Full version with all the shooting footage is available for all Patrons:
http://www.patreon.com/ForgottenWeapons
It is also available to subscribers on Pepperbox and Floatplane:
https://www.pepperbox.tv/video/12941
https://www.floatplane.com/post/cvS8e83PUH
The AK-12 went through an extensive development program that attempted to substantially change the AK design, but failed. In 2015 the early design plans were scrapped, and the project reverted to simply making some changes to the AK-100 series. This resulted in the AK-12 being adopted as the new Russian standard infantry rifle in December 2017. The rifle in today’s video is that original adopted pattern. It uses a collapsing and side-folding stock, a substantially redesigned railed top cover with a rear-mounted RPK-style aperture sight, a combined gas and front sight block, a permanently affixed gas tube, and a trigger mechanism with safe, semi, 2-round burst, and full auto settings.
This AK-12 was captured by Ukrainian forces with the Magpul magazine you see in the video. The folks who gave me access to film it remain anonymous, and I very much appreciate their help!
AK-12 improved 2019 model:
Very nice… I’ve been hoping Ian would get his hands on one of these.
I think that this exists just goes to prove out my theory about the NGSW program: Nobody in combat going up against body armor feels the need for that miniature anti-tank rifle. If they did, the Russian Federation would be at the forefront of handing out bigger ‘n better, to deal with the Ukrainians wearing Western body armor.
For right now, the individual weapon is just fine with the “legacy” intermediate calibers. And, actually, much better than that overpowered monstrosity the US Army decided to field as “M-14/7.62 NATO Redux”.
I agree, although it’s come to my attention that the AK-12 had lots of service issues, such as poorly made accessory rail that wouldn’t allow optics to hold zero, safety levers that could be twisted past the supposed stopping points, and the “burst fire mode” that would slam-fire uncontrollably because idiots in the system put in counterfeit (or just poorly made) parts, thinking that the mere SHOW of overwhelming force (in fiction terms, the Tarkin Doctrine) would scare Ukraine into surrendering at the drop of a hat. I could be wrong.
Kirk:
In comparison, the M14 and 7.62 NATO were rational. At least they did not have a chamber pressure of 80,000 psi.
Only by comparison…
The idiocy of NGSW will become apparent once it sees actual combat, and the deficiencies come out. Followed shortly thereafter by the quiet reintroduction of the M4…
It’ll be quite like the way the M4 became the standard, in the first damn place. It was originally meant to be a weapon for the afterthoughts, the combat support troops. As soon as the Infantry saw it, tried it out, and discovered its virtues…? It was “Hey, we’re taking these…” and none of the damn things ever got fielded to the units they were slated for.
Which just goes to show how badly they got the M16A2 as a design, and how poorly it answered the needs of the combat infantryman.
NGSW will go the same way. They can’t get the fancy sights into full production or issue, nor can they get the actual justification for the whole atrocity going, namely the high-pressure ammo. My guess is that there’s going to be a sudden contact with reality, and they’re going to forget the whole thing as quickly as they can.
The real issue they should have addressed, namely piss-poor MG doctrine and training? Hasn’t been touched. They’re still issuing the M122/192 tripods, and didn’t even bother to acquire the things they needed to adapt the M250 to them in the first place. The entire idea was that they’d somehow manage to be able to reach out beyond the usual bipod-fire limits of 800m, which is utterly ludicrous. The real limitation isn’t the cartridge, it’s the firing platform/doctrine issue.
MG qualification still reflects a Korean War-era concept of defensive fires from fixed prepared fighting positions. No dynamic movement, no hasty positions with tripods, no use of the T&E coordinated with leadership-driven fire control using things like binoculars with mil reticles.
Total waste of money, time, and effort.
by design the cleaning rod sits in the pistol grip, disassembed in 5 pieces
Claiming that we need to follow what the Russkies see as adequate in Ukraine fails to study the history of Russian weapons development. They have been all over the place, running down rabbit holes with AFVs and Aircraft as their military industrial complex, run by strange versions of Marxists and organized crime, spends other people’s money. Nothing wrong with a 6MM caliber other than people hate change.
There’s nothing “right” with it, either.
The idjits who came up with NGSW fundamentally mis-diagnosed the issues behind the supposed “overmatch” problem encountered in Afghanistan. It wasn’t that the individual weapons were not working, it was that the machinegun doctrine they’d thought adequate… Wasn’t.
You go traipsing through the Hindu Kush and take random MG fire from some Afghan type, shooting at you. The idea that the appropriate response is to hunker down and return fire with individual weapons and your bipod-mounted (because you leave your tripods back in the FOB…) MG teams is clearly delusional. It does not work that way; you cannot effectively answer those fires with those weapons.
Giving everyone a high-power 6.8mm cartridge for the individual weapon and a new MG still fired off the bipod? WTF? How is that going to help matters?
You want to answer that sort of MG fire, you have to be able to deliver tight beaten zones consistently and in a controlled manner at max range. Then, you can use those beaten zones to slaughter the enemy gunners, or at least, keep their heads down. You’re not going to do that with diffuse individual weapon fire and bipod-mounted MG fire, which is only going to be effective out to about 800m.
NGSW was completely delusional in diagnosing the problem, and the “solution” they came up with isn’t going to do squat for actually doing anything at all effective to fix it.
You want to fix the “Overmatch” issue? You need better training on the MG, better doctrine, better equipment. Improved tripods; rangefinders; observation gear; internal comms gear for better coordination. That will actually address the problem; a new cartridge, a heavier weapon, and the same sort of inadequate MG firing platform solution isn’t doing it. Ever.
These idjits have fundamentally mistaken what an individual weapon is, what it is for, and what it does. You need a light, handy tool for the close-in fight, the ammo needs to be light and small enough to carry in large quantities, and you don’t need the .276 Pedersen Redux to do it.
Maybe the 5.56mm NATO is the ideal individual weapon cartridge, maybe it isn’t. Whatever the case, it’s a better individual weapon cartridge than that POS NGSW abortion ever will be, and we’re going to be finding that out the hard way the first time we go into combat with it. I will lay long odds that the NGSW will rapidly be returned to organizational arms rooms, and the M4 will make a hasty return to being the basic infantry individual weapon.