The Kalashnikov Group puts out some entertaining shorts and informative videos highlighting various wild and weird AK things. Vladimir Onokoy and their media creative team do a very good job and have even made cross collaboration with 9-Hole Review.

The AK TR3 is the civilian AK-12 and it was released in Russia in 2019. The AK-12 is a nicely re-modernized take on the AK-74M for the ancillary accessories of the 21st Century.

It sounds like, if I am reading this correctly, Russian firearm laws are somewhere around Illinois/California levels of hassle but Russians can purchase firearm with the easiest to acquire seeming to be ‘smoothbore’ shotguns. If I am reading this correctly purchasers of rifles must have a documented history with smoothbore shotguns first with no violations on their records before they can purchase rifles, rifles seem to be treated as more dangerous based on range and munitions similar to several US domestic game and hunting laws. Semi-automatics seem to be limited to 10 rounds unless the individual possesses the license for ‘service’ grade weaponry based on their job.

I am assuming that getting a ‘service’ grade AK instead of a civilian limited one is a process similar to that of the NFA and/or getting an FFL where it sounds more prohibitive than it actually is and it for the most part is just paperwork and documentation so that if something goes “wrong” and injury or death occurs accidentally or as a deliberate act of assault that the government is exposed to minimal liability.

I am tickled to find that the Russians have an actual Federal awards procedure for firearms given by the government and it sounds like the local issuing authority will basically license whatever was awarded based on the fact it was awarded without much fuss unless it’s select-fire or the individual is a prohibited person.

They have a training requirement similar to a concealed carry class or a hunter safety course with a duration of six and a half hours followed by standardized testing for their five year license. Limits of ten, and five of a single type of firearm are imposed.

This is a neat little weekend deep dive. Russians are proud of their AKs. They have a right to be, it is a fine series of firearms made by a genius Russian Tanker and inspired by a legendary Canadian-American, John Garand.

This makes AKs something both Russians and Americans can enjoy with pride.

Brandon Herrera takes on the common knowledge myth that Russian AK-47 just copied the German MP-44/STG44/45 that was the grandfather of the modern assault rifle. It is a fairly linear linking of logic to see why this is still floated around in circles today as gospel, usually to denigrate the AK as unoriginal.

But readers, technology builds. The ultra modern, high graphics rendering, turbo game machine (that I am using to type words) would not have been possible without all the computational systems that came before it. Some of those systems were developed in parallel, not linearly, as multiple people figured out how to solve similar problems in similar ways. The AK-47/STG44 development is one such parallel.

But looking at the guns you will see that if anyone copied features of the STG design linearly, it was the Germans themselves. It shares a lot of very G3/HK33 like features, especially in receiver design. The AK/AKM meanwhile are quite different receiver wise, but with all the stamped steel they look similar enough to make the logical leap.

The supposition that the two are direct descendants also ignores many other rifle types that share similar features to one or the other, simply because they were fairly standard additions to firearms of the era. The AK is descended from the SKS, SVT-40, and even the Mosin-Nagant M1891. It took design considerations from all of them because these were the weapons the Soviet conscripts would be transitioning from.

Considering in the future design the current training of your domestic troops!? Smart.

The significant receiver differences alone should indicate that the two weapons similarities stop at the rudimentary level that they are both assault rifles and share the same role. In this way the STG44 is equally comparable to the FAL, FNC, AR15, AR18/180, FAMAS, etc. All of them share elements of operation because there are a few well proven out methods to make a working assault rifle. Funny enough, the AR18/180’s system seems to be having the longest legs when it comes to legacy as most major late 20th Century and early 21st Century rifles have an incredibly comparable bolt carrier and gas piston setup.

The MCX, ACR, MSBS, SCAR, SA80, ARX, G36, HK433, and just about every short-stroke piston multi-lug bolt carrier operating system.

Anyhow… which rifle most inspired the AK from a Non-Soviet origin?

The Garand. No seriously, the Canadian-American John Garand’s iconic World War winner’s action is closest to the Soviet AK’s dual lug rotating bolt long stroke piston design. Add to that that the 7.62×39 was closer to the original .276 Penderson (125gr rounds at 2700 fps) and the AK suddenly has a very Americano vibe.

In fact, the 6.5 Grendel Serbian AK’s (M17’s) firing the 93gr FMJ rounds are the logical inheritor of John Garand’s original vision. (Sorry, M14. You just look the part. You were an obsolescent design upon arrival)

If you carry a gun for self defense, it’s important to recognize that not every problem you’ll encounter is a “gun problem” – in fact, most of you will go through your entire lives without ever needing to draw your gun. But what about problems that you may actually encounter, or times when you need a lower level of force? That’s what these must have EDC items are for.

Let’s start with flashlights. Useful for finding your car keys when you drop them in a parking garage, avoiding dog poop on the sidewalk at night, and being a dick to your drunk friends. Flashlights also have self defense utility; being able to see in the dark is very useful, and a blinding light in someone’s eyes has a documented deterrent effect. One of my favorite lights is the Streamlight ProTac 90.

Up next in our must have EDC items is pepper spray. Pepper spray detractors will tell you in the same breath that it’s not an effective tool while also saying that if the stream blows back in your face you’ll be completely debilitated. That doesn’t make sense, and it also shows that person doesn’t understand how spray works or how to employ it. In its specific use case, pepper spray is an extremely effective deterrent for dealing with people you can’t shoot, but that you need to get away from.

Moving along, an absolute must have EDC item is a knife or small multitool. This isn’t for self defense, this is just useful. Think about all the times you’ve needed to open a box or a package, or think about all the times a coworker or friend has said “hey, do you have a knife?” That’s what the multitool or pocket knife is for – open stuff that isn’t made out of people.

Another must have EDC item is medical, and this is where the Phlster Pocket Emergency Wallet is so great. Just buy like 7 of these and have one in the glovebox, and one in your pocket, and one in the nightstand, etc. They fit in a back pocket comfortably, and I take one wherever I go. It’s light, it’s easy to carry, and it has everything you need to plug a big hole in someone.

Last, but not least, we have something that isn’t a must have EDC item for most people…but is for me. This is a Shivworks Clinchpick, which is a small, fixed blade knife designed for use in extreme close quarters. The use case for this knife is during a life or death fight in grappling distance, the idea is to use it to create distance and separation between you and your opponent. It’s important to remember that if you do carry a knife for self defense, the only thing that knife should ever cut…is people.

Hopefully you’ll be able to round out your self defense selection with some of these handy items!

It is Thursday, dear readers. And today I once again bring you the soothing tones of “Gun Jesus”.

Ian of Forgotten Weapons, one of the greatest history and tech channels to follow on these here interwebz (so go do that)

This time, he is covering the various generations of submachinegun development. If submachineguns are a genre of firearms then their generations are subgenres. You can see the ergonomic development coalesce into loose groups. Obviously, just like the development of the assault rifle (yes, assault rifle: an intermediate caliber select fire rifle for close to intermediate distance combat) there is overlap as various developers designed an implemented new features.

Firearms technology rapidly developed in the late 19th and 20th centuries, with the 21st looking to keep the trend going through refinement. In 1861, flintlock muskets were still a military armament, although percussion caps were fairly common. In 1961 the United States had the M14 and early M16’s, Russia had the AKM, and the rest of the sensible world used the FAL or G3.

In my own lifetime we started at the still fairly rudementary M16A2 (new just a few years prior) and are now on the M4A1, URGI, SCAR, and developing the NGSW to theoretically let soldiers influence and control a 2km circle from their individual position. We are reaching efficiency peaks that are astounding thanks to computer drafting and rapid prototyping.

But back to the pistol caliber carbines and submachineguns. Yes, I consider them to be slightly different items with overlapping characteristics, a PCC (if select fire) is a submachinegun but a submachinegun isn’t necessarily a PCC. Watch the video and it will click.

Gen 1: Make Them Well

The first submachineguns appeared for general use in the 19-teens with Germany taking lead in fielding (funny, they would do assault rifles too). Their innovation wasn’t war winning, but it was adopted widely for various purposes after the war. The Americans had both the Thompson Submachine Gun and the Browning Automatic Rifle developed in 1918 and 1917 respectively, but the BAR would not see much service (rumor was they didn’t want the new weapons captured and reverse engineered) and the Thompson was never picked up by the military of the era, despite the MP-18 in German hands showing the utility. Both would later enter widespread service in1938 as an issued submachinegun and squad automatic rifle respectively.

But a defining characteristic of Gen 1’s, as Ian points out, was the quality of manufacturing. There wasn’t really an emphasis on making Gen 1 subguns ‘cheap’ or ‘quick’. The machine work and material selection tell that story.

Gen 1’s lasted until WWII

Gen 2: Make Them Fast, Cheap, Easy, and Run

World War II was a massive resource suck on a scale that even the first world war had not imagined. It didn’t help that world was still recovering from that war when this one kicked off. Germany had basically said “I do what I want.” and started forward innovating and the opposing Allied forces had to play catchup. Time was not on their side to supply weapons.

The need was: cheap, simple, and plentiful.

The British Sten and American M3 ‘Grease Gun’ which look like hardware store throw togethers exemplify this generation. Gone are all the nice, precise, complicated, and complex bits and you are left with a barreled bullet tube. Germany had the MP-38 and MP-40. The Soviets brough forth the ‘Burp Gun’ PPsh The whole weapon was simplified for mass production, wood went away almost entirely, and the sights became realistic for pistol calibers.

Gen 3: The Pistol Caliber Carbine

Here is where I differ from Ian a bit, although I see his points too when it comes to the H&K UMP and CZ Scorpion as modern day “Gen 2’s” but Gen 3’s are typified by incorporation of modern rifle features into a pistol caliber option. The MP5 was the first mainstream example and the most iconic, by using roller delay instead of just another blowback bolt assembly it was incredibly accurate and reliable even on automatic. Most of these guns are also closed bolt designs now where Gen 2’s used open bolts extensively and were often full auto only.

I would say Gen 3 is an partial or total incorporation of modernized feature sets. If the gun is select fire and you have two of the following…

• Closed Bolt Design
• Last Round Bolt Hold Open
• Gas Operated, Delayed Blowback Operated, or any alternate operating mechanism that drastically improves recoil management.

I would say it qualifies as a Generation 3 submachinegun, or the modern moniker of Pistol Caliber Carbine. Unlike previous generations of submachineguns where they were meant to be “trench brooms” the Gen 3’s were built to be compact precision tools that gave the operator as much control over engagement method as they would have with a modern battle rifle or assault rifle. Accurate reliable semi-automatic or controlled bursts of full-auto at the click of a selector.

The reason I differ, a little, from Ian here is I would not classify the CZ Scorpion EVO3 S1, the B&T APC, the Kriss Vector, or even the H&K UMP as Gen 2’s just for selecting direct/simple blowback as the operation mechanism. They incorporate too many operator ergonomic improvements which allow them to be run like a modern carbine, in my opinion.

So there we have it, 100 (plus) years of the submachinegun.

The M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle is variant of one the most successful turn of the century service rifle designs, the H&K 416. The United States Marine Corps held a “supplemental” trial for the IAR as the M249 SAW, while handier than the M240 and M60 in the role of automatic rifle, was not an automatic rifle. The M249 is a light machinegun and is largely run as such.

The need for a lighter suppressive weapon system that could further bridge the gap between belt-fed machine guns like the 60, 240, and 249 and the individual weapons like the M4 and M16 was borne out in testing around the year 2000 by 2/7 Marines, and was further confirmed during GWOT.

The SAW wasn’t ideal in the role, plain and simple. It was still too heavy and had just enough reliability problems that it was barred official from being used as a ‘first weapon in’ while engaging in CQB room clearing. It’s first round ignition rate was too low.

What the Marine Corps said they desired (I have my doubts) was a lighter magazine-fed automatic rifle. A true automatic rifle with the capability to act as an individual weapon like the M4 and M16, but with the capability of becoming an automatic suppressive weapon system on demand too.

I personally believe the Marines wanted to grab a new service rifle without Big Army and their Big Budget demanding a system HQ Marine Corps did not want. The fact that the M27 is now the infantry standard rifle lends credence to my theory that they just wanted an easy method to upgrade from the M16… but I digress.

In 2006, trials were had between four competitors. All were well known names in service weapons, FN, H&K, and Colt who submitted two systems. FN submitted a variant of their SCAR that could fire from the open bolt position automatic at a certain temperature and had further ruggedized internals for longer sustained fire rates than service rifles usually see. The winning H&K was a 16″ 416 with a ruggedized barrel. Colt submitted a collaborative gun in conjunction with KAC and a direct gas 6940 with heatsink. The video covers this 6940 submission and compares it to the H&K and M249 (All semi-auto variants).

All submissions had a bayonet lug by requirement.

The Trial

The IAR trial is often cited for reliability numbers for all three systems. All the weapons performed very well in the trials but the SCAR and the H&K performed better. The Colt’s DI gun simply started stacking more stoppages as it got dirtier while the piston H&K and SCAR kept running. In fact, the SCAR turned in the best performance stoppage wise, but the H&K’s monstrously tough barrel was showing lower wear over time.

Maintenance costs are a vastly under appreciated part of keeping a weapon running and with the initial plan to use 6,500 (now around 14,000) rifles that were drastically more expensive than an M16 or M4 weighed heavy in the consideration. While H&K came in a close second reliability wise, the fact that it was boasting a barrel life near 30,000 rounds while the SCAR was coming in at 12,000-18,000 pushed H&K into the winners circle. Average M16/M4 barrel life at the time was approximately 10,000 rounds.

When looking at the Colt, they nearly to a T followed the guidelines set by the solicitation when considering it as an ‘automatic rifle’ while the H&K really was just a really good service rifle that was reliable on full-auto. The FN also took the full-auto aspect into account with its open/closed bolt technology called HAMR (Heat Adaptive Modular Rifle) in which thermal expansion would trip a second catch in the weapon at a certain point and the rifle would transition to open bolt and fire like the M249, M240, and several submachine guns. This allowed much greater airflow through the barrel for efficient cooling. Again, the H&K didn’t contend very heavily on additional mitigation of the IAR for full-auto. They just submitted a solid rifle.

Once it was selected the Marine Corps just kept ordering more until their order was almost double and the M27 had become the standard service rifle of the 03 MOS. It became one of 4 systems you could qualify with and was easily the most accurate thanks to a good trigger and superb quality free floated barrel. Paired with Mk262 77gr ammunition and a higher magnification optic (Mk4 MR/T 2.5-8x Scopes pilfered from Mk12 SDMRs) and the H&K became a rugged SDMR itself. Mk12’s were always treated with much greater care and seen as fragile, as were their Leupold optics. The M27 with a new 1-8x VCOG will make for a very robust infantry rifle.

It is unknown if a newer higher magnification optic like a 2-12 or 3-18 will supplant the MR/T in the M38 role, but it would make sense.

The Corps Line

The Marine Corp maintains that it came to its decisions independently on making the H&K 416 its infantry rifle. This is despite the evidence that other submissions were designed ‘better‘ for the automatic role. The over gassed, hyper redundant, superbly reliable German rifle is just that.. a superb rifle. It’s alright in automatic.

The M27 was, and will remain for awhile yet, a solid ‘one gun fits all’ selection for a light mobile infantry force. The Marine Corp mission is light, fast, high mobility, amphibious infantry where the Army is heavy mechanized combined arms. To put it in individual terms, the Marine Corps is the ‘ready to pull’ concealed carry personal defense weapon while the Army is the fully laden combat rifle loadout. The Marine Corps is the quick sharp saber. The Army is a two handed warhammer.

And SOCOM are pocket ninjas.