Russian Instructor Demonstrates AK-74 Drills

I have read criticisms of Kalashnikov for having made the selector/safety go from safe to full automatic (and then semi) and that he made this decision because of Soviet “pray and spray” doctrine. The truth is that the beauty of the AK-47 selector is that pushing it all the way down puts it in semi-automatic mode. If it went from safe to semi, it would take much greater motor control, when under stress, to not push the selector all the way down to full.

[ Many thanks to jdun1911 for emailing me the link. ]

Steve Johnson

Founder and Dictator-In-Chief of TFB. A passionate gun owner, a shooting enthusiast and totally tacti-uncool. Favorite first date location: any gun range. Steve can be contacted here.


  • Lance

    Nothing good training can beat. the AK-74 is a superb rifle and is modular as any western weapon can be.

    • Nater

      Yes, because you can change the barrel length, optic (if any), and even the caliber by pushing two pins on an AK. Oh, that’s right, you can’t. The AK is about as modular as the M14. Which is to say not really modular at all.

      • Fen

        Nater, you really never owned an M14 (M1A) before have you…

        Real easy to change barrel, stock and optics on.

        just because everyone and their mother has an AR 15 platform, and therefore can ask the kid nest door how to change something on it doesn’t mean it is easier. Putting an M1A into a different stock is easier than changing the stock/buffertube on an AR. (but both are damn easy if you ask me)

    • Nater

      Apparently you don’t understand what “modular” means. Modular doesn’t mean “easy to change parts”. It has come to mean that the weapon is rapidly and easily configurable for multiple roles. The M14 ain’t that. It’s passable as a DMR and that’s about it. It’s not accurate enough to be a true sniper rifle, it’s too heavy and cumbersome to be relevant as a battle rifle.

      The receiver isn’t a particularly good design for mounting any kind optic. You need a different stock system if you want any rails. You can’t mount a grenade launcher on it. It really won’t work well with the ACOG of SpecterDR because of eye relief issues. The stock is easy to remove, but if you want any level of accuracy you’re going to have to bed the action to the new one.

      Where weapons like the M16 family or the SCAR family are suitable for every roll short of a general purpose machine gun. Sub-carbine, carbine, rifle, precision rifle, and even as a squad automatic weapon.

      As far as the AK goes, it can fit into those roles (except precision rifle) but it cannot be easily changed between any two. You can’t rapidly turn a Sucha into an RPK. You can’t rapidly go from firing 7.62×39 to 5.45×39 with a standard AK rifle or carbine.

      And no, I’ve never owned an M1A. I have a real M1 though, barring the obvious differences it’s practically the same thing.

      • Fen

        LOL, Nater, you are funny. what makes the AR platform ‘modular’ by your definition? rails.

        guess what? there are TONs of aftermarket stocks with rails on them for the M1A. most of them allow proper eye relief. As does mine with my ACOG and so did the cheap bridge mount rail I put on it before. Once you have rails on it is is as modular as an M4/M16/AR15.

        ‘passable as a DMR’ ? haha it is an excelent DMR. Why do you think they started re issueing them?

        As for sniper rifle, have you ever heard of the M25? if it is a good enough sniper rifle for SOCOM it is good enough for me.

        Too heavy and cumbersome? that is your opnion, I have talked with many that have carried it in battle who differ on that point. I guess it all depends on how you set yours up. BECAUSE IT IS MODULAR! haha
        It was/is considered America’s “Last real battle rifle” look it up. (and the definition of battle rifle while you are at it, you will not find M16 or M4 in there)

        “The receiver isn’t a particularly good design for mounting any kind optic. You need a different stock system if you want any rails.” wrong on the optic part. mine came with a bridge mount rail that worked great. As for a new stock to get rails, the same can be said for the M16. both the M1A and M16 in their standard configurations did not have rails, now you cna buy them With railed stocks, or buy an aftermarket rai system for them. Many modern granade launchers mount on rails, not a big problem.

        Accuracy/bedding in a new stock is never a problem I have had to worry about shooting out to (and past) 800 meters. do that with an M4/M16/AR15…

        M14’s don’t over heat as fast as M16’s and both have the same 100 round duel-drum magazines availible. so moot point.

        you can SBR a M1A as easily as an AR15.

        the question was M1A VS AR15 platform for modularity. I would say they are comperable in every way. just different.

        as for availibility of aftermarket products the AR15 pulls ahead, but that doesn’t make it any more modular. The M1 Garand has nothing in terms of after market parts compared to the M1A, and has some MAJOR differences. so no, that doesn’t count. nice try.

        I agree the AK can’t fit those roles, but my point was the AK and the M1A are COMPLETLY different rifles.

      • Matt G.

        Geez fin, that was a waaay long Post just to say “Nuh huh!”

      • Lance

        Stay on subject this is about AKs NOT about your hatred of M-14s Nater. Leave it alone not the post to do this.

      • Nater

        Sorry, but you’re just trying way too hard. The M14 isn’t a remotely modular weapons system, even if you slap rails on it. You can’t swap an upper out in 30 seconds on an M14.

        I also highly doubt that you can “SBR” and M14 as easily as an AR. At the very least you’re likely going to have to do a lot of work with the gas system. You can’t just have a 14.5″ barrel made and put it in. The system wasn’t designed with short barrels in mind. The fact that you never see a military M14 with a barrel shorter than 18/18.5″ is for a good reason.

      • Nater

        The M25? It was a good semi-auto sniper rifle, for it’s time. I doubt the thing shot much under 2MOA. It’s definitely not a sub-MOA weapon like the SR-25 and derivative rifles.

        All the MAJOR differences on the M1 are the internal magazine, follower, and follower rod. I believe there are some slight differences in the fire control as well, but I’ve never personally owned an M1A. I’m sure there is some difference in the fire control between an M1 and an M14 because of the select fire capability. End of the day, they’re practically the same rifle. One armorer’s course could easily cover both of them.

      • Lance

        You can SBR a M-14 look at the Mk-14 BUT this is off topic NATER quit trying to pick a fight. I’ll have JDUN1911 talk to you then.

    • W

      Lance, i have to agree with you on this. The AK74 is a modern rifle at its own right and I believe is designed to be easily operated by conscripts and other soldiers not as highly trained as western ones. The safety, while disliked by AR15 shooters, is pretty foolproof.

      There is no need to change barrels and rail systems can be easily attached to the AK in a matter of minutes. The side rail system can also attach and detach optical sights relatively easy. Though it has been rendered less popular by NATO rails, the side rail system was ahead of its time. When the AK74 was adopted and even when the AKM came into service with this option, it was ahead of the M16 and western weapons in terms of modularity and capability to attach optics for its day. Keep in mind, red dot sights, IR lasers, and other attachments are a modern phenomena.

      • jdun

        “I believe is designed to be easily operated by conscripts and other soldiers not as highly trained as western ones.”

        I never understand this.

        How do you load and shoot an AR?
        1. Load the magazine.
        2. Load the round into the chamber.
        3. Pull the trigger.

        How do you load and shoot an AK?
        1. Load the magazine.
        2. Load the round into the chamber.
        3. Pull the trigger.

        How do you maintain an AR?
        1. Find all the place where metal contact with other metal, ie shinny parts.
        2. Pour oil.

        How do you maintain an AK?
        1. Find all the place where metal contact with other metal, ie shinny parts.
        2. Pour oil.

        I talk to a Vietnamese American that visited Vietnam a few years ago. He went to the rural area and told me that some of the farmers have old Vietnam War era captured US Colt AR. They still work and the farmers use them to protect from wild animals.

      • W

        Well, i am willing to bet any amount of money Russian soldiers don’t maintain their AKs as well as US soldiers maintain their M4’s. The limitation is, perhaps, not necessarily a deficiency of the soldier, but deficiencies in the number of cleaning supplies available in the field.

        The M4/M16 are not as conscript friendly as a AK, primarily because their internal parts are smaller and more prone to failure in harsh environments. The M4 still has serious issues in dry, arid environments (which can be remedied with proper training, though issues with reliability still exist) and i couldn’t imagine how compounded they would be in the siberia or extreme cold environments.

        The safety and charging handles on a AK are easier to manipulate and more obvious to a comparatively untrained soldier. M4/M16 rifles still require more training and experience to employ effectively. There is a reason why AKs are still being used and, in a different perspective, why M4’s are becoming more popular. increased US presence worldwide has improved the capabilities and training of third world armies that previously didn’t have such access during the Cold War.

      • jdun1911

        It is non-sense about the AR needing heavy maintenance. While the AK has a slight edge on reliability due to it over gassed system. What the AR like every other weapons including the AK needs are lubricants.

        Next to me right now is my AR15. It currently have over 6k through it without cleaning. The only maintenance I did is spray oil into the bolt and BCG.

        With Nickel Boron BCG getting cheaper every months ie sub $150 now compare to over $600 five years ago, oiling AR might not be needed anymore.

      • W

        I never said it needed “heavy maintenance”. I just said maintenance is more of a issue with that platform in harsh environments. Like i said in a previous post, it amazes me how far the system has evolved, such as nickel boron BCGs (which i have in all of mine). I think if a new carbine doesn’t get adopted by the military, those bolt carrier groups should be rushed to replace the old ones. From the experience, the AR15 platform is very reliable.

      • Neblogenso

        “conscripts and other soldiers not as highly trained as western ones”

        Please keep in mind, every normal man in Russia serves in army for two years, that’s lot’s more than basic combat training in USA.

      • W

        okay, first of all, our apparent perception that the AR15 is easy to maintain and simple to operate is due to our familiarity with it. Russian and other soldiers sponsored by the USSR during the Cold War had very limited experience with the AR15. It is simply a matter of perception.

        Second, civilians weren’t allowed to own firearms in the Soviet Union. In the United States, civilians were allowed to own private arms. This makes a huge difference. If you have ever studied Soviet doctrine, Soviet conscripts were not as well trained as western soldiers. US advisers are still dealing with Soviet indoctrinated habits in their NATO standardization of many eastern european nations (such lack of individual initiative, relying on officers, and placing their AK’s on automatic during contact).

        Third, like i said before, I have seen the M16 perform in extreme cold temperatures and arid environments. They did not perform nearly as reliable and consistent as a AK. This fact ruffles the feathers of many in the AR15 crowd, though i honestly don’t give a baker’s &#%@. Of course, the AR15, M4, M16 is highly reliable now, very ergonomic, and inexpensive.

      • Neblogenso


        It’s a matter of perception as you have said. You see it from western side. No, ordinary Russians civilians can’t own a gun, but , they are taught to use guns in army.
        I also think, that spraying bullets gives a better hit chance. One thing is shooting with pimped AR at marks, totally different is aiming in battlefied, while camouflaged target is moving and shooting back. Take adrenaline into account also.

  • noob


    I’ve seen another school of thought that says hold on to the pistol grip with your right hand and slap the selector and charging handle with your left, reaching over the weapon.

    both looked pretty fast, but the left hand charging handle technique takes two swipes to get the weapon ready to fire from an empty chamber, while this right hand technique takes just one pull and a grab for the pistol grip.

    Also some carbine classes will have you engage your safety before and while you are running. Should you have you main hand off the pistol grip, and wrapped around the receiver, when you are about to run into the open?

    It would also be interesting to see some drills where your strong side is disabled and you have to operate one handed. With a weapon like the Steyr AUG, you can do everything except change the magazine with just your right hand on the pistol grip (the charging handle sticks out on the front left side so you can push it against a door frame or a tree stump).

    finally has anybody seen the QBZ-95 fast mag change video on youtube somewhere? I’d like to see how this instructor would do the rock and lock.

  • Mobious

    Addition of an extra notch on the selector to allow your trigger finger to change the fire mode makes it necessary to take that finger off of the trigger when changing the mode, and I find that quite nice and safer. And of course further modifications like the Beta tactical and it’s charging handle lever extended to the left side allows for a faster and smoother mag change. But as the instructor shows one can rack the charging handle and selector in one swipe, which looks far quicker and smoother than on any other assault rifle.

  • The biggest issue I have with the AK selector is that it’s just about completely unusable if you are a left-handed firer, or have to switch from strong to weak-sided firing.

    FWIW, the Russians did emphasize semi-auto firing in a way by sticking wood hand guards on it; those’ll get a lot hotter more quickly on full auto then they would on semi.

    • bull

      are you kidding? its better for lefties! use the thumb of your weak hand with the fingers on the magazine.

      • charles222

        Yes, because you should adapt to crappy design instead of the design being set up to work for you in the first place, right? Holding a rifle by a magazine is an inherently bad move for accuracy-you might feel like you’re better balanced but you’re frankly not. Your weak hand should go as far forward on the weapon as it possibly can; the magazine is a crap place to be holding.

    • mosinman

      i agree charles, i mean they put the handguard on the front of the rifle for a reason….

  • kvalseth

    That’s Kadochnikov, right?

  • Sid

    The AKs are not modular now and I doubt it will ever really be so. The weapons have one enduring feature that keeps them in play: low maintenance for untrained users. The challenge that almost cannot be overcome is that the upper receiver does not easily mount optics. Yes, it can be done. But, as the weapon becomes more modular it also becomes more complex. A more complex weapon is not needed in a no maintenance army.

    Making a modular AK is like putting a hemi engine in a 1974 pickup. The capability will be unused.

    • How is it not modular? Sure you can’t pop off the barrel and throw in another, but the grip, the handguard, the stock, trigger, all the important parts. Sure it is not AS easy to change parts on as an AR or some other weapons, but that’s not really important.

  • Sid

    Sid, you’re just repeating tired old propaganda. The Soviets were not untrained by any means. And they cleaned their weapons also.

    • Sid

      I did not say the Soviets did not clean their weapons. I said the main selling point of the AK is that it requires little to no maintenance. If the designers move away from that, the market will shift to other weapon systems. AKs were given away if not sold cheap during the Cold War. But now that the Russian gun industry needs to turn a profit, they are having to walk a razors edge. They must update the weapon without losing the low maintenance aspect.

      Ant that is not old propaganda. I spent my last rotation trying to train the Iraqi Police in 09-10.

    • Sid

      Sid, talking to one’s self is the first sign of insanity.

  • Matt G.

    I was at a training class a while back with a guy with an ak47. Not only could he not hit anything because he had mounted his red dot to the dust cover, but he also took FOREVER to run the movement drills because he kept having to switch that big, stupid ass safety off and on.

    Dudes that insist their AKs can run in classes full of ARs drive me nuts. Not only because they slow everone else down with their slow ass gun, they also are usually the ones who end up muzzling me. I’ve had a loaded ak pointed right at me several times, and I’ve never been to Iraq.

    • W

      Indicating by what you said, the deficiency is in the user and not the AK. the same can be said about AR15s; i have seen some pretty crazy (not in a good way) stuff and bad habits (like using the charging handle to release the bolt after you place in a loaded magazine).

      • jdun

        It’s the AK. The AK can’t compete with the AR in speed and accuracy. That’s why you rarely see anyone using AK in competitions. The AK is a good firearm but the ergo are really bad.

      • W

        well, im talking from a operational perspective, not a competition perspective. Comparing a AK with a Ar15 is still comparing apples to oranges since the AK is more like a machine gun (where strength in numbers is necessary) versus the more rifle like nature of the AR15 (where individual marksmanship is advantageous). The reason why M4/M16 rifles are becoming more popular in other armies that previously fielded AKs or battle rifles is changing trends in unit purpose and training (smaller, specialized units versus massive, conventional ones).

      • jdun1911

        The main reason why AK dominated in the Cold War era is the Soviet were giving them out for free. Who wouldn’t like free guns? Today is different. If you want an AK you have to buy it. It’s not free.

        The AK can’t beat the AR in accuracy and speed. If it did it would be the prefer small arms of choice for every counter terrorist and Special Operation units around the world. The AK market is getting smaller by the day.

        Izhmash has the knowledge, equipments, and workers but not the political will to redesign and modernize the AK from the ground up. Western modernization of AK like XCR and Sig 556 are pretty popular. It is not hard to give the AK a new ergo friendly body, they just need the will to do it.

      • W

        yeah i agree with you there. I think the issue is Russia’s small arms industry is still affected by symptoms of Cold War-era state subsidization and it is finding a harder and harder time competing in a free enterprise globalist economy.

        There is no doubt the M4/M16 is on track to replace the AK arsenals in many countries’ inventories. The US can produce Colt M4s at a astonishing rate and a lot of the issues with the platform has largely been ironed out with better training, access to spare parts, and research and development during the two recent wars. What amazes me is the innovation of technology that makes the AR even more reliable, such as nickel or chromed bolts, bolt carriers, etc.

        The AK definitely is getting ditched for western weaponry (like G36’s, Tavors, H&K 416s, M4s) in many former Soviet states. It delights me because i anticipate huge surpluses in 5.56mm ammunition.

  • M.G. Halvorsen

    I dunno…If I were doing a Grunt’s job, I’d feel comfortable with either one…with some cross-training first, with an instructor I can understand…Each has it’s pluses nd minuses, folks, but they’ll both do the job.

  • Scout

    Whoa! I didn’t know the Russians allowed their instructors to get pregnant.

    • Scout

      To the negative raters Ok OK I was just trying to be a little humorous..This whole AK vs AR thing is tiring.. been reading it for 20 years. Or possibly at least three of you have babies on the way too and took it personal??

  • Lance

    I agree making a comparison to a AK to a M-16 is two different design and tactics in war. Being a well trained westerner a M-16 is far better since we a smart to clean our weapons and to use marksmanship in a fight. The M-16 is more modular and can benefit from more gear on it. Over all the M-16 is a superior weapon to a AK-AKM-AK-74/M due to these fact better accuracy better full auto control and modularity.

    Most AKs in the world outside of the CIS/Russia don’t have this add on and most Soviet tactics the third would went with dose more in numbers and mass attacks with full auto being used almost in every case firing in burst per target knowing one of 3 or 4 rounds will hit your target. If you where a Kazakh man with no training or ever shooting a gun before and needed to be conscripted into a army to fight a invader a AK-74 may be better then.

    • Modular how? And the ak and ar are about as accurate. The ak can just take more abuse, and takes more abuse in general. Abuse, just like an AR, throws off the sights. Also, every time we fight people they have the incredible sense to fight by shooting from the hip…

    • Matt G.

      Matt, It’s “you’re”, not “your”. If YOU’RE going to complain about lance’s terrible grammar, you’ve gotta check YOUR’S as well. See what I did there?

    • Partizan1942

      Yepp… Aim and shoot ha? What was it in Vietnam? Every VC the americans killed cost 3 million(!!!) rounds… That’s accuracy for ya.

    • Partizan1942

      How is an M-16A1 or A2 more modular than an AK-74??
      The A3 and A4 were made 20-30-40 years later than AK-74. If you want to compare the M-16s of the ’90s with the russian counterpart, compare them with the AN-94 or Vintorez or AS Val. And if you want to do a comparison now, do it with the OTs-14 Groza, the AK-107/108, the AK-12 or the ASh-12.7.
      Then talk. Do not compare current American equipment to 40year old Russian. Your ingnorance of Russian weaponry is no excuse.

    • Max Glazer

      Russians conducted tests with M-4s that were captured in Georgia. The controllability in full-auto actually went AK-74Ms way. M-4 was slightly more accurate in single fire. However the peep sights on M4 which make it more precise at a shooting range also have a potential problem which is called dirt. If you are wearing gloves how are you going to clean out mud from the hole? Thats why AK sights are the way they are. Easy to clear of mud sand and whatever else. For approx 250 meters where most fighting happens. Iraq, Somalia, Panama, Vietnam. And just to make it even nicer – I know people who served with older AKMs in Group of Soviet Forces in Germany. They were hitting full-sized standing targets at 400 meters. With M43 7.62mm ammo. No they weren’t Spetsnaz. Go figure.

  • Ill remind everyone that the AK and the AR were designed for conscript armies. Draftees, are conscripts. So when they were upgrading the m16 it was done with conscripts in mind. Both are conscript guns. Both are pretty easy to maintain.

    I have noticed talk about the safety for the AK, and how it is difficult to flip off as you would for an AR. Mostly because of the training doctrine for the AR: shoulder, acquire target, disengage safety, fire, reengage safety, lower weapon. Mind you applying this to something with a different safety mechanism necessitates a different doctrine. Something like this: shoulder, acquire target, fire, lower. Just keep the safety off, it’s not that hard…

    • jdun1911

      It’s amazing that so many people get brainwashed thinking that the AR is somehow harder to shoot and maintain. People actually think you need a college degree to shoot the AR.

      The AR is a combat rifle. It design is simple. It’s maintenance is simple. Just like the AK.

      The AK has two advantage over the AR. Manufacturing and slight reliability than the AR. You can produce AK faster and cheaper than AR because the AK receive is made out of 1mm sheet metal. The AK over gassed system allow it to edge the AR on reliability but at a heavy cost to accuracy. Other than that the AR is superior to the AK in every way.

      • Lance

        No i agree and cleaning a AR is easy as well. Only hard part is cleaning the upper receiver around the gas tube. But cleaning with a rag is easy and take only about a 1/2 an hour to do.

      • noob

        I agree with your points Lance, but I’ll also point out that to clear a brass over bolt malfunction in an AR you have to do something like the mortar-stomp technique.

        If you are unlucky enough to get brass over bolt on an AK you can just remove the dustcover and the brass falls out.

      • John Doe

        The media likes to put out the idea that the AR platform is an unreliable, complex mess, and that you can pick up an AK and learn to maintain and use it 15 minutes later. In terms of user-friendliness, they’re about equal. In the U.S. military, you spend endless hours drilling how to use your rifle until you can probably do it blindfolded. I expect the Russians do the same.

      • W

        Compared to a AK, the AR15 is harder to master, though it still remains very user friendly. Comparing a AKM to a modern M4 with a quad rail system is unfair; it is best to compare it with a M16 and A1 variant. I wouldn’t call the M16 or A1 variants any more modular than the AK.

        Needless to say, a AR15 utilizing upgraded bolt carrier groups and easy to install ambidextrous safety is hard to beat.

    • Exactly what Thomas said, AKs are party slow due to doctrine. Yes, for a righty, an AK is almost always going to be slower. But the the whole safety thing that Matt G. was talking about, safety on to move, is a good square range extra safe training thing, but not something I would do with an AK in real life. An AR’s safety that is used like a 1911s, turned off on presentation, on when moved off target is extra safe, but partly you guys like to finger your guns a lot because partly it feels cool. To quote Blackhawk Down, *index finger out* “this is my safety” (as is the gray stuff between my ears).

      1911s are to ARs as Glocks are to AKs.

      Also AK mags can be emergency reloaded pretty fast if you practice and use the new mag to slap out the old one. Again not 100% as fast as an AR, but if you like the strengths that an AK offers over an AR it can be trained to mostly overcome the AK’s ergonomics.

      The accuracy difference is overrated. Yes AKs are inherently less accurate, however there are plenty of 2 MOA or less AKs out there especially with properly mounted optics (dust cover mount never is proper unless it is Krebs or Texas Weapon Systems). AKs are limited by two things: non-match grade sights and crappy ammo. Running quality ammo that isn’t .308 caliber (.310 is what it should be) will quickly make a diference. The sights are NOT because of the lack of radius!!! M4 and AK radius are practically the same. The wide front post and narrow rear notch aren’t conducive to match grade accuracy but they are for torso shots to 200-300m. Also they are the same sight picture that I get with my pistols and are what have been on 95% of the guns I’ve shot since childhood, including my Red Ryder. You don’t need sub-MOA to win wars (or for self defense). Some of you should shoot some WWII surplus for groups for some historical prospective on accuracy (granted some of that is age and wear, but even back in the day “sniper” grade was a couple MOA). To listen to you talk, WWII/Korea/Vietnam should have been a dismal failure for all that were invovled since no one could hit anything.

      Yes, ARs are more fun in their modularity legos/barbie-for-men way. Yes, I am somewhat jealous I can’t change out my AK caliber or barrel length as quickly but I also like that I can put on folding stocks and other things that Also it encourages me to keep my rifles light and simple instead of tricking it out with the latest accessories.

      I hope one day soon to own an AR since I do respect the system, but for now I am completely happy with my AKs that I have been running for more than half my life.

  • james

    the AK/AR have different manual of arms.. it’s pretty simple either way..

  • Ah, AK vs M-16. The endless argument. By the way, accuracy is affected more by the shooter’s skill than by the gun, itself.

  • Partizan1942

    There is a lot of discussion going on here. A lot of people are making the mistake of comparing the wrong guns.
    It is not fair to compare some of the AKs with some of the western guns if you do not take the time of their construction into account. Try and compare guns that were designed at least in the same decade. If you do that you will notice that an M-16A1 or A2 are not at all more modular than an AK-74.
    The A3 and A4 were made 20-30-40 years later than AK-74. If you want to compare the M-16s of the ’90s with their russian counterparts, compare them with the AN-94 or Vintorez or AS Val. And if you want to do a comparison now, do it with the OTs-14 Groza, the AK-107/108, the AK-12 or the ASh-12.7.
    Then talk. Do not compare current American equipment to 40year old Russian. Your ignorance of Russian weaponry is no excuse.