The AS (Special Assault rifle) Val was one of two dedicated silenced rifles developed in Russia in the 1980s. The Val was intended for assault use with full auto firing, while the VSS (Special Sniper Rifle) Vintorez used the same action and suppressor, but had a thumbhole stock and was intended as a specialized sniper’s rifle. Both were chambered for the 9x39mm round, which came out at subsonic velocities to ensure very quiet operation. Both designs also included a selector switch.
The example I am looking at today is a military-issued AS Val of the original early pattern.. The modernized version of the rifle replaced the smooth top cover and AK-style receiver side rail with a picatinny railed top cover, as well as revising the handguard design.
Internally, the VSS and AS are very different from the Kalashnikov design. They use a linear hammer much like a vz58, and a six-lug rotating bolt. The gas system is a long-stroke piston, and the barrel has four rows of ports just a few inches in front of the chamber. The suppressor consists of an initial expansion chamber filled by the barrel ports and then a series of five very simple baffles.
Doctrinally, these rifles were intended to replace the use of suppressors and subsonic 7.62x39mm on standard AKM rifles, although only for special operations sort of troops (not standard Army recon). While very quiet and effective, they are liable to overheat quickly under sustained fire, and were not deemed appropriate for uses where they might be drawn into a conventional infantry battle. Instead, they went to groups like special police and intervention teams who were basically intended to deploy, shoot a couple bad guys in a blockaded building, and then return to base. By today, they have been generally replaced by newer designs, but like so much else, they have both appeared in the fighting in Ukraine.
Many thanks to the IRCGN (Institut de Recherche Criminelle de la Gendarmerie Nationale) for allowing me access to film this very rare rifle for you!
PBS-1 AK Silencer: https://youtu.be/75xTBpEC-zc
Civilian semiauto VSS-M Vintorez: https://youtu.be/znIjsaJJ7Rg
only tagentialy related, so ignore if you wish, but I have another question for the chat: given an infantry rifle that can run reliably with a supressor, is there any reason not to issue supressors to all of its users, other than cost and weight increase? I realize that full auto will burn up supressors pretty quickly, but it seems like one could solve this by either issuing supressors with easily replaced baffels, or by issuing very cheap and easily replaced supressors, as is often done with magazines.
Honestly? An effective disposable silencer would be an utter nightmare for accountability. I’d hesitate to even issue such a thing, under the current legal conditions. Why? Because I know our troops and the supply system. It’d just be too much of a temptation.
As I say below, it’s a situational thing: Sometimes you want quiet, other times you want the boom. I’m ambivalent at this time about general issue silencers; I still think like a dinosaur, and I don’t honestly see that much utility for them down on the line. Specialist roles? Sure. Training? Absolutely; routine issue/use in combat…? Not so sure, on that one.
I imagine that, if you issued suppressors to ordinary average grunt outfits, about one guy in every squad would have lost his by the time shooting started. This would pretty well, er, shoot to hell the whole purpose of using the gear.
Observe that if you are using suppressor, this prevent usage of any other muzzle device like muzzle brake or launcher for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/22_mm_grenade
The arguments for wide spread issuing of suppressors are better hiding of a unit’s location, clearer communications in combat among unit members and better friend vs. foe recognition. If your side all has suppressors, the noisy folks behind those bushes over there are, without doubt, the other guys, so you need to shoot them. What you mention about cost, increased weight, and maintenance, is what is preventing wide spread adoption. Also, as Ian points out, suppression really needs subsonic ammunition which limits effective range and stopping power. Not a plus in heated combat.
As I’ve often pointed out… Signature is as much a weapon as the weapon itself and its projectiles.
What would be ideal would be a way to do “dial-a-yield” in terms of noise and the rest. There are times and places where silence or suppression have definite tactical advantages, and then there are those where you really, really want to scare the crap out of the people you’re shooting at.
Hell, I’m pretty sure that half the reason firearms took off the way they did came strictly from the morale effects they had, both on the enemy and what the friendly troops got from setting off great big controlled booms.
The issue with it, as with everything: Time and place. You absolutely want to be able to control the signature you’re generating, depending on what you’re doing. Some tactical roles? You need to put the scare into the enemy, or at least let them know they’re being shot at. Others, not so much. Highly situation-dependent.
An anecdote related to me by a guy who did LRRP missions for SOG in Vietnam was the time he discovered a serious disadvantage to his silenced Swedish “K” that he’d somehow scrounged. On a deep patrol where they got compromised, they triggered an NVA “hunter” unit that was tasked with going after elements like his, and what he found was that while it was great being able to shoot suppressed, the actual tactical effect was that the NVA hunter team didn’t realize they were being shot… So, instead of him successfully suppressing them and getting them to leave his team alone, they kept right on coming.
Something they did right up until the guy he’d equipped with the sawed-off RPD opened fire, and then they not only stopped, but outright routed. So far as he could tell, the only actual kills came from him and his silenced weapon, but… The tactical effect came from the noisiest weapon they had, the one that produced prodigious muzzle-blast effects, especially in the dark.
So… Yeah. Silence good. Sometimes. Other times? You want to bring the noise.
I’d also suggest that the troops really prefer the loudest, most destructive crap they can fire back, even if it’s less effective. That’s an observed fact of life; they’d rather fire the Carl Gustav than just about anything else, when they’re up against the wall. Even if that weapon isn’t really appropriate…
While “dial-a-yield” sounds great on paper, I don’t think that would work without the grunts carrying several different types of ammo. Try not to think about the logistics nightmare that would be.
I really don’t see suppressed weapons actually being of value, except for highly trained special forces, within the framework of a very specific, short-term mission.
How does the Gendarmerie acquire these weapons? I think that would be a interesting video in itself.
Taken from terrorists and criminals. Also, I would think that there is a “good ole’ curator” network where guns are traded to fill out the various collections. And I doubt the Gendarmerie would ever say how they got the guns. Some questions are never to be asked.
Regarding signature:
In WW1, Erwin Rommel served in a moutaineer battalion (Württembergisches Gebirgs Bataillon, W.G.B) which had Karabiner 98 (600 mm barrel). Several times in his book “Infanterie greift an!” (Infantry Attacks), he mentions that he could tell the muzzle report of his unit from units using the ordinary Gewehr 98 (740 mm). Both firing the 7.9 mm S-Patrone, of course.
I think we should be making more of cameras, on this/in general; Nazi bent barrel periscope thing vs this/etc – Camera on the the left, right up near the muzzle… See! “On your phone” then… Decide. Everything should be standard these days, aye… Not overly impressed, has another 3 cams \|/ know what they do, watch for pissing drones via A bastarding I nowadays.