eastern sniper comparison…

RE: and now a word on cartridges

Oops first of all let me make a correction.
The new Russian 6mm round was supposed to have a velocity of 1,145mps with an 80 grain projectile. It was originally a 6 x 53mm round but they managed to get the same ballistics with a 6 x 49mm round so they changed to that. Work has apparantly stopped on the cartridge because caseless rounds are being considered.
(Advantages of caseless rounds include they are much lighter… ie metallic cases are often the second heaviest component of a round (after the bullet), Due to compacted propellents they can have higher velocities with smaller charges. The very short length means downward extraction of failed rounds is possible with no normal ejection, so bullpup designs can be fired left or right handed without adjustment. They can be made more cheaply as less brass is used.
The main disadvantage is of course lower tolerance of external factors means factory sealed magazines are preferred, so no “loose” ammo due to potential damage.)

One of the reasons for the choice of the AN-94 appart from the improvement of 1.3 in accuracy from an unsupported standing position over the AKS-74M was that the design of the firing mechanism is self balancing… altering the feed design, magazine, and chamber and calibre of the barrel and it could fire 6 x 49mm or caseless rounds.

“A 139 grain in a 6.5 swedish mauser is a winning combination.”

Ironic isn’t it… the 6.5mm Mauser is a very old cartridge and the 6.5 Japanese Arisaka round is very similar in terms of sophisticated ballistics. Fedorov recognised this when he made the Avtomat in 1916… the worlds first assault rifle. Due to the cost of changing ammo production which was already geared for 7.62 x 54R and the cost of developing machineguns and other rifles it was discarded. The same mistake was made in the west several times (Most notably the British 7mm round that the original SA-80 was designed for).

“Your simply wasteing powder and creating alot of recoil for no real improvement of what the short case 6.5s are capable of.”

True but the larger case means heavier bullets can be safely used. As I mentioned he tended toward a heavier bullet which means a larger case would serve him better.

“You really got to go heavier than 193 to get good long range balistics in the “heavy and slow” side of things. “

🙂 I would never expect to get long range performance from the 7.62 x 39mm cartridge… it was always only ever designed for 200m max. From an RPK with a long barrel an bipod and firing in bursts then 400-600m might be realistic and the bullet would be capable of killing at that range, but with one shot and a much shorter barrel… No… I owe it to the animals I am hunting to use an appropriate weapon at an appropriate range.
Longer range stuff I use a Mosin Nagant Model 1891/1930 rifle. I’m thinking of testing some 200 grain bullets from Wolf, but at the moment I use 180 grain SP from Winchester. At much shorter range I use military surplus FMJ 150 odd grain against goats and smaller animals, and 7.62 x 39mm rounds against similar animals. Rabbits and possums get .22lr or 12 gauge.

Another reason for not going heavier with the 7.62 x 39 is case size.
With bullets in the 200 grain size there is very little room left for powder, so velocity falls off rapidly with larger bullets. 193 grain bullets are already subsonic… going any slower or increasing the powder fraction would probably be more dangerous than beneficial.

I’ve always thought that bullet placement is much more important than bullet weight or velocity. (Of course hunting large animals penetration with a heavy non disintigrating bullet is very important too but I have no real interest in hunting anything that big.)

193 grain is a significant weight and comes with the benefit of being subsonic so a suppressor becomes a silencer. Not having to hunt with ear plugs makes it more enjoyable… part of the fun is walking around and looking and being immersed in nature. This is negated by being made artificialy deaf by using ear protection.

RE: and now a word on cartridges

“Actually the Russians have been toying with a 6mm round… originally 6 x 53mm but then changed to 6 x 49mm. Both fired the slugs at rather high speed… 1,400mps or something like that.”
#There probably using a little 50 grainer, a 50 grain in a 243 can almost hit that velocity.

“I have read articles about both 6mm and 7mm rounds… something about ballistic coefficients being ideal for 100-130 grain bullets in these calibres.”
#Indeed they are, many a 6mm and 6.5mm score right up there with the 30.cal magnums in 1000 yard bench rest competitions. As I mentioned, a super fast twist is required for these long bullets. A 139 grain in a 6.5 swedish mauser is a winning combination.

“I have a few friends who swear by the .243 and use it almost exclusively with 100 to 120 grain bullets. (I do have one friend who thinks the .243 is a pipsqueek and uses 130 grain bullets in his .25-06… but he’s always been a “more power” kinda guy).”
#100 to 120 grain bullet are definately deer killing bullets for the 243. Necking down a 30.06 to 6.5 is a clear example of “overbore” in a cartridge. Your simply wasteing powder and creating alot of recoil for no real improvement of what the short case 6.5s are capable of.

“I personally find the 7.62 x 39 quite adaquate but I’m considering trying some 193 grain subsonic rounds to see how they perform on larger animals. Apparantly they were popular in Chechnia part II against people… something I have no need for but Deer are often rather hard to put down cleanly do I would obviously prefer too much power to not enough.”
#You really got to go heavier than 193 to get good long range balistics in the “heavy and slow” side of things. What you got there is less than a marlin lever action shooting .44 Mag. Ive seen some black powder guys do some impressive longrange stuff with 500 grainers going around 1200fps.

RE: and now a word on cartridges

Actually the Russians have been toying with a 6mm round… originally 6 x 53mm but then changed to 6 x 49mm. Both fired the slugs at rather high speed… 1,400mps or something like that.

I have read articles about both 6mm and 7mm rounds… something about ballistic coefficients being ideal for 100-130 grain bullets in these calibres.

I have noted that the 55 grain standard M195 5.56mm NATO was improved to a 62 grain SS109 round. The Russian round has also been enlarged from 52 to 62 grain.

I have a few friends who swear by the .243 and use it almost exclusively with 100 to 120 grain bullets. (I do have one friend who thinks the .243 is a pipsqueek and uses 130 grain bullets in his .25-06… but he’s always been a “more power” kinda guy.)
I personally find the 7.62 x 39 quite adaquate but I’m considering trying some 193 grain subsonic rounds to see how they perform on larger animals. Apparantly they were popular in Chechnia part II against people… something I have no need for but Deer are often rather hard to put down cleanly do I would obviously prefer too much power to not enough.

I hear that the Chinese have recently introduced a 5.7mm round with a case length of about 45mm… very interesting.

and now a word on cartridges

On the assault rifle thread, comments were made on lack of stopping power of the 5.56 & 5.45 cartridges vs the 7.62 NATO. I think armys are making a major mistake ignoring the 6mm calibers which have tremendous velocitys,trajectorys and hitting power out to ranges of 400 to 500 yards. Hitting power may sound like a bunch of gun magazine bluster, but its a scientificly measurable factor. Infact many states in the US regulate hunting rifles by a minamum number of foot/pounds. Its a ratio of buller wieght and velocity that issac newton discovered in his laws of forces that are at work here. What it boils down to is a tiny bullet at high velocity will equal the force of a heavier buller going at slower velocity. So, how does this affect the above mentioned calibers?

7.62 NATO- I cant think of any other short case 7.x mm/30 cal cartridge that has killing ballistics out to the 500 to 1000 yard range as the good old 308 Win(7.62 NATO).US sharpshooters who use 30 cal magnums like the 300WinMag are needlessly abusing themselves with a marginal increase in ballistics/hitting power for the amount of recoil there hit with. Might as well shoot a 50. cal.

5.56-These orinally shot 40 gr pills to 4000fps giving them shocking power at shorter ranges, but these little bullets lost velocity rapidly at long range making them an inafective field rifle: enter the 60 gr pills. I takes a high twist to make these heavy long bullets fly right but they do have impressive long range ballistics. Impressive that is if your shooting ground hogs, any hunter will tell you, you dont drop deer with 22. cals at anything but very close ranges.

And now for the 6mm !

243Win-Its the 7.62necked down to 6mm. Its a mainstay here in the US as a deer rifle with knock down hitting power at 300 to 400 yard ranges, raygun like trajectory, super high velocity and most important low felt recoil making follow on shooting less disorienting.

6mm PPC-This catridge has been the defacto record holding cartridge in target shooting out to 300 yards. It has very low recoil and deer hunting hitting power. Why armys are ignoring this one I’ll never know.

RE: eastern sniper comparison…

Take your time mate. Besides, I think I might have some in a book about the Yugoslav Kalashnikov derivatives – problem is that’s in Belgrade.

RE: eastern sniper comparison…

hehehe Im doing my best. Ive contacted few frineds and X soldier in yug.. pluss ill try to see n few serbian formus does anybody have them… theyll have to turn up sooner or later.

Cheers

RE: eastern sniper comparison…

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 03-05-02 AT 10:58 PM (GMT)]Because so much of my reference literature is pure Russian and Soviet related it has little or nothing about eastern European weapons. I can hardly rely on my Jane’s Guns Recognition Guide for reliable information (besides, it’s the ’96 edition). What a sodding waste of money…

JAG,

You’re not off the hook about those photos of M76s with bipods… 🙂

RE: eastern sniper comparison…

Hi,
Off the top of my head I have heard of a few Eastern European rifles that were not direct SVD copies… one bolt action East german rifle… in 5.45 x 39mm. Interestingly it was listed with two versions of ammo. Standard ammo looked like Russian stuff but there was some German ammo with a mv of 1,200m/s. It was designed for police use only.
The other was called FRK or something and used the AKM design like the M76 but had a stock like the SVD.

I have also seen several articles on anti material rifles… I’ll have a look and try and dig some out.

Regarding the SVD, yes you are quite right I mentioned 800m as the extreme maximum range for human targets. Shots at that range would be rather rare. Though there were some reports of long range shots in Afghanistan due mainly to the favourable terrain.(ie little vegetation) Certainly if your firebase is at the top of a hill and you can see quite a distance an AK is not really going to cut it. (Often recoilless rifles were used as direct fire artillery or ZU-23 twin 23mm cannon were used for their range).

RE: eastern sniper comparison…

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 03-05-02 AT 09:11 AM (GMT)]800m??? You’re debating the wrong range. both these rifles were intended for the same role: A mass producable, soldier-proof (or soldier friendly), reliable sniper/sharp-shooter/marksman’s rifle. The ranges at which they are most likely to be used are between 400m and 600m – i.e. they were intended to increase a squads effectivness at extreme assault rifle ranges. Shooting out to 800m is possible and plausible but not likely or common. You wouldn’t expect to hit much at that range with an AK but that doesn’t make Kalashnikov pattern rifles somehow inferior.

Garry,

Pretty much the only reason I know anything about the M76 is that I am from Yugoslavia (and the generous media coverage of that nation over the last 10 years). Did any other eastern European states experiment much with sniper rifles or did they all lap up what the Soviets poured into their bowls? I know that Hungary did some interesting anti-material rifles but I don’t know anything about the Rumanians, Czechoslovaks and Poles.

By the way, fantastic pics!

RE: eastern sniper comparison…

“Sorry Garry,12cm groups from a 1.0 MOA rifle at 800 yards just is not geometricaly correct. You better start buy’en lottery tickets if you can pull that off”

You are quite correct… I made a little error translating from old Imperial measures to a more modern unit of measurement.
A 1 MOA rifle should equate to 203mm at 800m… which still keeps it in the chest area of a human target.

Cosidering that was with a 4x scope and current issue rifles have a 3-9x scope it should be easier to achieve now.

“It was the rifle of choice for guerrila groups doing serious fighting in africa,asia and central america. “

So popular yet so unknown… strange.

“…have all their guns shiny-polished in a gun case and have never known what its like to depend their life on a rifle in the field for months on end.”

The SVD and M76 may not be sub MOA rifles but they have never been accused of not being reliable and soldier proof.

RE: eastern sniper comparison…

“JAG mentioned 1.5 to 2 MOA for this draganof rifle. “
No he gave those figures for the M76 which is a reinforced AKM design.
The SVD would more likely shoot 1.0-1.5 MOA.
This is assuming proper ammo is used and there are no range estimation errors.
An 8-12cm circle of hits at 800m would be quite capable of hitting the chest area of a human target.
##Sorry Garry,12cm groups from a 1.0 MOA rifle at 800 yards just is not geometricaly correct. You better start buy’en lottery tickets if you can pull that off.##

“The HK 98 field rifle shoots 1 MOA out of the box. “
And for how many years has this rifle been in service?
How reliable is it in Jungle/Arctic/High Altitude battlefields?
##The original design was done in WW2, HK cleaned up the design for the spanish I think in the 50s or around there. It was the rifle of choice for guerrila groups doing serious fighting in africa,asia and central america. Gun experts dont like it because the action never actually locks into place, but then these gun “experts” have all their guns shiny-polished in a gun case and have never known what its like to depend their life on a rifle in the field for months on end.##

RE: eastern sniper comparison…

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 03-05-02 AT 03:16 AM (GMT)]”JAG mentioned 1.5 to 2 MOA for this draganof rifle. “

No he gave those figures for the M76 which is a reinforced AKM design.
The SVD would more likely shoot 1.0-1.5 MOA.
This is assuming proper ammo is used and there are no range estimation errors.
An 8-12cm circle of hits at 800m would be quite capable of hitting the chest area of a human target.
The way M76s and SVDs are used however they are more likely to be used at ranges of 600m.

“The HK 98 field rifle shoots 1 MOA out of the box. “

And for how many years has this rifle been in service?

How reliable is it in Jungle/Arctic/High Altitude battlefields?

Indeed however as the Russians are slowly looking at a professional army they are looking at increasing the accuracy of their standard rifles they have not neglected their snipers. The old SVD meets NATO standards for sniper rifles, while the SVDS improves upon that accuracy.
A requirement for a really accurate rifle for general issue has lead to the design and introduction of the SV-98. This is based on a sporting model. In combat as I have explained above the Western concept of sniper is not implemented by one man in every platoon carrying an SVD, but by GRU Spetsnaz and other recon units. They would probably have used civilian competition rifles instead of the Dragunov for missions that might involve long shots… now they can just use the SV-98.

(SV-98 is currently available in 7.62 x 54mmR but soon .338 Laupa Magnum and 9.3 x 64mm calibre versions will become available)

Now some pics of the SV-98:
1 SV-98 with suppressor. (makes it difficult to determine source of shot)
2 SV-1 civilian rifle used as basis.
3 Muzzle view showing suppressor and anti reflection plate on top.

Attachments:

RE: eastern sniper comparison…

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 03-05-02 AT 00:43 AM (GMT)]JAG mentioned 1.5 to 2 MOA for this draganof rifle. Thats pathetic! The HK 98 field rifle shoots 1 MOA out of the box. You cant reliably hit a man at 800 yards with a 2 MOA rifle. Im surprised that with the russians success in target competion they cant make better accuracy.

RE: eastern sniper comparison…

Actually some of the first anti material rifles (ie 50 cal) as used by some in the US were modified PTRS-41 and PTRD-41 anti tank rifles.
(S for simonov and D for Degtyarev… former being 5 shot auto, latter being single shot BA).
Originally in 14.5mm calibre they were altered to the much milder .50 cal for the American civil market.

The two rifles I have information about are the SVN-98 and OSV-96. Both are 12.7 x 108mm cal weapons, though the former is a bullpup with a 5 shot mag, while the other folds in half, is also semi auto and also has a 5 shot mag.

Effective ranges given for the SVN-98 are 1,000m against material and 1,500m against troops with body armour. I would normally assume the figures would be the other way around but I guess that the shorter range for anti material use is assuming penetrating and damaging require more energy and therefore a shorter range.

Effective range for the OSV-96 is given as 1,800m for material and 1,200m for use against human targets. Standard scope is the POS 12 x 50 scope.

Both weigh about 12kgs.

I only have this pic of the OSV-96 and the second picture shows the size difference between the 12.7 x 108mm and the 7.62 x 54mmR round.
(The latter being the oldest service round still in use by the original country… it first was used in the 1891 Mosin Nagant rifle… as a black powder cartridge with a 220 grain round nose bullet. Later smokeless powder and a pointed lighter bullet of 180 or 150 grain was introduced and it has remained largely unchanged since.)

So the pictures here are:
1 OSV-96
2 12.7 x 108mm with 7.62 x 54mmR ammo
3 a small image of the SVDU bullpup rifle
4 a small image of the OSV-96 folded
5 a small image of the AT-13 Metis a cheap 0-1,500m anti bunker/tank missile system… designed to be very cheap to bridge the gap between a heavy ATGM and an unguided RPG (ie trying for RPG cost and ATGM accuracy within the range limitations).

Attachments:

RE: eastern sniper comparison…

Garry,

Excellent pics and info, thanks!

On a similar note, anti-material rifles have recently become very popular in the (former) eastern bloc. I’m curious to know what you think the best design to come out of Russia (or indeed other eastern European nations) is. How do they compare to western anti-material rifles in terms of range, reliability etc?

Finally… more pics please!!! 🙂 🙂

RE: eastern sniper comparison…

Just looked at the link:

http://www.scs.wsu.edu/~pbourque/riflelt.htm

Interesting…
It says:

“The Abakan AK-102 design was finalized during the final years of the 20th century as a replacement for the aging Kalashnikov AK-74. The Abakan retains the same chambering as its predecessor, the 5.45x39mm Soviet round. Other significant changes in the AK-102 include a redesigned action, modified blowback system, and an offset magazine. The model shown at left is the shortened “special use” version, the AK-102S.”

Abakan was the name of the new rifle to replace the AK-74… which is the AN-94. Under Abakan they seem to have confused the AK-100 series with the AN-94. The AK-102 they show is truely the AK-102, but there is no AK-102S. (The AN-94 does indeed have a redesigned action, offset mag etc.).
To revise the AK-100 series was to update other calibre AKs to AK-74M level. It was also to provide a short barrel version that would be handier but not as short as the AKS-74U which loses mid range accuracy due to its very short barrel and is really just a powerful SMG rather than a small assault rifle.
There is no AK-100.
AK-101 and AK-103 are AK-74Ms in 5.56mm NATO and 7.62 x 39mm (AK-47) calibre.
AK-102, AK-104, and AK-105 are shorter barrel versions of the AK-74M, in 5.56mm NATO, 7.62 x 39mm (AK-47), and (to compliment the AK-74M) in 5.45 x 39mm respectively.
AK-101 to 105 share the same mechanism and parts and design with the AK-74M.

(Note that the AK-102 is 5.56mm x 45 NATO so would not even be considered for Russian military service.)

“You’re more knowledgable than me about this, how does the Mauser cartridge compare to the 7.62x54R Soviet?”

The Mauser is a very good round and is quite suitable for the sniper role from 600-1000m. Performance is practically the same as the 7.62 x 54R and is in the same class as the US .30-06. (Due to larger case size the .30-06 copes better with heavier bullets but as most modern armies have 150-180grain bullets the difference doesn’t show).

From a practical point of view the advantage of the M76 over the Dragunov is that you can use the same factory for manufacturing assault rifles for the manufacture of your sniper rifles… in much the same way RPK-74 LMGs can be made with very similar tooling that is used for the AK-74.
The real differences are inside and the Dragunov does enjoy some advantages from being purpose designed.
If you have ever seen the inside of an AK you will have noticed the rather substancial piece of metal the bolt carrier is. When enlarged for the more powerful round this becomes quite enormous and its movement during firing would make the rifle move more than it otherwise would. Dragunov changed the gas system design so that the piston rod was very small and seperate from the bolt carrier and this reduced the weight of the rifle significantly. Despite being 1.2m long it weighs just 4.3kg… one of the lightest autoloading sniper rifles.
Soviet design philosophy recognised the fact that conscripts never got enough marksmanship training so most troops were trained to fire short bursts while any platoon members that showed any aptitude for shooting were given proper shooting training and issued with SVDs. They weren’t snipers in the western sense of sneaking around in ones or twos on special missions. This role was performed by recon units and GRU spetsnaz.
These days however a new emphasis on accuracy has resulted in the AN-94 which is by all accounts much more accurate than the AK-74… whose own accuracy has been greatly improved as well by higher standards required for ammunition production. (In the past the emphasis was auto fire in bursts so high quality ammo required for accuracy was not worth the extra expense.)
In addition to reducing weight the SVDS has a greater emphasis on accuracy… with the right ammo the SVD and SVDS would be quite comparable to the M21.
For longer range shots (1,000-1,400m) a new 9.3 x 64mm round is being used by Ru Spec Forces, fired from a modified SVD (called SVDK).
A new truely sharp rifle is the SV-98 which is a bolt action rifle for longer shots (out to 1000m).
Further away requires 12.7 x 108mm rounds and rifles.

Suffice to say standard 308 sniper rifles have an effective range of 6-800m against a human target and up to 1,200m for large targets or harrassing fire. Magnums and .338 laupa, and 9.3 x 64mm rounds would extend point target capability to perhaps 1,200m maximum… harrassing fire maybe 1,500-1,600m. 50 cal guns would be effective from 1,500 to about 2,000m and mostly be used against vehicles, buildings or weapons and equipment.
(The South African 20mm/14.5mm rifle has an effective range of 2,000m with 20mm (relying on HE) and 2,500m with 14.5 x 115mm)

Picture:
1 a SVDS in pieces (note the small piston rod).
2 a current model SVD with a new 3-9 x 42mm MINUTA scope.
3 SVDK
4 SV-98 with suppressor.
Attachments:

RE: eastern sniper comparison…

Now that i look closer…. it could be true… but then again.. maybe Zastvas idea of developing m23 is taking parts of two other rfiles and puting them together 🙂 would not be the first time… Ill have to get more photos to draw acurate conclusion

RE: eastern sniper comparison…

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 01-05-02 AT 02:47 PM (GMT)]JAG,

I knew that Zastava was developing a bullpup design for the VJ but had never seen it. Personally I think it looks a bit dubious and probably won’t perform wonders. The P-90 was never really intended for this role and forcing a rifle cartridge (however small) through it is probably a bad idea.

I doubt that this weapon will ever be purchased by the Army, it’s more likely to be used by the MUP and it might (considering the calibre) acheive some export success.

Also, looking at it again, I must question the validity of your source. It looks awfully like someone used photoshop to paste a FAMAS receiver onto the back of a P-90 and blamed the Yugoslav arms industry for the result.

RE: eastern sniper comparison…

Well ive been told by someone who fired it that it can shoot accurately enough at 2500m… perhaps its officialy designated at 2000.

As for M76 with bipods, i dont know about rest of the RS but in ares where i was about every 3rd sniper had one.. and they were operating outside urban combat zone… snipers there didnt use bipods .. i assume there is a reason.

JAG

PS: Have you seen photos of zastavas “bullpup” type rifle.. m23.. just go down to the bottom.
http://www.scs.wsu.edu/~pbourque/riflelt.htm

RE: eastern sniper comparison…

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 01-05-02 AT 09:28 AM (GMT)]JAG,

Yes, I’d also heard it proved to be highly effective. However, I must query your claim of 2500m range – my info was that it could be reliably used against targets out to 2000m. A 500m increase is pretty significant if you think about it.

Also, I would be exceptionally gateful if you could post pics of M76s with bipods. I did have some but they’ve been misplaced. I knew of their existence but didn’t realise that they were common.

Garry,

You’re more knowledgable than me about this, how does the Mauser cartridge compare to the 7.62x54R Soviet?