The biggest change that isn't just a bolt-on accessory is the placement of the iron sights. The rear sight is moved to the back of the dust cover while the front sight is integrated with the gas block.
I could try to answer but everything I would say would just be me parroting the 9-hole video on it so just go watch that instead
(protip: most answers you will get online about questions relating to guns most people don't have their hands on are just them parroting something else they read/saw)
Original AK-12 prototype had more modern features like ambi controls, but it was deemed too expensive when Russia already had a huge stockpile of AK-74s. The current production AK-12 is basically just an AK-74 with bolt-on upgrades.
No one who has not used a weapon in extended ground combat can do more than speculate. Today rifles chase tiny advantages while vision enhancements are far more important than the bang stick itself.
It was good when it was in the zlobin prototype phase, but as they were produced, they got cheaper and cheaper until they were basically just "modernised" ak74ms with more ar15 compatability
From what we've seen with examples that have made it to the west is many corners were cut when it moved from prototype to production. AK-100 series seems better.
Greatest thing about AK-12 is being convertable to 12 gauge, instead of requiring a whole new project with the AK as a basis (Saiga).
Russian weapons tend to follow the pattern AEK series > AK-100 series > AK 12 series > AK 74 series > AK 47. AN rifles do not go anywhere because its too high on the cost list that does not translate well into ground effectiveness; its a gimmick AK-74 for all purposes.
>Greatest thing about AK-12 is being convertable to 12 gauge, instead of requiring a whole new project with the AK as a basis (Saiga).
That seems useful on the production line but not so much for the soldier. AK-100 series seem to be pretty solid all around and the aftermarket has done a good job of upgrading them. Russia would have got more bang for buck if they had adopted those with zenitco parts in a sopmod style upgrade kit.
You did notice how I mentioned it was shit, without actually claiming it directly.
Still a better design than the original AKs. You cant really compare modern reproductions because the moment a company grabs the AK-12 blueprints theyll correct the issues and new ones will pop out. But the original design is good.
No, the original design was better, but the Kremlin did not like it due its expenses and just made it worse. The dust cover does not holds zero, the gas tube is attached to the rifle, making cleaning difficult, the 2 round burst is retarded, the safety can detach from the firearm because gen 1 and 2 dont have a safety stopper and can jam the rifle/make it unable to fire in a pinch, as evidenced by the dozens of AK12 found by the ukranians with the safety lever off the weapon when the puccians were gunned down. For more information, see this video:
Burst mode in general is designed to be dumb, it was made for soldiers who are innately inaccurate, so the could get more rounds in target, because the powers that be assume the average infantryman to be a drooling tardicaca(usually correct)
I used to shoot AK-15 2012 version(civilian AK-15) it in the close range field. It chambered with 7,62x39 round, I think that issues which I experienced during shooting is only due to the round rather than rifle itself.
1. The muzzle break gives huge blast which cover entire target(white paper torso human target).
2. I noticed recoil while shooting it, my palm goes tired after 20 rounds.
3. The irsonsight is weird, it thicc.
4. The stock is wide, it feels uncomfortable in my shoulder.
5. The handguard is like a metal-made bread.
Also I used to shoot Ukrainian AR-15(Zbroyar-15)[long before the war]. 5.56x45.
1. The muzzle break effective and don't hide a target.
2. The recoil is way lighter.
3. The sights is red dot, I didn't test the AR ironsight.
4. The stock is tiny and easily up to my shoulder.
5. The handguard is tiny, and tube-like, it nicer to handle.
The original design was really cool. But like every other Russian project that had some semblance of logic, most of the funding instead went into pockets.
the best conjecture I can come to, that hasn't been said by other anons, is that when they seem to be used when captured in Ukraine. So they're at least slightly better than a bog standard AK-74
They're shit. The selector can walk out, the plastic is poor quality, and the lack of a dovetail mount forces you to use the wobbly rails. Russian standard rifles peaked at the AK-74M and they are valued trophies in AFU. The magazines are really good though.
It's just okay. The only real improvement over an AK-74 with some upgraded furniture is the magazine, which seems to have had a lot of thought put into it, especially the bevel.
It's useless, Russians wanted a new modern rifle that's better than AK-74, but in the end, they got an inferior AK-74 with a rail and plastic furniture + worse quality + a few retarded decisions like a gas tube and a fire selector. They probably could get a better rifle just by spending that R&D money on attachment for AK-74
>cover gun in rails in order to mount modern optics easily >can’t issue optics because conscripts will sell them
Might as well have just kept using the 74m
>expecting r/weapons to give an objective viewpoint on anything Russian
chud mad because ak12 doesnt hold zero on top cover and handguard
Isn't it mostly an AK-74 with different furniture?
Someone answer this question for me.
Did they actually change anything about the basic design, or did they just add some bits and bobs and slap a number on it?
The biggest change that isn't just a bolt-on accessory is the placement of the iron sights. The rear sight is moved to the back of the dust cover while the front sight is integrated with the gas block.
I could try to answer but everything I would say would just be me parroting the 9-hole video on it so just go watch that instead
(protip: most answers you will get online about questions relating to guns most people don't have their hands on are just them parroting something else they read/saw)
>protip
Anon that's everything in life. It's how communicating ideas works.
Maybe. Maybe not. But possibly. But possibly not.
Original AK-12 prototype had more modern features like ambi controls, but it was deemed too expensive when Russia already had a huge stockpile of AK-74s. The current production AK-12 is basically just an AK-74 with bolt-on upgrades.
No one who has not used a weapon in extended ground combat can do more than speculate. Today rifles chase tiny advantages while vision enhancements are far more important than the bang stick itself.
It was good when it was in the zlobin prototype phase, but as they were produced, they got cheaper and cheaper until they were basically just "modernised" ak74ms with more ar15 compatability
From what we've seen with examples that have made it to the west is many corners were cut when it moved from prototype to production. AK-100 series seems better.
AK-100 series are one step below AEK series.
Greatest thing about AK-12 is being convertable to 12 gauge, instead of requiring a whole new project with the AK as a basis (Saiga).
Russian weapons tend to follow the pattern AEK series > AK-100 series > AK 12 series > AK 74 series > AK 47. AN rifles do not go anywhere because its too high on the cost list that does not translate well into ground effectiveness; its a gimmick AK-74 for all purposes.
>Greatest thing about AK-12 is being convertable to 12 gauge, instead of requiring a whole new project with the AK as a basis (Saiga).
That seems useful on the production line but not so much for the soldier. AK-100 series seem to be pretty solid all around and the aftermarket has done a good job of upgrading them. Russia would have got more bang for buck if they had adopted those with zenitco parts in a sopmod style upgrade kit.
You did notice how I mentioned it was shit, without actually claiming it directly.
Still a better design than the original AKs. You cant really compare modern reproductions because the moment a company grabs the AK-12 blueprints theyll correct the issues and new ones will pop out. But the original design is good.
No, the original design was better, but the Kremlin did not like it due its expenses and just made it worse. The dust cover does not holds zero, the gas tube is attached to the rifle, making cleaning difficult, the 2 round burst is retarded, the safety can detach from the firearm because gen 1 and 2 dont have a safety stopper and can jam the rifle/make it unable to fire in a pinch, as evidenced by the dozens of AK12 found by the ukranians with the safety lever off the weapon when the puccians were gunned down. For more information, see this video:
>the 2 round burst is retarded
2 round burst always made more sense to me than 3 round burst though.
From what I'm reading, it can jam the rifle.
Burst mode in general is designed to be dumb, it was made for soldiers who are innately inaccurate, so the could get more rounds in target, because the powers that be assume the average infantryman to be a drooling tardicaca(usually correct)
One round burst gets more bursts per clip.
why not 0.5 round burst? you would get 60 bursts out of a 30 round mag
I used to shoot AK-15 2012 version(civilian AK-15) it in the close range field. It chambered with 7,62x39 round, I think that issues which I experienced during shooting is only due to the round rather than rifle itself.
1. The muzzle break gives huge blast which cover entire target(white paper torso human target).
2. I noticed recoil while shooting it, my palm goes tired after 20 rounds.
3. The irsonsight is weird, it thicc.
4. The stock is wide, it feels uncomfortable in my shoulder.
5. The handguard is like a metal-made bread.
Also I used to shoot Ukrainian AR-15(Zbroyar-15)[long before the war]. 5.56x45.
1. The muzzle break effective and don't hide a target.
2. The recoil is way lighter.
3. The sights is red dot, I didn't test the AR ironsight.
4. The stock is tiny and easily up to my shoulder.
5. The handguard is tiny, and tube-like, it nicer to handle.
interesting anon. are you ukranian? have you heard any opinions from your soldiers?
The original design was really cool. But like every other Russian project that had some semblance of logic, most of the funding instead went into pockets.
the best conjecture I can come to, that hasn't been said by other anons, is that when they seem to be used when captured in Ukraine. So they're at least slightly better than a bog standard AK-74
That could just be them flexing that they captured the enemies "elite" gun. It could just perform the same as the 74 in that case
They're shit. The selector can walk out, the plastic is poor quality, and the lack of a dovetail mount forces you to use the wobbly rails. Russian standard rifles peaked at the AK-74M and they are valued trophies in AFU. The magazines are really good though.
Still superior to the AK 74 series; more because the 74 are complete shit than merit of the 12.
It's just okay. The only real improvement over an AK-74 with some upgraded furniture is the magazine, which seems to have had a lot of thought put into it, especially the bevel.
It's useless, Russians wanted a new modern rifle that's better than AK-74, but in the end, they got an inferior AK-74 with a rail and plastic furniture + worse quality + a few retarded decisions like a gas tube and a fire selector. They probably could get a better rifle just by spending that R&D money on attachment for AK-74
Its good looking so its good for me
>cover gun in rails in order to mount modern optics easily
>can’t issue optics because conscripts will sell them
Might as well have just kept using the 74m
*dabs*