ASDA is a compact, focused exhibition held every two years in beautiful Split, Croatia. SADJ dispatched a video crew during this month’s 2013 edition to give some of the show’s most influential and innovative exhibitors a chance to showcase their products right here on sadefensejournal.com.

Today, Armalite’s Mike McCarthy explains the benefits of the AR-30A1.

ASDA is a compact, focused exhibition held every two years in beautiful Split, Croatia. SADJ dispatched a video crew during this month’s 2013 edition to give some of the show’s most influential and innovative exhibitors a chance to showcase their products right here on sadefensejournal.com.

Direct from the show floor, here’s Dubravko Gvozdanovic giving an overview of HS Produkt’s VHS-2 assault rifle.

Dubravko also took the time to explain the features of HS Produkt’s XDs line of pistols.

IWA OutdoorClassics is a massive yearly exhibition in Nuremberg, Germany that focuses on the latest gear for hunters, recreational shooters, law enforcement officers and soldiers. SADJ dispatched a video crew during this month’s 2013 edition to give some of the show’s most influential and innovative exhibitors a chance to showcase their products right here on sadefensejournal.com.

Today, Jessica Brooks-Stevens from Barnes Bullets gives us an overview of her company’s military & law enforcement products.

On April 8, 2013, the United Nations General Assembly approved an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) text crafted in two negotiations conferences, four preparatory committees, and two open-ended working groups over a period of more than five years.  It will be opened for signature in June of this year and enter into force when 50 countries have signed it.  This article will discuss the role of the Defense Small Arms Advisory Council (DSAAC) in that process and offer our perspective on what the ATT may or may not mean to our segment of the defense industry in coming years.

By way of introduction, DSAAC is a 501(c)(6) trade association comprised of most of the U.S.-based firearms manufacturers who serve the military market, both domestic and international.  While other organizations serve the larger defense industry, there are none focused exclusively on military small arms and our mission, therefore, is to serve as the voice of our member companies in dealing with issues that are unique to our segment of the industry.

DSAAC was formed in 2004, initially for the primary purpose of insuring that the U.S. Army’s weapons procurement practices continued to comply with the Federal Acquisition Regulation’s requirement for full and open competition and that U.S. weapons manufacturing companies would continue to have a fair chance at winning future small arms contracts, a matter that was then somewhat in doubt.  Since that time, we have engaged in a number of other issues, for example, initiating a dialogue with the U.S. State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) to make the firearms export licensing process more transparent and predictable.

In early 2006, we became aware of the accelerating proliferation of arms control initiatives in the United Nations and sought entry into the process in order to insure that our interests were represented.  The first UN event in which we participated was the 2006 five-year review of the Program of Action (PoA) on Small Arms and Light Weapons.  (Actually, it’s “The Program of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects“, a relatively brief title for a UN initiative.)  While the challenges posed by the PoA are significant and ongoing, the proposed Arms Trade Treaty quickly took center stage.

The advertised purpose of the ATT was to require countries who become parties to adopt meaningful and hopefully effective national laws, based on agreed international standards, for regulating the export and import of conventional arms such as tanks, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, artillery, combatant naval vessels, and, presumably, small arms and light weapons.  Realistically, 99% of the energy and rhetoric concerning the treaty has always been about small arms, not larger weapons systems.  It’s also instructive that only about 25% of the world’s countries currently have even rudimentary regulations covering the topic.

The U.S. and some other exporting nations had for several years questioned the point of such a treaty since, if its only goal is to require all nations to adopt arms export and import regulations, it would have been a simple matter for the delegations from those countries without them to simply go home, sit down, and adopt export and import regulations.  It doesn’t take an international treaty to do that.  For this reason, and others, for several years the U.S. voted against proceeding to the negotiations stage.  However, by mid-2008, it became apparent that there was going to be an Arms Trade Treaty and continuing to vote against it – joined reliably only by Zimbabwe – would only prevent the U.S. from playing a meaningful role in shaping its text.  For that reason, more than the change of Presidential administrations, in 2009 the U.S. joined in approving a General Assembly resolution that authorized convening of a conference to negotiate an ATT.

The U.S. joining in the process, however, was subject to a number of “redlines;” points that we considered non-negotiable.  Number One was that “the Treaty process must be based on consensus,” meaning that all parties must agree or else there is no treaty.  This was not going to be yet another negotiation in which we were prepared to be out-voted by countries with a combined population less than that of many mid-sized U.S. cities.  Number Two, significantly, was that “an ATT will not undermine Second Amendment rights or other U.S. constitutional or legal protections; an ATT will only address international transfers of arms and will not prohibit or address the internal transfers of states.”

DSAAC’s going-in position was that U.S. military arms manufacturing companies are already subject to the strictest export licensing system in the world and frequently at a competitive disadvantage because many of our foreign rivals in the global market enjoy a relative absence of oversight.  If an ATT were to subject small arms manufacturers in other countries to a degree of governmental regulation similar to that with which we must comply – thereby leveling the playing field – and contained nothing harmful to our interests or those of our citizens, we would not necessarily oppose it.

It was obvious that we needed to engage in the negotiations process in order to achieve early detection of problematic language and look for opportunities to seek improvement.  DSAAC’s role was similar to that played by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), the National Rifle Association (NRA), Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute (SAAMI), the World Forum on the Future of Shooting Activities (WFSA) and other firearms-related NGOs (Non-Governmental Organization), however, we were the only organization actively participating on behalf of military small arms manufacturers.  Our being there and actively engaging helped to backstop the U.S. delegation by letting them know we were both informed and involved and thus not abandoning the process to anti-gun NGOs.

In assessing the U.S. role in the ATT process, it’s important to understand that, unlike in the Security Council, the U.S. has no veto in the General Assembly and has to negotiate like every other country, much as some would like to believe otherwise.  Our fear, of course, was that at some point – even with clear U.S. redlines established – the U.S. delegation would be overridden by political officials in Washington and forced to yield on key points in order to reach consensus, even if doing so was detrimental to our interests.  Somewhat surprisingly, that didn’t happen, evidently much to the disappointment of those who hoped the treaty really would provide an end-run around the Second Amendment.

Our main concern was that the treaty would contain language that would enable some future U.S. administration to take actions against the lawful, civilian ownership of firearms by claiming that such actions were required in order to comply with the treaty.  Although DSAAC is not primarily a Second Amendment civil rights organization (those interests are well represented at the UN by groups such as SAF and the NRA) it was nevertheless critically important for us also to address this issue for two reasons unique to our industry.  First, most of our members – and virtually all of their component suppliers – are in both the military and commercial markets; what happens to the right of civilians to legally own firearms matters not only to us as Americans, but to our businesses.  Second, if there was even a remote possibility of any future benefit to our industry from a treaty that imposes the same export standards on our foreign competitors, we clearly had an interest in helping develop a final text that is clearly compatible with that right of civilian firearms ownership; otherwise it would have no chance of ever gaining Senate approval.

Even more directly related to our core business interests was the concern that Mexico, supported by other anti-U.S. countries, would succeed in inserting language that defined “transfer” in such a way that the treaty’s application wasn’t strictly limited to export or import transactions.  Indeed, the 2 July 2012 draft, the basis for the month-long negotiations conference last year, defined the Scope of the treaty as follows:

“This treaty shall apply to all international transfers of conventional arms, “transfer” being defined as:

• a. The physical movement of arms into or from national territory and which includes the transfer of title or control over those arms, or
• b. The transfer of title or control over those arms.”

The clear purpose behind the second clause was to bring any change in the ownership of a firearm – with or without accompanying international movement – under the jurisdiction of the treaty.  Mexico’s motive was obviously to force the U.S. to do something to restrict the right of our citizens to purchase and own firearms.

There is an even more insidious motive that, for obvious reasons, was never discussed openly, which would have had an even more far reaching effect on U.S. citizens.  Had the Mexican effort been successful, this language could have set up a scenario in which the President of the United States signs the treaty and, even though it is never ratified by the U.S. Senate, the Mexican government either directly or through surrogates, is then able to sue U.S. firearms manufacturers and distributors in U.S. federal court, alleging that they have “transferred” arms that were later trafficked to drug cartels, all in violation of the ATT.  The U.S. government, of course, could also be made a party for its failure to enact and enforce effective measures for preventing such transfers – beginning, for example, with universal firearms registration, arguably an obligation under the treaty if it applies to domestic sales.  And it is easy to envision some future administration’s being less than enthusiastic in defending itself against such an allegation, particularly if the only consequences of losing are being ordered by the court to do things it would already like – but lacks the domestic political muscle – to do.

While this scenario may seem farfetched, Mexico, in fact, retained a New York law firm in November 2010 for the express purpose of finding a way around the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCA) of 2005, legislation that was critical to the survival of U.S. manufacturers who were then hemorrhaging funds to fight meritless but ruinously expensive lawsuits.  A key success for Mexico and its allies would have been a judicial determination that the President’s signature of the ATT – under his power to conduct foreign policy – trumps the PLCA.

Anyone wondering how this could be even imaginable in the absence of Senate ratification needs to understand that under Article 18 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a country like ours with a bifurcated system for treaty ratification – where the head of state can sign it but another branch of government is responsible for its ratification – becomes bound upon signing not to act contrary to the “object and purpose” of the treaty.  (This is, in fact, the status of the 1969 Vienna Convention itself.)  While it would be difficult to predict the ultimate outcome of such a lawsuit, it is easy to predict the financial impact of years of litigation on U.S. manufacturers, particularly if a fellow-defendant federal government mounted only a weak defense – or even admitted that the plaintiffs were right.  It’s also worth noting that Article 27 of the 1969 Vienna Convention prohibits a party from invoking “the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty (obligation).”

It should be noted that all of the costs of this onerous litigation would serve to put some U.S. firearms companies out of business, and pass on the costs to the U.S. consumers for those companies that did survive, thus pricing even more Americans out of their right to own the firearm of their choice.

Therefore, one of the key fights for us was to insure that the Mexican language did not become part of the final text.  Fortunately, the U.S. delegation was both sensitive to our concerns and already aware of the implications of the Mexican attempt and, through a series of long and brutal negotiations, succeeded in deleting that entire section.  There is no comparable language in the final text that could be readily applied to domestic firearms transfers.  Those who have doubts are encouraged to read the final text for themselves; the document is labeled A/CONF.217/2013/L.3 and it is located  at http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/docs/Draft_ATT_text_27_Mar_2013-E.pdf.

(Note:  Blog authors and others, for example, who attempt to equate the provision about “national control lists” with universal firearms registration need to actually read the text of the treaty where they will find that this provision simply reserves the decision to each nation as to which weapons it will include in the list of those whose export and import it will regulate.)

There is still a lot wrong with the ATT.  For one thing, its basic premise insures that not much will happen in the way of combating the human suffering caused by small arms and light weapons in the wrong hands in conflict zones around the world.  This is more about the people than the weapons.  A treaty that depends upon national governments to develop and implement arms export and import regulations – something they have been free to do all along without a treaty but which most have declined to do – is unlikely to accomplish much in the areas where it is needed the most.  A big part of the reason is that the primary source of those weapons is not the illicit trade but is instead the weak and corrupt governments that will still freely trade in them.  The only remedy for the chaos in most of those places is the outbreak of honest and effective government, something that the ATT can do little to achieve.

Another thing is that, even for a treaty, it’s pretty ambiguous.  This can be either a good or bad thing, depending on who’s doing the interpreting and when.  Much of the ambiguity was deliberately sought by the U.S. delegation in preference to a highly detailed document that would likely have included things that were clearly objectionable to us.  And considering that the overall purpose of the treaty was to establish a common framework of standards that nations should employ when deciding whether to authorize an arms export but reserve to those nations both the mechanics and the decision itself, a certain amount of ambiguity is both inevitable and good.

On the plus side, the harmful provisions that some countries and NGOs sought didn’t make it into the final text.  While we would have greatly preferred clear and unequivocal language excluding lawfully owned civilian arms from the scope of the treaty, we got the next best thing which was an absence of language including them.

During the ATT process, I personally developed a profound respect and appreciation for the patriotism and skill of the U.S. delegation – led by Assistant Secretary of State Tom Countryman and Senior Negotiator Don Mahley.  While it’s easy to become cynical about government officials in general, these two and their team stood up for our country throughout days and nights of long and painful negotiations in which it was frequently and literally the U.S. against the rest of the world.  They, in fact, did precisely what they said they would do going in and, speaking for myself, I was proud of them as I think anyone actually there and participating would have been.  They fought the good fight.

Much continues to be made of the great unlikelihood of the U.S. Senate’s ever ratifying the ATT.  We can expect to see great pressure brought to bear in the future on Senators by NGOs, other governments, domestic gun control groups and snarky editorial writers, likely without success.  Part of their pessimism about the treaty’s future stems from the overall political mood of our country these days and our utter lack of enthusiasm for any program (with the possible exception of UNICEF) originating in the United Nations.  But part will be directly blamed on “misrepresentations” by pro-firearms groups concerning the nature of the treaty.  The irony will be that the groups insisting the most loudly that nothing in the treaty could ever possibly impact lawful civilian firearms ownership in this country are also the same groups that bitterly – and successfully – opposed including simple language in the ATT that would have excluded from its scope firearms that are legally owned and used domestically and are not moved in international commerce, language that perhaps would have raised the comfort level of enough U.S. Senators to someday approve the ATT.  That these same groups are now hoist with their own petard (a weapon system whose future export and import may – or may not – be subject to the ATT) is their own fault; for five years DSAAC tried to warn them.

Several years ago, SADJ visited ST Kinetics at their factory in Singapore and reported on their small arms innovations and products (SADJ V2N2, online at sadefensejournal.com)  in 2012, we returned for an update.  Singapore Technologies Kinetics, also called ST Kinetics, is a large land systems and specialty vehicle company covering the southeast Asia region.  it’s a four decade-old company that is a division of ST Engineering.  ST Kinetics has over 20 locations, over 6,000 workers, and is working all over the world in sales – primarily in its vehicle systems.

Compact Personal Weapon
During our last visit, we were able to see the newest offerings from the ST Kinetics Small Arms Division.  The CPW, or Compact Personal Weapon, was the first item we looked at.  We were impressed with the ergonomic design, the light weight, and the multiple caliber concept.  On this visit, we got a deeper look at a matured design that is coming to market.  The choice was made to stay with 9x19mm due to the prevalence of the caliber in the world market, as well as the proven ballistics and terminal performance.  ST engineers have experimented a lot with some of the newer “PDW type” calibers, but chose to stay with the marketability of 9x19mm.  The CPW is now ready to move into production and they are working towards production now.

The final version of the CPW; the Compact Personal Weapon. Note the translucent rear grip panel, which allows the operator to visually inspect the rounds in the translucent magazine, without removing the magazine.

Felix Tsai, Senior Engineer on the CPW project, explains the disassembly process to Dan Shea. The CPW is a modular design, breaking down into distinct component groups.

Felix Tsai explains the construction method used in the receiver and barrel of the CPW to Dan Shea, and then on to the cam recoil mitigation system that draws out the impulse – making for smooth firing – this is not just another straight blowback system.

CIS-40 AGL
ST Kinetics has two Automatic Grenade Launchers they are offering: the first is the CIS-40 AGL, and the second is a lightweight AGL that SADJ covered in the article available online from our last visit.  The CIS-40 AGL and MK2 product improvements are the focus of our visit, along with seeing the continued application of the Air Bursting Munitions programming systems.

Nan-Sang Chin, Principal Engineer on the AGL MK2 project, came in to explain the operation of the MK2 improvements.

Nan-Sang Chin, Principal Engineer on the AGL MK2 project, explains the new improvements to the AGL. Here he discusses the quick change barrel and the interface to the bolt and feeding mechanism. This system has been somewhat simplified, and made very user friendly. It also allows the MK2 to break down into a smaller package for transport.

ST Kinetics’ AGL MK2 broken down into its five basic component groups (the feed chute adapter at center is not a component, these change according to use): operating group, barrel, receiver group, top cover group, trigger group.

At the meeting left to right: Cheng Hok Aw, VP Engineering Division, Chow Ming Wong, Assistant VP Kinetics Marketing Group, Dan Shea SADJ Editor-in-Chief, and Felix Tsai, Senior Engineer, discuss modern small arms development and the way the ST Kinetics product line fits in. On the table left to right: STK 40 GL 40x46mm shoulder fired grenade launcher on its individual stock; SAR-21 bullpup style assault rifle in 5.56x45mm; ST Kinetic’s Compact Personal Weapon (CPW) in 9x19mm.

CIS-40 GL
The CIS 40 GL is a standard break-open single shot 40x46mm grenade launcher.  On its stand-alone platform it has a buttstock attached to it.  If it’s going to be used as an under-barrel as shown on the SAR-21, it has a different mounting system.  It uses one folding (leaf) sight, graduated in 50mm increments.  It’s a very simple design, the barrel kicks open to the left at the back for loading almost any variety of ammunition, including gas and baton rounds.  The weight unloaded with the stock is 2.05 kilograms and the barrel length is 305 millimeters.  Overall length with the stock attached is 655 millimeters, and it has a 2.3 kilogram trigger pull.  It can be adapted to the SAR-21, the M16 and HK series weapons, and ST Kinetics says that they can adapt it to almost any other system.

The author would like to thank Mr. Chow Ming Wong, Assistant Vice President of the Kinetics Marketing Group; Brigadier General Patrick Choy (Ret.), Executive Vice President of International Marketing, Mr. Horn Wai Leong, Senior Manager for Sales and Marketing, and Mr. Cheng Hok Aw, Vice President of the Engineering Division, as well as Felix Tsai and  the other engineers at ST Kinetics who helped out during our visit.

Singapore Technologies Kinetics
a company of ST Engineering, Kinetics Marketing Group
249 Jalan Boon Lay
Singapore 619523
Tel: +656607631
Fax: +6562658862
www.stengg.com

IWA OutdoorClassics is a massive yearly exhibition in Nuremberg, Germany that focuses on the latest gear for hunters, recreational shooters, law enforcement officers and soldiers. SADJ dispatched a video crew during this month’s 2013 edition to give some of the show’s most influential and innovative exhibitors a chance to showcase their products right here on sadefensejournal.com.

Today we take a closer look at the SIG SAUER P226 X-Five series.

International Defence Exhibition Bratislava is organized every two years in Bratislava, the capital of Slovak Republic.  Under the auspices of the Slovak President, Prime minister and Minister of Defense, 140 companies and organizations from 21 countries came to exhibit theirs defensive equipment.

Almost a quarter of the exhibition hall was occupied by the Army of Slovak Republic, which concentrated on pyrotechnic equipment this year.  One of the most interesting pieces was the unmanned de-mining vehicle Bozena 5, which already served several  terms in Afghanistan and Iraq.  It can be controlled remotely from a distance of up to three miles and can withstand blast of 20 pounds of TNT.  Among other exhibitions, there were two pyrotechnic robots in action, one could try on a bomb disposal expert suit, and look over various examples of detected IEDs.

CZ805 Bren assault rifle (above) and CZ Scorpion EVO3 A1 submachine gun on display at the Ceska zbrojovka exhibit.

CZ 805 Bren assault rifle. Named after the World War II classic, it bears no resemblance to its historic namesake.

Czech Armoury (CZ) brought their new CZ 805 Bren assault rifle.  Named after the famous WWII light machine gun, it is in name only.  This Bren, however, has light alloy frame and is able to accept interchangeable barrels of 5.56x45mm NATO, 7.62x39mm and 6.8x43mm SPC Rem. calibers.  It is a gas operated weapon with breech locked by a rotating breech block.  The magazine has a capacity of 30 rounds and the rifle is able to shoot single shots, double shots, and fully automatic fire.

Another new gun exhibited by Czech Armoury was a submachine gun named after another famous CZ weapon, the SMG Mk.61 Scorpion.  The new CZ Scorpion EVO3 A1 is an all-purpose light automatic small arm in 9mm caliber, able to fire single shots, limited bursts and fully automatic fire from magazine with capacity of 20 or 30 rounds.

A Belgian FN2000 assault rifle.

FN HERSTAL of Belgium was there and exhibited their futuristic assault rifle FN 2000.  Besides its sleek ergonomic shape, this gas operated rifle, locked by rotating breech block, has one serious advantage against other bullpup-style weapons.  Spent cases are not ejected right out of the breech; they are fed into a tube under the barrel from where they fall out forward.  Without any changes, this rifle can be fired from either shoulder without throwing hot gases and spent cases in the shooter’s face.  The gun’s selector switch allows only single shots and full auto to be fired with no short burst ability.  Another smart feature is the location of the grenade launcher.  The shooter can move his finger from rifle to grenade launcher trigger without changing his grip on the weapon.

Recon Robotics Company exhibited a reconnaissance robot Recon Scout XT that is reminiscent of “tractors” that young boys make from spools.  This tractor, however, can run up to hour through difficult terrain, overlooking its surroundings with black-and-white camera with 60° angle of view.  The camera is equipped with thermal vision that turns on automatically in low-light surroundings.  With a weight of 1.2 pounds, length of eight inches, matte black finish and mere 20 dB of noise, this little spy is easy to overlook.  Its tough titanium body allows it to be thrown up to 40 yards away, to be dropped from height up to ten yards, or to be thrown through window glass. It also contains 33 yards of cord, so it can be retrieved from explored holes.

Slovak republic’s Ministry of Interior brought an interesting display of weapons that were made by prisoners.  It was almost unbelievable that the displayed revolvers and submachine guns were manufactured in jail and not in a factory; but truly, they bore no marks of manufacturer.

Slovakian company Strazan exhibited an interesting design of a tracked vehicle.  Instead of classic two tracks, Land Rover Defender has four Mattracks track systems, one in place of every wheel.  Its top speed is 40 mph and climbing ability up to 49°.

Grand Power P7 D pistol with safety, decocker and action switch.

Slovakian gun manufacturer Grand Power introduced a modified P7 D pistol with a clever invention – sophisticated combination of safety, decocker and action switch.  With safety lever in upper position, the weapon is safe.  With lever in the middle position, the pistol shoots in SA/DA mode.  Clicking lever down releases hammer (if cocked) and switches weapon into DAO mode.

The Russians still say that the 65 year old Avtomat Kalashnikova would soldier on for decades, yet they are painfully aware that it’s getting out of touch with modernity – despite numerous modernizations.  That’s precisely why they created the AK-12, or 5th Generation Avtomat Kalashnikova, presented in January 2012.

The AK-100 series successor wasn’t created overnight – the first models were already evaluated by 2009.  The new rifle even got designated then as the AK-200 – but still arguments abounded whether that should be another modified 100-series rifle with rails all over, or a totally new design.

In July 2010, the first press statement told everybody to prepare for a revolution soon to come – a totally new modular design, a new opening in the long career of the AK.  It was said to enable exchanging bolts and barrels, shoot different cartridges, to have enhanced ergonomics, better functionality and to be good enough to challenge the best that the West was able to muster.  It was also said that the Russian Defence Ministry was very much interested in the new weapon, taking an active part in shaping the new design, and purportedly even contracted the Izhevsk plant for the AK-100 series wholesale replacement.

Fifth Generation Avtomat Kalashnikova seen from the right.

Fifth Generation Avtomat Kalashnikova seen from the left. On this rifle, the single shot position of the safety-selector is denoted with letter O instead of more customary 1.

Then traditional silence fell, and on January 24, 2012 the new Avtomat was shown to the public for the first time amongst much fanfare.  The new design, created by the Izhmash’s chief designer, Vladimir Viktorovich Zlobin, was designated the “AK-12,” for “Avtomat Kalashnikova Model 2012.”

Four months later another presentation took place, but this time for a chosen few, at a closed meeting of the Interministerial Working Group of the Military-Industrial Laboratories Committee in Solnechnogorsk on Lake Senezh, 65 kilometers from Moscow.  The participants, representatives of the Defense and Internal Affairs Ministries, as well as Federal Security Servicemen, were able not only to look at, but shoot the new rifle as well.

In common opinion, the AK-12 has a much milder recoil and muzzle jump than the predecessors.  Nevertheless, numerous modifications and changes were requested, most of them arising from input by the special forces users that were in attendance at the presentation.  The Izhmash representative promised all would be implemented by the end of 2012.

The AK-12 with accessories, as shown in January 2012. Note the scope, extended buttstock, foregrip, 40mm GP-34 under barrel grenade launcher module and sheathed bayonet. The magazine attached is an old 30-round one coming from an AK-74M. The 4-stacker besides holds 60 rounds, while the drum takes as much as 95 cartridges. This earlier model has a separate lower rail bolted to the lower handguard – already replaced with monolithic polymer lower handguard with integral rail. Note a replaced cocking handle on the right side of the receiver.

New, Yet Old
Those who expected miracles could be disappointed by the weapon’s appearance.  AK-12 has some minor ‘loans’ from the FN SCAR or the Czech Sa-58, but even with the naked eye one can see the AK heritage.

It still remained a gas-operated long-stroke piston selective-fire rifle with the gas tube above the barrel.  The bolt carrier is connected with the operating rod and the gas piston is at the front end of the op-rod.  It fires from a closed bolt; this bolt being set into a bolt carrier, and locks to the receiver trunnion by turning to the right.  The fire control group has an internal hammer, and all the other innards, automatic sear, disconnector and trigger operate in the same manner as in the AK-74.

Novelties
The most important novel feature of the AK-12 is the caliber-swap concept.  The AK-12 receiver is said to have been re-designed to allow barrel-swapping and thus caliber-changing (but honestly, it doesn’t look like it changed much, and certainly no quick-change features are present).  The basic version (and the only one so far demonstrated) is chambered for the 5.45mm x 39, but it can be changed to the original AK round, the 7.62mm x 39, or the 5.56mm x 45.  The advertisement indicates also the 7.62mm x 51 NATO round, but it seems highly unlikely that such a big and powerful round could be fired in the same receiver – probably another set of building blocks would be needed, just like with the SCAR-L/SCAR-H or HK416/417.  Also, 6.5mm Grendel or 6.8 Rem SPC were speculated as possible chamberings as well, but so far nothing official has been said about them.  The factory statements predict a wide variety of possible configurations, with different barrels, different calibers, different FCGs, different stocks, for military, police, civilian-legal semi-only, etc.

The AK-12 in full firepower with a 95-round drum magazine and 40mm GP-34 grenade launcher attached. Note the grenade launcher module attached to the false rear ‘bayonet lug’ under the gas block – the real bayonet lug is under the front sight.

The ergonomics has been greatly enhanced in comparison to the predecessors.  The telescoping stock is foldable to the side (left or right, whatever the need of the user) and set in-line with the barrel axis to reduce muzzle jump.  The stock latch is the part of the stock itself, not the rifle, thus enabling easy reversing of the stock folding direction.  For export to where folding stocks are deemed ‘non-sporting,’ the latch can be easily disabled or the stock can be exchanged for a solid, non-folding variation.  The rubber-clad cheek-piece and butt-plate are height-adjustable.  A new muzzle device has a standard 22 mm external diameter to enable rifle grenade use.

The cocking handle has been relocated significantly to the front, and can be fitted from left or right, according to the shooter’s wishes.  The receiver cover is all new, much sturdier and hinged at the front, with an integral 1913 rail all along the top.  At the rear end of the rail a tangent sight with a peep hole (for aiming with a stock) and notch (for aiming while shooting from the sling with butt folded) is attached to the top rail.  There are more rails as well: on top of the handguard (in-line with the cover rail), and even on top of the gas block.  The handguard also has rails on the sides and at the bottom.  Lugs under the gas chamber and front sight holder are intended for an underbarrel grenade launcher (GP-25, -30 or -34) (the former) and bayonet attachment (the latter).

The main sight of the rifle is a red dot sight – this time an Aimpoint Comp M4 knock-off. Just behind the red dot mount a mechanical sight is mounted on the rail. Note the flip-over peep-hole or notch sight. (A.V. Karpenko)

The receiver cover latch is actuated by the lever on the right above pistol grip.  Right in front of it another totally new lever-style control is situated – a four-position safety/fire selector.  The positions are: ‘ΠΡ’ (=PR, for Predokhranyeniy, SAFE), ‘1’ or ‘O’ (for Odinochniy, SEMI), ‘3’ for 3-round BURST and ‘AB’ (AV for Avtomaticheskiy, AUTO).  This lever has replaced the legendary Kalashnikov safety-selector-dust cover (itself a ‘loan’ from John Moses Browning’s Remington Model 8 rifle).  Theoretical rate of fire in fully automatic firing is 600 rpm, but is said to rise up to 1,000 rpm in 3-round bursts.

Other controls are located in the front part of the trigger guard.  The magazine latch is classical in appearance, but it said to be redesigned to enable magazine release with the trigger finger.  The oval buttons above are bolt catch actuators – another big-time novelty in the AK-12.  The bolt catch is mostly manually-actuated, for inspection purposes, as the hitherto introduced magazines lack the bolt catch actuator projection on their followers.  The 5.45mm AK-12 takes all AK-74M-compatible 30-round magazines, as well as RPK-74 45-round magazines.  The 7.62mm variant would also take all AK/AKM/RPK magazines, of 30-, 40- and 75-round capacity.  New types of magazines introduced with the AK-12 comprise a new 30-round magazine with bolt-catch actuator, 60-round quad-stack banana and a 95-round drum.

Carbine (AK-12U), 9mm submachine gun (PPK-12),  Designated Marksman Rifle (SVK-12), and Light Machine Gun (RPK-12) versions of the AK-12 are also planned, as well as a semiautomatic-only civilian export version.

The ambidextrous (left- or right-folding) buttstock is adjustable for length of pull, height of buttplate and cheek piece. (A.V. Karpenko)

Now What?
No one seems to know what’s next.  The future awaiting the AK-12 seems hardly bright, so far.  The MoD has ordered a test batch and the testing is already under way.  Only when it is done can a decision be made whether the Russian Army would re-arm – or wait a little longer for another new rifle.  The security forces are also testing the AK-12 and carefully select the wording of their press releases so as not to put themselves in any awkward commitment.  Only the manufacturer is sure to have the rifle in full production for the country’s military – and soon, ‘at the latest in FY2013.’  Whether it would be so depends on the will of Izhmash’s main client: the Army of the Russian Federation.  And the Army, even though it ordered a test batch, seems to be neither overly impressed with the new rifle nor interested in it.  In 2011, for the very first time, the Army did not buy a single Kalashnikov assault rifle, and is openly referring to it as ‘obsolete.’  The military does not want any more Kalashnikovs – they already have as many as 17 million of these in its mobilization stocks, counting both older 7.62 mm AKM and newer 5.45mm AK-74 variants.  The ministry representative once mused that, “We already have enough Kalashnikovs to wage several world wars,” and although his quip was quickly glossed over by his superiors, it seems to voice the general attitude toward the once iconic Comrade Rifle.

The AK-12 was created and financed with Izhmash’s own money and the company vows to find remuneration in the international markets, including a civilian one, if the Army won’t budge.  There seems to be a big sales potential, given the popularity of AK-tuning throughout the world.  Thus, the opportunity may come to have a factory-tuned Avtomat Kalashnikova-PIP, right straight from the original manufacturer, bristling with 1913-rails, enhanced ergonomics, fully ambidextrous, fitted with a bolt hold-open and all the bells and whistles.

- AK-12 SPECIFICATIONS -
Caliber: 5.45 mm x 39
Length, O/A, stock extended: 945 mm
Length, O/A, stock folded: 725 mm
Barrel length (bore only): 415 mm
Sighting radius: 583 mm
Weight, w/o magazine: 3.3 kg
Weight, empty 30-rd magazine: 0.23 kg
Weight, empty 60-rd magazine: 0.33 kg
Weight, empty 95-rd magazine: 1.0 kg
Max. sighting range: 1,000 m
Rate of fire (theor.): 600 (FA)/1,000 (3-rd burst) rpm

IWA OutdoorClassics is a massive yearly exhibition in Nuremberg, Germany that focuses on the latest gear for hunters, recreational shooters, law enforcement officers and soldiers. SADJ dispatched a video crew during this month’s 2013 edition to give some of the show’s most influential and innovative exhibitors a chance to showcase their products right here on sadefensejournal.com.

Today, Aimpoint’s Dave Pasienski shows off the CompM4s and Micro T-1.

For a compact assassination pistol, the Soviet PSS with its companion SP4 silent ammunition is a hard combination to beat.  While the PSS resembles a somewhat large conventional blowback pistol, it is definitely unique.  The weapon is 6.7 inches long and weighs 30 ounces.  Its size is comparable to a SIG P226 pistol, but the specialized ammunition delivers a close range lethal projectile with almost no sound signature.

The Soviet PSS semiautomatic pistol is a six-shot semiautomatic silent weapon designed to utilize only the SP4 captive piston silent ammunition.  The PSS firing mechanism is single/double action with open hammer and slide-mounted safety/decocker of conventional Makarov design.  The sights are fixed, and the intended operational range of the weapon system is short.  Although approximately 25 years old, it remains on the forefront of captive piston technology and is still an operational weapon.

The SP4 (also referred to as 7.62x41mm) cartridge is unique.  The cartridge case is made from steel (alloy presently unknown) with a heavy copper-zinc plating meeting the specifications of C220 (ComBz).  The projectile is a 155-grain mild steel cylinder that is launched at approximately 650 ft/sec.  The projectile features a brass driving band on the forward diameter that engages the rifling in the short barrel.  There is a recess in the center of the rear of the projectile that both centers the rear of the projectile on a protrusion on the short piston as well as stabilizes the piston during its travel forward.

SP4 (7.62x41) sectioned cartridge showing relation of the projectile, driving piston, and cartridge case.

On firing, the primer ignites a small powder charge that then accelerates the piston forward (pushing the projectile).  At the end of the piston’s travel, it is suddenly arrested by a retaining crimp or shoulder on the front of the cartridge case.  The projectile then continues in a forward direction, and the case ejects from the weapon.  The driving piston, which is captured in the case, obturates the neck of the case and contains the pressure within the spent cartridge case.  It is known that these expended cartridges may contain pressure for several weeks, and attempts to disassemble them within a month of firing can be hazardous.  Because the driving gases are contained, the weapon is essentially silent.  Sound measurements utilizing the International Industry Reference Protocol have shown the absolute sound pressure level to be in the vicinity of 122 dB, which is on a par with simple airguns and suppressed .22 LR rifles.

We have had the opportunity to do fairly extensive testing and study of this unique weapon system.  This includes complete disassembly of the PSS pistol, a project not to be undertaken lightly.  The pistol includes a floating chamber, and the method of operation and reason for the floating chamber have been a matter of speculation until recently.

The floating chamber is not a new concept and dates back to the days of its inventor, David (“Carbine”) Williams around 1931.  The floating chamber is a steel cylinder that surrounds the cartridge case and that can move rearward with the case in the early part of the weapon’s unlocking cycle.  It has most commonly been used in .22 rimfire weapons.  In this application, it permits a greater rearward force against the face of the bolt to assist in cycling the weapon by presenting a larger area with greater mass to drive rearward against the bolt face.  Proper operation of the floating chamber for recoil enhancement requires that high pressure propelling gases be present in the bore of the weapon between the forward end of the cartridge case (and floating chamber) and the bullet in the bore.  This permits propelling gases to act against both the cartridge case and floating chamber.  The purpose of the floating chamber in the PSS has been a mystery.  The author believes that the sequencing shown by the high speed video offers clues as to its function.

In smaller caliber handguns and submachine guns, the most common action is the simple, unlocked blowback.  In these weapons, ignition of the powder charge in the cartridge generates significant pressure that exerts force in all directions.  The forces directed forward press against the base of the relatively lightweight bullet, accelerating the bullet forward through the barrel.  Being lighter than the weapon, the bullet accelerates to a high velocity.  The acceleration continues as long as pressure remains in the bore of the barrel until the bullet exits and pressure suddenly drops.  This is simple Newtonian physics of equal and opposite reaction: the energy to drive the lightweight projectile forward at high velocity is equal to the energy to drive the heavier slide or bolt rearward a shorter distance and at a lower velocity.

In discussing weapon cycling, time is often difficult to conceptualize.  In conventional weapons, there is a finite (although short) time under pressure referred to as “dwell time.”  This is the time during which the bullet is still being propelled by the gases in the bore and there is pressure in the bore to act on the slide or bolt.  If a floating chamber is present, the pressure will initially move the cartridge case (and floating chamber) rearward almost microscopically and allow pressure to push on the larger cross section area of the floating chamber.  In a locked breech handgun, the barrel (locked to the slide) starts rearward acceleration and the action starts to open once the barrel unlocks from the slide and pressure drops in the bore and cartridge case.

In conventional weapons, pressure in the cartridge case causes the case to expand slightly and form a gas seal against the chamber itself or the neck of the chamber, maintaining pressure in the bore.  The same forces driving the bullet act over the same finite time interval against the base of the cartridge case, which starts acceleration of the case and slide (or bolt) rearward against the recoil spring with the same energy.  Because of the greater mass of the slide or bolt, velocity is significantly lower.  However, friction of the expanded cartridge case against the chamber delays actual movement for a few microseconds until the pressure drops slightly on bullet exit.  At that point in time, the case can start its extraction process.  In high speed video analysis, there has been shown to be virtually no extraction until the projectile has exited the bore.

FRAME 683: The hammer has completed its fall, but there is no observable movement of the slide or exit of the projectile, which is still within the barrel. It is assumed that ignition has taken place and the piston is starting its travel forward. FRAME 684: The projectile is approximately 70% out of the end of the barrel with no sign of instability. The copper driving band is no longer engaged in the rifling. The slide has also started its rearward travel, and the rear of the floating chamber is in contact with the face of the slide. FRAME 685: The projectile has cleared the muzzle of the piston and the rear of the projectile is approximately three projectile lengths forward of the end of the barrel. There is a small area of turbulence from escaping gas between the rear of the projectile and the front of the barrel. It is thought that this is a small amount of propelling gas leakage before the piston completely obturates the cartridge case and that this is what is responsible for the sound level to be as high as 122 dB. The slide has continued its rearward travel with the floating chamber moving rearward with the slide. The slide and cartridge base are just beginning to move rearward slightly faster than the floating chamber. FRAME 686: The projectile has continued to move forward another two to three projectile lengths and remains stable. The small puff of escaping gas is dissipating. At this point, the slide continues its rearward travel. The rearward motion of the floating chamber continues, but not as fast as the slide and the base of the cartridge case starts to be visible. FRAME 687: At this point, the slide continues to open with the base of the cartridge case in contact with the bolt face. Although the floating chamber continues its rearward motion, the gap between it and the slide face widens. The projectile remains stable. FRAME 689: The floating chamber now remains stationary with respect to the pistol’s frame and the slide continues rearward extracting the cartridge case. At its farthest, the floating chamber appears to have moved approximately four millimeters. FRAME 691: As the slide and cartridge case continue rearward, the floating chamber starts to retract forward into the barrel. FRAME 697: Continued rearward slide movement. The floating chamber is now completely retracted into the rear of the barrel into its original location. FRAME 701: The front of the cartridge case has been completely extracted from the barrel and is ready for ejection.

In late March 2012, we utilized an Olympus I-Speed 3 high speed video camera to observe the operation of the pistol in operation.  Camera settings were a frame rate of 3,000 frames/second and a shutter speed of four microseconds (1/250,000 second).  This corresponds to a frame every 333 microseconds.  The short shutter speed allowed a series of frames capturing the projectile in early flight to check for yaw and other signs of instability.  In operation, the camera records continuously, looping through memory.  To capture the action (in this case weapon cycle), the camera is stopped manually immediately on completion of the event, and the desired segment of the video showing the action is saved as a video file.  One of the options in the video software is to print individual frames as a series of JPEG still images.  Nine of these images are presented with the first five being consecutive.

In the case of the SP4 captive piston ammunition, all of the projectile propelling gas is contained within the cartridge case and there is no propelling gas to create pressure in the bore of the pistol prior to projectile exit from the barrel of the PSS pistol.  There is also no gas to drive the floating chamber rearward, initially raising the question as to why it was included in the PSS pistol.

The series of frames from the high speed video starts (F-683) with the hammer having fallen and ignition.  The next consecutive frame (F684) shows the immediate start of rearward movement of the floating chamber pressing against the slide.  It isn’t until the fourth frame in this series (F-686) that the cartridge case starts to extract from the floating chamber.  It is interesting to note that in spite of minimal rifling length, a cylindrical projectile, and the awkward propulsion method, there is no apparent instability or yawing of the projectile.

The floating chamber in the PSS has several functions.  For one, it increases the mass of the moving parts in the initial stages of recoil.  There has been speculation that it also is used to slow down the slide on its final stages of movement to dampen the sound of the slide hitting the stop on the end of the recoil cycle.  However, the high speed video does not bear out this explanation.  What the floating chamber does do is to eliminate the lag time waiting for the cartridge case to shrink slightly away from the chamber wall.

PSS pistol field stripped. The floating chamber in the rear of the fixed barrel is labeled.

At the instant of ignition, there is going to be a minimal amount of expansion of the steel cartridge case.  Initially, the pressure in the rear of the cartridge case is going to be higher than the pressure elsewhere in the case, and this is going to cause increased expansion of the case in the rear.  Once the piston has reached the extent of its travel, pressure will equilibrate and there will be some relaxing of the expansion in the rear of the case.  The expansion of the rear, while only transient, will increase wall friction significantly until pressure equilibrates.  The dwell time in this weapon is significantly shorter than in a more conventional blowback, because the dwell endpoint is when the piston stops as it is captured by the end of the cartridge case.  Piston travel is approximately one inch.

As the piston moves forward driving the projectile, there is high acceleration until the copper driving band engages the coarse rifling in the barrel within the first 2-3 millimeters of piston travel.  The expanding gas inside the cartridge case causes force in opposite directions: first to propel the projectile toward (and out) the end of the barrel, and second to start accelerating the base of the cartridge case rearward against the slide.  Since pressure remains high in the rear portion of the cartridge case, the case remains stuck in the floating chamber until the piston is at the forward limit of its travel and pressure equilibrates.  Because the floating chamber shows little or no friction with respect to the barrel or frame, the slide can start immediate rearward acceleration.  Once the pressure in the case has equilibrated, the case can then start its extraction from the floating chamber, which then returns to its original position under spring tension.  The time under pressure for extraction is significantly less than in conventional firearms because of the limited motion of the piston, and any delay in initiating rearward travel would prevent complete cycling of the weapon.

Were it not for the floating chamber, cycling of the weapon would not be possible as friction would hold the case in the chamber of the barrel too long.  Further, it is thought that the floating chamber provides additional reinforcing of the rear portion of the steel cartridge case until pressure has equilibrated.

There are several items of information that would be helpful in proving this theory. First, it would be of great interest to know the pressure curve in the cartridge itself.  Lacking ability to track the gradual change in pressure from ignition until the piston arrests, knowing the maximum pressure would be of value.

The forgoing is a postulation as to the mechanism of cycling and extraction of the SP4 cartridge in the PSS as well as the role played by the captive piston in this most unique weapon.