With finnland now joining nato, theoretically they should change over to nato ammuntion and arms.
But what if they didnt, and kept on the russian standard when it comes to ammuntion at least?
>in an all out war against russia there would probadly be enough ammo captured to keep a small country like finnland supplied, stockpiles aisde
>the AK design deals better with the cold, ask alaskan cops or just look at the garand thumb cold testing
>no need to retrain the finish army on new equipment, they can keep using their current Valmets
Only issue i could see is logistics while operating with other nato forces, but i think especially the high north (where it makes the most sense to keep the old equipment) they could hold themselves
Who the frick is going to invade Finland, frick they don't even need to invade them. They'll have open arms of a white race savior like Pootin.
SAKO is already prototyping new guns for adoption and in all likelihood the Swedes will buy it as well. The latest info was that SAKO was looking at the outcome of the NGSW program to see what happens. Here are some of the leaked pictures of SAKO prototypes. In all likelihood the adoption of new guns will start somewhere around 2028-2030.
true but im asking if its the most sensible path to take.
I mean they could literally have the enemy make their ammo for them, as long as the rest of nato sends them their captured supplies. It would free up maschine time to produce something else
russia hasnt used 7,62x39 much for 50 years now
its a shit caliber anyway, existing guns are old and production lines havent existed for 26 years. time to move on
+ individual rifle is only tiny part of the whole NATO compatibility thing. Tanks are Leo 2s, IFVs are CV90, artillery is largely 155 mm, air force and air defence are 100 % western etc.
It makes no sense. You complicate logistics for everyone since now they have to send ammo backwards too, make cooperation harder because now you need two kinds of ammo for any joint exercise, and if for whatever reason we stop capturing enough Soviet ammo to supply them now they have to be retrained and given different guns in the middle of a war. All to save on probably the cheapest part of military equipment already.
if you'd asked me this 15 years ago, I would've said that no - going NATO route in general would've been silly.
Now though, when I'm actually grown and realized that IRL does not work like video games, I KNOW that the Nato standardization would only benefit us.
But first you need to realize that FDF has been bumping up their NATO-standardization for a good 20+ years now. More than half of our stuff already IS Nato-compatible, from our general squad tactics to vehicle re-fuel sockets. Many special forces and cops also use 5.56 NATO rifles, some vehicles already got a .308 machine guns, and we got everything from Stingers to NLAWs
The matter of an infantry rifle is very secondary subject matter.
Obviously the best case scenario would be a familiar feeling weapon that's roughly as robust as the good ol' RKs have been so far.
Estonia did a gamer move by simply buying Galils, making the transition from the old AKs easy (plus they're kinda like ofsprings of Valmet and SAKO RKs).
Maybe similar approach could work for FDF as well, but in the end it's all about the money and logistics. A slightly pimped up piston AR might just as well be good enough for the job. Galil Ace 2 wouldn't be a half bad choice. Naturally Finns would prefer domestically produced toys, but that's kinda tall order this day and age.
First of all it's VAlmet.
As in VALtion METalli.
Second, Valmet has not made rifles for a good 40 years now.
Sako inherited the tools and task, but they too stopped making RKs in the late 90s, and are now part of the Beretta.
The Poles managed to make a decent 5,56 AK, I'm sure you guys could as well.
>I mean they could literally have the enemy make their ammo for them
You can absolutely not let your logistics rely on whatever you capture from the enemy.
This brings a question about resupplying - would you rather get resupplied by NATO easily or resupply by...attacking russian ammo dumps which may or may not have that ammo or which can simply be blown up by air attacks and artillery if lost to the enemy?
This is also the secret sauce of Finland, though. Finland has the mindset that there must be huge stockpiles all around the country, full BEFORE the war, so you don't have to do anything during it.
This mindset might change with NATO membership though.
I expect the will be a lot more Swe-Fin excercises focused on large scale reinforcement and support in the near future.
I wonder if SAKO is going to do the smart thing with the new hotness round and put it in a battle rifle with a normal barrel length.
Fricking thing would probably cook, assuming they can keep the barrel from eroding too quickly.
finland already is more "nato standard" than half of NATO and the next rifle will be a SAKO made AR.
I want a Sako M23.
>>in an all out war against russia there would probadly be enough ammo captured
you dont rely on captured ammo in a war
>>no need to retrain the finish army on new equipment, they can keep using their current Valmets
you know they have velmets in nato calibers right?
yes but theyd safe money by not buying new Velmets.
And honestly when push comes to shove and you dont capture enough money you can still import from the third world/use up stocks of ex soviet nations/start to slowly tranisition to nato calibres
i dont think they should switch all their rifles immediately just because of nato but they do need to modernize and buy new shit eventually. their next rifle will probably be in a nato caliber.
it might be wise to wait and see if the US 6.8mm trend takes off (probably wont)
The US is nearly independent of the NATO standard just because we're such a logistical powerhouse. We dont need other countries to have ammo for us, and yet if they needed ammo, you can bet your ass we're gonna have 556 and 308 there for them anyways. I think the 6.8 switch is dumb, but friendly logistics isnt a constraining factor for US military. It would make sense to upgrade a good portion of their rifles with some flavor of 556 rechamber though and mothball some of the current ones away just in case
Switching all rifles immediately would also be impossible. There is no manufacturer capable supplying hundreds of thousands of new rifles at moments notice - even in best of cases producing that many takes years. My educated guess is Sako designed rifle, which is going to be piston-AR is going to be adopted and number of parts used in production will be sourced from other manufacturers. As a backup-plan and to speed up production (SAKO factory is pretty small for the number of rifles needed) there might be some suitable foreign manufacturer, which could also getting orders for what is essentially the same rifle - especially so since Swedes are planning to adopt the same rifle.
Small arms ammunition supply cannot be based on captured ammo and in Finnish case has not been since 1920's.
Its not a compete meme or tornari. The problem is 5.56 gets destabilised by foliage easily if compared to 7,62 x 39, but than again according old FDF research rifle-caliber stuff in general is pretty bad for penetrating vegitation of what was typical Finnish forest - 7.62 x 53R included.
Finnish forests are not exactly what they used to be either - nowadays grand majority is talousmetsä, basically fields of trees for industry with less underbrush and very few old trees. So might be that the conditions have in some degree as well.
US has millions of M16's in storage. we could have them there within a week. we did it with israel during the yom kippur war.
Only assuming those M16 rifles would not be needed elsewhere. In case of large -scale war there might be more than few NATO-countries in need of rifles. Also that does nothing to SAKO's limited production capability.
While 5.56 seems the most likely cartridge for next Finnish service rifle have you wondered how M885A1 flying sideways is doing against bodyarmor or what kind of terminal ballistics it has.
Few years back I was writing down results in Applied Reservist Shooting competition were some targets were partally obtructed by brush (simple pajupuska) - most of .223 pruduced nice side profiles of bullets.
They don't just put millions of perfectly good rifles into long-term storage. Most likely those weapons have been cycled out of service due to accumulated wear and tear.
If they've been stored in a sane fashion, each one was inspected by the armorers and separated based on whether they're combat-ready, serviceable, or ready to be written off. In this case I would assume though that the good ones would have been kept in use in recruit training or issued to guard units as a cost-saving measure.
I think it unlikely that in this day they could pull half a million rifles out of their asses without a considerable work to bring them back up to a working condition. I'm not saying it's undoable, I just think that it'd likely be several weeks before the first ones were shipped out.
>5.56 gets destabilised by foliage easily if compared to 7,62 x 39
US fudds used to believe shit like that too. it's technically true - lighter faster bullets do destabilize more when going through foliage, but it's not useful because the difference is a matter o inches, a 5.56 may deflect 24" from its path within say 25 yards, but a heavy bullet would deflect 24" from its path within 26 yards, it's not enough to make up for the advantage of just shooting the 5.56 twice, which you can do because you can carry twice the ammo and the lower recoil means you can fire accurately twice as fast, and the lighter rifle means you can run an optic which allows you to see the branch and shoot a few inches lower/higher to avoid it in the first place.
but optics are expensive, so third world countries lik finland and vietnam can't afford them, so they cope with their comfortable and inexpensive "muh brush busting boolits" lies.
>>in an all out war against russia there would probadly be enough ammo captured to keep a small country like finnland supplied, stockpiles aisde
Oh yeah, let's rely on u being able to capture the absolutely monstrous amounts of ammo necessary form the enemy, that's gonna work out juuuust fine. And I'm sure Vlad's too gentlemanly to spike the ammo.
>>the AK design deals better with the cold, ask alaskan cops or just look at the garand thumb cold testing
So Norway and Canada seem happy enough with ARs. But some doughnut slayer up north totally prefers the AK (trust me guys) and this here youtuber did a video about how the AK does a bit better so frick all that, it's gotta be an AK in the cold! And no you can't just get an AK in 223, because reasons.
And if we don't just happen to find enough Russian ammo lying around as we fight defensively we should, in the middle of a fricking war, go searching half the fricking planet for ancient USSR stockpiles stored in God knows what conditions, assorted unmarked, new-ish ammo bought in Africa that the Mole alone knows where the frick they came from, and start throwing a new calibre or two into the logistics. No way that won't be a massive clusterfrick, no sir.
>the AK design deals better with the cold, ask alaskan cops or just look at the garand thumb cold testing
There are other rifles that work just as well in the cold. When Sweden and Finland choose to adopt new service rifles, which there is no rush to do, they will likely be chambered in the new NATO standard caliber and special attention will be given to cold weather performance.
Relying on captured ammo as a strategy is completely moronic.
Are the finns supposed to buy new guns and retrain all their soldiers whenever the russians decide to change theirs?
Why the hell would any industrialized country want to base their entire strategy around the extremely dubious prospect of trying to capture ammunition from their opponent (and then having to work out the logistics of trying to distribute that shit from within literally the hottest combat zones to wherever it might be needed the most)?
>You use captured Russian Ammo
>It explodes and kills the operator
It would be better to just make it.
Im going to Helsinki, are there any /k/ museums worth visiting?
https://www.museomilitaria.fi/museum-militaria-in-english
Based, thx bros
aviation museum right next to the airport is nice
The entire island of Suomenlinna is a fortress. It used to be a closed island an a damn deadly prison post-civil war, but is now a very comfy part of town with its museums ranging from fortifications, the general exhibition at the manege, to the last surviving submarine Vesikko.
The latter, in short, was designed by a German "Dutch" front-business in the interwar years, built by the kickass-named Crichton-Vulcan shipyard in Turku, and was painted gray for the longest time post-war, but was about a decade ago given back its lively 1943 paint scheme, pic related.
>Soumenlinna
I second this. The island itself is also beautiful in winter.
Another anon asked similar recommendations in just last weekend - what I remember the discussion was in European Weapons General.
I've found it, thx
>With Finland now joining nato, theoretically they should change over to nato ammuntion and arms.
We've been doing that for many decades now, dummy. NATO's execs themselves told us over a decade ago that Winland would pretty much only need to sign the papers and it'd get into the club, potentially becoming a teacher's pet nation too.
It's literally only the RK rifles that aren't directly compatible with NATO stuff, but even within NATO countries, there are more rifle designs than just the AR15s.
>in an all out war against russia there would probadly be enough ammo captured to keep a small country like finnland supplied
Russians don't use the 7.62x39 anymore and Finns wouldn't want to use garbage quality russian ammo anyhow when they've got warehouses upon warehouses of match grade Lapua ammo for their RK's.
Doesn't matter, Sweden/Finland's new guns will be NATO standard
If burgers want us to change our caliber they should be the ones to pay for it. It is nonsensical to pay hundreds of millions for 900 000 new rifles + ammunition when our old ones are perfectly functional, and indeed more ideal for our wooded environment than 5.56
t. Finn hetero
>indeed more ideal for our wooded environment than 5.56
This is just a myth invented by FDF trainers to make troops feel better about using a weapon in an antiquated caliber.
So that instead of just saying "well it's just not worth the effort to change" they can say "uh it's actually better in the very specific Finnish use case of .. uhh ... forests!"
>compare 5.56 NATO vs 7.62x39 in a dense, heavily vegetated, forest environment.
>but at the time the US was fighting in even more densely wooded forests than Finland
Is that Vietnam War? Cause in that war, 5.56 have lower ballistic performance in the jungle compared to 7.62x39. Easily lost its velocity to brush since the lack of mass compared to 7.62x39. Also why M60 is always preferred for jungle patrol because of its ability to clear brush, spray indiscriminately toward any direction you think where the VC is thanks to its 7.62×51mm pack more power and mass for the jungle.
>compare 5.56 NATO vs 7.62x39 in a dense, heavily vegetated, forest environment.
Yes and the 5.56 wins any time.
>Yes and the 5.56 wins any time
>in a dense, heavily vegetated, forest environment.
Of course, with nothing to back up your claim after all. Cause you're just a stupid fanboy of 5.56, think it can be all-rounder in every scenario.
>the US issued small numbers of select fire AR-15's to various groups of special forces in Vietnam and the reports came back unequivocally positive, practically gushing about how well it worked, better than the 7.62x51, better than the 7.62x39 that specops were also using.
I don't care about US favoritism and whatever frick behind all of that report of US forces say about 5.56 better than 7.62x51 and 7.62x39 cause it might just be a rush for israelites at the military industry to get their share by introducing a new round. Finn used 7.62x39 in their forest and say it was better than 5.56. Viet used 7.62x39 in their jungle and said it was better than 5.56. I trust their account better than some israelites in the military industry with their report and later blame it on 'it was the powder'.
you know what *really* had lots of brush-busting mass compared to both 7.62x39 and 5.56? the 7.62x51 that the 5.56 replaced, because it turns out that the faster, smaller diameter bullet really does work better in the woods. the US issued small numbers of select fire AR-15's to various groups of special forces in Vietnam and the reports came back unequivocally positive, practically gushing about how well it worked, better than the 7.62x51, better than the 7.62x39 that specops were also using. the US adopted the select-fire AR-15 as the M-16, and its cartridge, based on that experience. (then they fricked it up by cheaping out on the powder but that's a different story)
+ one of those special forces troops to test first 5.56 ARs in combat was Lauri Törni himself
>more ideal for our wooded environment than 5.56
you may not be aware of this, but at the time the US was fighting in even more densely wooded forests than finland, and switched to 5.56 because it was absolutely ideal for that environment?
god kill this embarrassing tornari meme already
>an 8 gram bullet doesn't have more inertia than a 4 gram one
Higher velocity or total energy is not the same as the ability to retain said energy or velocity.
right lets go back to .308 or 7,62x54R. Because its obviously better in the woods as it has more inertia and energy
moron, use the gray thing in your head
>bring .308 or 7,62x54R into this
So you saying your 5.56 is better than .308 or 7,62x54R in the forest too, is that right?
It is. And 5.45 is even better although not by meaningful amount.
there are good reasons why almost whole world including forested and jungle countries have swapped to light intermediate calibers. Certain poor and mountainous countries(Turkey, Iran, Argentine) being exceptions
I wish the West had invented 5.45, i really like it but it isn't very developed like 5.56 is
>there are good reasons why almost whole world including forested and jungle countries have swapped to light intermediate calibers.
Yes, there is. Because the overall combat theater in those countries isn't jungle or forest. This doesn't mean countries like Finland, Vietnam and others with their overall combat theater in jungle/forest are wrong about not doing the same.
Is the overall combat theater in Russia jungle or forest? Some countries in Latin America still prefer 7.62×51 over 5.56 too.
so you're unironically claiming only poor countries like finland and vietnam have forests and trees?
Are you really that stupid or just want to push that narrative 5.56 is the king of forest/jungle
Their overall combat theater is dominated by forest/jungle. It also creates a natural border where their rival countries come and push thru(Russia, China). Look at the fricking world map for one instead of just your 50 state map.
>joins nato because he believes russia wants to invade finland
>also believes russia deliberately adopted a cartridge that would prevent them from successfully invading finland
your cope is showing, yuropoor
>also believes russia deliberately adopted a cartridge that would prevent them from successfully invading finland
You're a fricking stupid mutt and sadly, you don't know that. Russia isn't stupid to shoot itself for just one country, one caliber for that country's environment. That's why I said the overall combat theater of Russia isn't dominated by forest only. They have Ukraine which is mostly flatland.
This is the same for Vietnam too. But mutt fanboy of the 5.56 can not accept that.
When 7,62x39 was adopted there was zero consideration on performance in woods. Which seems to be whatever you want as long as it supports 7,62.
You can carry more 556 or 545 than 762x39
That is pretty much whole reason why most countries have adopted lighter ammo.
When you ad that 30-60 rounds for every man in platoon suddenly amount of ammo starts to become more meaningful than ballistic superiority.
Yes which is why the US just switched to 6.8x51 for the combat forces because of light intermediate calibers being better.
🙂
Hey, more ammo is always more important in some moron minds even if it was just pea shooter.
no they haven't, they're not allowed to because of nato standardization 🙂
>US just switched to 6.8x51 for the combat forces
never happened
Oh? What happened though? What is all this Sig Spear NGSW noise going around these parts hmmm?
Not replacing the M4
Oh? what is it then? enlighten me.
A pretty plain and simple scam. The US isn't capable of changing full-suite from 5.56x45mm due to NATO standardization requirements, so the Spear and .277 Fury are just going to enter tests with first-to-deploy knuckledraggers like Cavalry units and SOCOM will fingerfrick it for a while before it's all getting thrown in the bin because both the round and the platform are utter fricking trash. Aside from these use cases, everyone else is still going to be running around with M16A4s and M4A1s. The XM250 is the likeliest takeaway from this program to enter proper service, and even that is drastically flawed. The LoneStar and True Velocity bids were the best bets for something worthwhile, and command negligence reared its ugly head with True Velocity being denied the polymer-cased ammunition contract because LoneStar filed a formal protest about the obvious lobbying for the SIG contract.
>finnish fudd
Using captured russian ammo makes even less sense when you consider that you'd suddenly bound yourself to Russian logistics
>Relying on captured enemy ammunition
>Relying on Russian logistics no less
lol
lmao even
Valmet made M62/76's in 5.56. There's a number of Valmet owners in the US who would love to see them start up production again, as 5.56 Valmet magazines are more expensive than gold bars over here.
That said, the nato standard round is no longer a meaningful standard now that the US has abandoned it, so Finland should feel free to do whatever they want. rechamber them in 45-70 or some shit just to frick with the US, russians don't issue body armor so 45-70 would frick them right up.
there is no enforcement of STANAGs. member states adopt them for the sake of interoperability, or they don't.
logic is immaterial in the face of poorgay cope. he's still pretending the russians didn't switch away from 7.62x39 fifty years ago.
They're getting ARs already
I want RK 95 kits though
NATO is gay as frick
>russia is losing to a gay proxy
>he can't just say "yes"
>he HAS TO also shill against russia at every opportunity
shillbot
ya seethe
That's a strange take on a defensive alliance mainly geard to defend against the male prostitution-army.
No because we are never going to be able to join NATO. Now we are some kind of a joke observer member with zero rights and maybe in the future if we suck enough turkroach and irrelevant east euro wieners we maybe a year from now can join for real but by then I bet nobody cares anymore. Also rifles are pretty irrelevant in modern combat and replacing hundreds of thousands of rifles with 5.56 would be too expensive (and US is already moving to abandon 5.56 in the future anyway so getting into it now is foolish)
it's impressive how absolutely braindead moronic this whole post is
Yet you cant refute anything I said. We arent in NATO yet, we are "observer member" with no vote in any NATO decision making and no article 5 and now our membership will have to be approved by all members which will take months and every shithole like turkey will try to squeeze political gains and gibs from us during the process. The turk demands alone will probably collapse the current goverment since its leftist and heavily bought into kurd human rights bullshit and turks are basically demanding we hand over dozens of kurds to be gassed and I highly doubt the lefties will sell their precious brown babies for erdogan to jail and execute. Personally any muslim being deported is a win for me but I do not see it happening. And rifle for modern combat only has to go pew pew since its a miniscule part of modern combat and there are much more important things to spend the money on like the navy which is in shambles having been neglected for over a decade now due to the plans for new fighter planes sucking up much of the military budget.
poorgay is beginning to realize his country is just poor and not actually special. fricking hell, even poland could afford to switch over, how embarrassingly poor can finland be if poland mogs them?
Poland is basically where the boot of american imperialism rests on europe and they would happily turn their whole country into a big nato airbase if they could. So they will happily waste millions to pretend they are military relevant. Also the polish army is 1/3 the size of the finnish army and finland has 800 000 man reserve that needs weapons as well. Arming all of them with new NATO caliber rifles would basically cost most of the annual military budget while we also are currently replacing all the current fighter planes and the navy needs modernising too next.
>american imperialism
that explains why you're so butthurt, you're a assblasted leftoid
Trust me the right in europe hates america just as much (outside a small group of israel worshipping christian weirdos)
the ''right'' in europe is the left in America
this is American lefty bullshit, the far right parties in Europe is far more openly racist than any republican because they're not moderated out by the rest of their party
We are NOT switching to AR's. We did extensive testing in the 60's with all the available guns and calibers, and determined that the rk62 (prototype) was the best out of all of them, and 7.62x39 is best suited for the forest. We did the same kind of testing in the 90's, because people complained that the rk62's were antiquated and 7.62x39 was a bad caliber. Turns out the guns are still the best, and there's nothing wrong with 7.62x39. The only problems were the lack of a folding stock, no rails, no rifle grenades. SAKO designs the rk95, Fdf orders 20k of them. The same thing happened again in 2010's; people complained that the guns were antiquated and bad, FDF did extensive testing with all the guns available, determined the rk was still the best, and started modernizing the rk62's with collapsable stocks and rails.
>We are NOT switching to AR's
you are though
We're replacing dragunovs with AR10's. The basic finnish infantry rifle will still be the RK.
I believe you anon. I also believe that the criteria was
>cheapest = the best
Then you would be wrong. RK's are milled frame AK's made to a ridiculously high tolerance.
>the only problem was our rifles not having anything modern rifles have
pekka coping hard
Which is why we modernized them, moron. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwuvNS-eZ9U
terrorist model rk62 is the best weapon ever made
everyone that says otherwise is a homosexual
7.62x39 is so trash not even russians are dumb enough to use it anymore
>what is the.300 blackout that mimics the 7.62x39 ballistic
a meme cartridge used by no one but boomers just like 6.5 grendel
>any cartridge that my ignorant ass can't find a use for it is a meme.
Yup, tell that to a pack of hogs come and eat your crops, gen z kiddo.
>heavier than 5.56
>worse ballistics than 7.62x51, 5.56 and 5.45
>kicks harder than 5.56 amd 5.45
useless cartridge, no matter what the finnish top brass cope and mental gymnastics might tell you
>useless cartridge, no matter what the finnish top brass cope and mental gymnastics might tell you
Because even though I tried to tell you many times already, you're too stupid to even understand the Momentum = mass * velocity or p=mv.
But I think you still have a chance to get your think head over this. If I have to break it down, it was like piece vs blunt. 5.56 and 5.45 all good over 7.62x39 cause a flatter trajectory, a longer effective range, better ballistic coefficient. But all of that doesn't mean much when under jungle/forest where the visibly is very low by obstacles (tree, branch, brush,...). This put engagement range comes to quite close, more or less 50 yards in the jungle. Now you see why all the advantage of 5.56 and 5.45 over 7.62x39 doesn't matter much? And because the mass of 7.62x39 is higher, it carries more momentum at this close range. Helping it to stay straight over many obstacles on its path in the jungle, less likely to drop its momentum.
Video example 1: Vietnam War, 1970: CBS camera rolls as platoon comes under fire. You will see what I saying above is true, especially the most time you are in the prone or couch position to shoot -> even more obstacles in your way. Do you see the reason troops used the shotgun in the Vietnam War in the jungle?
Video example 2: A cow was hit by a train in India and got torn to pieces. The train moving not that fast but it carries a huge mass hence it has a strong momentum/inertia toward any object in its way.
if your argument had any merit then finland would be using 7.62x54r or 9x39 as its service cartridge. because at least russia actually fields those cartridges. it's been decades since finland had any hope of capturing russian 7.63x39 in case of invasion. they have stuck with it because, like vietnam, they are poor as the proverbial church mice. they've clearly got huge reserves of copium though, they're shoing themselves to have truly russian levels of copium supplies.
>The train moving not that fast
Finland will just adopt a gun that hydraulically hate-fricks 7.63 ammunition into a 5.56 barrel.
And it'll work.
And then be left ammo-less since no-one makes 7.63
Ok fudd, youre free to stay in the 1940s. Why not go even more backwards with 7,62x54r or heck even .45-70, superior brush caliber? Rest of the world is moving forwards
>7,62x54r or heck even .45-70, superior brush caliber?
Because of rate of fire, the weight of ammo, recoil,...? You make it like 7.62x39 can only do the brush clearing but under 300 yards, it is quite good. That's why Finn and Viet found it work for them. Where the combat theater is dominated by jungle/forest.
finland and vietanam stuck with it because they're too fricking poor to leave the 1950s. there were better choices for brush when they adopted it, and better choices since ... but not cheaper ones.
>there were better choices for brush when they adopted it, and better choices since ...
And that choice is 5.56 right? Cause this is where we have to drag out the conversation to this point. That the 5.56 is better than 7.62x39 in jungle/forest.
why are you so fixated on 5.56? the point is that finland chose its service cartridge because it was too poor to afford anything better and "capturing russian supplies" was a plausible potential benefit. they stuck with it long after russia switched to 5.45 and "capturing russian supplies" became laughable because it was too poor to upgrade. claiming that wealthy countries only switched because they don't have any dense forests is just russian-tier levels of cope.
5.56 didnt exist when RK62 was adopted. Couple more years and I bet theyd have all been in 5.56 because unlike finn fudds the FDF arent idiots
>5.56 didnt exist when RK62 was adopted
nobody's saying it did.
valmet however did make 62-76's in 5.56, so they obviously know how to make them, it should be a matter of dusting off the blueprints. nobody really cares about magazine compatibility, everybody knows the stanag magazine is shitty, it was designed to be a single-use disposable part like an nlaw launcher. then the US DoD decided to save a few pennies...
At that point army had already made the decision and didnt want 2 rifle calibers. They have been well aware of 5.56's superiority for all these decades
>it should be a matter of dusting off the blueprints
Only problem being that the machining equipment for making those 5.56 RKs hasn't existed for decades, and if you're going that far you might as well try and fix the other outstanding problems with the rifles like the sight zeroing decay due to dust cover tolerances, which would require a significant re-engineering of the platform as a whole, which would ultimately still just result in a stop-gap solution to the problem.
Or you could take SAKO and tell them to develop a damn good AR15 based rifle on the decades worth of lessons learned in every type of combat environment imaginable at this point, and dump the reserves of crappy AK-clones no one wants to touch with a bargepole to the US or literally whoever is buying, and replace them with refurbished USGI M4s thus unifying the ammo stockpiles for infantry rifles and unifying the FDF firearms training programs.
>the machining equipment for making those 5.56 RKs hasn't existed for decades
which is probably why the magazines for those rifles run $600 apiece in the US...
Finland picked it because only alternative was .308 which was deemed to have too high recoil. This brush nonsense is just reservist wannabe rambo copium meme thats lived for at least 20 years and refuses to die
>brush nonsense is just reservist wannabe rambo copium meme
>brush does not exist in my rent-free mind.
pic related, there is 8 person hiding behind the brush 10 meters from the cameraman. Do you see how thick the brush was enough to block your view and hide their silhouette?
Because this
fricker said 5.56 is better than 7.62x39 and drag the whole fricking conversation to 5.56 with his shitpost
>a 5.56 may deflect 24" from its path within say 25 yards, but a heavy bullet would deflect 24" from its path within 26 yards,
>it's not enough to make up for the advantage of just shooting the 5.56 twice
You really know nothing and just bullshit your way thru the narrative '5.56 is better than 7.62x39 in jungle/forest. Now starting to backtrack with this lol.
5.56 is absolutely better than 7.62x39 in jungle/forest, you cannot refute this. every country with jungle/forest that could AFFORD to switch to 5.56 or 5.45 did switch, as fast as they could. finland's forests aren't special, vietnam's jungle isn't special. they're just too poor to switch to the superior cartridge.
This picture was taken in Vietnam, a tropical country so it might not seem fair to Finland's forest. But the cold is also at play in Finland's forest, this makes trees, brushes,... aka obstacles even tougher.
>5.56 is absolutely better than 7.62x39 in jungle/forest
Backtrack again, your shitpost has already contradicted.
>it's technically true but muh 25 yard, muh carry twice the ammo!
>nooo you can't carry more ammo for the same weight
>nooo you cant carry optics that let you see the enemy hiding in all that brush
you can smell the stench of poverty all the way across the ocean.
>Russian standard
Russians barely use x39 anymore and haven't for several decades, the fact that it remained the Finnish standard cartridge for so long is honestly baffling.
It's not that baffling if you're not a fricking moron. Arguing about what rifle and rifle cartridge to use for standard line infantry is like getting heated about the pistol they use. It doesn't matter, line infantries rifle is basically a side arm and self defense implement. They're casualty producers are crew served and heavy weapons, or hand grenades, and the most important weapons in a military are heavy mechanized weapons. The fricking rifle is like bottom of the list to replace or change especially if it is a completely functional piece of equipment.
probably they will in time - they can produce their ak derivatives chambered in 5,56 and phase out 7,62 in coming decades...
would .277 Fury work for Finland?
.277 fury won't even work for America
basing your logistics on the assumption that your adversary is so incompetent that they will supply you with everything is a terrible idea
They’re making a HK/LMT styled piston driven AR10
>captured ammo
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploding_ammunition
even though the article says the Soviet Union **may** have used it, I wouldn't take chances with enemy ammo.
You're asking if Finland were to join NATO should they adopt NATO standards...
HMMM
We will adopt NATO cartridge, but it won't be some babykiller 5,56, but the man stopper 7,62x51. Frick you, frick your level 3 plates, frick your helmet and frick the guy behind you.