How did the Russians get so good at making guns?
>That one automatic rifle without an idiot Russian name
>That one automatic rifle without an idiot Russian name
The reward the success of weapin esigners...and by that they let them live.if they fail , they are killed.its a pretty good incentive and insures that the designers better make a damn good gun like their lives depend on it.because it does.
Slavs invested very heavily in military science after dubya dubya two.
That's a fairly good sum-up of the very long story, anyway.
I think the more important question here, is why is Russia the only guys making these kinds of holsters?
>In case you don't know it's designed specifically for the Makarov, to remove it from the holster you slide it downwards which both chambers the gun and turns the safety off.
tsar Russia and communist Russia in the early 20th century was woefully underequipped, and their military was primarily conscripted farmers.
when russia went to war, they used whatever guns they could get their hands on. this was a logistical nightmare. ww2 had some pretty crude weapons fielded, such as the ppsh.
then ww2 happened,with Russia steamrolling into Germany, they had a good chance to steal some German engineers, machinery, weapons, blueprints, and concepts.
after ww2, Stalin pushed for a massive reconstruction of the soviet military, using russia's immense resources, and selling their surplus guns and tanks from ww2, russia was dead set on bring the military up to date.
along came Mr Kalashnikov, who worked his ass of to make an assault rifle to rival the stg-44. his design was god tier for the Russian military and quickly adopted.
this led to a huge influx of weapon engineers in Russia, Kalashnikov was a national hero, and everyone wanted to be a famous gun designer.
this led to many competitions by the russian government. they would ask the engineers to design a weapon for a certain role, and let them work at it for a year or two, and then come together and test the rifle out and evaluate them.
this is where all the weird russian firearms came from, they were what the engineers came up with to meet the requirements for russia.
the two best guns to come from these competitions, were the PKM, and the Dragunov, the latter designed by a russian Olympic shooter.
so pretty much Russia let the engineers free to design whatever they wanted, as long as it met their requirements.
also many Russian tactics and camo comes from german decent.
The only significant designs to come out of Russia have been the AK and it's derivatives. Arguably the Nagant.
What they are very good at is making tons of guns and then selling them off to poorer more backwoods nations when they decide to replace them.
The real question is how such a monumentally important innovator in firearm technology like Britain could have turned into such an anti-gun nation.
>is why is Russia the only guys making these kinds of holsters?
Maybe because they're pointless? I fail to see how they would improve anything.
And they're not the only ones making it. I seem to recall a Spanish(?) video showing off something like that.
For every day carry yes it's pretty useless. But real quick take your gun and hold it on your side pretending you have said holster. Now draw it as you would and point at an imaginary target, then compare that to pulling it out of your actual holster and pointing it at the same imaginary target. You'll notice that (While it's really a fraction of a second) with the first draw you get it pointed at the target quicker.
I mean yes, it is only slightly slower than a normal holster, but I was mostly talking about it improving safety, which it doesn't if you're not clinically retarded.
And besides, isn't shooting all about shaving off those fractions of a second? Not to mention that racking the slide may be difficult in positions other than standing.
Have you ever handled a gun? You disengage the 1911 safety while acquiring the grip and bringing it up to fire. If a manual safety slows down your draw you, and I apologize for the cliche term, should git gud. Preferably by taking a good handgun class.
>More influential than America
With the exception of that one absolute genius, I will however grant you that both Germany and Britain have been more influential than America.
Let's be real here. They were all drunk when they designed their weapons.
Errrrrr. You think so?
They created roller-delayed and gas-delayed actions, but neither of those has been significantly used by others...
Toggle-locking is a dead-end, too...
When it comes to modern firearm design, you basically only see straight-blowback, short-recoil, DGI, long and short stroke pistons. Everything else has kinda fallen to the wayside.
>"Ja, meine freunde...?"
>"vhat...vhat if we made a big cannon?"
>"But ze big cannon vould only be in one place. What if ze enemy attacks?"
>"Ve...ve vill put it on wheels. NO. Rails. Rails vould vork."
>"Zat idea is fucking stupid. Let's ask ze Fuhrer if ve can have funding. Hitler loves zis sort of zing."
The genius I was talking about was already dead by then.
Not of such stature, the man made successful entries into every genre of firearms other than revolvers and revolutionized most of them with his work.
What Samuel Colt did for revolvers, John Rigby did for double rifles, and the Mauser brothers did for bolt actions Browning did for everything else.
He was pretty much a once in an industry genius.
The nagant revolver wasnt all that great.heavy trigger,anemic round,low capacity,overall archaic design.the best thing about it ,is that it is one of the few revolvers that can be supressed.
If you think ease of manufacturing isn't awesome from a design standpoint I'm not sure what to say. Soviet and Russian K.I.S.S. philosophy has ensured that their weapons are rugged, reliable, easy to make and maintain and the most prolific.
We like the Mosin because it's affordable and historical significance. Manufactured with what was barely above slave-labour and then handed to extremely under-trained peasants to fight against and/or die for the political elite.
It's still a push-feed bolt-action rifle with the grittiest bolt fucking possible.
My American raised life would like to point out that the soviets have shit for military and couldn't produce anything with their horrible soviet economy.
Obviously they couldn't even create a proper tank, the T-72 is shit because it loses to M1A2 in the middle east.
Or you just suck at handling it like a man
I'm not particularly a fan of it, but I didn't see anything to complain about from the couple of examples I've shot over the years. It's pretty cheap to get and shoot. It's accurate enough to take a deer. It's interesting enough to want to bring on every range trip. It's a relic made by Russians at the dawn of modern warfare. It was left impressed the first time I shot it.
I'm still wondering why I had the idea that an AK would somehow survive a mud test and an AR would lose.
I mean the results made it clear why the "loose tolerances, durable rifle!" means shit if it's so loose everything can get in.
It's more that the AK went in with the dust cover open, and mud dumped directly into the receiver. The AR did not have this treatment.
Any rifle will fail with a receiver full of mud. It's not like it snuck in between the BCG and receiver.
Having an AK I was looking at it after I watched that video and I really don't think the dust cover was a big factor. I mean AK fanboys (SKS man myself) have been putting the platform on such a high pedestal for so long and making wild, exaggerated claims that the test really was done according to those rumors.
I hope they don't do an SKS. I know how it will go but I just... want to believe.