Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 32

Thread: Izhmash final production model of the AK-12

  1. #1
    Senior Member Chulo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    17,546

    Default Izhmash final production model of the AK-12

    Izhmash has officially unveiled the final production model of the AK-12 Assault Rifle. According to Max Popenker there will be two models, a Light model (5.45x39mm, 5.56x45mm and 7.62x39mm) that accepts all magazines that work with existing AK rifles, as well as a new 60 round quad stack magazine, and a Heavy (7.62x51mm) model that will use a new magazine.




    [CENTER][/CENTER]

    The rifle's major new features are ...

    • Ambidextrous forward charging handle.
    • Smaller ejection port.
    • New safety switch.
    • New fire control switch with three modes of fire (single shot, 3 round burst and full auto).
    • New hinged top cover. The cover is a lot more rigid that the previous AK rifles.
    • Quad picatinny rails.
    • Folding and length adjustable stock.
    • Ergonomic pistol grip (with a decent radius between trigger guard and grip).
    • New muzzle brake that attaches to standard NATO 22mm threading.
    • Improved barrel rifling.

    Whilst it is not pretty, ion fact it is downright ugly, it possess all the features of the latest western assault rifles.

    Read the rest and pics here http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...ak-12-unveiled

  2. #2
    Senior Member Rahlgd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles & Mexico DF, 大北米共栄圏
    Age
    28
    Posts
    1,566

    Default

    I think it looks sexy as hell. This mean the older AK's are ending production, at least in Russia?

  3. #3
    Butt stop crimsontide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    'Murica
    Posts
    573

    Default

    It doesn't look half bad, but I bet you that thing is heavy as hell. Probably in the 10-11lb range. What would be cool is an AK that uses a polymer shell instead of stamped aluminum to house the internals. The exact same design except with polymer instead of aluminum would probably save a lot of weight and be even more durable.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Jippo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    6,264

    Default

    That looks like **** to be honest. And it reflects the ability of contemporary Russian small arms design: another AK rehash. Adding picatinny and making it more complex is not an improvement.

    Not impressed at all....

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crimsontide View Post
    It doesn't look half bad, but I bet you that thing is heavy as hell. Probably in the 10-11lb range. What would be cool is an AK that uses a polymer shell instead of stamped aluminum to house the internals. The exact same design except with polymer instead of aluminum would probably save a lot of weight and be even more durable.
    The downside of polymer versus stamped steel (AK's don't use aluminum) is it takes a lot more depth of polymer to get the same strength so it would be a bulkier gun. Anyway, I would figure the only part of the AK-12 that would add any real weight is the new top cover/rail, and if you factor in that with optics you wouldn't need to use a side rail mount so the optics/mounts themselves will be lighter and you get that extra weight back.

    I just wish there was a good Hires pic of that spec sheet, then we could just read how much it weighs instead of trying to guess.

  6. #6
    Senior Member shuredgefan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Teegeeack-awaiting the triumphal return of Mighty Xenu
    Posts
    1,709

    Default

    They're making a 7.62 NATO version, with advances in body armor I suspect with see more full power general-issue rifles produced.

    Mikhail Timofeyevich is still looking spry at 92.

  7. #7
    Senior Member shuredgefan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Teegeeack-awaiting the triumphal return of Mighty Xenu
    Posts
    1,709

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crimsontide View Post
    It doesn't look half bad, but I bet you that thing is heavy as hell. Probably in the 10-11lb range.
    Quote Originally Posted by vz.ru via Google Translate
    [*******#000000][FONT=Times New Roman]At the same AK-12 almost save a lot of its predecessor, and will weigh about 3.3 kg.[/FONT][/COLOR][*******#000000][FONT=Times New Roman]The designer explained that "a sharp reduction in weight can be a negative impact on its characteristics, and in particular the accuracy of fire, will lead to an unacceptable reduction in the strength of his performance."[/FONT][/COLOR]
    http://www.vz.ru/news/2011/11/24/541384.html


    Right around 7 lbs is ideal for me.

  8. #8
    Krachslhuaba He219's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    21,997

    Default


    Looks like a tacticool Vz58!

  9. #9
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by He219 View Post

    Looks like a tacticool Vz58!
    Idon't like the look of its stock, selector switch (which is now separated from Fire Control... too complicated) and rear sight post (heard it reduce the efficiency of precision aiming with AK-style sight) apart from that, it looks okay (though I feel dissappointed as hell when I first saw it)

  10. #10
    Senior Member Hyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    8,265

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jippo View Post
    That looks like **** to be honest. And it reflects the ability of contemporary Russian small arms design: another AK rehash. Adding picatinny and making it more complex is not an improvement.

    Not impressed at all....
    x2

    They could've redesigned the entire housing (upper and lower receiver) to implement the new features and modifications properly, instead of having to fit them in and build them around given limitations.
    Plus it looks really like something someone would make in his garage, even worse as he would probably pay more attention to craftsmanship. If this is not just a demonstrator on the ideas they want to implement and if it's how it would enter production...very sad.

    And before someone comes out with the usual "But it has to be simple and cheap for mass production"...I'm pretty sure this is neither significantly cheaper nor simpler than other, better, contemporary designs in the world. Except for the R&D.
    Plus it's not the middle of WW3 right now, where they need to come up with a cheap and simple to produce rifle to produce and arm hundreds of millions in mere months with a rifle of equal battle characteristics to the one of the attacker (in which case AK-74M would be king, and they already have that one), so they should really make something better, and realize that their masses are already armed sufficiently, and that it is now time to come up with a rifle that will benefit every single infantryman in his daily duties, and through the overall benefit to all soldiers maybe even save a couple of lives in the current "peace time", where they are not fighting for the existence of their nation, but where their soldiers have to fight all kinds of elements which are not worth losing a life over (as every life has a worth in future $$$ to the nation, a handful of lives are probably worth more than they would save in the production of tens of thousands of rifles).

    They should probably get the old man out of their design room, he has done his part for the 20th century, but his guidelines (and ego/pride over his design) are outdated for today's needs of the Russian military.

  11. #11
    Senior Member Jippo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    6,264

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shuredgefan View Post
    They're making a 7.62 NATO version, with advances in body armor I suspect with see more full power general-issue rifles produced.
    I believe that is not going to happen as 7.62NATO FMJ is stopped by the same vest that stops 5.56 NATO FMJ. Bigger isn't that much better in penetrating armor, it is the velocity that matters.

  12. #12
    Senior Member rhino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    I Stand On A Rock Of Jesus Christ+
    Posts
    15,305

    Default

    still ugly as sin, a classic AK is so much more sexy

  13. #13

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mikoyan01 View Post
    ... selector switch (which is now separated from Fire Control... too complicated)....
    I'm not sure what you mean by Fire Control... I would read Fire Control as the trigger, which is always separate from the selector.... If you mean safety, that is part of the 4 position selector (Safe/1/3/Auto) the lever at the top rear of the receiver is the locking lever for the top cover (which is needed to stabilize the top cover now that it includes the rear sight and a picatinny rail).

  15. #15
    Senior Member NeedsABetterName's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    3,716

    Default

    Honestly, the whole setup looks like something they could easily retrofit their AK-74Ms to do. Set up a "copy" of the TWS rail (there are several in design/development over here, in addition to the TWS rail that's already out -- replaces the top cover, hinges on the rear sight block for stability). Hand guard rails are easy, and there are several styles out there. Coffin mags already exist in 5.45. The stock? Why re-invent the wheel? Just stick an AR-15 buffer tube on the hinge mechanism like several American companies already do (ACE, Tromix, others). The more I practice with it, the more I find that the location of the charging handle and safety/selector switch are just fine: flip the safety off with my index finger when I want to shoot, flip it back on when I'm done. But then again, I don't work for Magpul so I might be committing some sort of tactical faux-pas by doing this.

    I do like that they seem to have gone to an aperture-style sight; in my opinion, those are much more conducive to accurate fire than the stock AK sights. I'm curious if it sits high enough to cowitness with red dot sights.

    While they're doing this, maybe come up with a design that's more conducive to modularity; as it stands right now, the AK was never intended to swap from a 10" to a 14.5" to a 20" barrel in two minutes flat, nor do I think it was designed to change calibers within a matter of minutes.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •