Akmr

[Raellus]

What do you think about the AKMR described in various incarnations of T2K? Is it a part of your T2K universe; do you use it in your campaign?

As far as I know, the AKM was never rechambered for the Soviet's 5.45mm cartridge in any significant number. This is the premise behind the AKMR, as desribed in canon.

In my mind, it makes more sense- short term, at least- to keep manufacturing 7.62mm S for the existing stock of Red Army and WTO AKMs than it does to recall all of those weapons and rechamber them. For that reason, I don't use the AKMR in my T2K U. Instead, deep reserve Soviet army units, and other WTO nations still use the original AKM. The Poles have introduced their own AK-74 clone, the Wz 88 Tantal in 5.45mm but many of their units still use the AKM.

Your thoughts?

[kato13]

So many things could have changed in the modified history, that I could see a push towards standardizing the small arms ammunition. The Soviet Union is quite a bit richer in my games (It has to be to survive IMO) so I could see them investing in that.

So I voted yes.

[jester]

I say yes, it is found, since 90% of the parts are interchangeable, all it really takes is a barrel swap if I recall right.

Now, in my T2K playing, I just keep stocks of both weapons available. A unit either has AKMs or the AK-74, with more regular and modern units having the 74 as its universal weapon, although some units do preffer to keep or return to the 47.

I view the AKMR on par with the M16EZ's mentioned. It was made from spare parts or weapons that were sent back to the armory for repair and refitting. Basicaly used weapons that may be worn out and given a new barrel. These often are found in the hands of partisans and other irregular forces, although I tend to give irregular forces usualy loyal to the Russians with older weapons like the SKS and Mosin/Nagant or the M-44 carbine and the assorted PP series submachineguns.

Once I even threw a T-55 at my players.

But say a unit that was formed after the bombs fell when Ivjesk <spelling> was nuked and the Russians industrial capacity was damaged I could see them being issued with AKMR's from arsenal rebuilt weapons mainly due to a lack of resources. It does seem logical since eastern bloc ammo tends to be more corosive when barrels become worn, why not give them a new barrel and convert it to the new round. Anyhow that is the logic in my campaign, as well as who would get them.

[natehale1971]

In my T2k setting the Soviets and Warsaw Pact nations adopted alot of policies to get their economy to recover from all the problems that Gorby inherited and tried to fix, and in our world caused their society to collapse. Looking at what the PRC has done, and been making great strides at catching up with the west. In my setting Danilov adopted policies just like the PRC has done in our world. This allowed the Warsaw Pact and its memberstates economies to bounce back and actually become a threat to the West. So much so that when the Sino-Soviet war broke out, the West would throw so much support to the Chinese. All of the other USSR-PRC border disputes that had happened in the past was all but ignored by the west. But why did the US and their allies get so involved with this one?

That's why my campaign had the West throw so much support behind the PRC during the Sino-Soviet War... The PRC might have been a major violator of human rights, and taken the place of the USSR in financing the support of leftwing groups in Africa, Central America and South America since the USSR had stopped funding them in an effort to save their money to invest into policies to save their own economy.

[Raellus]

If all it takes is a barrel swap...

That changes my stance, considerably. If that's really the case, then the AKMR is welcome in my T2K U.

[Legbreaker]

There's probably a bit more than just the barrel - magazines, magazine wells, bolt heads, etc.
However, the barrel is almost certainly the most difficult part of it.

[jester]

Lets not forget how frugal the russians are, they simply modified their existing 7.62X54 round to the 7.62X39 round.

The 5.54 round is a fat lil bugger that is necked down. I will concede that the bolt face may need to be changed and maybe the magazine, not completely sure on that however.

But the mag well, the AK doesn't have one, its a clip/clamp type afare. But none the less, getting an almost new rifle for such small changes that could be farmed out to smaller shops is still quite easy, when to get a new weapon the simple swapping out of a barrel, and replacing the bolt/boltface or even bolt carrier group is still a pretty easy thing, especialy if you are doing it to weapons that will be going back to the factory to be rebuilt or stand for depot level repairs.

Magazines can be issued at the unit anytime before or after the new weapons are issued. The bolt face could be issued to the troops too either before or after, where they can swap them in all of a minute. The hard part is the barrel, that would require a barrel wrench, a vice, torque guages and a headspace guage and check.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Dimensions for the two Soviet rounds are very close (aside from projectile size obviously) the 5.45mm case is a fraction longer and a fraction thinner at the base.
Approximate case dimensions are
7.62x39mm - base width 11.3mm; case length 38.7mm
5.45x39mm - base width 10.0mm; case length 39.8mm

From what I recall, 5.45mm will load into 7.62mm magazines but isn't recommended and the same applies for 7.62mm into 5.45mm but you can't fit a full 30 rounds in due to its curvature or something like that - been a while since I did any lessons on the AK

[Mohoender]

I agree with kato when he says that everything is possible. Nevertheless, I don't use it but simply because I'm leasy and like to keep my suitcase a bit lighter when moving around.

[pmulcahy11b]

I think the AKMR and M-16EZ are some of those things that give T2K a unique flavor. Though I'm not sure that "AKMR" is correct nomenclature for the Russians -- I would think that "AKMM" would be more proper, or maybe AKM-84 or AKM-94 (depending on the timeline you are using).

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I think the AKMR and M-16EZ are some of those things that give T2K a unique flavor. Though I'm not sure that "AKMR" is correct nomenclature for the Russians -- I would think that "AKMM" would be more proper, or maybe AKM-84 or AKM-94 (depending on the timeline you are using).

I guess you're right. The AKMR (along with the EZ, the LAV-75, etc.) does T2K a unique flavor. I've had a change of heart.

[Abbott Shaull]

You know if the barrel are replaceable, then making the AKMR or whatever you want to call it, seem reasonable after the rest of the receiver and related parts have been modified to fire the 5.45 round.

Looking at from two view points, if I was using the original timeline, this weapon would be on par with the M16EZ. Something thrown out there that many people who don't much knowledge on weapons would accept.

On the other hand, with the collapse of the Soviet Union and Communism in Europe, and depending on what canon timeline you accept, or if you have a home brewed one. In many cases, I can see the AKMs being re-chambered to the 5.45 round, or in the cases of such nations such as Poland, Baltic States, and so on, being re-chambered for 7.62N or 5.56N or any round in between.

The Weapon is machine stamped so there is lot of room to tweek things. I can see it as cost saving measure to get reserve units weapons that are common to what the regular forces are using. Since several countries from the former Warsaw Pact, made money in trading their former Soviet based gear. Of course some of these purchasers were former allies in the pact, like the case of the Poles and I think the Czech purchasing former East German Army armor combat vehicles, but many of the small weapons in these countries made a rapid switch to NATO standards. The reserve of Pact ammo could bring in needed cash. The price of accurancy these weapons would suffer would be almost negated, since NATO members would sell their used weapons cheaply, to help get members on the same sheet off music to speak of.

Just some thoughts.

[kcdusk]

If you wanted to modify a rifle. Or even many rifles (ie set up a shot in Krakow) then either having gunsmith skill or finding someone who has it ("Day of the jackel" like) could be an interesting story line.

[ChalkLine]

Originally Posted by jester

Lets not forget how frugal the russians are, they simply modified their existing 7.62X54 round to the 7.62X39 round.

Actually, the bullet in the M1943 7.62mmx39.00mm weighs 7.9g, and the bullet in the Mosin-Nagant 7.62mmx54.00mm(R) weighs 11.9g. They're considerably different.

[ChalkLine]

In my game the AKMR doesn't exist as there's more than enough production of AK-74 variants available. The weapon is made to be easily produced, and it'd take as much effort to build a new one than to remake AKMs.

However, the vast stocks of AKMs are reissued, and late war formations are often armed with this weapon.

My T2KC AKMs are modernised with a rail welded onto the receiver and a new muzzle flash. The RPDs are similarly treated, and new plastic furniture is seen on many of the M1943 weapons. The RPD is considerably reworked as to furniture and general configuration, with a para model and an assault model both seen occasionally.

[jester]

Originally Posted by ChalkLine

Actually, the bullet in the M1943 7.62mmx39.00mm weighs 7.9g, and the bullet in the Mosin-Nagant 7.62mmx54.00mm(R) weighs 11.9g. They're considerably different.

It is quite true the projectiles are different, however, the machinery to ream and drill the lands and grooves in the barrel would be the same. The difference would be in the chamber in the barrel. However, without a 7.62X54 round to compare I am wondering if this could be easily altered by simply reducing the depth of the reamer. Which is as simple. So, that could actualy reduce their need for retooling as far as the barrel making process goes.

[ChalkLine]

Originally Posted by jester

It is quite true the projectiles are different, however, the machinery to ream and drill the lands and grooves in the barrel would be the same. The difference would be in the chamber in the barrel. However, without a 7.62X54 round to compare I am wondering if this could be easily altered by simply reducing the depth of the reamer. Which is as simple. So, that could actualy reduce their need for retooling as far as the barrel making process goes.

Yep, and in an emergency you can just put your M-N rounds into a miller and take off a bit of the base to bring them down to the requisite weight for an M1943 round.

An interesting ammunition would be M1943 ammo firing M-N slugs; shit range but heavy stopping power.

[jester]

Originally Posted by ChalkLine

Yep, and in an emergency you can just put your M-N rounds into a miller and take off a bit of the base to bring them down to the requisite weight for an M1943 round.

An interesting ammunition would be M1943 ammo firing M-N slugs; shit range but heavy stopping power.

Why waste a good heavy bullet. Simply adjust the reloading die so the projectile sits deeper so it meets the overall length so it can fit in the magazine and chamber and fire. The end result is one heck of a round with some nice knockdown power.

Some examples are some 30 caliber bullets I loaded that were 220 grains a good 40 grains heavier than a standard 180 grain projectile.

And the perfect example was the old Webley/Enfield in .38 the origianal cartridge was the same as the old .38 S&W which was a weak cartridge. But, when the British loaded a 200 grain bullet in it well then it had some nice stopping power. Not much on velocity mind you but it did take a man down.

Then, in the T2K world I would see a return to the older bolt, lever and pump action weapons as sources of smokeless powder became more scarce which is another scenario we really should look at, a world with limited amounts of traditional smokeless ammo that allows modern semi auto and auto weapons to run with infrequent jams.

[ChalkLine]

Of course, we're talking about a gas operated weapon here, and we're likely to get a gas spike into your piston while the bullet is laboriously making its way out the barrel. That sort of overpressure usually says shit like 'catastrophic failure', and even the notoriously rugged AKM may have trouble getting the bullet out that's about 20% heavier while cutting down on the propellant charge. And while there's no real danger of the world running out of M1943 ammo in the next gazillion years, it's probably best if we put that big slug in the M-N round where it belongs

[ChalkLine]

While we're at it, the Russians are making the AK-47 again as the AK-103, and it's very popular for it's no-bullshit ammunition that blows through body armour. In this case, it's likely that no one will be rechambering AKMs due to ammo constraints, and there's little reason to do otherwise.

[kcdusk]

I'm no gun-smith. But all this talk about modifying bullets/weapons worries me. Most people (perhaps even most military people?) who knew enough of the theory might not be able to make some of these things work in practice, where i thought a failure would see some sort of self inflicted wound. It all sounds risky.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by jester

Why waste a good heavy bullet. Simply adjust the reloading die so the projectile sits deeper so it meets the overall length so it can fit in the magazine and chamber and fire. The end result is one heck of a round with some nice knockdown power.

Some examples are some 30 caliber bullets I loaded that were 220 grains a good 40 grains heavier than a standard 180 grain projectile.

And the perfect example was the old Webley/Enfield in .38 the origianal cartridge was the same as the old .38 S&W which was a weak cartridge. But, when the British loaded a 200 grain bullet in it well then it had some nice stopping power. Not much on velocity mind you but it did take a man down.

This is one of those things that T2K doesn't handle well: things like sub-loaded rounds, hot-loaded rounds, heavier or lighter bullets, etc. I often find myself jury-rigging rules for this sort of thing, as well as during vehicle design.

[Raellus]

I'm on a roller coaster here. The more I read here and the more I think about it, the less I like the AKMR concept. I mean the concept is good but putting into practice...?

It seems like it would be far easier and more efficient to continue to manufacture 7.62mm x39 S ammunition and distribute it to units armed with the millions of AK-47 and AKM variants already out there than it would be to recall all of those weapons and rechamber them/redistribute them.

In the meantime, older AK models would continue to be replaced with new AK-74 variants and whatever's left over would continue to receive issue of the 7.62mm S ammo.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I'm on a roller coaster here. The more I read here and the more I think about it, the less I like the AKMR concept. I mean the concept is good but putting into practice...?

It seems like it would be far easier and more efficient to continue to manufacture 7.62mm x39 S ammunition and distribute it to units armed with the millions of AK-47 and AKM variants already out there than it would be to recall all of those weapons and rechamber them/redistribute them.

In the meantime, older AK models would continue to be replaced with new AK-74 variants and whatever's left over would continue to receive issue of the 7.62mm S ammo.

I agree with you there -- the idea is silly, if you think about it logically. But it's still a good "flavoring" element.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I agree with you there -- the idea is silly, if you think about it logically. But it's still a good "flavoring" element.

I agree on both points. The AKMR was included I think, due to flawed logic. At the time the game was made the Soviets were changing from 7.62mm to 5.45mm, nobody thought they would keep using the older round for as long as they did let alone Russia actively going back to it. The AKMR makes sense in view of the lack of information that GDW would have had but with hindsight we can now see that they were, like everyone else, misinformed and the AKMR seems a silly idea.

[kcdusk]

Thread hijack
Most sub machine guns have a damage rating of "2". What is different about the M177 that it has a damage rating of "3"?

[TiggerCCW UK]

I think its just a calibre thing - most smg's are firing a 9mm or .45 pistol round, with an increased damage due to the longer barrel and higher velocity, hence the 2 damage. The M177 is a carbine/short rifle using a 5.56mm rifle round, hence the 3 damage.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by kcdusk

Thread hijack
Most sub machine guns have a damage rating of "2". What is different about the M177 that it has a damage rating of "3"?

Well, the M-177 is firing a rifle bullet as opposed to the pistol round of submachineguns. But I do give it a damage rating of 2 -- but the penetration is 1-Nil, while most submachineguns have a penetration of Nil. Using that short barrel to fire a rifle bullet has a high cost on the muzzle velocity of the round. (Technically, the M-177 is a "short-barreled assault rifle" instead of a submachinegun.)

Here's another wrinkle to firing a rifle round in a short-barreled weapon -- it will leave behind a ton of unburned propellant as well as carbon in the barrel and muzzle device. Not sure how to handle this T2K-wise (other than assign a higher chance of misfire to a dirty weapon).

[Raellus]

The same would be true for the AKS-74U. It is more of a carbine than an SMG. The v2.2 don't really make that distinction.

And, I don't know if this is true of other "submachineguns" that fire full-powered rifle rounds but the AKS-74U has a b*tch of a muzzle blast/firing signature. I haven't seen quite the same in footage of the M4 (basically the M117 of v2.2) firing.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Raellus

The same would be true for the AKS-74U. It is more of a carbine than an SMG. The v2.2 don't really make that distinction.

And, I don't know if this is true of other "submachineguns" that fire full-powered rifle rounds but the AKS-74U has a b*tch of a muzzle blast/firing signature. I haven't seen quite the same in footage of the M4 (basically the M117 of v2.2) firing.

T2K doesn't make a distinction between short-barreled assault rifles and submachineguns, but most of the Western firearms experts do. A short-barreled rifle fires a rifle round, while a true submachinegun fires a pistol round. That said, there are many weapons that straddle the line -- and in many countries (particularly in Eastern Europe, Russia, and China), even assault rifles are considered to be submachineguns. Some also consider some assault rifles or short-barreled rifles to be assault rifles, while other such weapons are considered to be submachineguns. There's plenty of room to muddy the waters. I adhere to the Western firearms experts most of the time -- but then again, you have weapons that have versions that fire pistol rounds or rifle rounds, and some of these need only a few parts to be changed to switch calibers. And then, there's always the argument about what constitutes a carbine and what doesn't. Discussions like that are always lots of fun!

The M-4 has more muzzle blast than the M-16, but not as much as one would think. Not nearly the same muzzle blast as the M-177, because of the barrel -- the M-4 has a roughly 14.5-inch barrel, while the M-177's is about 10. (Eugene Stoner felt a 10-inch barrel was about the minimum required for reliable cycling of an unmodified version of his operating system -- and that has pretty much turned out to be true.)