AK Sopmod version

[NorthenNat 0]

With all that stuff on it your gonna need arms like tree trunks to lift it!

[stgn 39]

Only if you are using an Armalite variant with weak magazines  

The same thing is true for AK's holding you gun by the magazine does not enhance its reliability. From what i have read both the AK and AR mostly suffers from reliability problems(yes its true a AK can malfunction) caused by bad mags(damaged/worn out feed lips).

STGN

[echo1 0]

Only if you are using an Armalite variant with weak magazines

The same thing is true for AK's holding you gun by the magazine does not enhance its reliability. From what i have read both the AK and AR mostly suffers from reliability problems(yes its true a AK can malfunction) caused by bad mags(damaged/worn out feed lips).

STGN

I think with any gun you can mess it up by holding its mag, it puts too much wear on the prings and the interface. Alot of the problems with the old Sten guns were caused by soldiers using the mag as a grip

[dm 9]

Its funny, you've got three distinct camps in this discussion:

1. The AK fanbois

2. The AR fanbois

3. The Airsofters/"Look cool" whores (no offence to airsofters, but its true)

What you have to realise is that real-world operators, those who actually go out and risk their lives on operations, be they soldiers or special forces or whatever don't give a fuck what their weapon looks like. They are interested in two things:

1. Reliability - That the weapon and all its attachments work every time they go to use it.

2. Ease of use - All these scopes, foregrips, lights and other "tactical" whatnot is there to aid the user in getting that all important shot in just a little bit quicker than the guy on the other end. Afterall its life and death we're talking about here.

Ofcourse, both designs are classic, and I can understand how you dont want to see your faveourite thing hacked about and made "un-pure." But at the end of the day, people who actually use these attachments use them because they increase the leathality and effectivness of a small arm.

[CsonkaPityu 0]

Doesn't look too durable or compact.

[martinovic 0]

Quote[/b] ]The SOPMOD AK looks like an effective solution for U.S. military Special Operations (SPECOPS) personnel and PSD/Security Operators working for private military companies/private security companies (PMC/PSC) who either need or prefer an AKM/Kalashnikov-platform shoulder weapon/long gun that can still accept all of their favorite tactical accessories (optical sights, lasers, tactical white lights, vertical foregrips, etc.) and simultaneously allow them to utilize all of that 7.62x39mm ammo lying around the Sandbox (a.k.a. theater of operations).

Oh i think the AK-103 would be a much better choice since it's from mother Russia herself.

[echo1 0]

AK-103 would be a much better choice since it's from mother Russia herself.

And a shit load cheaper as well

[stgn 39]

Its funny, you've got three distinct camps in this discussion:

1. The AK fanbois

2. The AR fanbois

3. The Airsofters/"Look cool" whores (no offence to airsofters, but its true)

What you have to realise is that real-world operators, those who actually go out and risk their lives on operations, be they soldiers or special forces or whatever don't give a fuck what their weapon looks like. They are interested in two things:

1. Reliability - That the weapon and all its attachments work every time they go to use it.

2. Ease of use - All these scopes, foregrips, lights and other "tactical" whatnot is there to aid the user in getting that all important shot in just a little bit quicker than the guy on the other end. Afterall its life and death we're talking about here.

Ofcourse, both designs are classic, and I can understand how you dont want to see your faveourite thing hacked about and made "un-pure." But at the end of the day, people who actually use these attachments use them because they increase the leathality and effectivness of a small arm.

+1

True story but what does it have too do with the gun? This is not somthing eny military group/organisation has ordered as fare as I can read its just some equipment packaged with a "cool" name. Its like calling your product SOCOM X with out it ever having been used by an operator. It is a fair question too ask is this realy a usefull upgrade for an AK or does it try too make it somthing it is not?

STGN

[Ares1978 0]

What you have to realise is that real-world operators, those who actually go out and risk their lives on operations, be they soldiers or special forces or whatever don't give a fuck what their weapon looks like. They are interested in two things:

1. Reliability - That the weapon and all its attachments work every time they go to use it.

2. Ease of use - All these scopes, foregrips, lights and other "tactical" whatnot is there to aid the user in getting that all important shot in just a little bit quicker than the guy on the other end. Afterall its life and death we're talking about here.

Quite right. But another thing we have to realize, is that most people who decide to (or decide that those below them should) turn their rifle into a fucking leatherman, have about as much combat experience, as the average OFP player has. Seriously. And even when they do have experience, there are no guarantees that their judgement is accurate.

Having said that, I'm not trying to claim that the toys are useless.

[Gollum1 0]

Quite right. But another thing we have to realize, is that most people who decide to (or decide that those below them should) turn their rifle into a fucking leatherman, have about as much combat experience, as the average OFP player has. Seriously. And even when they do have experience, there are no guarantees that their judgement is accurate.

What a strange and fuzzy statement. "Most people who config their rifle in a certain way don't know what they're doing and if they do know what they're doing from actual experience well, uh, no-one can ever be 100% sure of anything anyway"? The fact that there's an annoying "pimp-my-AR"-trend going on among civilians doesn't say anything about about the real usefulness of the concept, but I think the fact that these "fucking leathermen" are in heavy operational use among all kinds of SF every day, around the world, does.

Quote[/b] ]Its funny, you've got three distinct camps in this discussion:

1. The AK fanbois

2. The AR fanbois

3. The Airsofters/"Look cool" whores (no offence to airsofters, but its true)

Gee, I just can't situate myself in any of those groups.

[Messiah 2]

i do find it strange that it seems (from a civilian point of view here) that its mainly an american culture to use these weapon upgrades. Besides the occasional flashlight, british special forces seem to do without?

[Gollum1 0]

i do find it strange that it seems (from a civilian point of view here) that its mainly an american culture to use these weapon upgrades. Besides the occasional flashlight, british special forces seem to do without?

Just one example:

Vert.grip, RIS, sight, IR light, flashlight...

And as for it being an American thing: Not true at all.

[Ares1978 0]

What a strange and fuzzy statement. "Most people who config their rifle in a certain way don't know what they're doing and if they do know what they're doing from actual experience well, uh, no-one can ever be 100% sure of anything anyway"?

Actually, the statement is clear, it's reality that's fuzzy. Take the AR-15 design debate as an example. You'll have one group of soldiers (as opposed to us armchair commandos) that swears that it's an unreliable piece of shit, and another that says it's OK. Is one group lying about the weapon? No, they are only telling you their opinion. For example, all you have to do is tell soldiers, with the proper authority of course, that it's an unrealiable piece of shit, and they will believe it even if it performs flawlessly. Most people who diss some piece of equipment or praise it, have nothing to compare it to and can't make an informed assessment.

The same applies to user interfaces of all kinds, and even rifles have them. The only way to find out the effectiveness of a red dot scope compared to iron sights for example, is by measuring accuracy and speed, and IPSC shooters constantly prove that scopes are superior. The shooter's estimation of the speed and accuracy isn't relevant. (Off topic: Did you know for example, that using the mouse to operate menus in Windows, is actually quicker than using the keyboard, even if most people experience it as being slower? ) There is a way to be 100% sure, and that's by actually studying the results.

Quote[/b] ]The fact that there's an annoying "pimp-my-AR"-trend going on among civilians doesn't say anything about about the real usefulness of the concept, but I think the fact that these "fucking leathermen" are in heavy operational use among all kinds of SF every day, around the world, does.

I'm afraid the phenomenon might not be limited to civilians. You're Finnish, right? You have seen the pictures of pimped up versions of the RK 95 on mil.fi, right? You know how much combat experience we have gathered since the birth of the MIL-STD-1913, and that's about as much as most of those SF units have, with a couple of exceptions.

Here's the question that really bothers me: Are they actually getting better results? I'd like to see an answer that isn't pure speculation. You know the saying "A million flies can't be wrong." Well, they have been before.

[Gollum1 0]

Quote[/b] ]Most people who diss some piece of equipment or praise it, have nothing to compare it to and can't make an informed assessment.

"Most people" is right, but elite units are familiarized with a whole bunch of non-standard firearms and have a lengthy history of choosing the best tools for the job, regardless of political constraints. Even regular US troops in Iraq are being forced to buy a lot of stuff out of their own pockets, including weapon add-ons. That's more than politics at play.

Quote[/b] ]You know how much combat experience we have gathered since the birth of the MIL-STD-1913, and that's about as much as most of those SF units have, with a couple of exceptions.

US and UK units, for example, have gathered an absolutely huge amount of experience from being in constantly hot operations for almost 5 years now. The special forces of large powers like France, Russia (GRU spetsnaz and others have had large quantities of "pimped" AKs for quite some time), UK and US have constantly been part of some operation for decades, even if it isn't widely publicized. There's just no way to compare KoVa's nonexistent (?) operational experience, nor its size, to these.

And that's not even mentioning SWAT teams all over the world who are going the same route! These guys don't have experience?

That's a lot more than a "couple" of exceptions.

I don't know, I'm just naturally going to default to the opinion that actual (elite) combat troops who have money, freedom and experience, experience, experience know what they are doing. These troops usually choose a short AR-15 (arguably the most modular rifle/carbine at the moment) with a very large amount of "toys", even if these troops aren't NATO and would be more representative toting their nation's standard rifle.

I think the only reason KoVa is still using the MP5 is that they don't want to tax logistics with 5.56? Just speculation.

Don't take my tone as rude, by the way.

[Gollum1 0]

Quote[/b] ]Here's the question that really bothers me: Are they actually getting better results? I'd like to see an answer that isn't pure speculation. You know the saying "A million flies can't be wrong." Well, they have been before.

IR illuminators? Flashligts? Sights that require you to line up one less element to the target? I don't really know what's not to like, seeing as how the big names like EOtech, Aimpoint etc. have all been proven to be reliable both by government testing and operational use. You make it sound like Skynet or something

I can sure see the differences in results for myself when doing some real-life type shooting with high-quality gadgets.

[da12thMonkey 1943]

i do find it strange that it seems (from a civilian point of view here) that its mainly an american culture to use these weapon upgrades. Besides the occasional flashlight, british special forces seem to do without?

Just one example:

Vert.grip, RIS, sight, IR light, flashlight...

And as for it being an American thing: Not true at all.

Only the bloke closest to the camera in that pic is British, the other two are US Navy SEALs IIRC. Messiah seems to be fairly correct since he's the only one whos weapon isn't modded to shit.

Pics of UKSF are much harder to come accross than those of their US counterparts though (which is a good thing I guess) so who's to say how much our blokes modify their kit.

[Gollum1 0]

Only the bloke closest to the camera in that pic is British, the other two are US Navy SEALs IIRC. Messiah seems to be fairly correct since he's the only one whos weapon isn't modded to shit.

Pics of UKSF are much harder to come accross than those of their US counterparts though (which is a good thing I guess) so who's to say how much our blokes modify their kit.

Pics of some gear confiscated off SAS by ING/police during that whole prison breakout drama show an 10.5" AR with ACOG, tan-coloured flashlight and some non-standard handguard, along with a Minimi Para They definitely have a lot of "personal" setups, I guess they don't all have RIS on their carbines for nothing...

I guess you're right about the SEALs, they did look out of place.

[Ares1978 0]

"Most people" is right, but elite units are familiarized with a whole bunch of non-standard firearms and have a lengthy history of choosing the best tools for the job, regardless of political constraints. Even regular US troops in Iraq are being forced to buy a lot of stuff out of their own pockets, including weapon add-ons. That's more than politics at play.

And that's what I meant with "pure speculation". No, even elite units don't have the benefit of getting to choose the best tools for the job, they are simply choosing tools. Choosing the best tools would imply that they have an unrestricted budget and the facts needed to decide which tools are the best ones.

Quote[/b] ]US and UK units, for example, have gathered an absolutely huge amount of experience from being in constantly hot operations for almost 5 years now. The special forces of large powers like France, Russia (GRU spetsnaz and others have had large quantities of "pimped" AKs for quite some time), UK and US have constantly been part of some operation for decades, even if it isn't widely publicized. There's just no way to compare KoVa's nonexistent (?) operational experience, nor its size, to these.

And that's not even mentioning SWAT teams all over the world who are going the same route! These guys don't have experience?

That's a lot more than a "couple" of exceptions.

There are about 193 countries in the world, and most of them aren't France, Russia, USA or UK. And if you wan't to get technical, even they haven't been using pimped-up weapons for very long. Take a look at some older pictures of special units in law enforcement and the military, up until the late 90's, just about the only tools they have had, have been flashlights. Red dot sights didn't even break through until Aimpoint started selling its products to the military. I think it's pretty clear that it's first and foremost a fashion thing and not a choice made out of necessity. It's also political, the amount of bling-bling on your rifle is nowadays the indicator of how professional a unit is. It used to be the beret, now it's the picatinny rail, and it's a very recent phenomenon.

Quote[/b] ]I don't know, I'm just naturally going to default to the opinion that actual (elite) combat troops who have money, freedom and experience, experience, experience know what they are doing. These troops usually choose a short AR-15 (arguably the most modular rifle/carbine at the moment) with a very large amount of "toys", even if these troops aren't NATO and would be more representative toting their nation's standard rifle.

That's your choice. I'm going to default to the opinion that due to the lack of financial and political freedom, the general lack of experience among special units and the decisionmakers, the lack of actual data regarding the effectiveness of their solutions and the fact that this is a very recent trend, most of them do not know what they are doing.

Quote[/b] ]I think the only reason KoVa is still using the MP5 is that they don't want to tax logistics with 5.56?  Just speculation.

Logistics is hardly an issue, and besides, the 5.56 is already in Finnish use in the form of SIG 551(?) rifles. That we even had 5.56 weapons sort of came as a surprise a couple of years(?) ago when the FDF announced that it now had enough 5.56 ammunition for wartime needs.

Quote[/b] ]Don't take my tone as rude, by the way.

Wouldn't dream of it. You know my style of writing is hardly diplomatic, but try to ignore it.

IR illuminators? Flashligts? Sights that require you to line up one less element to the target? I don't really know what's not to like, seeing as how the big names like EOtech, Aimpoint etc. have all been proven to be reliable both by government testing and operational use. You make it sound like Skynet or something  

If someone wants to claim that they are enhancing their performance and saving lives, there better be proof. That's all I'm saying. To me, using your rifle (which you need to be able to wield with both speed and accuracy) as a warehouse, seems questionable.

Quote[/b] ]I can sure see the differences in results for myself when doing some real-life type shooting with high-quality gadgets.

Have you really pimped your rifle, or are you just using scopes? By the way, we might not be talking about the same thing here. Are you talking about extra toys in general, or the trend of outfitting a weapon with toys for every situation imaginable?

[Gollum1 0]

Quote[/b] ]To me, using your rifle (which you need to be able to wield with both speed and accuracy) as a warehouse, seems questionable.

I don't know what to say. A holosight, telescoping stock and vertical grip enhance all those traits. A rail system increases your options.

Quote[/b] ]Are you talking about extra toys in general, or the trend of outfitting a weapon with toys for every situation imaginable?

I'm responding to the viewpoint held by some that "real men" don't need all those fancy gadgets that break down and oh no that rifle looks ugly. They are not useless, nor are they unrealiable. The only prohibiting factor to them is cost, and partly weight and size, which I think they more than make up for.

The topic is about this SOCOM-modded AK. Despite people mocking its looks it is exactly what the pros are calling for right now. These are highly trained and experienced people who trust their lives to their weapons. They are exposed to extreme conditions and need their rifles for more than range use. After hundreds of rounds through other's similiar setups (I'm just a poor student with a .22) and comparing it to a standard configuration, I have a feeling where they are coming from. That's all I'm saying.

edit: I was accepted into the FRDF today, so I guess I'll have "some" close contact with "bling" AK-type weapons when they start issuing m/05 stuff early next year...

[shinRaiden 0]

On the big downside, there's the arguement for using scavanged ammo. Umm, is it just me or wouldn't the ammo that's been buried for months under a mound of goat poop be a bit unreliable and foul up the gun nasty? Yes this is an AK we're talking about, but not all are made to the same loose tolerances that allowed the legendary operation.

On the plus side that's not talked about as much, the sound of the same cartridges as the opfor should offer more security given that the tracers and the sound are not immediately distinguishable. Additionally, you get a bigger round and faster rate of fire.

So the debates really are these :

1) Does the 5.56 NATO really suck compared to a 7.62 round?

2) Can the toys provide sufficent IFF to compensate for lack of auditory IFF?

3) What role and usage do the toys really have in the field?

[Ares1978 0]

I don't know what to say. A holosight, telescoping stock and vertical grip enhance all those traits. A rail system increases your options.

And that would be the logical conclusion. However, people are also strapping gizmos weighing 100-300 grams each onto four to six rails, making the weapon unnecessarily heavy and ruining the balance of the weapon, making it slower and less accurate to use.

Quote[/b] ]I'm responding to the viewpoint held by some that "real men" don't need all those fancy gadgets that break down and oh no that rifle looks ugly. They are not useless, nor are they unrealiable. The only prohibiting factor to them is cost, and partly weight and size, which I think they more than make up for.

Real men know where to draw the line between necessary and unnecessary gadgets. I'm not so convinced that they make up for the extra weight. As for a gun looking ugly, who cares? That was the point of my first post, by the way.

Quote[/b] ]The topic is about this SOCOM-modded AK. Despite people mocking its looks it is exactly what the pros are calling for right now. These are highly trained and experienced people who trust their lives to their weapons. They are exposed to extreme conditions and need their rifles for more than range use. After hundreds of rounds through other's similiar setups (I'm just a poor student with a .22) and comparing it to a standard configuration, I have a feeling where they are coming from. That's all I'm saying.

All I'm saying, is that they aren't necessarily that. They should be, when they are making that kind of decision, but most have no experience and most of them will never get any. The rest will probably get that experience after the decision, not before it.

Just a poor IT-worker with <s>three</s> two .22's, one 7.62, one 9, one .357, one 12/89 and a .223 on the way, but I too have a few hundred rounds with those kinds of setups under the belt.

Quote[/b] ]edit: I was accepted into the FRDF today, so I guess I'll have "some" close contact with "bling" AK-type weapons when they start issuing m/05 stuff early next year...

Don't get your hopes up, but good luck anyway.  

[Ares1978 0]

On the big downside, there's the arguement for using scavanged ammo. Umm, is it just me or wouldn't the ammo that's been buried for months under a mound of goat poop be a bit unreliable and foul up the gun nasty? Yes this is an AK we're talking about, but not all are made to the same loose tolerances that allowed the legendary operation.

As long as the case isn't seriously deformed, there shouldn't be a problem. A more serious issue would be the risk of using sabotaged ammunition, which could cost a rifle and in the worst case, a soldier. As far as the tolerances are concerned, I've never even heard rumors of an unreliable AK clone. I've heard some of them described as poorly made clones, but never unreliable.

Good point about the auditory IFF, but I do believe that you can modify the sound of the rifle sufficiently by adding a (much-needed) muzzle brake.

[Messiah 2]

Gollum, as da12th pointed out, only the first guy is british, and all he's using, as i stated, is a flashlight (diemaco C8, acog sight it looks like)

like da12th also said, british pictures are hard to come by, but in my 4 years of researching this topic on the british side of things, besides a few SAS/SBS articles, on the whole i've never seen this culture of pimping weapons embraced by the british... christ, we still havnt upgraded our GPMG, and only just gotten round to adding a SUSAT onto the LMG (useless as it is)

[Gollum1 0]

Gollum, as da12th pointed out, only the first guy is british, and all he's using, as i stated, is a flashlight (diemaco C8, acog sight it looks like)

SEAL:

- Extendable buttstock

- Optical sight

- Flashlight

- IR illuminator

- Vertical grip

SAS:

- Extendable buttstock

- Optical sight

- Flashlight

So the difference in someone "not embracing" pimpage is a few hundred grams of useful stuff? The SEAL has only one additional electronic component.

Maybe I should count the suppressor too? I can find a bunch of US special ops with even less addons than the SAS guy has, does that mean that the SAS have gone gear-crazy? This is just being blown way out of proportion. I think the pic shows that even SAS don't have some weird KISS-principle.

Quote[/b] ]Don't get your hopes up, but good luck anyway.

Thanks, I asked our NCO at the entry tests about it and she said that they were promised the same thing a year ago and haven't seen a trace of m/05 yet.

PS: bonus pic of the ideal tactical setup (yes, it's a joke pic)

[Messiah 2]

gollum... you fail to note that that C8 the british use comes with an optical sight and extendable buttstock as standard... more to the point, arent you scraping the barrel some what by considering the extendable buttstock as a 'pimpage' item, when M4's and C8's use them as standard?

next thing you'd suggest is the magazine, or perhaps the firing pin... whatever next

although i guess its a case of different opinions, whay you consider to be a 'pimp' item, isnt something i'd consider to be... and i still stand by my opinion that in comparison to the US, the british havnt adopted this culture of pimping their weapons beyond recognition (although i admit the SA80 is a little limited in what you can do to it)