Weapon Gloom - Invidious

Weapon Gloom

Famous firearms & their inventors

5 days ago | [YT] | 25

View 0 replies

Weapon Gloom

Russian Type 2 1954 Mint condition

1 week ago | [YT] | 76

View 7 replies

Weapon Gloom

robustness overloaded

2 weeks ago | [YT] | 43

View 3 replies

Weapon Gloom

Ukrainian sniper, Vyacheslav Kovalskiy, broke the record for longest confirmed sniper kill at 12,468 feet (3.8 km).

The bullet took 9 seconds to reach its target. The shot was made with a rifle known as "Horizon's Lord", a Ukrainipan made rifle🇺🇦

1 month ago | [YT] | 25

View 2 replies

Weapon Gloom

Gewehr 98 German imperial WW1 service rifle

2 months ago | [YT] | 37

View 3 replies

Weapon Gloom

#Why did Klashchenkov consider transferring the Soviet army from 7.62→5.45 a "huge mistake"?

Post - Simple explanation and point to point.

Mikhail Timovievich Klashnikov opposed not to my motivation or fear of modernity, but because his decision was based on a mix of technical, tactical, and logistics — and more blindly: a long-term vision of the actual use of ammunition and weapons. Here are the main reasons that he explains his position in a concentrated manner:

1. **The ability to penetrate and energy in short term**

* A 7.62×39 cartridge produces more power upon exiting the crane (larger block x sufficient speed), thereby better penetration into branches, light walls, and nearby captivity — realistic conditions for urban, rural combat and mixed fronts.
* Klashchenkov saw that the rapid loss of power of light missiles (5.45) makes them less effective against nearby barriers and covers, where combat normally occurs.

2. **Dependability and adaptability to a variety of materials**

* 7.62×39 is more tolerant to types of ammunition and field ammunition (different in quality or preparation), and operates steadily in adverse conditions (dirt, mud, wind, moisture).
* Klashchenkov was a practical engineer; I fear that smaller ammunition would require very precise production to keep weapons reliable under real war conditions.

3. **Tactical Mission and Field Troopers**

*The Soviet army’s vision of a large-scale war was playing the role of combat vehicles and armor, but Klashchenkov predicted (in partly) that small-scale conflicts and light units would multiply — with the advantages of the stronger short-term ammunition highlighted.
*Simply: In close and dispersed clashes, the power of a "one-shot" (stopping/penetration) becomes of great value.

4. ** 7.62 caliber future development capacity**

*His opinion was that the 7.62 cartridge potential wasn’t fully tapped out yet—can improve pitches, enclosure, materials, and designs to develop groundbreaking performance and better accuracy without sacrificing caliber.
*So he saw that giving up now is a waste of resources (and cutting a development path that could be useful later).

5. **Risks of logistical and industrial transition**

*Shifting a large army to a new caliber means massive changes in production, supply, stockpile and ammunition supply — at a tremendous human and material cost. Klashchenkov considers it a risk if the benefits are temporary.

6. **Issues of automatic shooting and accuracy in various circumstances**

*Logically, smaller calipers are less rebound and easier to control when shooting shots, which is a major reason to rely on 5.45. But Klashchenkov said: Controllability isn't everything — if the shot loses the ability to penetrate or make enough impact, preference isn't crucial.
*Also noted that improving the weapon's design itself (e.g. modifications to the block or nozzle brakes) can reduce recession even with 7.62.

7. **human and actual considerations of injury**

*Some 5.45 supporters have talked about the 'effect of shot warp/deviation' which increases injury risk. Klashchenkov didn't dismiss the impact, but questioned its generalization: what if a loss of energy resulted in practically fewer fatalities in combat conditions? Practical figures and field experiments are not consistent to the benefit of the light cartridge along the spectrum.

8. **DESIGNER'S PRIDE & HISTORICAL RIGHT**

*A psychologist/professional should not be ignored: Klashchenkov is a very successful (AK-47/AKM) weapon that has a strong connection to its designs and the M43 caliber. Opposing the change has also been defending a product that has proven effective for decades. But this worker alone does not explain the objection, but his stand is technically heavy.

---

## summary (in a short post)

Klashchenkov considered abandoning 7.62 a mistake because the price — not only financial — but the tactical and practical of total reliance on a light caliber was for him more than the temporary interest: the loss of penetration in close combat, logistical risks, and the possibility that 7.62 caliber could be better utilized in the future. He believed that the 7.62 scale improvements and the weapon itself would restore superiority without losing elasticity.

Today's history gave mixed results: Light calibrations showed clear advantages (more ammunition carrying, better control) but the need for better penetration led to a return of interest in stronger calibrations or mediators (Projects 6. x and others). So Klashchenkov's stance wasn't just stubbornness—it was actually a vision that preserves future potential, even though time has temporarily proposed different solutions.