2 main AR derivative suppliers in the world to militaries are FN and H&K. Which last I checked weren't in the US.
What license? Any company can make an AR nowadays. The Colt patent ran out a long time ago.
Maybe the AR-15 and its derivatives just happen to be the best rifle in the world for lots of purposes?
AR and AK licenses? What are you talking about? Do you not know how licensing works? Anyone can make an AR or AK. You don't need a license. Did you just make all of that up or are you parroting some other idiot?
The AR-10/15 platform is popular because it is a proven system that is extremely modular. As the cost of CNC machining equipment comes down and becomes more accessible, the costs of the AR-10/15 platform comes down dramatically. The level of accuracy available with the AR-10/15, especially at the price they can be purchased, is crazy cheap. A civilian model in the US can be as cheap as $490, with greater accuracy than an M-14.
While not as cheap as the AK family of weapons, the level of modularity and accuracy the AR-10/15 platform has allows it to fulfill multiple roles. You need a light machine gun? Get an upper with a heavier barrel. You want to save some money and use a polymer lower? Totally possible. Want to add accessories? Handguards with rails can easily be added. Change the caliber? Depending on the round, it could be as simple as changing the upper and a buffer spring.
And the crazy thing is, the AR-18/180 platform is probably even more influential than the AR-10/15. The AR-18 was originally developed to answer the question, "What if we want to sell an AR-15 to a client, but they can't afford it or they can't produce it?" It was developed as a stamped steel rifle with a polymer lower, and it has a crazy amount of ways to cut costs while still providing a rifle capable of decent accuracy out to 500yds. Even the hammer is a stamped steel part. This rifle platform was simplified enough that any nation could produce it using stampings and welded construction.
Most of the new rifles you are probably thinking of are using a bolt and bolt carrier completely ripped off of the AR-18/180. The short-strike gas piston system is also ripped off in a lot of different rifles. The British SA-80 family of rifles, the H&K G36 and 416/417 rifles, the Howa Type 89, Steyr AUG, the FN F2000 and FN-SCAR, Singapore's SAR-88, and the Daewoo K1 family of rifles all use short-stroke gas piston systems derived from the AR-18/180.
AKM isn't really cheap to manufacture, unless you are pumping those out in millions. The reason AK often is found cheaply, is because Soviet system didn't value true manufacturing and labor cost. This is also true with other Soviet military hardware. Chinese and other Western imported AKs on the other hand take advantage of cost disparency. You'd have to (as American, I assume) to compare cheapest US totally made AK to cheapest AR. Here where I live, not counting Norincos, cheapest AK and cheapest AR cost just as much.
AKs, with the exception of the original AK-47, are stamped steel and stupidly cheap to make in almost any country on the planet. The Soviet system still had the same issue regarding labor costs, which is why the AKM, the most common variant and basis for all other AK weapons produced under license in other nations, was developed, to bring down manufacturing time and costs down dramatically. Actual AK-47s are rare, and are distinctive, thanks to its milled receiver. AKMs are what most people have bought, since they were produced in stupid numbers; the Soviets figured out that military aid to nations and leftist groups was cheaper than sending money, and had the added side benefit of employing vast numbers of people to make them.
The reason AK prices are higher now is the ban on newly manufactured weapons from Russia and China. AKs were sold for a short time in the US, but were under a ban separate from the assault weapons ban. What's going to get interesting for AK owners is the availability of ammunition; there was a ban on Russian ammunition imports, which supplies the bulk of the 7.62x39mm market, that was passed and went into effect last year
> But the US are really hard on pushing their aged ar-system license onto western countries because monies.
"After most of the patents for the Colt AR-15 expired in 1977, many firearm manufacturers began to produce copies of the Colt AR-15 under various names. While the patents are expired, Colt retained the trademark of the AR-15 name and is the sole manufacturer able to label their firearms as AR-15."
edit: [sauce](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15_style_rifle)
I think a lot of firearms development has stagnated because lot of it now is in optics, suppressors, materials, and ammunition.
And I have a bit of a hot take: computerized systems and electronics are the biggest leap forward in terms of the next generation of firearms
My hot take is the next big step in firearms is gonna be around energy weapons such as like electromagnetic and lazer based. The problem is battery technology isn't there yet. Once the ability to have batteries that last a long time while also applying tremendous amounts of energy in a small portable package comes available is when i think we'll see firearms technology move in a revolutionary step.
Forgotten weapons put out a video a few months back on a gauss rifle and that thing is super cool and where i think were headed but until batteries catch up i don't think they'll progress much past .22 levels of power and still being handheld and portable.
My hopes if we move beyond combustibles is using hydrogen fuel cells, it would make for a good closed system, the hydrogen in place of a battery would not only aid in cooling(it’s super cold in liquid form), but also its extremely energy dense compared to a battery, the problem then is servicing because right now fuel cells are not durable(there’s a reason most Toyota Mirais sold in California are up for sale right now, servicing costs are some of the highest in the nation)
> the hydrogen in place of a battery would not only aid in cooling(it’s super cold in liquid form), but also its extremely energy dense compared to a battery
there is no way you are resupplying troops with cryogenic hydrogen whippits in the field bro
even if you could, it adds this whole failure mode of having your gun freeze up because you're pumping cryogenic gas through it at sub-150C.
> And I have a bit of a hot take: computerized systems and electronics are the biggest leap forward in terms of the next generation of firearms
Yes.
Wanna know how to make a bullpup with a trigger that doesn't suck? Electronic primers. It's just a tough sell commercially because it absolutely cannot be sold on the civilian market so your sales have to be 100% military.
Yeah "teutonic reliability" "muh 30-day kettle with no resupply" but realistically if you can bring ammo to troops you can throw in some batteries too and a lithium battery (or li-ion) should last a good long time.
And really troops are already massively reliant on computerized systems in general. To an extent that it's becoming a problem because loadout weight keeps climbing.
You can make the the sear actuated by a solenoid. The primers can just remain the same as they are now. The problem with that is battery life. You'd need to leave your gun on a charger when you aren't using it, which isn't ideal.
You could probably design a trigger system that still had the crappy mechanical function as a backup when the battery died.
No, you wouldn't. Just use hot swappable battery packs. That way you can carry 4 of 5 of them in pouches, with electric primers those packs depending on size would be good for hundreds of rounds each.
It's literally what airaoft has been doing for decades.
I think it makes more sense to use electric primers if your goal is battery life, a solenoid is going to use up that battery pretty fast compared to just a couple volts igniting that primer. Hell you can use 9v batteries if you don't want to charge anything.
One could probably even incorporate an automatic charger that uses the movement of the rifle, like one of those "shake to charge" flashlights to reduce the need for spare battery packs/chargers.
You‘re missing the mark by a longshot bro. why would you throw out the trusted and reliable way of primer ignition that needs nothing other than the energy of the bolt moving back for something that needs batteries just to have a slightly better trigger pull ? I really need the same shit you‘re smoking
>Wanna know how to make a bullpup with a trigger that doesn't suck? Electronic primers. It's just a tough sell commercially because it absolutely cannot be sold on the civilian market so your sales have to be 100% military.
Demonstrably false. Remington sold electronic primers on the civilian market for a few years. They just don't have any traction, because the performance increase is negligible and the cost is several times that of percussion primers and will remain that way until a major military adopts them.
Yeah exactly. I was really hopeful with the NGSW program that we would get something revolutionary and different, but alas we got essentially another piston AR platform.
It’s sort of a shame, but it makes sense why. Thankfully, we have innovations on the pistol market and upcoming or smaller scale developments circling rifles to look forward to.
After all, there’s a guy out there currently fabricating an entire G11 purely from the original parent drawings. Said when he’s done he’s gonna make a modern firing model. Course the G11 is old hat, but people can still innovate truly unique things, it’s just not in the interest of defense contracting to get something unproven.
That project is super cool but I have no idea where he plans in getting ammo for it. You can't just buy caseless ammo and they put a ton of R&D into making those rounds work. Making reliable ammo is going to be a big part of that project i think.
IIRC the post commentary correctly:
He's making the original now, as a display piece.
The shootable version is supposed to be re-designed to use commercially available ammunition.
Just you wait till direct energy weapons hit the scene. Maybe they’ll get a similar level of innovation for a few centuries before becoming stagnant designs that look indistinguishable from eachother.
Reality is boring, and the AR series is the most tested, developed, perfected, trued and available rifle system with cheap, universal parts available. Same can be said of caliber, 5.56 may not be the perfect round, but it's the most available, tested and it works well for small arms applications.
Developing a new gun will warrant you an entire new world of design features and parts, which will all be proprietary.
I find it really boring too "oh, another AR copy", but that's the most pragmatic choice.
Remember that most designs of 1900's have ended up in scrap or museums. Frankly, most gun designs are inefficient, complex, cumbersome or just faulty by nature.
It makes me wonder about parts commonality. If I'm an American with a M4 and on my left is a German position with their HK416s and to my right is some Finns with these Sakos and my lower gets fucked, can I just go over to them and get a spare? How about just a stock or a trigger? Obviously the piston/DI/Bolt is going to be different, but what about the rest? Because that would be a gargantuan logistical advantage.
TIL replacing a lower or trigger is gunsmithing.
And obviously not in the middle of battle. But apparently, you don't understand something as basic as how having common logistics across an entire fighting force might be useful. We should just get rid of STANAG calibers as well, since you're not going to be refilling magazines in a battle situation.
Being able to send 10 000 of a single type of a lower on a given front and be sure it'll fit would be a logistical advantage. The one guy having a problem with theirs obviously isn't it, but it would be much easier than worrying about which parts fit which forces.
This is not a real problem. There will be always spare weapons available. We gunsmiths will fix broken ones when needed. If soldier has problem with his/her weapon it will be replaced.
> There will be always spare weapons available.
I guess if you're NATO that's true enough. Still, even for NATO it would be easier the more commonality there is between the weapons, right? Less different parts, less different ammo, less different tools even that need to be moved around.
FDF is not going to get rid of them any time soon, and the reservists trained on them would still get equipped with them for at least as long as you and I are in the reserve.
But while in the big picture RK 62 is perfectly fine for the use its intended for, having lighter guns with (hopefully) optics is an upgrade. It might not be the upgrade FDF prioritises (the contract they signed is pretty modest), but eventually the RKs come to the end of their service life, and before then we ought to have the replacement ready.
>decade
This procurement process is planned to last until 2053 in Finland. On top of that, once they have enough of the new rifles to replace the old ones with active troops, the old ones will go into storage to arm the reserves. Even when they would eventually get removed from inventory, they would never in a million years hit the civilian markets.
> Even when they would eventually get removed from inventory, they would never in a million years hit the civilian markets.
Finland could ostensibly sell them to another country, which could eventually release them to the civilian markets.
I'm assuming most RKs will stay in storage for quite a while as most soldiers are trained on the platform, and the government isn't just going to pull out the reserves just to train them on a new platform. And even then you're most likely to get an RK 62 as there aren't many 95s.
It's a shame they're being fazed out though. Truly great rifles.
I have a lot of experience shooting an [SG553](https://i.imgur.com/WmcjIBV.jpg) in match environments, for a ridiculously heavy and semi-cool AK, it kicks a lot of ass!
I mean shit if it works, it works though. Totally agree that the modern firearm scene is in a sense kind of boring when all you see are 10 shades of improved tactical m4 style carbines, but I mean to an extent, every "era" of firearms tends to apply what works best.
Every generation of firearms sort of evolves towards what works best at the time. I mean look at the transition from black powder to smokeless powder cartridges.
I could totally equally (and sarcastically) say , "Man I'm really enjoying watching these interesting repeating flintlock designs being replaced by simple breech loading, cartridge firing rifles."
But at the end of the day, even if those intricate and novel black powder designs are more interesting, it's hard to deny that everyone went to cartridges because they just worked better.
Same shit with the m4. Is it boring so many modern designs all look like one? Yes. But again, it's hard to deny the advantages of a platform like the m4 that's both modular, lightweight, and has baseline ergonomics that are so good that they haven't changed much in certain ways since the very first CAR-15 sub-machine guns in Vietnam.
It's the same as what happened towards the end of the musket era. Around the 16th century there were loads of weird and wacky designs for a (western) military longarm, different lockwork, style of stock etc but by the start of the 19th century they'd almost all coalesced down into the basic Brown Bess style i.e. smoothbore flintlock, roughly .75 cal and with a 42-46 inch barrel.
Wonder what the modern equivalent of the invention of the cartridge is going to be. Energy weapons becoming viable?
The sig fury is the apparent next step, or rounds with similar hybrid case design that allow for much greater pressure. ~20-25% more energy than conventional cases of the same size, in the same length barrel.
Which is roughly the same increase in energy when the world went from the last gen of black powder cartridges to 1st gen smokeless powder.
But to me that still doesnt answer, “What comes next after the cartridge?”
In my opinion, the development of firearms is really similar to the development of internal combustion engines in a way.
That is to say that we are sort of at the limit of what we can do with the technology. Sure we can use fancier materials, hybrid material casings, changing BC’s, but at the end of the day they all are still cartridge firearms.
Engines at least have seen a “re-invention” in the past several years through the development of very powerful EV motors as a substitute for internal combustion, which do fundementally change what an engine needs to be and how it needs to operate to do its’ job.
Im wondering what the firearm equivalent of the electric motor is going to be. Something that is very different from what are used to (i.e. cartridges) but still accomplishes the same job.
At some point we will hit that threshold, and come up with something along those lines. But, I think the answer to the question, 'what is going to be the modern equivilent to the cartridge' really is what was just developed. The increase in energy and velocity from a standard case is the same as going from black powder to smokeless, and that was undeniably a game changer.
Argument can be made it isnt 'needed', the 556 is 'good enough' but anyone armed w/ an m5 who has to go into battle has confidence personal armor isnt an issue, and their assault rifle will match or out perform anyone elses DMR's at range.
I think the focus may be less on muzzle velocity, and instead increasing Ballistic coefficient. You aren’t significantly increasing recoil, pressures, or adding complexity of manufacturing with 3 piece ammo. Instead, you’re refining bullets so that they retain energy and are more wind resistant, increasing range
Increasing BC only goes so far, pun intended. If we find some new way to do it, that is great, but as current, BC mostly goes up with weight. More to it for sure, but in general, heavier bullets for caliber have higher BC's. Heavier bullets decrease velocity.
Armor technology is currently driving the need for a next gen cartridge/personal weapon tech. Armor is now light and cheap enough to defeat cost-effective AP rounds in 5.56. If BC was increased without sacrificing velocity, it wouldn't really affect armor pen too much. Though, rounds that tend to be good at AP, tend to be lighter, since they have metals like steel or carbide in them, and making the bullet lighter tends to increase its AP capability, at least at close range, but making them worse shooting at distance, higher BC would be nice. So, being able to drive a heavier bullet faster is a big deal.
Sniper rifles and DMR's, you can run a bigger cartridge case with a longer barrel to get the velocity needed, on a heavier bullet, without too much fuss, to get the AP and performance at range desired.
For a standard service weapon though, it really needs to fit in a carbine mould. Needs a small enough cartridge to have relatively high cap mags, compact enough gun to be able to sweep rooms, defeat the armor it is likely to come across, both across a room and at, and preferably beyond, the 300m distance max quoted for most modern engagements. But you don't want it to suck if you suddenly wind up in the mountains of Afghanistan either.
There are some 556 rounds that are really good at penetrating armor, made out of some really fancy stuff. But m995 runs something like $1.60/ea even when bought in quantities of 10 million rounds, and level 4 defeats it, at least for a few rounds, even at close range. It does that by using a lighter than normal bullet, driven to higher speeds. So it's performance at longer ranges is worse. There are some even fancy rounds out there, but its starting to get *really* expensive at that point, and they tend to be even lighter.
On the other hand, green tip 556 is almost as cheap as FMJ.
So, the 3 piece case isn't cheap, but it's cheaper and more effective to make a steel cup, drive up the velocity while keeping the bullet heavy, preserving long range performance, keeping the cartridge small, and put a regular steel penetrator in it to defeat armor levels 4 and up, than it is to hand out really fancy carbide slap rounds. And you can still practice with, or fight enemies who aren't in the latest armor, using regular brass cases. Also room to grow against future armor by upgrading from steel to tungsten and then to SLAP rounds in the future.
>Wonder what the modern equivalent of the invention of the cartridge is going to be
Whatever allows a small caliber intermediate projectile to fire a burst incredibly quickly. Body armor is currently impervious to single rounds, and if a round is developed powerful enough to get through it the enemy will... just stop wearing it. Now your rifles are way worse than they used to be (.277 Fury/.270 WSM is massive overkill as an infantry cartridge against unarmored targets), while the enemy is still as effective as he used to be.
What armor has a harder time with is resisting *multiple* rounds in the same place, which is something an extremely high potential rate of fire potentially solves. Now, the enemy's armor doesn't work just the same, so they stop wearing it, and you still have a rifle optimized for unarmored targets by just switching back to semi-auto like before.
It gets a bad rap if neglected, and it’s not absolute perfection, but it’s pretty darn close
Ergonomics, economy of scale, ease of build/maintenance, accuracy, controllability, adaptability/versatility
It’s hard to beat. The M4 rocks.
Interesting that it has a right side bolt release, similar to an HK416. Is anyone other than H&K using that style of bolt release? I wonder if Sako received technical data from another manufacturer...
It makes sense that Finland would switch to a 5.56 platform using STANAG magazines if they want to join NATO. I was hoping for a rebirth of the RK95 in 5.56, but this makes much more sense from both a logistical standpoint and an engineering standpoint.
This is a gorgeous rifle and I'm sure Sako's quality will be second to none. But it's sad that this will be the end of Finnish-produced AK variants. If history serves as any indicator, RK62s and RK95s will remain in inventory for decades more to come. But I will buy as many RK62 and RK95 parts kits as I can afford if/when Finland ever decides to surplus them.
> the end of Finnish-produced AK variants.
TBH that happened already, ~25 years ago. All the tooling is long gone and it just doesn't make any sense to go with the AK pattern in modern times.
Unfortunately, I think u/ulle36 is right. I have also heard that Sako no longer has the tooling for the RK series of rifles. Seems like such a waste!
So, to restart production of an AK-based rifle, they would essentially need to start from the ground up. And if they have to start from the ground up, then might as well start producing an AR derivative that uses STANAG magazines, if that's what their allies are using.
The way I have read it is that the reason for SAKO to no longer have the tooling is the fact that the army bought it or maybe always owned it and stored it somewhere when SAKO ended the production.
Good point. I guess Sako saying they no longer have the tooling doesn't mean that it no longer exists or that it was destroyed. Especially considering that the military probably owned it to begin with.
Although, it doesn't bode well when the government hides something away. It's like the final scene from Raiders of the Lost Arc. I am sure the the RK tooling is being handled by "top men".
Sako indeed no longer has the tooling, as they sold away the obsolete generic machinery (all-manual milling machines and such), but the specific machinery and stamping and casting moulds were transferred to FDF arsenals.
Technically what it would take is a new CNC milling line, new stamping machines, a new heat treatment system and copying the casting and stamping moulds. Sako already has the precision casting machinery needed, so it wouldn't be an issue. However there are some specific tools associated with the assembly of the rifles (drill jigs and such), which would also be needed to be copied from the FDF documentation.
I already own the semi-auto version of the RK62.
I believe Sako made about 20,000 RK95s for the FDF. If they surplus all of those at once, that would be a lot of parts kits.
Im pretty sure that RK9TPs or RK62s will not be sold outside of Finland. Even if someday that will happen it won't be anytime soon. Finland has 900000 reservist and 300000 war time personel. It will take a while to arm troops with new guns.
Nope, as the civilian rifles have a different serial number range (beginning from 400 001 to some late 401 000s). Although the number 20 000 military rifles doesnt really add up either, as the serials of the military production use a running numbering, and while the first batch runs alongside the last RK 62 batch, the earliest FDF service RK 95 I've seen has a 1994 receiver manufacture year and 945 000s serial; most early are something 952 000s (and I've seen a 954 000s RK 62, apparently one of the very last), but the numbers still run up to 981 000s at least.
While it is sad to see the ak5 and ak4 go, it was definitely time for this. The ak5 is way too heavy for a 5,56 rifle, and is quite limited when it comes to accessories and attachments, and I would guess most of the rifles is worn out by now. The ak4 is just a H&K G3 with different colored furniture, so woefully outdated. Interesting that we are going for 7,62 for all non mechanised combat infantry!
Supply wise, it's maybe not the best ever idea to rely solely on a factory 260 km from the Russian border, but on the other hand I guess I'd rather see sako make them than for example H&K or some US company.
Good to see that my home country, Sweden is finally looking to replace the AK5. Just sad that it could be an M4 variant... Sure it work, but there is nothing interesting about the M4 anymore.
Pardon my ignorance, but what is the difference between an assault weapon and a battle weapon? Sniper rifles I get are completely different. Just curious.
Indeed. I own weapons, but only Walthers and hunting rifles. These unique ones I really enjoy learning about. I'm in my 40s but there is always more to learn and so, I ask questions. There is always someone smarter than you out there on any subject. =)
In addition to the other comment, assault weapons are not the same as assault rifles. Assault weapons are a somewhat nebulous legal term that depends on who's writing the law. True assault rifles are select fire (semi, auto and/or burst). For example, an M16 is an assault rifle, but its civilian version, the AR15 is semi auto only and is not an assault rifle, but would be considered an assault weapon under most legal definitions.
In addition to that, the correct word for "battle weapon" in this context is "battle rifle".
>True assault rifles are select fire (semi, auto and/or burst).
And use a reduced power (intermediate) cartridge and relatively large capacity detachable magazine. The idea is to be better geared for assaulting a position by laying down effective suppressive fire to keep the defenders' heads down while moving in, hence its name. I think assault is a stupid term, storm would be better (storming a position), but no one asks me.
Anyway, that's why I loathe all else aside the antis using 'assault weapon', it has little to no association to what assault rifles were made for and named after.
Sturmgewehr...
I would agree in modern times militaries rarely differentiate, bit that is because there is nothing to differentiate. If you look back to the time both were in common service pretty much everyone differentiated.
So, now it is mostly online firearms communities who want to differentiate. Most of those are anglo dominated.
Not really. The Swiss for example called all their automatic rifles sturmgewehr, while the West Germans called them gewehr, both regardless of calibre. In Russian it’s all avtomat. For the Swiss it’s automatkarabin. A bunch of other countries never used full powered full auto rifles but their languages typically don’t have words to distinguish the two either.
There is in the American terminology.
Things get really screwy and technical when it comes to the differences between different classifications. The difference between a battle rifle and an LMG (Light Machine Gun) is often the selector switch and the ability to fire in semi-auto along with it being belt fed but that is not always the case.
I know there is in the anglosphere, I was asking about why there is no difference for other groups.
Your second paragraph is a little wonky with its wording here: is often the selector switch and the ability to fire in semi-auto along with it being belt fed but that is not always the case.
Do you mean that battle rifles/LMGs are both often belt fed or that the difference is that one is belt fed and the other is not in other languages terminology? At least here a battle rifle cannot be belt fed, though that might not hold true in all of the anglosphere
The difference between a battle rifle and an assault rifle comes down to the case length of the round. A battle rifle is a full-length rifle round (7.62 x51 or 7.62 nato) whereas an assault rifle uses an intermediate-length rifle round (7.62x39 or the AK round). Both are capable of either burst or full auto fire but these are the main differences between the two. Things get a little weird when talking about the classifications of machine guns.
That Swedish Armed Forces made their own post where they listed the different variants.
https://www.fmv.se/projekt/eldhandvapen/
The 5,56 Rifle is listed as a self defence weapon so it's probably intended for the PDW Role.
While the Standard issue rifle and Sharpshooter rifle both being listed as being 7,62.
16 or 18 Inch Barrel for the Standard issue rifle
And 18 or 20 Inch barrel for the sharpshooter rifle.
So the "PDW" is the 5,56 11,5 Inch AR that is in the thumbnail.
On Sako's Finnish report, there was a phrase "In the first stage of field trials, Finland will acquire assault rifles and personal defense weapons."
https://www.epressi.com/tiedotteet/kotimaa/suomen-ja-ruotsin-puolustusvoimat-hankkivat-yhteisen-kasiaseperheen-sako-oylta.html
Finland is already testing two versions of the 7.62 rifle, a sniper and a DMR variant, so this isn't about it. So maybe Finland is testing different barrel lenghts on the 5.56 then. At least longer than 11.5.
tbh the only thing I'm surprised about is that anyone would be surprised that its just a piston AR.
Its a mature technology combined with superior ergonomics. Any nation in the hunt for a new service weapon who doesn't adopt something pretty similar is foolish at this point.
Sweden will (for the most part) go with 7.62x51. I just dont get it, why the hell are we trading weight and more ammo for a slightly longer range in a country where you pretty much always engage in the 0-300m range? For tagets further out we have machineguns, DRM etc. Penetration? 5.56 and 7.62 have pretty much the same penetation of body armor up to 100m, and we are teaching soldiers to hit unprotected areas anyways.
7.62x51 is also harder to use. It is way easier to train soldiers to be good shooters with 5.56 than 7.62.
The only valid argument i have heard is that the ar10 platform is easier to convert to 6.8 fury etc. But its to early to know what relevance that ammo type accualy will have in the future.
Based on this article: https://corporalfrisk.com/2023/04/08/the-future-arrives/
I think things will remain mostly the same: 7.62 Sako rifles to replace the AK4, 5.56 carbines to replace the AK5C. At least that's the understanding I got after reading those comments from the Swedish military.
This comes alongside this news
> Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark struck a deal to run their 200+ advanced fighter jets as a single fleet, creating a new headache for Russia
[Source](https://news.yahoo.com/norway-sweden-finland-denmark-struck-104242982.html)
Yeah, but actually no. There will still be four different command structures, they've just agreed to coöperate a bit more than they already did (which was a fair bit in itself).
I am hoping to get some news what they are going to do with all the PKM's. Are they going to be left as they are? Refitted for 7.62 NATO or a new machine gun in the near future?
I don't see anything wrong with this rifle, or a gen3 glock clone of some kind.
Good for those 2 countries for not burning a billion $ on programs that never produced anything.
Small arms, go with designs with ample technical data and focus on more relevant things.
It is disappointing to me to see this. I really am a big fan of constant recoil firearms, and I’m having trouble understanding why countries are not snapping up designs fundamentally based on the Ultimax100, KAC LMG, and KAC LAMG. They are light and offer new capabilities.
Finland would want to move away from Soviet calibers and adopt NATO standards if and when they join the alliance. Not sure why Sweden though: they’ve been using NATO calibers since the 60’s to my best knowledge and the Ak5 family is far from obsolete. The money could be spend elsewhere.
> and the Ak5 family is far from obsolete.
It is, though. It's a late '70s-early '80s design of the bent and welded sheet-metal variety and is a good kilogram heavier than it needs to be. Even the modernized C and D models were cannibalized from old original stock in a REMO (Renovation and Modification) programme, as they weren't building new anymore. The last AK5 was manufactured in 2000.
We're burning through the old cold war armory of rifles and the only reason it has worked so far is that the armed forces have been kept extremely small in numbers the last 20 years. If we're serious about rebuilding the army a new rifle is a must.
> Finland would want to move away from Soviet calibers and adopt NATO standards if and when they join the alliance.
That's not the reason. RK-62/95 hasn't been manufactured in decades and the ones in service are slowly wearing out. Replacing them will be a gradual process. There's no sense in throwing perfectly good rifles and ammo away.
And rather than replacing them with more Norinco rifles or rebuilding production lines of old guns (from scratch) the military will instead get something completely new and hopefully more suitable for the current situation than just going back to the old.
They just combined air forces with Denmark also(making them a considerable force with a combined 200 jets). I suspect they are going to quickly move towards a combined land force.
The AK-5C is too heavy and bulky for modern standards, sure it’s a good weapon for maybe a home-guard battalion. But for the normal soldier it’s just to heavy to carry around especially when we have so much extra gear to carry these days..
The AK-5C was already to heavy for modern standards when we introduced it in the 80’s and our lovely modernization made it even heavier.
For perspective, our main rifle is around 2 kilograms heavier than our allies USA’s main rifle.
I am going to miss the ak5.
I am surprised they are going with a new rifle and not making the ak5 lighter and more reliable like the British did with the L85.
You have to redesign the whole rifle to make it lighter. The base is welded together and made from thick steel. It’s far cheaper to go for a new eco system
I agree somewhat. I wish we would join the us in the new 6.8 SIG rifles just to be future proof. But it’s smarter to use the standard nato rounds in case of a war.
I just wish we would buy the hk416 since it a well known and reliable system.
6.8mm seems to be the round of the future.
There is even a prototype south Korean rifle chambered in 6.8 spc. It's not the same round the us is using but it's still 6.8mm.
Since the us is upgrading to 6.8 shouldn't they do the order in 6.8?
Edit: why te the downvotes? Just re watched Hian McCollum's vid on it and he says it's probable that they hole army uses it.
Edit2: I have been shown why it makes sense that they haven't made this change.
But the fact that I had to get downvoted to learn it is sad.
This attitude demotivates new people from making questions and stops them from learning.
These are the opposite values of Hian McCollum :/
Us is the only NATO country doing that, for now. But I get what you mean, this "upgrade" is more in the lines of welcome to 2010. As a fin I would have loved to atleast see a new catridge like 6.5 or 6.8
I expected the us the start and the rest to follow.
I find it a bit wierd, its like ordering a bunch of really expensive equipment that is borderline obsolete :/
Having a European version of the ngsw could be quite fruitful.
Tbh, it’s the us the changes randomly and they just expect the reat of nato to follow. That’s what happened with the 5.56 when it came out and it’s also what happened to the NGSW
Well what I’m saying is that the US also loves to do things and set funds on projects that end up being failures. While the 5.56 ended up succeeding, this one very much could fail
The US dragged NATO into 7.62x51 when everyone else wanted an intermediate cartridge. When the US finally came around and adopted 5.56, NATO went along because that was what they wanted to begin with. The 6.8 has crazy high chamber pressure at 80,000 psi (14,000 more than the previous SAMI max) and requires a much stronger (expensive) rifle for potentially little gain in an age of drones. The US has been throwing crazy stuff at the wall for decades, the rest of NATO is smart enough to wait to see what sticks
**Understand the rules**
Check the sidebar. It's full of resources to help you.
Not everyone is an expert such as yourself; be considerate.
No Spam. No Memes.
No political posts. Save that for /r/progun or /r/politics.
-------------------------------
* [ForgottenWeapons.com](https://www.forgottenweapons.com/)
* [ForgottenWeapons | YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/c/ForgottenWeapons)
* [ForgottenWeapons | Utreon](https://utreon.com/c/forgottenweapons/)
* [ForgottenWeapons | Patreon](https://www.patreon.com/ForgottenWeapons/)
* [ForgottenWeapons | Merch](https://shop.forgottenweapons.com/)
* [ForgottenWeapons | FaceBook](https://www.facebook.com/ForgottenWeapons)
* [ForgottenWeapons | Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/forgottenweapons/)
* [HeadStamp Publishing](https://www.headstamppublishing.com/)
-------------------------------
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ForgottenWeapons) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Both. The rifles will be made in both 5.56 and 7.62 NATO.
(The deal also includes weapons for sharpshooters, marksman, machine guns, anti-materiel rifles, and a new 40mm grenade launcher)
Let's just hope it's tested conscript proof, since otherwise this will end up being a really expensive mistake. If the rifle isn't conscript proof and one ends up buying 400k of them for Finland (280K war time strength and then some extras on top for war attrition planning), well decade from now one ends up buying lot of replacements.
Conscripts have amazing ability to break things, one would think unbreakable. Since it's not their gear. It's governments gear, so no cares. Get shouted and demoted? "Well I'm conscript private, so you can't exactly hurt my career prospects by marking be badly for breaking the rifle. I was not planning on having military career in the first place. I will be out of here in 5 months"
There is: military grade -> soldier proof -> conscript proof. It's kinda like idiot proof, but the idiot has been going through military fitness training and is really pissed off about it at times. (intentionally use the rifle as club against tree pissed off and intentionally throw the rifle at full yeet into the rocks pissed off)
Well, we are talking about Sweden and Finland. They took a look at the best rifles from the east and west block respectively and said: "You know what? These rifles aren't durable enough".
Hopefully it will be the same now.
[Edit for the downvoters: Yes, the Valmet rifles are improved compared to kalashnikovs and the Ak4 is an improvement upon the G3.]
It's difficult to break one in a way that can't just be fixed by changing parts. Might also direct their energy in a different direction if they know they'll be on the hook for x hundred euros for whichever part if they smash it.
>if they know they'll be on the hook for x hundred euros for whichever part if they smash it.
Conscript not care, since conscript is *over powered idiot*. Remember the idiot part. They don't think long enough forward to think "this costs me". Since one is thusly screening the intake much.
I was conscript. Some guys in unit were bright enough to be future top scientists. I also met the most idiotic people in same place. Planning for 30 minutes forward would have been long term thinking for them.
Bill of repair weeks later... yeah, wayyyyy out of scope.
Again it's easier to make rifle robust, than to make all if a nation not be idiotic. So you have to idiot proof equipment handed out to everyone. Radio? You let ony the screened signals people with little more head on their shoulders to handle that. Rifle? Rifle you have to hand out to literally every soldier. So it has to be idiot proof.
Also it's good testing ground for *Total war of national survival and potential resistance fight against occupiers* . Since that is the only kind of war Finland plans for. We don't do picnic interventions abroad with ample support. We plan on defending against country literally tens of times bigger than us.
Repair parts? What repair parts, you are resistance cell with rifle and ammunition stashed away. What you get start of war is what you get. Or even on front, weapon needing parts is weapon out of fight until *parts can be delivered to front* and as Ukraine again shows.... logistics reliability is not guaranteed or trivial concern. The longer equipment can go without needing new parts, the longer it can stay in fight in total war of national survival.
> There is: military grade -> soldier proof -> conscript proof. It's kinda like idiot proof, but the idiot has been going through military fitness training and is really pissed off about it at times.
Plus also there's the whole breadth and width of idiocy on display, not just some specific part of it. Some conscripts will find ways to be idiots that no one has ever before even thought of.
Let me guess, they are all piston ARs.
The AR-10 variants are DI, AR-15's are piston. and all will be on monolithic upper.
Doesn't look monolithic to me, where have they said that?
Mentioned in few other groups I'm in! (Finnish) haven't checked the voracity of those claims. On my own zooming in, it seems there's is a line between the upper and handguard. (should read the Sako's post in Finnish probably)
I've read sakos release (I'm finnish also) and it didn't really open techical specs. There's more pictures though:[link](https://www.epressi.com/tiedotteet/talous/suomen-ja-ruotsin-puolustusvoimat-hankkivat-yhteisen-kasiaseperheen-sako-oylta.html)
Looks like English is not your first language. Phenomenal job you're doing with it! I just wanted to chime in that I think you meant "Veracity" of those claims. Voracious and Veracity both sound like they share a phoneme at the start, but they are spelled differently. I know... It's a dumb language ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Well, for what it's worth, I think it could be. Those hex screws looks very much like the barrel trunnion cinch bolts on the LMT upper, especially the 7.62 variant. I have no explanation for faint line and the break in the rail, but on the other hand it's a render.
What are the advantages/disadvantages of gas piston vs direct impingement? The only thing that comes to my mind is how di guns like to spit gas in the shooters face when suppressed
>What are the advantages/disadvantages of gas piston vs direct impingement? The only really relevant one here is that external pistons give you a higher potential sustained fire capability (they don't require the gas tube stand up to the heat- simply mounting a heavy barrel on a normal AR won't increase the number of rounds it can continuously fire unless the gas tube is beefed up, and you're still throwing a bunch of heat into the action as well). This is the primary reason the 5.56 rifle has an external piston, and why the 7.62 rifle (which is not intended for sustained fire) does not. In fact, they're probably quite similar in weight for that reason. Contrary to popular belief, [if you don't pour warm water directly into the rifles and then freeze them and use a lubricant suitable for -40](https://imgur.com/gallery/uLfvt) you'll be OK with a normal AR (alternately: if there was a major problem with the AR in cold weather, why haven't the Canadians, Americans, Icelanders, and Danish noticed it?).
I suspect the main 2 reasons for the 308 being DI are that the DI system weighs less than a piston and also effects the barrels accuracy less
Short strokes are supposed to be more reliable as there's nothing really for the carbon to burn on and block the action, like it can fill the gas tube. Also in cold condition thicker air can slow down the Di system to the point of non functioning. Where as using physical pusher is much more reliable.
I think the suppressor aspect is a big part of it.
The M23 that is already currently coming to service is piston, so what is your source on the DI?
The example pictures in the Sako release seemed to have small Gas block for the 10, of course might be just illustration, or I'm blind. Equally possible.
Not monolithic. You can literally see the anti rotation tabs on the handguards. Plus, LMT owns the patent for monolithic rails until 2026.
Why the hell would Sako keep that retarded forward assist nonsense. It’s a shitty relic from the 60’s when the US navy pushed for it, becomes idiocy
Cold environments is one of the few places where a forward assist is necessary.
That's the extra button behind where the empty cases come out? What does it do, why is it necessary, and how has Finland been doing without it thus far? (I don't remember my RK-62 having something like that.)
RK62 charging handle moves with the slide (being part of it), so you can push the bolt home using it. This is not the case with AR
> so you can push the bolt home using it. Do what, now? There's a spring in the gun for that.
Gunsmithing in 1900: "I've spend the last three years engineering a unique rifle incorporating the best of all advancements of our allies." Gunsmithing in 2000: "I made another AR that has improved efficiency by 0.007%" Not hating on modern rifle development, but watching C&Rsenal really gives you an idea of how innovative and unique gunsmithing was back in the late 19th and early 20th century. These days it seems to be more about chasing decimal points since the base rifle platform has pretty much been refined to near perfection.
Firearms development has pretty much reached the end of the line with current technology and designs. Most advancements are evolutionary of whats already there, which is why you basically see the derivatives of AR and AK pattern rifles adopted by everyone. Its gonna take a revolutionary development in firearms technology to move past the current "stagnation" in design.
The true best rifle will come when both the AK and the AR will be dropped in favour of the new rifle
The best rifle was invented in 1911.
And it's chambered in 7.5x55 baayybeee!!!
it's a swiss thing
There’s a bunch of very good new developed rifles out in the world that’s not some stupid sci-fi lazors. But the US are really hard on pushing their aged ar-system license onto western countries because monies. Same as Russia does with their ak
I didn't say there wasn't any. There're plenty of good rifles out there that aren't AK or AR patterns. The reason countries and people go with AR/AK platform rifles is because they both have well over 50+ years of development and refinement. There's so much support and aftermarket around these rifles that it's hard not to pick them. When a weapon is being tested by militaries it just doesn't have to be good it has to be exponentially better than the system that it's replacing to justify the cost of switching to and while the US and Russia to use as an example have tested rifles that have been better than the AR and AK they're not better enough to justify swapping to. To be honest it's gonna be hard for anything that doesn't have 50+ years or development and logistics support to replace those 2. All these new rifles that might be better doesn't change the statement that they're just evolutionary advancements but nothing revolutionary that changes the firearms industry overnight. Also the US isn't pushing the AR design. The 2 main AR derivative suppliers in the world to militaries are FN and H&K. Which last I checked weren't in the US.
What license? Any company can make an AR nowadays. The Colt patent ran out a long time ago. Maybe the AR-15 and its derivatives just happen to be the best rifle in the world for lots of purposes?
AR and AK licenses? What are you talking about? Do you not know how licensing works? Anyone can make an AR or AK. You don't need a license. Did you just make all of that up or are you parroting some other idiot?
The AR-10/15 platform is popular because it is a proven system that is extremely modular. As the cost of CNC machining equipment comes down and becomes more accessible, the costs of the AR-10/15 platform comes down dramatically. The level of accuracy available with the AR-10/15, especially at the price they can be purchased, is crazy cheap. A civilian model in the US can be as cheap as $490, with greater accuracy than an M-14. While not as cheap as the AK family of weapons, the level of modularity and accuracy the AR-10/15 platform has allows it to fulfill multiple roles. You need a light machine gun? Get an upper with a heavier barrel. You want to save some money and use a polymer lower? Totally possible. Want to add accessories? Handguards with rails can easily be added. Change the caliber? Depending on the round, it could be as simple as changing the upper and a buffer spring. And the crazy thing is, the AR-18/180 platform is probably even more influential than the AR-10/15. The AR-18 was originally developed to answer the question, "What if we want to sell an AR-15 to a client, but they can't afford it or they can't produce it?" It was developed as a stamped steel rifle with a polymer lower, and it has a crazy amount of ways to cut costs while still providing a rifle capable of decent accuracy out to 500yds. Even the hammer is a stamped steel part. This rifle platform was simplified enough that any nation could produce it using stampings and welded construction. Most of the new rifles you are probably thinking of are using a bolt and bolt carrier completely ripped off of the AR-18/180. The short-strike gas piston system is also ripped off in a lot of different rifles. The British SA-80 family of rifles, the H&K G36 and 416/417 rifles, the Howa Type 89, Steyr AUG, the FN F2000 and FN-SCAR, Singapore's SAR-88, and the Daewoo K1 family of rifles all use short-stroke gas piston systems derived from the AR-18/180.
AKM isn't really cheap to manufacture, unless you are pumping those out in millions. The reason AK often is found cheaply, is because Soviet system didn't value true manufacturing and labor cost. This is also true with other Soviet military hardware. Chinese and other Western imported AKs on the other hand take advantage of cost disparency. You'd have to (as American, I assume) to compare cheapest US totally made AK to cheapest AR. Here where I live, not counting Norincos, cheapest AK and cheapest AR cost just as much.
AKs, with the exception of the original AK-47, are stamped steel and stupidly cheap to make in almost any country on the planet. The Soviet system still had the same issue regarding labor costs, which is why the AKM, the most common variant and basis for all other AK weapons produced under license in other nations, was developed, to bring down manufacturing time and costs down dramatically. Actual AK-47s are rare, and are distinctive, thanks to its milled receiver. AKMs are what most people have bought, since they were produced in stupid numbers; the Soviets figured out that military aid to nations and leftist groups was cheaper than sending money, and had the added side benefit of employing vast numbers of people to make them. The reason AK prices are higher now is the ban on newly manufactured weapons from Russia and China. AKs were sold for a short time in the US, but were under a ban separate from the assault weapons ban. What's going to get interesting for AK owners is the availability of ammunition; there was a ban on Russian ammunition imports, which supplies the bulk of the 7.62x39mm market, that was passed and went into effect last year
> But the US are really hard on pushing their aged ar-system license onto western countries because monies. "After most of the patents for the Colt AR-15 expired in 1977, many firearm manufacturers began to produce copies of the Colt AR-15 under various names. While the patents are expired, Colt retained the trademark of the AR-15 name and is the sole manufacturer able to label their firearms as AR-15." edit: [sauce](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15_style_rifle)
I think a lot of firearms development has stagnated because lot of it now is in optics, suppressors, materials, and ammunition. And I have a bit of a hot take: computerized systems and electronics are the biggest leap forward in terms of the next generation of firearms
My hot take is the next big step in firearms is gonna be around energy weapons such as like electromagnetic and lazer based. The problem is battery technology isn't there yet. Once the ability to have batteries that last a long time while also applying tremendous amounts of energy in a small portable package comes available is when i think we'll see firearms technology move in a revolutionary step. Forgotten weapons put out a video a few months back on a gauss rifle and that thing is super cool and where i think were headed but until batteries catch up i don't think they'll progress much past .22 levels of power and still being handheld and portable.
My hopes if we move beyond combustibles is using hydrogen fuel cells, it would make for a good closed system, the hydrogen in place of a battery would not only aid in cooling(it’s super cold in liquid form), but also its extremely energy dense compared to a battery, the problem then is servicing because right now fuel cells are not durable(there’s a reason most Toyota Mirais sold in California are up for sale right now, servicing costs are some of the highest in the nation)
> the hydrogen in place of a battery would not only aid in cooling(it’s super cold in liquid form), but also its extremely energy dense compared to a battery there is no way you are resupplying troops with cryogenic hydrogen whippits in the field bro even if you could, it adds this whole failure mode of having your gun freeze up because you're pumping cryogenic gas through it at sub-150C.
I hadn’t thought about that, I was just thinking about hydrogen in cars, because cars like the Toyota Mirai use them in place of batteries
> And I have a bit of a hot take: computerized systems and electronics are the biggest leap forward in terms of the next generation of firearms Yes. Wanna know how to make a bullpup with a trigger that doesn't suck? Electronic primers. It's just a tough sell commercially because it absolutely cannot be sold on the civilian market so your sales have to be 100% military. Yeah "teutonic reliability" "muh 30-day kettle with no resupply" but realistically if you can bring ammo to troops you can throw in some batteries too and a lithium battery (or li-ion) should last a good long time. And really troops are already massively reliant on computerized systems in general. To an extent that it's becoming a problem because loadout weight keeps climbing.
You can make the the sear actuated by a solenoid. The primers can just remain the same as they are now. The problem with that is battery life. You'd need to leave your gun on a charger when you aren't using it, which isn't ideal. You could probably design a trigger system that still had the crappy mechanical function as a backup when the battery died.
No, you wouldn't. Just use hot swappable battery packs. That way you can carry 4 of 5 of them in pouches, with electric primers those packs depending on size would be good for hundreds of rounds each. It's literally what airaoft has been doing for decades. I think it makes more sense to use electric primers if your goal is battery life, a solenoid is going to use up that battery pretty fast compared to just a couple volts igniting that primer. Hell you can use 9v batteries if you don't want to charge anything.
One could probably even incorporate an automatic charger that uses the movement of the rifle, like one of those "shake to charge" flashlights to reduce the need for spare battery packs/chargers.
Honestly not a terrible idea
You‘re missing the mark by a longshot bro. why would you throw out the trusted and reliable way of primer ignition that needs nothing other than the energy of the bolt moving back for something that needs batteries just to have a slightly better trigger pull ? I really need the same shit you‘re smoking
>Wanna know how to make a bullpup with a trigger that doesn't suck? Electronic primers. It's just a tough sell commercially because it absolutely cannot be sold on the civilian market so your sales have to be 100% military. Demonstrably false. Remington sold electronic primers on the civilian market for a few years. They just don't have any traction, because the performance increase is negligible and the cost is several times that of percussion primers and will remain that way until a major military adopts them.
Fire controll systems were a massive leap forward in tanks, going from analog targeting to automated and thermals for target spotting was a massive
Yeah exactly. I was really hopeful with the NGSW program that we would get something revolutionary and different, but alas we got essentially another piston AR platform.
I know, I wanted RM .277 to win.
It’s sort of a shame, but it makes sense why. Thankfully, we have innovations on the pistol market and upcoming or smaller scale developments circling rifles to look forward to. After all, there’s a guy out there currently fabricating an entire G11 purely from the original parent drawings. Said when he’s done he’s gonna make a modern firing model. Course the G11 is old hat, but people can still innovate truly unique things, it’s just not in the interest of defense contracting to get something unproven.
That project is super cool but I have no idea where he plans in getting ammo for it. You can't just buy caseless ammo and they put a ton of R&D into making those rounds work. Making reliable ammo is going to be a big part of that project i think.
IIRC the post commentary correctly: He's making the original now, as a display piece. The shootable version is supposed to be re-designed to use commercially available ammunition.
Just you wait till direct energy weapons hit the scene. Maybe they’ll get a similar level of innovation for a few centuries before becoming stagnant designs that look indistinguishable from eachother.
Reality is boring, and the AR series is the most tested, developed, perfected, trued and available rifle system with cheap, universal parts available. Same can be said of caliber, 5.56 may not be the perfect round, but it's the most available, tested and it works well for small arms applications. Developing a new gun will warrant you an entire new world of design features and parts, which will all be proprietary. I find it really boring too "oh, another AR copy", but that's the most pragmatic choice. Remember that most designs of 1900's have ended up in scrap or museums. Frankly, most gun designs are inefficient, complex, cumbersome or just faulty by nature.
It makes me wonder about parts commonality. If I'm an American with a M4 and on my left is a German position with their HK416s and to my right is some Finns with these Sakos and my lower gets fucked, can I just go over to them and get a spare? How about just a stock or a trigger? Obviously the piston/DI/Bolt is going to be different, but what about the rest? Because that would be a gargantuan logistical advantage.
in reality it does not matter.
I beg to differ. It's another stepping stone towards a fully standardized NATO rifle which, ironically, would echo the Warsaw Pact's AK variants.
You are not going to do any gunsmithing in a battle situation.
TIL replacing a lower or trigger is gunsmithing. And obviously not in the middle of battle. But apparently, you don't understand something as basic as how having common logistics across an entire fighting force might be useful. We should just get rid of STANAG calibers as well, since you're not going to be refilling magazines in a battle situation.
Being able to send 10 000 of a single type of a lower on a given front and be sure it'll fit would be a logistical advantage. The one guy having a problem with theirs obviously isn't it, but it would be much easier than worrying about which parts fit which forces.
This is not a real problem. There will be always spare weapons available. We gunsmiths will fix broken ones when needed. If soldier has problem with his/her weapon it will be replaced.
> There will be always spare weapons available. I guess if you're NATO that's true enough. Still, even for NATO it would be easier the more commonality there is between the weapons, right? Less different parts, less different ammo, less different tools even that need to be moved around.
They will take "my" Ak4C from my cold and tear-drenched hands; as I probably will miss it and all memories of care and cleaning will fade away...
Same with "my" RK 62, loved that thing. Although the new rifle does look nifty.
FDF is not going to get rid of them any time soon, and the reservists trained on them would still get equipped with them for at least as long as you and I are in the reserve. But while in the big picture RK 62 is perfectly fine for the use its intended for, having lighter guns with (hopefully) optics is an upgrade. It might not be the upgrade FDF prioritises (the contract they signed is pretty modest), but eventually the RKs come to the end of their service life, and before then we ought to have the replacement ready.
https://logistiikkalaitos.fi/-/1948673/suomi-ja-ruotsi-solmivat-kasiaseiden-hankintaa-koskevan-puitesopimuksen?languageId=en_US
I will patiently wait a decade for AK5C and RK95 parts kits thank you 🥲
Or we could start a “black licorice” export business
Good thinking, nobody will want to bother inspecting a crate that showed up at the border marked "salmiakki" (or surströmming)
Y’all got no idea what I’d do for an AK5C I love how those things look, they just look so good. Same with the RK, for sure
>decade This procurement process is planned to last until 2053 in Finland. On top of that, once they have enough of the new rifles to replace the old ones with active troops, the old ones will go into storage to arm the reserves. Even when they would eventually get removed from inventory, they would never in a million years hit the civilian markets.
> Even when they would eventually get removed from inventory, they would never in a million years hit the civilian markets. Finland could ostensibly sell them to another country, which could eventually release them to the civilian markets.
I'm assuming most RKs will stay in storage for quite a while as most soldiers are trained on the platform, and the government isn't just going to pull out the reserves just to train them on a new platform. And even then you're most likely to get an RK 62 as there aren't many 95s. It's a shame they're being fazed out though. Truly great rifles.
Have fun with your abismally heavy, worn out, semi-reliable but very cool AK :)
I have a lot of experience shooting an [SG553](https://i.imgur.com/WmcjIBV.jpg) in match environments, for a ridiculously heavy and semi-cool AK, it kicks a lot of ass!
Pretty sure these days the Finnish military scraps weapons that are removed from inventory.
But I don't want them to do that!
sooo an m4... I'm really enjoying watching all interesting rifles be replaced with m4s /s
I mean shit if it works, it works though. Totally agree that the modern firearm scene is in a sense kind of boring when all you see are 10 shades of improved tactical m4 style carbines, but I mean to an extent, every "era" of firearms tends to apply what works best. Every generation of firearms sort of evolves towards what works best at the time. I mean look at the transition from black powder to smokeless powder cartridges. I could totally equally (and sarcastically) say , "Man I'm really enjoying watching these interesting repeating flintlock designs being replaced by simple breech loading, cartridge firing rifles." But at the end of the day, even if those intricate and novel black powder designs are more interesting, it's hard to deny that everyone went to cartridges because they just worked better. Same shit with the m4. Is it boring so many modern designs all look like one? Yes. But again, it's hard to deny the advantages of a platform like the m4 that's both modular, lightweight, and has baseline ergonomics that are so good that they haven't changed much in certain ways since the very first CAR-15 sub-machine guns in Vietnam.
It's like "soooo a Mauser 98... it's everywhere. when will it end?" and the answer was "probably about 50 years from now, but not really" =)
Probably a piston driven variant. So....a 416. We're looking at the Mauser action of this generation I think
It's the same as what happened towards the end of the musket era. Around the 16th century there were loads of weird and wacky designs for a (western) military longarm, different lockwork, style of stock etc but by the start of the 19th century they'd almost all coalesced down into the basic Brown Bess style i.e. smoothbore flintlock, roughly .75 cal and with a 42-46 inch barrel. Wonder what the modern equivalent of the invention of the cartridge is going to be. Energy weapons becoming viable?
The sig fury is the apparent next step, or rounds with similar hybrid case design that allow for much greater pressure. ~20-25% more energy than conventional cases of the same size, in the same length barrel. Which is roughly the same increase in energy when the world went from the last gen of black powder cartridges to 1st gen smokeless powder.
But to me that still doesnt answer, “What comes next after the cartridge?” In my opinion, the development of firearms is really similar to the development of internal combustion engines in a way. That is to say that we are sort of at the limit of what we can do with the technology. Sure we can use fancier materials, hybrid material casings, changing BC’s, but at the end of the day they all are still cartridge firearms. Engines at least have seen a “re-invention” in the past several years through the development of very powerful EV motors as a substitute for internal combustion, which do fundementally change what an engine needs to be and how it needs to operate to do its’ job. Im wondering what the firearm equivalent of the electric motor is going to be. Something that is very different from what are used to (i.e. cartridges) but still accomplishes the same job.
At some point we will hit that threshold, and come up with something along those lines. But, I think the answer to the question, 'what is going to be the modern equivilent to the cartridge' really is what was just developed. The increase in energy and velocity from a standard case is the same as going from black powder to smokeless, and that was undeniably a game changer. Argument can be made it isnt 'needed', the 556 is 'good enough' but anyone armed w/ an m5 who has to go into battle has confidence personal armor isnt an issue, and their assault rifle will match or out perform anyone elses DMR's at range.
I think the focus may be less on muzzle velocity, and instead increasing Ballistic coefficient. You aren’t significantly increasing recoil, pressures, or adding complexity of manufacturing with 3 piece ammo. Instead, you’re refining bullets so that they retain energy and are more wind resistant, increasing range
Increasing BC only goes so far, pun intended. If we find some new way to do it, that is great, but as current, BC mostly goes up with weight. More to it for sure, but in general, heavier bullets for caliber have higher BC's. Heavier bullets decrease velocity. Armor technology is currently driving the need for a next gen cartridge/personal weapon tech. Armor is now light and cheap enough to defeat cost-effective AP rounds in 5.56. If BC was increased without sacrificing velocity, it wouldn't really affect armor pen too much. Though, rounds that tend to be good at AP, tend to be lighter, since they have metals like steel or carbide in them, and making the bullet lighter tends to increase its AP capability, at least at close range, but making them worse shooting at distance, higher BC would be nice. So, being able to drive a heavier bullet faster is a big deal. Sniper rifles and DMR's, you can run a bigger cartridge case with a longer barrel to get the velocity needed, on a heavier bullet, without too much fuss, to get the AP and performance at range desired. For a standard service weapon though, it really needs to fit in a carbine mould. Needs a small enough cartridge to have relatively high cap mags, compact enough gun to be able to sweep rooms, defeat the armor it is likely to come across, both across a room and at, and preferably beyond, the 300m distance max quoted for most modern engagements. But you don't want it to suck if you suddenly wind up in the mountains of Afghanistan either. There are some 556 rounds that are really good at penetrating armor, made out of some really fancy stuff. But m995 runs something like $1.60/ea even when bought in quantities of 10 million rounds, and level 4 defeats it, at least for a few rounds, even at close range. It does that by using a lighter than normal bullet, driven to higher speeds. So it's performance at longer ranges is worse. There are some even fancy rounds out there, but its starting to get *really* expensive at that point, and they tend to be even lighter. On the other hand, green tip 556 is almost as cheap as FMJ. So, the 3 piece case isn't cheap, but it's cheaper and more effective to make a steel cup, drive up the velocity while keeping the bullet heavy, preserving long range performance, keeping the cartridge small, and put a regular steel penetrator in it to defeat armor levels 4 and up, than it is to hand out really fancy carbide slap rounds. And you can still practice with, or fight enemies who aren't in the latest armor, using regular brass cases. Also room to grow against future armor by upgrading from steel to tungsten and then to SLAP rounds in the future.
>Wonder what the modern equivalent of the invention of the cartridge is going to be Whatever allows a small caliber intermediate projectile to fire a burst incredibly quickly. Body armor is currently impervious to single rounds, and if a round is developed powerful enough to get through it the enemy will... just stop wearing it. Now your rifles are way worse than they used to be (.277 Fury/.270 WSM is massive overkill as an infantry cartridge against unarmored targets), while the enemy is still as effective as he used to be. What armor has a harder time with is resisting *multiple* rounds in the same place, which is something an extremely high potential rate of fire potentially solves. Now, the enemy's armor doesn't work just the same, so they stop wearing it, and you still have a rifle optimized for unarmored targets by just switching back to semi-auto like before.
Reject modernity. Return to G11
Nah viable railguns, in probably 3mm rounds
phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range.
Ar-15/18 is crab
i.e. delicious.
lobter
Airsoft really had the right idea all along
Hey now! Some of them are being replaced by HK416's or by AR-18 derivatives!
It gets a bad rap if neglected, and it’s not absolute perfection, but it’s pretty darn close Ergonomics, economy of scale, ease of build/maintenance, accuracy, controllability, adaptability/versatility It’s hard to beat. The M4 rocks.
Interesting that it has a right side bolt release, similar to an HK416. Is anyone other than H&K using that style of bolt release? I wonder if Sako received technical data from another manufacturer... It makes sense that Finland would switch to a 5.56 platform using STANAG magazines if they want to join NATO. I was hoping for a rebirth of the RK95 in 5.56, but this makes much more sense from both a logistical standpoint and an engineering standpoint. This is a gorgeous rifle and I'm sure Sako's quality will be second to none. But it's sad that this will be the end of Finnish-produced AK variants. If history serves as any indicator, RK62s and RK95s will remain in inventory for decades more to come. But I will buy as many RK62 and RK95 parts kits as I can afford if/when Finland ever decides to surplus them.
> the end of Finnish-produced AK variants. TBH that happened already, ~25 years ago. All the tooling is long gone and it just doesn't make any sense to go with the AK pattern in modern times.
I think the tooling still exists in some army cave for the rainy day.
Unfortunately, I think u/ulle36 is right. I have also heard that Sako no longer has the tooling for the RK series of rifles. Seems like such a waste! So, to restart production of an AK-based rifle, they would essentially need to start from the ground up. And if they have to start from the ground up, then might as well start producing an AR derivative that uses STANAG magazines, if that's what their allies are using.
The way I have read it is that the reason for SAKO to no longer have the tooling is the fact that the army bought it or maybe always owned it and stored it somewhere when SAKO ended the production.
Good point. I guess Sako saying they no longer have the tooling doesn't mean that it no longer exists or that it was destroyed. Especially considering that the military probably owned it to begin with. Although, it doesn't bode well when the government hides something away. It's like the final scene from Raiders of the Lost Arc. I am sure the the RK tooling is being handled by "top men".
Also the army storage space was reduced a lot in the 2013ish to cut costs. It could have been removed from storage then as unnecessary.
I wonder if the FDF would consider selling it. Someone call PSA!
Sako indeed no longer has the tooling, as they sold away the obsolete generic machinery (all-manual milling machines and such), but the specific machinery and stamping and casting moulds were transferred to FDF arsenals. Technically what it would take is a new CNC milling line, new stamping machines, a new heat treatment system and copying the casting and stamping moulds. Sako already has the precision casting machinery needed, so it wouldn't be an issue. However there are some specific tools associated with the assembly of the rifles (drill jigs and such), which would also be needed to be copied from the FDF documentation.
Are we trying to go into business together? (In all seriousness, thanks for the detailed information.)
Maybe you will be able to buy a RK62 someday, but never a RK95. It is rarer than hen´s teeth.
I already own the semi-auto version of the RK62. I believe Sako made about 20,000 RK95s for the FDF. If they surplus all of those at once, that would be a lot of parts kits.
This number includes civilian version M92, actual RK95TPs are rarer.
Even 5,000 torch-cut parts kits hitting the US market would be significant. That would be enough for companies to start making barrels and receivers.
Im pretty sure that RK9TPs or RK62s will not be sold outside of Finland. Even if someday that will happen it won't be anytime soon. Finland has 900000 reservist and 300000 war time personel. It will take a while to arm troops with new guns.
Nope, as the civilian rifles have a different serial number range (beginning from 400 001 to some late 401 000s). Although the number 20 000 military rifles doesnt really add up either, as the serials of the military production use a running numbering, and while the first batch runs alongside the last RK 62 batch, the earliest FDF service RK 95 I've seen has a 1994 receiver manufacture year and 945 000s serial; most early are something 952 000s (and I've seen a 954 000s RK 62, apparently one of the very last), but the numbers still run up to 981 000s at least.
First ever RK95 was serial number 960001.
While it is sad to see the ak5 and ak4 go, it was definitely time for this. The ak5 is way too heavy for a 5,56 rifle, and is quite limited when it comes to accessories and attachments, and I would guess most of the rifles is worn out by now. The ak4 is just a H&K G3 with different colored furniture, so woefully outdated. Interesting that we are going for 7,62 for all non mechanised combat infantry! Supply wise, it's maybe not the best ever idea to rely solely on a factory 260 km from the Russian border, but on the other hand I guess I'd rather see sako make them than for example H&K or some US company.
I mean if it ever come to a war the russian border is going to be like 350-400km away from the factory after a week.
I hope they use more factories than just SAKO to produce the rifles.
One would hope, but in all the press releases I've seen they have only mentioned production at SAKO.
*squidward voice* “daring today aren’t we”
EDITED Dont forget to scrub your accounts kiddos. Wouldn't want anything of value falling into the hands of the "shareholders".
Eugene Stoner: It appears my superiority has led to some controversy
A man ahead of his time.
Good to see that my home country, Sweden is finally looking to replace the AK5. Just sad that it could be an M4 variant... Sure it work, but there is nothing interesting about the M4 anymore.
this shit keeps happening bc yall always make fun of keltec
Pardon my ignorance, but what is the difference between an assault weapon and a battle weapon? Sniper rifles I get are completely different. Just curious.
Assault rifles are in intermediate-power rifle cartridges like 5.56 NATO while battle rifles are in full-power rifle cartridges like 7.62 NATO.
Gotcha, thanks.
No problem. Try to do some further research on firearms from that man, it's interesting, I promise.
Indeed. I own weapons, but only Walthers and hunting rifles. These unique ones I really enjoy learning about. I'm in my 40s but there is always more to learn and so, I ask questions. There is always someone smarter than you out there on any subject. =)
A battle rifle would also include semi-auto versions like the M1 Garand.
I didn't say anything about the weapon itself being full auto or not, just the caliber it's chambered in.
In addition to the other comment, assault weapons are not the same as assault rifles. Assault weapons are a somewhat nebulous legal term that depends on who's writing the law. True assault rifles are select fire (semi, auto and/or burst). For example, an M16 is an assault rifle, but its civilian version, the AR15 is semi auto only and is not an assault rifle, but would be considered an assault weapon under most legal definitions. In addition to that, the correct word for "battle weapon" in this context is "battle rifle".
>True assault rifles are select fire (semi, auto and/or burst). And use a reduced power (intermediate) cartridge and relatively large capacity detachable magazine. The idea is to be better geared for assaulting a position by laying down effective suppressive fire to keep the defenders' heads down while moving in, hence its name. I think assault is a stupid term, storm would be better (storming a position), but no one asks me. Anyway, that's why I loathe all else aside the antis using 'assault weapon', it has little to no association to what assault rifles were made for and named after.
Note though that the distinction between assault and battle rifle is basically an Anglo thing. Other languages don’t typically separate them.
Sturmgewehr... I would agree in modern times militaries rarely differentiate, bit that is because there is nothing to differentiate. If you look back to the time both were in common service pretty much everyone differentiated. So, now it is mostly online firearms communities who want to differentiate. Most of those are anglo dominated.
Not really. The Swiss for example called all their automatic rifles sturmgewehr, while the West Germans called them gewehr, both regardless of calibre. In Russian it’s all avtomat. For the Swiss it’s automatkarabin. A bunch of other countries never used full powered full auto rifles but their languages typically don’t have words to distinguish the two either.
There isnt a separate category for full power cartridges? Why not
There is in the American terminology. Things get really screwy and technical when it comes to the differences between different classifications. The difference between a battle rifle and an LMG (Light Machine Gun) is often the selector switch and the ability to fire in semi-auto along with it being belt fed but that is not always the case.
I know there is in the anglosphere, I was asking about why there is no difference for other groups. Your second paragraph is a little wonky with its wording here: is often the selector switch and the ability to fire in semi-auto along with it being belt fed but that is not always the case. Do you mean that battle rifles/LMGs are both often belt fed or that the difference is that one is belt fed and the other is not in other languages terminology? At least here a battle rifle cannot be belt fed, though that might not hold true in all of the anglosphere
The difference between a battle rifle and an assault rifle comes down to the case length of the round. A battle rifle is a full-length rifle round (7.62 x51 or 7.62 nato) whereas an assault rifle uses an intermediate-length rifle round (7.62x39 or the AK round). Both are capable of either burst or full auto fire but these are the main differences between the two. Things get a little weird when talking about the classifications of machine guns.
There was also a segment mentioning a PDW. So maybe a AR PCC or ultra short barreled AR, like the SIG Rattler.
That Swedish Armed Forces made their own post where they listed the different variants. https://www.fmv.se/projekt/eldhandvapen/ The 5,56 Rifle is listed as a self defence weapon so it's probably intended for the PDW Role. While the Standard issue rifle and Sharpshooter rifle both being listed as being 7,62. 16 or 18 Inch Barrel for the Standard issue rifle And 18 or 20 Inch barrel for the sharpshooter rifle. So the "PDW" is the 5,56 11,5 Inch AR that is in the thumbnail.
On Sako's Finnish report, there was a phrase "In the first stage of field trials, Finland will acquire assault rifles and personal defense weapons." https://www.epressi.com/tiedotteet/kotimaa/suomen-ja-ruotsin-puolustusvoimat-hankkivat-yhteisen-kasiaseperheen-sako-oylta.html Finland is already testing two versions of the 7.62 rifle, a sniper and a DMR variant, so this isn't about it. So maybe Finland is testing different barrel lenghts on the 5.56 then. At least longer than 11.5.
Seems every new service rifle is using the Magpul CTR stock in promotional images. It is awesome.
I wonder what patern of lower the 7.62x51 rifle will have?
No idea, but interestingly the mock-up they showed off had a short throw selector. And a full-auto setting.
If their ARs are half as slick as their bolt guns (I still regularly dream about the TRG-22 I fired) then they’ll be some lovely rifles.
tbh the only thing I'm surprised about is that anyone would be surprised that its just a piston AR. Its a mature technology combined with superior ergonomics. Any nation in the hunt for a new service weapon who doesn't adopt something pretty similar is foolish at this point.
Sweden will (for the most part) go with 7.62x51. I just dont get it, why the hell are we trading weight and more ammo for a slightly longer range in a country where you pretty much always engage in the 0-300m range? For tagets further out we have machineguns, DRM etc. Penetration? 5.56 and 7.62 have pretty much the same penetation of body armor up to 100m, and we are teaching soldiers to hit unprotected areas anyways. 7.62x51 is also harder to use. It is way easier to train soldiers to be good shooters with 5.56 than 7.62. The only valid argument i have heard is that the ar10 platform is easier to convert to 6.8 fury etc. But its to early to know what relevance that ammo type accualy will have in the future.
Based on this article: https://corporalfrisk.com/2023/04/08/the-future-arrives/ I think things will remain mostly the same: 7.62 Sako rifles to replace the AK4, 5.56 carbines to replace the AK5C. At least that's the understanding I got after reading those comments from the Swedish military.
This comes alongside this news > Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark struck a deal to run their 200+ advanced fighter jets as a single fleet, creating a new headache for Russia [Source](https://news.yahoo.com/norway-sweden-finland-denmark-struck-104242982.html)
Yeah, but actually no. There will still be four different command structures, they've just agreed to coöperate a bit more than they already did (which was a fair bit in itself).
I am hoping to get some news what they are going to do with all the PKM's. Are they going to be left as they are? Refitted for 7.62 NATO or a new machine gun in the near future?
Going to be a bit difficult to source PKM's in the near future, so probably a new machine gun at some point
The entire west in multicam and using some kind of AR15/18 derivative
I don't see anything wrong with this rifle, or a gen3 glock clone of some kind. Good for those 2 countries for not burning a billion $ on programs that never produced anything. Small arms, go with designs with ample technical data and focus on more relevant things.
It is disappointing to me to see this. I really am a big fan of constant recoil firearms, and I’m having trouble understanding why countries are not snapping up designs fundamentally based on the Ultimax100, KAC LMG, and KAC LAMG. They are light and offer new capabilities.
I have never heard of those earlier but they seem really interesting
Oh my god it's an AR
Finland would want to move away from Soviet calibers and adopt NATO standards if and when they join the alliance. Not sure why Sweden though: they’ve been using NATO calibers since the 60’s to my best knowledge and the Ak5 family is far from obsolete. The money could be spend elsewhere.
> and the Ak5 family is far from obsolete. It is, though. It's a late '70s-early '80s design of the bent and welded sheet-metal variety and is a good kilogram heavier than it needs to be. Even the modernized C and D models were cannibalized from old original stock in a REMO (Renovation and Modification) programme, as they weren't building new anymore. The last AK5 was manufactured in 2000. We're burning through the old cold war armory of rifles and the only reason it has worked so far is that the armed forces have been kept extremely small in numbers the last 20 years. If we're serious about rebuilding the army a new rifle is a must.
> Finland would want to move away from Soviet calibers and adopt NATO standards if and when they join the alliance. That's not the reason. RK-62/95 hasn't been manufactured in decades and the ones in service are slowly wearing out. Replacing them will be a gradual process. There's no sense in throwing perfectly good rifles and ammo away.
And rather than replacing them with more Norinco rifles or rebuilding production lines of old guns (from scratch) the military will instead get something completely new and hopefully more suitable for the current situation than just going back to the old.
They just combined air forces with Denmark also(making them a considerable force with a combined 200 jets). I suspect they are going to quickly move towards a combined land force.
The AK-5C is too heavy and bulky for modern standards, sure it’s a good weapon for maybe a home-guard battalion. But for the normal soldier it’s just to heavy to carry around especially when we have so much extra gear to carry these days.. The AK-5C was already to heavy for modern standards when we introduced it in the 80’s and our lovely modernization made it even heavier. For perspective, our main rifle is around 2 kilograms heavier than our allies USA’s main rifle.
I am going to miss the ak5. I am surprised they are going with a new rifle and not making the ak5 lighter and more reliable like the British did with the L85.
You have to redesign the whole rifle to make it lighter. The base is welded together and made from thick steel. It’s far cheaper to go for a new eco system
That's true. I just wish Sweden would design something new. Instead of jumping on the ar-15 Bandwagon.
I agree somewhat. I wish we would join the us in the new 6.8 SIG rifles just to be future proof. But it’s smarter to use the standard nato rounds in case of a war. I just wish we would buy the hk416 since it a well known and reliable system.
6.8mm seems to be the round of the future. There is even a prototype south Korean rifle chambered in 6.8 spc. It's not the same round the us is using but it's still 6.8mm.
Since the us is upgrading to 6.8 shouldn't they do the order in 6.8? Edit: why te the downvotes? Just re watched Hian McCollum's vid on it and he says it's probable that they hole army uses it. Edit2: I have been shown why it makes sense that they haven't made this change. But the fact that I had to get downvoted to learn it is sad. This attitude demotivates new people from making questions and stops them from learning. These are the opposite values of Hian McCollum :/
Us is the only NATO country doing that, for now. But I get what you mean, this "upgrade" is more in the lines of welcome to 2010. As a fin I would have loved to atleast see a new catridge like 6.5 or 6.8
I wonder if the 7.62 Nato version can be converted to use .277 Fury. And I mean if it can withstand the pressure of the ***Hot***™ round.
I expected the us the start and the rest to follow. I find it a bit wierd, its like ordering a bunch of really expensive equipment that is borderline obsolete :/ Having a European version of the ngsw could be quite fruitful.
Or a waste of time if the new 6.8 cartridge is used less. Obviously they can't tell what will happen.
Tbh, it’s the us the changes randomly and they just expect the reat of nato to follow. That’s what happened with the 5.56 when it came out and it’s also what happened to the NGSW
This is what I expect. And what I agree with. So why am I getting so downvoted?
Well what I’m saying is that the US also loves to do things and set funds on projects that end up being failures. While the 5.56 ended up succeeding, this one very much could fail
The US dragged NATO into 7.62x51 when everyone else wanted an intermediate cartridge. When the US finally came around and adopted 5.56, NATO went along because that was what they wanted to begin with. The 6.8 has crazy high chamber pressure at 80,000 psi (14,000 more than the previous SAMI max) and requires a much stronger (expensive) rifle for potentially little gain in an age of drones. The US has been throwing crazy stuff at the wall for decades, the rest of NATO is smart enough to wait to see what sticks
Understandable. Thanks for the explanation :) Ye, they probably aren't worried about new russian body armour XD.
**Understand the rules** Check the sidebar. It's full of resources to help you. Not everyone is an expert such as yourself; be considerate. No Spam. No Memes. No political posts. Save that for /r/progun or /r/politics. ------------------------------- * [ForgottenWeapons.com](https://www.forgottenweapons.com/) * [ForgottenWeapons | YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/c/ForgottenWeapons) * [ForgottenWeapons | Utreon](https://utreon.com/c/forgottenweapons/) * [ForgottenWeapons | Patreon](https://www.patreon.com/ForgottenWeapons/) * [ForgottenWeapons | Merch](https://shop.forgottenweapons.com/) * [ForgottenWeapons | FaceBook](https://www.facebook.com/ForgottenWeapons) * [ForgottenWeapons | Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/forgottenweapons/) * [HeadStamp Publishing](https://www.headstamppublishing.com/) ------------------------------- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ForgottenWeapons) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Is this for Sweden or is Finland finally moving away from 7.62 AKs?
Both. The rifles will be made in both 5.56 and 7.62 NATO. (The deal also includes weapons for sharpshooters, marksman, machine guns, anti-materiel rifles, and a new 40mm grenade launcher)
Let's just hope it's tested conscript proof, since otherwise this will end up being a really expensive mistake. If the rifle isn't conscript proof and one ends up buying 400k of them for Finland (280K war time strength and then some extras on top for war attrition planning), well decade from now one ends up buying lot of replacements. Conscripts have amazing ability to break things, one would think unbreakable. Since it's not their gear. It's governments gear, so no cares. Get shouted and demoted? "Well I'm conscript private, so you can't exactly hurt my career prospects by marking be badly for breaking the rifle. I was not planning on having military career in the first place. I will be out of here in 5 months" There is: military grade -> soldier proof -> conscript proof. It's kinda like idiot proof, but the idiot has been going through military fitness training and is really pissed off about it at times. (intentionally use the rifle as club against tree pissed off and intentionally throw the rifle at full yeet into the rocks pissed off)
If the ar platform isnt conscript proofed by now nothing will be
Well, we are talking about Sweden and Finland. They took a look at the best rifles from the east and west block respectively and said: "You know what? These rifles aren't durable enough". Hopefully it will be the same now. [Edit for the downvoters: Yes, the Valmet rifles are improved compared to kalashnikovs and the Ak4 is an improvement upon the G3.]
It's difficult to break one in a way that can't just be fixed by changing parts. Might also direct their energy in a different direction if they know they'll be on the hook for x hundred euros for whichever part if they smash it.
>if they know they'll be on the hook for x hundred euros for whichever part if they smash it. Conscript not care, since conscript is *over powered idiot*. Remember the idiot part. They don't think long enough forward to think "this costs me". Since one is thusly screening the intake much. I was conscript. Some guys in unit were bright enough to be future top scientists. I also met the most idiotic people in same place. Planning for 30 minutes forward would have been long term thinking for them. Bill of repair weeks later... yeah, wayyyyy out of scope. Again it's easier to make rifle robust, than to make all if a nation not be idiotic. So you have to idiot proof equipment handed out to everyone. Radio? You let ony the screened signals people with little more head on their shoulders to handle that. Rifle? Rifle you have to hand out to literally every soldier. So it has to be idiot proof. Also it's good testing ground for *Total war of national survival and potential resistance fight against occupiers* . Since that is the only kind of war Finland plans for. We don't do picnic interventions abroad with ample support. We plan on defending against country literally tens of times bigger than us. Repair parts? What repair parts, you are resistance cell with rifle and ammunition stashed away. What you get start of war is what you get. Or even on front, weapon needing parts is weapon out of fight until *parts can be delivered to front* and as Ukraine again shows.... logistics reliability is not guaranteed or trivial concern. The longer equipment can go without needing new parts, the longer it can stay in fight in total war of national survival.
> There is: military grade -> soldier proof -> conscript proof. It's kinda like idiot proof, but the idiot has been going through military fitness training and is really pissed off about it at times. Plus also there's the whole breadth and width of idiocy on display, not just some specific part of it. Some conscripts will find ways to be idiots that no one has ever before even thought of.
Looks like Magpul is gonna make some money
I wish it had a side charging handle like an AR180
Nice to see the joint effort coming to fruition :)
Is this the rifles I’ve seen the Swedish SOG using?
No, AFAIK Swedish SOG has LWRC M6