All right gun nerds, how the fuck is this possible???
I've seen .22 rifles that recoil more. WTF is going on?
>will the feds let us have fun things from Russia
Russians chose not to adopt the AK-107 and similar AEK-972 in favor of the AK-12 which is a conventional design. The US military's competing low recoil weapon is anything chambered in 5.56.
>WTF is going on?
AK-107 is a fault design
See those things on the front? Those are called "muzzle brakes"
They use the same gas that pushes the bullet out of the barrel to keep the muzzle in place.
Combining the perfect one with the fact that those crazy AKs have a weight going forward that's the same amount of weight that's going to the back? Your gun basically doesn't move.
>Isn't domestic production an option now?
1. For some reason American companies are absolute shit at making AK's on any scale larger than a boutique outfit. I don't understand why, but that's the way it is.
2. Costs of production are too high in this country relative to elsewhere.
>1. For some reason American companies are absolute shit at making AK's on any scale larger than a boutique outfit. I don't understand why, but that's the way it is.
they dont have the actual ak specs and are reverse engineering shit with no idea of what they are actually doing
they can get the components to look right but have no idea what the right way to assemble em is
nope, that is a screen shot from the promotion video
See, THIS makes sense. THIS would work.
The "balanced recoil" horseshit goes against everything I've ever been taught about impulse and momentum, and seems like it would actually *increase* recoil.
>they dont have the actual ak specs
You can make an AK receiver out of a shovel with hand tools. Literally. AKs are MEANT to be made by potato farming conscripts who cannot read or write using big, simple, one-button machines. We don't have those machines.
The problem is that only Arsenal is serious enough about not making garbage to manufacture receivers and trunnions to spec, though using the incorrect tools and machinery. All the small fish are using inappropriate tools and are also employing unskilled workers with too little oversight. It's a recipe for disaster, at least the soviets have the correct tools and have slavedrivers who can murder people that get it wrong.
It is a mystery why there is nothing in the gap between mom and pop machine shops who make custom guns with 5 ton presses, like Krebs, Marshall and Rifle Dynamics, and huge megacompanies like Arsenal and Atlantic (no, I'm not putting them on par in quality, but in quantity). There is certainly a big, exploitable niche in the $400-700 AK market that's currently being filled by utter trash like WASRs, IOI, Atlantic and Century botch-jobs. All it would take is an investment or two to buy or build a few presses. Receivers would flow like water, and would be rebranded and resold a la AR15 receivers, which are only actually made by a tiny handful of forges.
Don't have the specs... give me a break. You can make ANYTHING on a Bridgeport and a lathe. It's a matter of pride, quick production tools and competence.
>oh god is the burger still here
>I don't like burger
>why does Andre get to shoot instead of me
>i shoot faster than Andre anyway
>this suit is too tight
>I need a cigarette
>my feet hurt
from what i understand
the balanced system take the necessary momentum for the bolt group to go back and redirect it
>kek'd. AK-107 has no gears.
You really should do the most very basic of elementary internet searches before posting again. This kind of idiocy is inexcusable in 2016 when you have the entirety of all recorded human history at your literal fingertips, WITH pictures and tutorial videos.
>the balanced system take the necessary momentum for the bolt group to go back and redirect it
But that's the thing. Channeling rearwards momentum into the bolt group COUNTERACTS recoil. In effect, the bolt group's rearward momentum is already counteracting some of the forward momentum from the bullet and powder charge, thus delaying and buffering some of it from being transferred to the shooter's shoulder.
Think about it - recoil exists because the bullet gets launched forward. Why the fuck would launching EVEN MORE mass (in the form of the "counterbalance") forward at the moment of firing REDUCE recoil?
I really hope I'm missing something, because I refuse to believe the designers would be that retarded. Plus whatever they're doing seems to be working.
Do you even understand what recoil is and what causes it? Allowing a heavy mass to go backwards helps buffer recoil. This is how hydro-pneumatic artillery works. This is how the Becker-type action of the Oerlikon 20mm works. This is how the AA-12 works; the G11 and the AN-94. Hell, even a rubberized buttpad is a very crude dynamic equivalent of this, using the gun itself as a "heavy mass going backwards." Lrn2physics, buddy.
So is the bolt group. All this means is that sooner or later this motion has to be arrested. That doesn't mean it can't be used to buffer the recoil impulse so it can be transferred over a longer period of time at lower magnitude (which is how pretty much all recoil-reducing systems actually work, mind you).
I could see how that could be problematic, but it doesn't change the fact that the bolt group is absorbing some rearward impulse prior to that point. All you'd be doing by directly cancelling this momentum is causing that impulse to be transferred to the shooter's shoulder sooner, at the instant of firing. The recoil will still be there and will still be instantaneous and disruptive.
There HAS to be something else going on that we're not aware of. As smooth as the gun shoots, the recoil HAS to be buffered somewhere, if it's not being buffered in the bolt group itself.
Bolt impacts produce serious disruption by itself. Balanced recoil is aimed to cancel such impacts. Bullet recoil will not go away but this is not single source of gun movement during fire.
Though should be mentioned that Russians found in their tests that effect is not good enough to make off-hand burst fire viable. Only schemes like AN-94 achieved required dispersion.
>Though should be mentioned that Russians found in their tests that effect is not good enough to make off-hand burst fire viable. Only schemes like AN-94 achieved required dispersion.
nope, both the AN-94 and AEK-971 are improvment over the AK but they are not enough
the reason Russian chose the AN-94 back in the 90s was because the AN-94 is one of the two weapon fulfilled the program requirement of making a hyper burst gun
the other is the TKB-0146
Trump will restore ties with Russia, end sanctions.
> I don't get what the big deal is.
That's because you're a retard.
And? It's not like it doesn't re-coil at FULL-AUTO.
>I've seen people handle full auto 5.56 just as easily without some over engineered recoil system.
HAHAHAHAHAHHA... hahahaahhaha... fuck off.
No you are the retard.
Pneumatic dampening does not "counteract" recoil but simply RETARDS and absorbs it.
Now look at recoiless gun designs where the recoil generated by the projectile (backwards motion) is negated by the equivalent force of gas leaving the rear of the weapon (forward motion).
This is the mechanical equivalent.
You lrn 2 fizix fucking tard.
>Pneumatic dampening does not "counteract" recoil but simply RETARDS and absorbs it.
You can't truly "counteract" recoil without ejecting mass rearwards from the firearm (or at least arresting some of the forward-ejected mass, as with a compensator). Virtually all recoil-"reducing" mechanisms (except for compensators and recoilless-rifle breeches) actually work by "retarding and absorbing" recoil.
>Now look at recoiless gun designs where the recoil generated by the projectile (backwards motion) is negated by the equivalent force of gas leaving the rear of the weapon (forward motion).
No, it isn't, since in the case of all these guns the recoiling mass is still captive. Sooner or later it has to stop moving backwards, and to do so it (eventually) has to transfer it's momentum somewhere else (namely, to the shooter's shoulder).
BUT this is still more controllable because, instead of a high-magnitude recoil force being applied periodically over a short time interval (as with a simple firearm with a locked breech and no moving internal parts), this impulse can be buffered and transformed into a steady(ish), low-magnitude force applied over a longer time interval (or even continuously in the case of automatic fire). It's the same amount of recoil, but it's transferred in a much more controllable manner.
>full auto is super dooper hard recoil giuse.
Its the same amount of recoil per shot as semi auto. You just have to know what your doing. Solid stance, lean into it and hug it into your shoulder like never before.
Not the anon your butthurt over. I rented the G3 at my range a couple times, 7.62x51 and that had moderate recoil on FA. But it didn't take long to figure out how to manage it and dump whole mags into pizza pan sized targets with ease. I'm also 6'4 270 lbs so that might have had somewhat of an effect too.
>utter trash like WASRs
You realize that wasrs are made on the clunky Soviet tooling that you were praising literally 2 sentences before you said that?
Very expensive, no approved way to build them. I'd probably do it one day to get it reversed engineered but that'll be in the future whenever I get an ffl again and a machine shop underway.
>Think about it - recoil exists because the bullet gets launched forward.
In order for the bullet to be able to go forward there has to be a force of equal magnitude and opposite direction. THAT's what causes recoil. That force comes from the reaction that turns chemical energy into pressure energy: the deflagrating propellant. The gas pressure shoves the bullet forward and the rifle backward. Part of that gas pressure is harnessed for the cycling action. So within the rifle frame there's a separate movable mass - the bolt carrier group with the gas piston - that gets pushed backward relative to the rifle frame. When it hits the backplate there's a force spike which contributes greatly to overall recoil. The counterbalance system seeks to neutralize that spike by harnessing additional gas pressure in order to move another movable mass separate from the rifle frame forwards frame so that the force spikes of both separate masses cancel each other out.
To be fair, they did only give him 3 hours and one gun they provided. He also mentioned that specific gun felt like it was put through the paces already. But then again, who knows, i somehow doubt the russians would give the internet americans a view of a shittier conditioned rifle of their motherland.
The AK is a gun that is best suited for mass production. And when i say mass, i mean zillions. In some strange way this means that mass produced, dime a dozen, AKs are better at, well, being AKs, than the comparatively small scale production that the AK companies in the US can pull. BTW it boils down to a very interesting difference of philosophy in weapons manufacture between Russia and the US. Russia produced heaps of AKs in one or two large factories and stored them all over the country. If the factory is bombed, they have the guns in storage. The US on the other hand produce smaller quantities, but the design of the gun is so suitable to small scale production that if the factory is bombed they can continue producing them at the same rate, in different locations.
Percieved recoil controllability is not just the rearward impulse received by the shoulder, it is also the 'jerkiness' and muzzle movement/moments which disrupt aim (even more so than the rearward recoil). The majority of these are caused by bolt impact, both rearward and forward into battery.
Here's an exaggerated example for you to watch, a comp'ed pistol, which much higher slide to frame mass vs bolt to rifle mass, but it goes to show how little effect the recoil reaction of the bullet and gas exiting the muzzle has vs the disruption from the slide reaching the limits of its travel.
That rise and dip is what the balanced recoil system seeks to eliminate, not the rearward bullet and gas reaction, which honestly is negligible in comparison (within the realm of small arms), and largely eliminated by any decent muzzle brake.
he mentioned in that video that the gun is old is beated up
the Russian in general like the AN-94, it jam but can be clear easier than an AR-15 double feed
The problem with US made AK's is that... they're US made.
The Soviets had to figure out how to make the AK' last and be reliable. There was a lot of trial and error in the development of the materials, manufacturing processes, etc. The barrels, the barrel trunnion, the gas blocks, the receivers, etc. all took time to get right.
The Soviets also mass produced the shit out of the AK and all it's associated parts. With mass production, you reduce the overall cost of the end product. It was issued as the USSR military's small arm (as well as many of it's eastern bloc and allied armies). In the US, the AK is a low volume, botique gun.
The problem with US manufactured AK's isn't that we can't build 'em right. The problem is it's cost prohibitive to start from scratch. Parts kits are cheap, and proven tech is included in each plastic bag (a finite supply though).
If the US received a contract to build millions of AK's for whatever reason, we could tool up and make them as good as the Russians.
not only that. they also try to make the force a more or less constant force in full auto so that the weapon doesn't jerk between indivual shots. But that can't be made perfect due to friction and differences in propellant burn between rounds etc.