Don't know what is the fascination is with Russian firearms?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Also, if you're going to compare something to an M4 that was adopted in 1994, why not compare it to the Russian AN-94, adopted the same year? The AN-94 Abakan replaced the Kalashnikov in Russia's "elite" units. It's coolest feature is it's two-shot burst where it fires two rounds in 0.033 seconds. (That's one-third of one-tenth of one second.) Both bullets leave the barrel before recoil is felt by the shooter. This thing is wicked cool and I wish I could buy one!

The AN-94 is also one of the most ergonomically-challenged designs that I ever saw and held in my hands, overly complicated, and, above all, generally a dead end.
Apparently, Russian army stopped buying it back in 2005 and no one regretted it (except probably the manufacturer, but still not sure about it ;))
 
Also

Russians build things for function, not for looks.



A nicely blued Mak is an attractive pistol. I've had mine for 4-5 years, carried/shot it frequently and the bluing is still sound (unlike my M85 which is starting to show some wear after less than a year).

Another cool looking pistol is their version of the 9mm, which replaced the Mak(not sure what the name is). Saw a pic on this board of Putin at the range with one and instantly wanted one. :evil:


__________________
 
Honestly, every country has come out with winners, losers and "what the heck were you thinking" in their rifle and pistol designs. One could also take a poke at the fetish some folks have for all things German.
Pretty much spot on.

Russian firearms are not magic. They are tools that are indicative of their heritage. Their principal attributes seem to be ruggedness, suitability for cold climates, and a 'just enough to make it work' focus on non-critical finish. Given their lineage, that's not unexpected.

Many of them are ergonomically unfriendly. Some are not. Many were class-leading for a generation or better. Some were clearly outdated when fielded - the 1895 Nagant revolver leaps to mind as a design that was mechanically kinda neat but pitifully slow to reload when compared to rival service sidearm designs and not nearly as handy to fire.

There is no reason to suggest that the Russians are any less capable than any other industrialized country at designing and fielding effective weapons systems. There is also no reason to idolize the weapons as somehow befitting some mythological standing.
 
One should also remember that the AK 47 was groundbreaking for its time. While the western countries were still working with bolt actions, the Russians were the quickest to capitalize on the advances the Germans had made in the development of the assault rifle with the MP/Stg 44. Most western nations didn't adopt a self loading or full auto rifle until the 50s.
 
To the original OP's point:

This is not really about any Russian (or fill in the blank) hardware, but a combination of :

1. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You pays your money and takes your pick. And,

2. the ability (and forever may it last) of most of the people on this board to exercise their preferences.
 
I can afford them, and the rounds I need to shoot them, Oh, and if I screw one up dicking with it, I can afford to buy another if I can't fix it, and it would still be cheaper than buying that nice 1911 or tacticool m-4 and the pieces to make it work ok.
 
Oh, almost forgot, the rifle I think is really cool and would love to get, only cost $1600, match M1A, so...

I'll just have fun working with a surplus rifle while saving my pennies.
 
And since the apples to apples comparison came up, what rifle were we using in 1891 when the Mosin-Nagant rifle was first adopted? I don't thing it was the Springfield. My memory is getting old but more like the Krag IIRC. Ever try reloading a Krag in a hurry?
 
ussr did build some great airplanes,but,kozedub their greatest ace got most of his victories in a p-39.

there were over 120 soviet aces flying the p-39,and some sources say the p-39 has the most victories of any US built fighter.

the russians did not use them for ground attack,rather they flew close cover for the IL-2s,an airplane who had no real western parralell,from the ground up till the A-10.
 
And since the apples to apples comparison came up, what rifle were we using in 1891 when the Mosin-Nagant rifle was first adopted? I don't thing it was the Springfield. My memory is getting old but more like the Krag IIRC. Ever try reloading a Krag in a hurry?

The Krags were put into service in 1894. Until then, the main regular army rifle was still the good old single shot trapdoor Springfield.

The Krags were phased out in favor of the 1903 Sprinfield in, well, 1903 :D

The Navy adopted a limited number of the M1885 Remington-Lee, so those would have been in service in small numbers in 1891.

So, apples to apples, some of the great powers had the following in service around 1891:

US - Trapdoor Springfield Mod. 1873
Russia - Mosin-Nagant 1891
France - Lebel 1886
Gerrmany - Gew. 1888
UK - Lee-Metford (with Martini-Henry and Martini-Enfields still in service)
 
wojownik, thanks for the info. I wasn't exactly sure about the date, but it makes the point even better. Military technology tends to leapfrog. One country tries to outdo the other. The Vetterli was cutting edge when it was introduced by Switzerland as a bolt action, then France started using smokeless powder in the Lebel, Mannlicher figured out how to stack rimmed cartridges. MN dealt with it in a way that didn't rely on enbloc loading and using the bottom of the mag to shovel dirt into the action. Then came Enfield with a shorter throw to speed firing. Then Mauser using rimless cartridges to get rid of the rim problem. And the list goes on and on. Each was revolutionary in it's day and now is regarded as obsolete, flawed, outmoded, and by many, junk. Some day in the future the M4 and Barrett will fall into that group and people will wonder how we ever fought wars with such "trash".
 
Some day in the future the M4 and Barrett will fall into that group and people will wonder how we ever fought wars with such "trash".

Of course. When you (and I mean you if you are a cleared government agent) can use a plasma rail gun combo to fire rounds in full auto with the destructive capability of a 20mm, and the recoil of a .22, who would use those antiques?
That just being a backup weapon.
When the really big weapon plasma weapon has the power of a modern main tank gun, and bolts onto soldiers' exoskeletons which absorb most of the recoil. Of course the use of such exoskeletons by forces allows the use of advanced future body armor weighing more than any regular human being could carry. Which in turn requires such weapons just to combat. Exoskeletons powered by the latest in energy technology which allows them to run for days at a time.
That program is already in its infancy:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=109_1195663753
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8e8_1236727945
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b4a_1176211044
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bfc_1211072259

When the United Tyrants of Nations has created world peace among nations, and work as a unified force to stop all peasants who resist, I mean terrorists. Fortunately they will crush those terrorists beneath thier heel and our great great grandchildren can continue to work producing taxes in thier freedomless society. There will be so many more people on earth, and no more land than today that an apartment 10% as big as most today will take the average person a lifetime of servitude to pay for, while homes will have ceased to be practical taking up too much space per capita. Most of thier life will be spent working to pay for thier tiny boxlike living quarters. Living quarters which are little more than where they sleep between the hours working to pay for it. Which they might manage to pay off just in time to retire and die, but not before making (not raising, raising will be done from pre-pre-school until adulthood in schools with a strict government curriculum, while they merely do homework and sleep at home) the next generation of workers.
Occasionally the United Tyrants of Nations may agree to small scale wars between thier nation states (in secret) to ease the constant burden of the population growth problem. Which is then when an average person may find themselves on a battlefield able to use such weapons against the "enemy".
Oh joy!

I think I will just enjoy the modern world rather than the improvements of the future.
:neener:
 
Last edited:
Russian weapons are known for being built very robust. At least those produced for government use.
With little concern for cosmetics, and only moderate concern for precise MOA accuracy.

Several designs have worked and continue to work with very minimal maintenance in third world nations for generations. Dirt, carbon build-up, dust, and not being taken apart and cleaned after use.
Yet they keep working, rarely requiring new components to replace those broken or worn from neglect.
They still wear from use, having a lifespan like other firearms, but they are neglect friendly firearms.

Part of being so robust with poor care on automatic firearms is looser tolerances. Tolerances that reduce accuracy slightly. The older bolt action firearms were robust even with decent accuracy not needing to self-cycle.


The Russians are known for slapping some heavy wood onto some heavy metal on a large production scale. Getting something into the field that will work, and keep working with poor logistical support.

This lack of cosmetics and fit and finish details, plus the massive scale of thier production, combined with the platforms becoming obsolete or replaced by the government and then entering the civilian market accounts for thier price. A price for a level of performance that leaves them well liked by many.

The complete lack of refinement leaves a durable weapon that works but is of low monetary value.
Which then means great deals for us Americans who still have the freedom to buy them.


That will not longer be the case in the future though. Now there is trade restrictions in the United States on such weapons, and most weapons produced since the 50s are select fire. A great deal of import and export restrictions. Laws like the NFA, GCA etc
So the next batch of weapons to become obsolete and replaced will not be surplus that American civilian can purchase.
So enjoy it, it is a relic of an age when armies used weapons the average American could purchase when they were done.
As they have replaced thier AK-47's and AKMs, and they replace thier AK-74s in the future they will not be available for purchase.

Just as the Garand was the last American service rifle that most mere peasant civilians could purchase once they were replaced. Even our own government made sure to destroy hundreds of thousands of 1911 pistols that were civilian legal rather than let them go to civilians as cheap surplus.
The end of an era when surplus went to civilians. When citizens got what thier taxes paid for when thier government was done using them.
 
Last edited:
I can't believe someone had the audacity to open fire on some of the most famous and reliable guns ever built! Sure, by todays standards, you can do better. But let's consider that these were designed well over 60 years ago and are STILL heavily used and highly regarded to this very day! These guns shaped history and the world we live in.
 
I really have to take issue with DMK's opinion that an M-1 Carbine is better than an SKS. I have owned both. Nothing wrong with an M-1 Carbine for arming semi-combatant troops in rear areas. It is nothing more than a handy PDW. The SKS has better range and it's harder hitting against targets. SKS is easier to field strip as well. I would feel a lot better going into harms way with an SKS than an M-1 Carbine.
 
The Russian guns are cheap and plentiful right now. People with limited incomes can compile a respectable big collection for less bucks....it is FUN..
 
I think a lot (but not all) of the people that really hate old east-bloc weapons have a visceral hatred of them because they hate Communism so much. Even though I am an old cold warrior, I never picked up that bias against so-called "commie guns.". I joined the Army Reserve back in the eighties and religiously showed up at all anti-Soviet demonstrations in New York City outside the Soviet Mission to the UN every year. I even demonstated against the visit of the Mozambiquan Ambassador to East Orange, NJ!. Me and two other guys on the sidewalk with signs! However, don't let ANYBODY try to take my AK's, SKS's Maks and CZ-52's away! They are fun AND effective!
 
Part of the reason is price.

It is a heck of a lot easier to own a Mosin than a Springfield 1903 on your budget, and you still have a nice bit of history.

As far as hatting commie red b_____, just remember, the Mosin-Nagant was around before the Soviet Union.
 
Is this thread still going on? It's funny because the same stuff is being said over and over.

For 4 pages we have heard they are cheap, and a peasant with no more than a kindergarten education can use it.

Can we go at least a couple of posts without that being brought up again??
 
I think a lot (but not all) of the people that really hate old east-bloc weapons have a visceral hatred of them because they hate Communism so much.

True. Also a Soviet/communist/socialist/command economy wasn’t supposed to be able to produce quality goods.
Can we go at least a couple of posts without that being brought up again??

Never happen – that would require folks to read the entire thread.
 
I am kind of in hinton03's camp. I have never had an interest in Russian firearms or firearms based on Russian designs. The things that pass for AKs in this country as almost laughable most of the time. They are some kind of Frankenstein contraption put together with either former Iron Curtain or North African parts. They are cheap though and their are tons of cheap gun owners out there.

I love milsurp rifles and have had a few. I prefer the K98 as it is a work of art, as long as it wasn't put together with slave labor. You may pay 2 or 3 times what a MN costs but it is worth it IMO. The Makarov is probably my favorite Russian based firearm, that can be readily purchased in the US, and even those are rarely actually Russian. The East German ones however seem to be quality.

Now if I could drop a couple of grand and get a bonafide Russian made AK-74U like the Swiss poster has I would be all over it. :D However thats not something that is likely to happen in my lifetime in the US so I don't worry about it. Also if real Russian SVDs were more common and sold for a grand or so I would also probably pick one up.

I have a feeling the AK clone things that people love to buy now are more popular with the guys who started buying guns after the wall came down than the guys who have been shooting for decades. Same with the Mosin Nagant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top