The AK-12; a strange story? | Forums

[ManticButton]

Yeah, that was my point, 5.56x45 is a good general purpose round. I'd just rather use 5.7x28 within 200 metres and 7.62x51 beyond 200 metres.

If that data is representative of 6x35's true performance and KAC have been lying to us I'll be very sad panda. But it wouldn't be the first time a company falsely advertised a product.

In any case it's still impressive performance from a weapon as tiny as the Knight's PDW. Sometimes a platform's other advantages matter more than its ammunition's raw ballistic performance as long as it's not significantly worse than what it's being compared with. Even within the PDW class of weapons 4.6x30 is by all accounts inferior to 5.7x28 when it comes to ballistics, but an MP7 is an even more compact weapon than a P90.

As I said everything comes down to individual user and mission. I just think that the general principle of tiny high velocity ammo is the way of the future and a technology worth developing.

One of these days we'll be propelling microscopic slugs at barely subluminal velocities. XD

on the last point no we won't laser based weaponry is what everyones putting research into because it's just straight up superior to railguns(although railguns are cooler)

also if you can choose your engagement ranges than your plan makes some sense (although 7.62mm doesn't offer any advantage over 5.56mm other than penetration within 400m)
however the modern soldier doesn't have that luxury they don't get to choose to be shot at from 200m or 1000m that's up to the bad guys

that's why every modern army uses intermediate rounds because most modern battlefields will be within 300m but in the chance it's not i'ts better to have a weapon that's ok past 300m than completely worthless

that's why most platoons now days have soldiers with dmr's
it's why some soldiers carry saw's or other machine guns
because having a platoon with weapons that are jack of all trades with a few specialised weapons gives the platoon more flexibility on the modern battlefield

also the MP7 sold well because hk are good at marketing
the P90 was going to be adopted as nato's primary pdw (cause it was straight up better than the MP7) until Germany threw a hissy fit
as cool as the knights pdw was it had nothing going for it

pdw's were never designed to replace assault rifles that's not their point and it's not what there good at
they were meant to fill the role of the m1 carbine give truck drivers, aircraft personnel, or other support troops the ability to defend themselves with a low recoiling, compact easy to use weapon that has more range than a handgun

[MikeWeeks]

...
pdw's were never designed to replace assault rifles that's not their point and it's not what there good at
they were meant to fill the role of the m1 carbine give truck drivers, aircraft personnel, or other support troops the ability to defend themselves with a low recoiling, compact easy to use weapon that has more range than a handgun

A tidbit on that subject, in general. My Dad was part of a HQ Co. of an Armored Division during WWII and it was the M1 carbine which was available states-side. However upon reaching Europe in early '45, the M3 "grease gun" was issued as their PDW. His understanding, such as it was, was that the M3 was more compact and could more quickly throw out lead. So, FWIW ...

[ManticButton]

A tidbit on that subject, in general. My Dad was part of a HQ Co. of an Armored Division during WWII and it was the M1 carbine which was available states-side. However upon reaching Europe in early '45, the M3 "grease gun" was issued as their PDW. His understanding, such as it was, was that the M3 was more compact and could more quickly throw out lead. So, FWIW ...

huh fair point thanks for sharing that

if I remember correctly they made the m1 carbine to replace the handguns support staff had because hand guns are really hard to use compared to say a rifle

go figure issuing grease guns would have solved most of those problems

the only thing that the m1 carbine has over the m3 would be range which would be more use full in the hand of mortar crews or radiomen (which they were also issued to)

[MikeWeeks]

huh fair point thanks for sharing that

if I remember correctly they made the m1 carbine to replace the handguns support staff had because hand guns are really hard to use compared to say a rifle

go figure issuing grease guns would have solved most of those problems

the only thing that the m1 carbine has over the m3 would be range which would be more use full in the hand of mortar crews or radiomen (which they were also issued to)

The context of my understanding related to the M3 in the case of my Dad was that it was better suited for their environment of getting in & out of not only their non-armored vehicles, but the tanks as well. Of course the M3 carbine didn't disappear either.

It wasn't my understanding in his AD that they replaced all the issued M3s either. As mentioned, mortar crews/radiomen, as components of the armored infantry units, I imagine would have continued to use the M3 for example.

[ManticButton]

The context of my understanding related to the M3 in the case of my Dad was that it was better suited for their environment of getting in & out of not only their non-armored vehicles, but the tanks as well. Of course the M3 carbine didn't disappear either.

It wasn't my understanding in his AD that they replaced all the issued M3s either. As mentioned, mortar crews/radiomen, as components of the armored infantry units, I imagine would have continued to use the M3.

makes sense I saw the inside of a tank once really looked uncomfortable so whatever you can fit in the tank works best

I've also heard that m3 grease guns are very controllable on full auto while m2 carbines (select fire variant of the m1) not so much

[Ghost-Ami]

on the last point no we won't laser based weaponry is what everyones putting research into because it's just straight up superior to railguns(although railguns are cooler)

also if you can choose your engagement ranges than your plan makes some sense (although 7.62mm doesn't offer any advantage over 5.56mm other than penetration within 400m)
however the modern soldier doesn't have that luxury they don't get to choose to be shot at from 200m or 1000m that's up to the bad guys

that's why every modern army uses intermediate rounds because most modern battlefields will be within 300m but in the chance it's not i'ts better to have a weapon that's ok past 300m than completely worthless

that's why most platoons now days have soldiers with dmr's
it's why some soldiers carry saw's or other machine guns
because having a platoon with weapons that are jack of all trades with a few specialised weapons gives the platoon more flexibility on the modern battlefield

also the MP7 sold well because hk are good at marketing
the P90 was going to be adopted as nato's primary pdw (cause it was straight up better than the MP7) until Germany threw a hissy fit
as cool as the knights pdw was it had nothing going for it

pdw's were never designed to replace assault rifles that's not their point and it's not what there good at
they were meant to fill the role of the m1 carbine give truck drivers, aircraft personnel, or other support troops the ability to defend themselves with a low recoiling, compact easy to use weapon that has more range than a handgun

I won't lie, I'm extremely biased in favour of battle rifles. It's not just the cartridge of course, often it's the barrel length. The equivalent heavy and light versions of a SCAR don't have the same barrel lengths, but I don't know the maths enough to say whether Mk17s outrange Mk16s more because of the cartridge or more because of a few centimetres of barrel.

In any case if there's even a chance I'm going to have to engage at medium or long ranges I'm running a SCAR H.

As for future weapons I am...less than confident about the potential destructive power of lasers. The lack of kinetic energy makes them a hard sell. Not that I'm an expert in laser physics or anything. I guess we'll see. ))))

[ManticButton]

I won't lie, I'm extremely biased in favour of battle rifles. It's not just the cartridge of course, often it's the barrel length. The equivalent heavy and light versions of a SCAR don't have the same barrel lengths, but I don't know the maths enough to say whether Mk17s outrange Mk16s more because of the cartridge or more because of a few centimetres of barrel.

In any case if there's even a chance I'm going to have to engage at medium or long ranges I'm running a SCAR H.

As for future weapons I am...less than confident about the potential destructive power of lasers. The lack of kinetic energy makes them a hard sell. Not that I'm an expert in laser physics or anything. I guess we'll see. ))))

battle rifles are good for certain tasks (penetration and range) so I can see why people like them but there a specialist rifle now cause intermediate rifles have so many advantages over full power rifle rounds

honestly it sounds like you would like the mk12 18.5 inch barrel designed to hit at range plus you get to carry more ammo

thing with lasers is that logistically they outperform railguns in every way imaginable

railguns require ammo lasers don't
at most you just have to recharge the laser after x amount of shots back at base (or in the field)

[Ghost-Ami]

battle rifles are good for certain tasks (penetration and range) so I can see why people like them but there a specialist rifle now cause intermediate rifles have so many advantages over full power rifle rounds

honestly it sounds like you would like the mk12 18.5 inch barrel designed to hit at range plus you get to carry more ammo

thing with lasers is that logistically they outperform railguns in every way imaginable

railguns require ammo lasers don't
at most you just have to recharge the laser after x amount of shots back at base (or in the field)

Mk12 doesn't appeal really. A DMR with an intermediate cartridge? And an AR platform to boot. And a Mk17 with the same 18" barrel will outrange a Mk12 significantly anyway.

I'd recommend a standard (16" barrel) Mk17 out to about 600 m. Sharpshooters with full DMRs like Mk20 or even something highpower can engage beyond that, that's what they're there for.

Right now it is the SCAR platform that epitomises everything I favour in a standard issue infantry rifle, and it's what I'd choose every time for any infantry or special operations mission if I couldn't bring a whole armoury.

And my concern with lasers is that the amount of energy needed to do serious damage is absolutely enormous compared with accelerating tiny slugs at ludicrous speed by running current through magnets. And at the end of the day it's only radiation, that seems far easier to build countermeasures against than the immutable power of kinetic energy. \m/

But again I'm no laser physicist. Perhaps they are just "too scifi" for my brain. XD

[shobhit7777777]

I don't know how Lasers will do against fortifications or stand up to battlefield abuse while still being a lightweight option. I don't think it'll be one or the other...we might see a combination of projectile and energy weapons...whatever suits the tactical situation best.

As for rifle calibres and PDWs....IMO this will be an ever-evolving conversation...but ultimately a modern rifle serves the need of a Nation's army...suited to a particular environment and tactical application...with reliability, ergonomics and weight being the three factors which will always be important for a weapon.

Another interesting thing to note is how Russian weapon design philosophy entails specialist weapon designs over a versatile weapon system. Not saying that the two are mutually exclusive, but Russian weapons often have a specialized role and application in mind which is evident in the design
On the other hand Western weapon systems tend to be as versatile as possible, allowing greater battlefield flexibility on the same platform. IMO anyway.